Redacted

54.4°C was recorded in Death Valley (Aug 16, 2020 and Jul 9, 2021).

Kuwait (2016) was slightly lower at 53.9°C.

Tirat Zvi, Mandatory Palestine (1942) is disputed.

Tbh a lot of the records set back then are questionable.

"We're the hottest country in the world right now."

Waking up to 35 messages from you this morning is hilarious, especially followed by "I don't want any responses."

​I’ll gladly take you up on that. This thread speaks for itself anyway. Have a nice life doing whatever it is you're trying to achieve here.

Even within Deontology:

​Deontology strictly dictates that it is a moral wrong to intentionally use a sentient being purely as a means to an end. When you buy meat, you are financing the intentional slaughter of an innocent being for your sensory pleasure. Crop deaths, on the other hand, are an unintended, incidental byproduct of food production. In a duty-based framework, the moral gulf between an accidental byproduct (harvest deaths) and a deliberate, systematic execution (slaughter) is absolute. By participating in intentional slaughter, you are violating a core deontological principle.

​You claim that trying to include animals in deontology is bullshit because they aren't rational human agents. But human infants, individuals with severe cognitive disabilities, and patients in advanced dementia also lack traditional rational moral agency. Yet, as a deontologist, you would agree it is a horrific violation of duty to slaughter and eat them.

​If you protect non-rational humans under your framework but exclude animals who possess the exact same capacity to suffer, feel pain, and experience life, your boundary isn't rational agency'l at all. It is just arbitrary speciesism.

You seem to be a deontologist who draws a rigid moral boundary at the edge of the human species. ​You believe that because animals lack human-level rational agency, we owe them no direct moral duties. Is that correct?

Ok so if you are arguing for Deontology, a core pillar of Deontology (Kantian ethics) is that you must never treat a being with inherent value purely as a means to an end.

​By asserting that animals don't belong in this framework, you are arguing that because animals lack human-level rational agency, they have zero inherent value and can be treated strictly as commodities, tools, or resources for human pleasure.

You aren't protecting the integrity of Deontology; you are just drawing an arbitrary line at the human species boundary so you can enjoy eating meat without violating your personal rules.

Declaring "I’m not a consequentialist, so consequentialist reasoning doesn’t apply to me" is exactly like a thief saying, "I don't subscribe to the concept of property rights, so your ethical reasoning about stealing doesn't apply to my actions."

​Moral frameworks evaluate the objective reality of actions and their victims. Your arguments have collapsed into "I didn't do it" and "the rules don't apply to me" which is either low effort trolling or low effort reasoning.

​I didn’t say it was a bad analogy; I said you intentionally missed the point of it because you cannot defend your own logic. Pretending I 'admitted' something I didn't is just your latest attempt to keep us talking about anything other than your choice to fund animal slaughter.

I used those analogies as reductio ad absurdum to show that your stated logic leads to absurd conclusions. I didn't raise them to debate medical ethics; I raised them to demonstrate that if we held people responsible for any foreseen probability of harm, society would be impossible.

​The fact that you are hyper-focusing on the mechanics of a doctor's consent rather than addressing why your own logic makes parents 'murderers' and drivers 'killers' proves that you are incapable of defending your actual position.

Whether or not a doctor obtains consent is entirely irrelevant to whether it is ethical to kill a sentient being for sensory pleasure. You are creating a false analogy because you can no longer defend your position on the original topic.

​By claiming "I’m not a consequentialist" as a defense for paying to have a sentient being killed, you aren't winning an intellectual debate; you are admitting that you have no consistent ethical standard. You are essentially saying, "I don’t have a moral framework that governs my choices; I have a list of convenient excuses."

​If you aren't a Consequentialist, and your arguments against Deontology have failed, what is your moral framework? It appears to be moral relativism where the rules change whenever you need them to so that your lifestyle remains unassailable.