But you're assuming, from what I'm reading through your comments, that these shadows are cast by metaphysical forces, and I'm interpreting the allegory as how our senses are ultimately something we can't trust completely.

As accurate as science may seem, it is ultimately based on these senses. It's the best way we can understand the physical world, but science, wisely, always has a caveat at the end of every law and discovery: "... As far as we know."

This is a good thing, it means that nothing is held sacred and everything can be tested and questioned again.

And there's a trend to un fuck up pugs through breeding now, but you think that's unethical as well because that's still owning a pug.

Now I'm not sure you get what the allegory of the cave is about. It's literally trying to explain that our perception can't be 100% trusted.

I think one of the points Mickey would make is you can't entirely trust the scientific framework because it's still coming from our flawed senses. Even if everything adds up, it could still be a lie. Solipsism and all that.

I don't think anyone is talking about metaphysical idealism, but conceptual things shouldn't be written off because they are inconvenient. Numbers aren't physical, but I doubt you'd say they don't exist and therefore should be ignored, unless you're the most extreme materialist.

I'd say that mortality for humans is a social trait, because it's something that benefits a small tribe social species. Stealing is "wrong" because it's bad for small group survival, while "sharing" is good because it helps it. My that measure, humans are also inherently good because they engage in pro social behavior on an instinctual level.

The issue I think comes up with other survival traits that end in antisocial behavior. Tribalism is good for survival against other competing small social groups, but terrible when you're trying to expand social cohesion.

Do you also think animals are inherently evil because they act in accordance with their own self oriented survival?

Occam's razor is a rule of thumb not an absolute rule of the universe.

If you go with Cogito Ergo Sum, I think that's the stance Mickey is taking. You only know for sure of your own consciousness, everything else could be a delusion of the senses. You know, like shadows on a cave wall or whatever.

I'm pretty sure that if someone wanted a pug, seeing one person who did a rescue wouldn't be the tipping point.

And there are people who are trying, through breeding, to reverse the damage done to these poor animals.

So yeah, I think there are ethical ways to own a pug.

I'm gonna have to ask what you define as good because I don't think having emotions is bad, even if you're a baby

-for humanity to survive, it must eliminate the rich

-pineapple can go on pizza. You can put whatever you want on pizza. You don't have to like it for it to be a valid topping. Some people just hate things because they heard about it online.

-new York pizza is not the best pizza in the universe.

• the people who want to change the date of celebrating Halloween to the last Saturday of October (or anything similar) are childhood hating assholes who think that it's more important to keep the capitalistic society going than celebration human culture. They would rather things be convenient for them and their bosses than to let people celebrate things when they please. There's also probably a bias against non Christian religions. If you find it inconvenient you should be mad at the system that makes it inconvenient for you to do something on a Tuesday night, not a holiday that's centuries older than your job. Work should work around holidays not the other way around.

Go to an anime con. Face your fears.

Even if it's a rescue? Maybe breeding pugs (without trying to reverse the damage done to them) is pretty shitty, but I could see rescuing one is fine. I mean, what's the other option, killing them all?

I'd argue it's not simple spite. Spite implies it's an irrational hatred, being a sore loser. The guy is a danger to pretty much everyone.