Uruanna @ Uruanna @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

198

Joined

2 yr. ago

... And you still don't understand it, and you assume that everyone else is wrong even after it was explained to you. That quote is correct and it does not contradict what the PhD said. In fact, it illustrates exactly what they said.

You're the only one here claiming that the PhD is equating gender, sex, genitalia. The PhD says no such thing. The person the PhD is responding to is the one trying to equate gender, sex, genitalia, chromosoms, reducing it to "there are only two sexes, male or female." The PhD is telling that person that they are wrong, and chromosoms do not determine what comes out in the end. The PhD is correct an you are misreading them, and it has already been explained to you that the PhD is saying, verbatim, that chromosoms do not determine gender or even the sex. If you think that contradicts the PhD, you are still misunderstanding and assuming that the one who's wrong must be the PhD and certainly not you. But you really really want to say that the PhD is equating gender and sex, or that the explanation that was given to you is contradicting what the PhD is saying. At this point, you're just trying to obfuscate what the PhD is claiming and what you are defending, and somehow the PhD is the one who's wrong and as bad as anti-vaxxers.

Once again: the PhD is correct, you misunderstand what they said, someone explained to you what the PhD was saying, and that explanation is not contradicting what the PhD said. The PhD and the explanation are both correct and they are saying the same thing. You keep trying to pretend that you know better than the PhD and the PhD must be anti science somehow, instead of wondering if you're not completely missing the entire discussion. The only way you are going is trying to devaluate science.

Or the thought the phd must have meant something else

But sure the phd is wrong if he meant that; just like those anti-vax doctors and anti-abortion doctors

The PhD is not wrong. The PhD meant what they said, but it is not what you think they meant or said. The mistake is yours, and you still insist that maybe it's the PhD who's wrong and meant something else they didn't say - even after somebody else correctly explained what the PhD said and meant, to which you wrongly responded "that's not what the PhD claims."

And yet, when someone explained to you what the PhD said and meant, your response was:

So not what the phd claims

And just now you were still comparing them to anti-vaxx doctors "if they meant that", when they clearly didn't mean that, and you were already told what they meant. You're still pretending that maybe they said something wrong. They didn't.

It's crazy how you're still insisting that "the PhD is wrong if he meant that"' rather than figure out that no, what you think they meant is not what they meant, it is not what they said, you are the one misunderstanding what they said. It has to be the PhD's fault, certainly not yours.

It's weird how your first thought is "the PhD is wrong" and not "I must have misunderstood something" .

But that's an Abraham thing, that's not a good place.

Majora's Mask picked up with the Hero of Time after he returned from the adult timeline, it clearly shows that it's the same character. Then Wind Waker's opening scene showed the same Hero of Time beat Ganon then disappear and then Ganon comes back ; the king of red lion also says he was hoping the Hero of Time would return, but that never happened, and instead he found the new hero of wind. And then Twilight Princess shows Ganondorf was arrested for trying to betray Hyrule before he could execute his plans, but then he still got the Triforce of Power ; and the Hero's Shade is confirmed to be the Hero of Time whose achievements were not remembered (because he erased them by going back in time) and he couldn't pass on his skills. It's hard to pretend that those games are not connected when it's right there in the opening and the cinematics and it even uses the same name (hero of time). WW and TP ignored each other, but that's because they were the different timelines.

The timeline split wasn't invented years later to fix that. The OoT timeline split was explained by Aonuma immediately between Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, precisely because people were wondering if the two games contradicted each other - Aonuma is the one who pointed out that returning to the past created a second timeline, and he explained that right when they released Twilight Princess. It was all right there in the games as they were coming out, Hyrule Historia simply confirmed it years later for the release of Skyward Sword, that wasn't made up by fans. The only thing that Hyrule Historia did that the fans didn't expect was the third split, with the fallen timeline. That one still doesn't have any coherent explanation, that's the part that Nintendo is probably trying to ignore, that the fans don't like, and that makes some people think it's made up nonsense.

BotW was a breaking point where they decided to do something different and not use the timeline and put it in the far future, but the Rito and Zora are not a contradiction, all it needs is the confirmation that the Rito already existed before the Zora turned into them. And that happens in Twilight Princess HD, the remake where they added a texture for Hyrule Castle with a relief showing a Rito. So the Rito did exist even in the TP timeline. TotK doesn't contradict Ocarina of Time, it's not the same event, it's a different Ganondorf - we already knew there was more than one guy called Ganondorf (it's a different one in Four Swords Adventure). There's a gap of about 300 years between the events of TotK's past and OoT.

If you want a fan theory, I think TotK and the Ouroboros symbol it uses as its logo shows that this Zelda is the one who creates her own timeline by going back to the past. She creates the split 300 years before Ocarina of Time, and that leads to the fallen timeline, at the end of which BotW happens. Without her, things play out differently and result in other events that end up in a civil war and into OoT centuries later, but with her, Ganondorf is sealed and the events play out as described in Link to the Past, which are slightly different from OoT. It resolves the fallen timeline and the fact that OoT was intended to be the war described in LttP, but it ended up playing out differently, and they never explained that other than "uh, Link died in that version" in Hyrule Historia.

Each game tells you where they are in the timeline in relation to the other games since the beginning (except the Capcom ones). If you think the fans made it up, you straight up did not read.

Democrats let fascism ramp up without doing anything, and now they aren't doing anything to even slow it down. Are you denying that this is the American situation?

I'm saying this is what centrism does when the slightest hint of fascism starts pushing and shoving: they give in, pretend to compromise, they're happy when the fascist says "fine, we'll cut our expectations for 20 crimes against humanity down to 10, but it'll be back next week" and they pretend that's progress. Sometimes they put their foot down, but only when putting your foot down has zero effect, and they say "see, we tried".

That is centrism, that is what Democrats did, and that is what's happening here too with those "reasonable" parties. The "reasonable" argument is only on this side of the Atlantic, of course the Nazis in the US aren't even pretending to have any reasonable discussion. But they did have a phase claiming that the Dems were rude and not doing anything bipartisan, which is why the Democrats tried so hard to project this image of reaching across the aisle for so long. See where that got them.

The "reasonable left", the PS, wants to say that they still play ball, that they can be part of a government, that they're not here to destroy the country, that they can work to keep the institutions working. But they never get any compromise going in their favor, and when they say "see, we tried" it's already too late, and nothing they do gets anywhere, after they've killed anything the actual left tries.

This is not reasonable. This is collaboration. We have proof of where that goes with the Democrats in the US. Only the right wing calls them reasonable because they allow the right to pass everything they want. Reasonable means you sign off on everything and get nothing.

Some places translated it as popular new front instead of new popular front? That's missing the point of the claim that it's reviving the old popular front from the 1930s.

There is no working with the "center" / center-right, they proved that again and again and again, they have not made a single compromise while constantly complaining that the left doesn't want to work with them. Working with someone means both sides give something to the other, and the right only ever takes and never gives anything. They have to learn to play ball.

They're finding issue with mtf athletes playing against a league of individuals who didn't go through puberty as a male. That's clearly an advantage, and to say otherwise is to ignore science altogether.

That would be an argument worth discussing if the Nazis weren't also trying to ban puberty blockers and frothing at the mouth claiming the trans agenda is coming for their kids. But no, right now, that's a garbage bad faith argument, because it already has an obvious answer. That's how they poison the discussion.

Bizarro jury nullification, where it's okay to give life in prison to someone you think is innocent. And the idea probably originated from someone who would tell you that it's wrong to inform people that jury nullification exists.

No, it absolutely caught all the heat as a terrible movie. It seems impossible that anyone at the time would give it an A-, all that tells me is that this ranking has zero value, it didn't back then, it doesn't now.

I don't think you know what your argument is. Someone who didn't watch the show wouldn't notice that something happened, the connection fits. You are using your knowledge of the show to point out that this connection is not the straight line it seems to be, but that's not relevant, it doesn't matter to the 2 movies. It'll matter in Thunderbolts with John's own story, but not here. The show is extra information with its own story, which is nice, but it's not critical.

Imagine working so hard to find a plot hole in something you hate. You're overthinking things.

If you didn't watch the show, you don't know Sam gave up the shield. You see him get the shield in Endgame, Steve tells him it suits him, then in the next movie, everybody calls him Cap. What do you need here? A connect-the-dot game? A coloring book?

Unless it's Eva calling herself Big Mama in 4.

100% garanteed Bardella and the whole party do Nazi salutes between themselves. Just never in public - those who do get kicked out. The US far right simply tested the boundary long enough to realize that no one will do shit about any of it - but Europe still pushes back when we see it.