claycle

Local pizza place near me has a pear pizza that carries the name of the restaurant (so they must be proud of it?). It is:

• fresh mozzarella
• shaved pear
• caramelized onions
• hot honey (I think this means honey with a little red chili in it)
• pistachios

They offer/suggest adding prosciutto to the pizza (after baking), which we usually do.

It’s damn fine.

I enjoyed it just fine. I enjoy open-worldish-rpg-y games.

I think Odyssey refined the mechanics better, but Origins was still enjoyable. One the post-main DLCs I particularly liked (which is rare for me).

I did not/do not enjoy in the least the modern-day story detours nonsense; I just sort of think of them as commercial breaks that I go get some water during and pay no attention to.

People who didn’t like Ubisoft’s turn towards RPG/open-world elements seem to have a more negative opinion of the game, I think.

I do not take issue with anything you said (your opinion is as valid as mine) - up until your last sentence, which piqued my interest.

You seem to be implying that Mr Singer’s “radical ideas” are weak, invalid, or beneath consideration because our society hasn’t embedded them yet. I would like to respond that I think the value of a radical idea cannot, and probably should not, be measured by how well society accepts it. For example, there are a some pretty famous, radical ideas from this rabbi a couple thousand years ago that have totally failed to be embedded in our society, yet his radical ideas arguably still have significant merit. I am thinking specifically of the radical idea of kindness and peace expressed in “turning the other cheek”, an idea we, as a society, have for all intents and purposes rejected.

Otherwise, I would also like to remind you that the OP just asked for ideas that blew our minds. Mr Singer’s idea, when I heard it for the first time, blew mine and I thought it fit the brief.

I probably did a dozen immoral things before breakfast this morning.

Sure, certainly, yes, I’ll accept your admission at face value, but could you have done fewer?

You are (deliberately?) skipping over the part of awareness.

Take for example a person who is aware that they cannot act morally when making seemingly normal, banal decisions. For example, they may be aware that when they choose to buy a shiny new cell phone when they have an older-but-still-perfectly-working model, they very likely doing something immoral. Because they are aware of the moral implications of their choice, they can choose hold-off buying a new phone for as long as possible (a morally-positive choice) and perhaps - going a step further - even using that money they would have spent on a new phone to help another person in need directly.

Most people probably don’t contemplate the moral implications of the purchase of a new phone, this is true and I accept your position this. But it is clearly not “literally every person” as you have said, since it only takes a single person with awareness to disprove your statement. I am certain at least one such person exists (even if anecdotally), so I rely on the word “most” rather than “literally every”.

You’ve committed reductio ad absurdum.

Yes, most people are probably acting immorally and they are not even aware of it.

That doesn’t mean it is a pointless exercise to identify the immoral behavior and strive to reduce or eliminate it, even if it is impossible to completely do so.

That’s quite the claim.

Yes, it is, and as explained in the video the original author (and also the person explaining it) admit it is quite a claim, then proceed to demonstrate the veracity of the claim. I suggest you grab a cup of jo, settle in, and watch it. It addresses the points you bring up directly.

[EDIT: Re: Quite a Claim: Yes, and thus fitting the OP’s “mind-blowing” criteria for the thread :-)]

The very short answer to “are you immoral for purchasing a cell phone” is “probably yes”.

The proposition is not an easy one (it accepts it is extreme), but it is hard to deny when you march down the logic.

I am focusing on the “blow my mind” part, rather than the “beautiful” part of your question, but I am certain many philosophically-minded people would consider the following “beautiful”.

Peter Singer’s argument in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality (1972)” that you and most everyone you know are probably immoral or evil and you don’t even realize it. It really affected my ideas of how to strive to live.

Here is a good video explaining the idea in detail, worth 30m of your time.

Peter Singer - ordinary people are evil

At least twice a day, usually three times a day, but I have “reasons”.

After not taking really good care of my teeth for too many years, I needed surgery. I recovered completely and kept my teeth, but was clearly given the message that if I want to keep my teeth I need to be diligent about their care. I’ve lived long enough to understand the value of having a working, pain-free set of a choppers. So, I complied.

Once I had recovered from the surgery and infection, it became clear I needed braces, so my dentist suggested Invisaligns. These have the “benefit” of making you brush your teeth every time you take them off (to eat, to drink anything staining) and put them back on. I have to wear my braces 22 hours a day to comply with the treatment.

My normal routine is to get up in the morning, take my braces off, have as much espresso as I want and maybe some yogurt, then brush my teeth with a stain-removing paste (Arm and Hammer Peroxicare) and put my braces back in. Then at lunch I pop out the braces, eat, brush my teeth (Peroxicare), then pop my braces back in until dinner. Dinner, rinse repeat, but then I use a Crest Gum Detoxify before popping the braces back in before bed as part of my ongoing post-surgical routine.

I also use a water flosser at least once a day.

My teeth and gums are really healthy now and I intend to keep them that way.

Blue Velvet? Probably up there…