HenchmanNumber3 @ HenchmanNumber3 @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

95

Joined

2 yr. ago

"NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE," posts the man who just led us into war.

Some people live or grew up in areas where the water source tastes weird or gross, so they might have a mental association of water with a negative quality. Some people remark that water is generally flavorless. I've heard this from other people on the spectrum. I prefer water with some kind of flavor. Water without a flavor is only satisfying on a hot day or if you've been working out. This is possibly a side effect of growing up with a high sugar diet where you expect everything to taste sweeter. So it might be attributed to the sugar industry's "fat makes you fat, sugar is fine" lasting effect on the populace.

Remember when they said as soon as Gay Marriage was legal, the earth was going to be destroyed?

They just meant they were going to make life on earth even worse if they didn't get to oppress their victims so freely.

Ironically this means you'd have to accept Jewish people telling you that the New Testament isn't canon also.

I unironically support this insofar as actual academics conduct the study. It would be hilarious to watch the GOP in Congress try to suppress the report and then it gets leaked after it concludes correctly that TDS is just a made up term and there's nothing deranged about disliking the inhumane, greedy, sociopathic machinations of the most powerful man on earth whose demented whims crash markets and violate human rights. Paying money to find out why people dislike a legitimately evil person when people will just straight up tell you but you don't want to listen is too funny.

How would one "steal a kiss" if it was a finite resource.

Stealing a kiss is another poetic use of the term.

Also while stealing is not always "punishable by law", it can still be classified as wrongdoing.

Depends on the context.

As an artist I find all forms of plagiarism to equate to stealing

As an artist, I don't. Plagiarism is about failure to cite sources and copying content while claiming it's yours. That's not even usually a legal issue. It's an academic issue. And it's not necessarily immoral either. You can be accused of plagiarizing yourself by not citing that you had previously written some of the content in a previous work. That's not even close to stealing, technically, legally, or morally.

Plagiarism is also very different from copyright violation.

and while they won't land you behind bars, they may get you a status of persona non grata with other creatives.

And it might get you fame and fortune and acclaim from others. Depends on the context.

that's stealing

It's important to note that copyright violation is never stealing or theft. That's a poetic term copyright maximalists use to morally equate two disparate concepts. Stealing and theft involves taking something that is finite and rivalrous and thus depriving the owner of it.

As George Carlin said, they only care about you until you're born..

Also if you dont have kids then you shouldnt be discussing this. Do you know how strong the parental instinct is?

This is just useless gatekeeping. You don't have to be a parent to have a perspective on how people should be raised. Every adult was a child at some point, so everyone has an experience to relate about how they were raised and the flaws they see in different approaches from their direct experience. Parents aren't the only party involved. Not only does it take a village to raise kids, but other people are ultimately affected by parental decisions (e.g. Jennifer and James Crumbley).

Except your own children are "other people." They may not "be just fine." Some religions are abusive and traumatizing. Why should adults have to deprogram themselves and recover from trauma later because their parents decided it was fine to indoctrinate their own kids? "Mind your own business" applies to parents too.

Hashtag That's the Plan

The law would work differently if they, as designated interpreters of the law, interpreted the law differently. If they said you can't have infinite dark money running campaigns because that violates the rights of poor voters, then things would be very different. Plenty of SCOTUS cases have made significant changes to how the law is interpreted and enforced. Congress also seems to very rarely pass laws to counter SCOTUS decisions. So yeah, if we had fewer federalists and conservatives on SCOTUS and more progressives, I think it would have been decided differently, as well as other significant cases.

If money is free speech then anyone with more money gets more free speech, which isn't how rights work. You have the same freedoms and limitations to those freedoms that I do, regardless of who has more money. We're supposed to be equal under the law, but SCOTUS thinks $ome are more equal than others.

Fuck no. Studies have found a positive correlation between swearing and being more honest.

Cyberpunk dystopias are a warning, not a strategic plan!

Time to write a new editorial criticizing the judge.

This is good. It will drive more people away from Reddit.

I read it as creating a mandate for the government to reduce microplastics that get into the human body because those reduce fertility and sperm count. Except in these kinds of bills, there's always an unwritten addendum that says that the bill doesn't apply if a perceived obligation affects a company's bottom line

It's meant to endear this sycophant to Trump so he gets in line for a cabinet position when it comes out that he has ethical issues some journalist is about to expose.

Guys, guys, I don't know why you're upset. It's an ancient symbol for good luck. Completely benign! What do you have against good luck?!? It's like everyone whose genocidal white supremacist advocacy you disagree with is a Nazi or something...