Zorque @ Zorque @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

851

Joined

2 yr. ago

Guns are naught but tools. They have no moral nor political ambition. All they can do is provide an amplifier of force, no matter your ideology.

Guns can provide opportunity, but (in spite of Mao claiming to be communist) it truly comes from the joining of people for common cause. A gun can help even the playing field, but it can easily be abused by those with ulterior motives.

I think it's a common opinion in childfree circles. anything to dunk on "natalists".

So your problem is that it doesn't advocate eating meat? That's what you have a problem with? Seems like a personal problem you have with it, not a problem with the article itself.

So as long as you completely disregard the majority of what each do... they're basically the same thing.

Unfortunately not everyone is aware that water is wet. And often there are groups who try and convince people otherwise.

I agree that more ideas need to be put into action that can actually accomplish change for the better, but that requires that people be informed first.

He's just hanging around.

Seems a little overboard for some kind of friendly conversation, especially when it had nothing to do with my general point. I was just stating that I wasn't comfortable with marketing in general. The implication being from large corporations.

As I've never taken an intro to business course, as I'm not interested in that aspect of hyper-capitalism that entails, I just go on the general context of the thread and general sentiment. Not a super-literal definition given in your community college.

The hyperbole seems to be all yours, you've taken a statement I used to lead into the general topic of my comment and somehow built an entire personality out of to assign to me.

I'm not comfortable with marketing. That is my personal opinion. I know lots of other people have other opinions. Some people are neutral, they don't give a shit. Others seem to think of it as completely and utterly necessary in every degree of society. They're allowed that, I have no power nor will to take that from them.

Is that why Jimmy Savile was given a free pass to diddle kids until after he died?

Your very first comment. Where you responded to someone saying people shouldn't be on either side because they're both bad, you said we should be on one side because the other is bad. That's saying one is bad, one is good, unless you're saying we should be on the side of a bad guy.

You're right that Israel is in the wrong. They made an attack on a sovereign nation, mostly to distract from that genocide you speak of.

That has nothing to do with Iran being in the wrong, though, which these days they regularly are. And thus we shouldn't take their claims that they're on the up and up and totally good guys at face value.

But that wasn't your original point, your original point was that one side was bad and the other wasn't. That was the entire crux of this argument. Are you abandoning that now to just say "Israel bad, all else is irrelevant"?

I'm perfectly fine without those, yeah. Though you seem to be taking my meaning to a more extreme degree than was inferred.

And yet you seem to be taking one side at face value while dismissing the other out of hand...

Seems less about reasonable skepticism and more about implicit and unreasonable bias.

That 90s Tex Avery show. Though, admittedly I think it was a weekday morning show, so probably doesn't fit...

He basically was just working to provide for his family before his mental difficulties caught up with him, as I understand it.

I mean, the acting wasn't terrible, but the writing was fucking atrocious. I think Ben could have done a stellar job if it had been literally any other production team behind it.

I dont recall everyone liking that he was chosen as Batman, in fact as I recall most people were like "Ben Affleck?! That guy from Mallrats and Gigli?"

At least on Detective Pikachu he tried doing something different, but was told "no, we dont want acting, we want Ryan Reynolds", so it might be more of a typecasting problem.

I think the world turned a bit on Leto after his rat-mailing phase while playing the joker. But I'd say he probably still doesn't engender as much antipathy as he should in the general populace.

Can't argue with Tom Cruise, though. Admittedly he seems like a nice guy, but the whole funding America's biggest and most dangerous cult definitely hampers that.