Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)TH
Posts
0
Comments
303
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • so many apple shills here.. why not upgrade to an adult phone?

    So this makes me laugh because when I was younger and had more time to spend with rooting and custom ROMs, I used Android phones. And I loved them!

    Now that I’m older I use an iPhone (for a number of reasons) and I also love it!

    It’s almost like smartphones are tools that fit their use case, and not something else up be tribal over.

  • We have a very reactive pup and have had a couple sessions with a dog trainer to help us curb that reactivity. She taught us some neat methods to redirect his attention and eventually get him to a point where we treat him (with very high value treats) when he sees another dog and then lets us redirect him.

    Over time he’s learning that the emotion he should feel when he sees another dog is excitement! It’s slowly working.

  • Yanks don’t speak English

    No one speaks standard English. The rules we follow when we write are almost meaningless when we speak. If you can be understood and you minimize ambiguity, language is serving its purpose.

    Also really, you want to talk about “Yanks” and English? How many absurd dialects does the UK have in a landmass the size of Michigan? 😉

    As far as “by accident” vs “on accident” goes, this is largely a regional difference, but it’s not like it changes the meaning. It likely comes from being the opposite of “on purpose” and, since linguistic rules should generally be descriptive rather than prescriptive (again, assuming it is understood and minimizes ambiguity), it’s perfectly cromulent.

    The one that drives me insane is when people say, “I’m going to try and

    <verb>

    ” instead of “try to

    <verb>

    .” I struggle with it syntactically, but since it has become such a widespread construction, I’m learning to accept the construction of the infinitive using “and” instead of “to.” Its origin makes sense to me, there are plenty of places in English where we combine verbs with “and,” (though in many of those cases we aren’t using the infinitive for the second verb). Like “go and clean your room” or “I will come and see.”

    I accept this thing that is a violation of the rules of standard English I was taught because it’s widespread enough to be an accepted usage of the language. That’s how language works. They are not something handed down from on high, they are something people create over time, and they continually evolve.

  • Is okay to choose A simply because B is quite literally orange hitler?

    Obviously yes. Doing so isn’t saying A is fine, doing so is saying B is worse, and bad is still better than worse.

    If you tried to say that there was no reason to be concerned with A because B was worse, that’s a fallacy. But acknowledging that one of two options, while still bad, is LESS bad, isn’t a fallacy. That’s just being realistic.

  • One I see people use frequently and I’m not sure they realize it’s a bad argument is the fallacy of relative privation.

    “X is bad. We should do something to fix X.”

    “Y is so much worse. I can’t believe you want to fix X when we need to fix Y.”

    Both X and Y can be bad and need to be fixed. Fixing one doesn’t preclude fixing the other.

    An alternate form of this is:

    “A is bad”

    “B is worse, so A is fine.”

  • or even win 11 since it involves a ton of audio plugins, etc. and my projects would become unsable.

    Have you looked into this? Because Windows 11 is so much Windows 10 with a UI change that they didn’t even update the NT number.

    Like, Windows 2000 was NT 5, and XP, which was very similar to 2000, was NT 5.1.

    But Windows 11 isn’t NT 10.1, it’s still NT 10.

    At their core they’re very similar. I’d be shocked if something designed for 10 wouldn’t work with 11.

  • Secular law takes precedent. For example, a religion practicing human sacrifice, cannibalism, rape or slavery would be shut down, and rightly so.

    I do cover that in a later comment.

    Confession and its confidentiality has already been upheld in legal precedent.

  • This is disgusting, doctors need to report the same thing.

    Doctors are not religious figures. Doctor patient confidentiality is not a practice protected by the first amendment and legal precedent.

    Its child abuse its basically saying you support pedofilia. Unless that's what you're covering up in your thinly veiled argument.

    That’s a nice false equivalence. I’m impressed that you managed to get from “priests cannot be compelled by the state to violate their religious office” to supporting pedophilia.

    The Catholic church should not be a safe haven for pedophiles.

    I agree. That’s a larger problem though.