jasory @ jasory @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

300

Joined

2 yr. ago

Biological sex is generally considered to be distinct from gender.

Your sex isn't exactly what's holding you back.

As an atheist this is just a grossly superficial reading of Christianity.

Christianity isn't about being non political it's about political expediency. Christians were told to obey the government for survival (i.e no needless rebellion, unlike prophesied in Judaism), there is no part of the Bible that says that you can't enforce Christian morality if you are in power. ("Judge not yadda...yadda"- that's about hypocrisy, it is infact encouraged to judge and purity test others, Christian or not).

Infact moral systems require some obligation to to follow them, as much as people want to circle-jerk about how they don't obligate others to do what they think is right, nobody actually believes this. The sheer fact that you believe something to be good or bad means that there is some property that makes this distinction relevant, this property is the obligation to do good and not do bad. People who assert that they don't think others have this obligation as well are engaging in special pleading that only they are obligated to do good and not do bad. In other words, individual moral relativity is universally rejected, the few people that claim to ascribe to it would object to being stabbed as a good action simply because the perpetrator felt it was.

"I don't believe Christians should be able to point at it and say 'yeh, but that's not my Jesus'"

I agree. If people don't believe in Jesus as described in the Bible, they shouldn't characterise it as "Jesus".

Your objection on the other hand is ridiculous. If someone identifies as X, and it is physically impossible for others that identify as X to force them to stop identifying as X (not exactly sure how you think people can "do something" greater than repudiating them, which you already characterised as insufficient), then the problem of categorisation falls on the observing third-party. Well it always was the problem of the third-party, the unreliability of self-reporting is simply more obvious in this case.

"If I was Christ, I'd be pretty darn upset right now"

Seems weird that the purported Son of God would not be more explicit in social critique. Jesus as described would probably be far more conservative than any public figure nowadays. I don't remember him advocating for democratic voting, freedom of speech, LGBT rights, or universal education.

He probably would be upset, just not in the same way you are.

Unless it's edited, that seems to be the exact opposite of what they are saying. They even clarify using the same poor English.

What is a firefighter doing cutting through random cables? It could just as easily be a non-electrical one electrified by broken wiring elsewhere.

This could either be horrible or mean absolutely nothing.

Hypothetically, you don't actually need to wear a hi-vis safety vest if you are in an office. It's only required in high traffic areas and usually with heavy equipment moving. Additionally many machines are painted yellow, or various other colors. This isn't necessarily for safety reasons. For example some machine enclosement doors will be painted yellow or some other color, this has zero effect on the safety of operating the machine. Infact painting is primarily to identify parts or sections of the machine, not safety reasons, that's what enclosures and interlocks are for.

The requests could be illegal, or it could be merely aesthetic.

Started? How geopolitically ignorant are you? A considerable portion of the IDF's armaments (including over 100 fighter jets) during the Yom Kippur War were flown in from the US. This was seven years before Reagan. The entirety of Israel's existence has just been the US and France dumping weapons. (Israel didn't indigenously make it's nuclear weapons, they came from France's nuclear projects, just like how the Kfir wasn't built using Israel's non-existent aerospace industry).

This isn't the mechanism of plumbism, but A+ for effort since we both know this was a Herculean task for you. Orators will recount the 11th labor of wildginger and the Lead Metaphors of Lemmy.

So concerned about pewter /= lead and yet this is a rigourous proof to you?

Sweetie, you're not going to win any contest against me except in obesity.

Stop thinking you're so special in a non-euphemistic way.

"Safe drinking pewter existences"

I know dipshit, unlike you I know not to eat 2kg of tuna a day. Whom am I talking to Karen Wetterhahn ca. 1997?¹ The fact that pewter can be lead-free has no effect on the insult because pewter is classically a lead alloy and is generally considered as such in common parlance.

"Should I get you some crayons...you can draw a picture"

What is this? Everyone in the military knows that Marines eat crayons, how come a witticist as yourself can't even seem to rise to the level of people who score a 70 on a grade 8 test?

1. That's how you do a neurological damage insult, not making weak and cliche references, and then jerking yourself off over how intelligent you are when it's pointed out.

Umm... No? The logical error you made was asserting the existence of an object. This specific object is highly improbable to exist, and since the purpose of your comment was to seem intelligent and witty it would have been better to assert the existence of a more probable object whose connection to neurological damage would be less obvious without specific knowledge.

It's really sad when the people you interact with are so stupid they can't even insult properly.

"How dare people criticise me! Why can't they just ignore it? I really really want these people to ignore all the insane shit I say. So I can keep saying it with no resistance." -GlitzyArmrest

Little did poor Glitzy know that, correcting empirical claims does not confer information on the individuals personality.

How did I lose the argument? I claimed that the user is probably a drug addict, they denied it. There is really no proving or disproving either claim.

The actual argument I made, that MycoBro's personal experience has little relevance, was completely unaddressed. Literally read any of his response, all of it was about consuming mushrooms, absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of anecdotal experience.

I merely made my last response because I found the clearly vitriolic analogy to be humourous, and the rest of the comment had nothing of substance.

It's called pewter dipshit. If you're going to try to insult someone it helps to not look the bigger moron.

"It is killing a being that isn't alive yet"

Excuse me, how do you kill something that isn't alive yet? You are literally so stupid that you made a clear contradiction within a single sentence.

You realise that awareness is not the criteria for life? I would even argue (much more effectively than you, or most moral philosophers) that the wrongness of killing doesn't come from possessing a temporary state of awareness, but being an entity that will possess this temporary state in the future. If the former was actually true, then killing anyone would be permissible so long as you did it fast enough that the total pattern of behaviour didn't meet some definition of consciousness. But I'm running far ahead of myself, you didn't even make any argument remotely as coherent as the one I just refuted.

"At the point where it is legal anywhere"

This is actually false, the majority of jurisdictions in the US and worldwide do ban 3rd trimester abortions, but you claimed that all of them don't allow abortion past a point of awareness. So I would like to point you to New Mexico's criminal code, where abortion up to birth for any reason is not classified as a crime(aka it's legal in case you are too stupid to realize that).

"Also abortion is quite critical to women's lives"

You are confusing edge cases where it may be critical to someone's life and asserting it to be the norm when it simply isn't. Chemotherapy is critical to some people's lives, it would be false to assert that the everyday individual makes decisions based upon obtaining it.

You either are severely intoxicated or have actual brain damage. Your statements are dumber and less coherent than the standard propaganda that you should have just copy-pasted.

It's simply a matter of selecting relevant statistics.

"Belittle the pain and turmoil"

Bit melodramatic aren't we? People experience "pain and turmoil", regardless of what state they live in. I love how pro-choice people have to portray abortion restrictions as modern-day Auschwitz, because they solely want to permit the active killing of human beings for any reason. That's all this entire conversation is about, it's not about accuracy it's about the fact that it doesn't endorse the narrative that abortion is critical to women's lives. That's the only reason anyone here has a problem with it.

"Makes me giggle everytime"

If you haven't held personal conversations with hundreds of people in your lifetime, you're just socially inept. This isn't a difficult task, and nowhere did I claim this happened simultaneously. I was merely referencing the fact that out of hundreds of people I've interacted with, only a handful referenced marijuana laws (basically just hardcore potheads) and zero abortion laws as the primary reasons for moving. I even threw in gun laws, even though I've never actually known someone who primarily moved because of them.

I concur. This is really fucking stupid. The only actual advantage that airships have is loitering time, and solar aeroplanes can already loiter for months albeit with a small payload.

If you really care about the environment, make it an unmanned post and use more efficient (because it's lighter) and abundant hydrogen. Chance of explosion is pretty low, and if it does who cares.

You're right, I would be very unhappy if a pig sexually assaulted a black man, even if it was it's fetish.

I believe sexual relations should be consensual and between humans, I'm very conservative in that way.

No, I'm saying two things.

1. His anecdote is not sufficient to refute the claim that 9 times out of 10 you should cooperate with LE.
2. The user probably is a mushroom abuser, given the fact that they are a self-proclaimed marijuana abuser and have expressed interest in Psilocybin mushrooms.

These are two separate things, his anecdote probably being a lie makes his argument look worse but it is not necessary to show that it is insufficient. It would be an incorrect argument based solely on the first point.

I personally just find it humourous and incredulous that he supposedly spent 2 weeks in jail, because he totally wasn't using Psilocybin mushrooms. You know Shiitakes are huge and pretty hard to confuse with Psilocybin, not to mention the fact that you can test them pretty easily. (They are also in tons of grocery stores, so it's not exactly alien to everyday individuals).

What are laws if not violations of autonomy and privacy?

Intelligent people actually recognise that this is not a useful distinction between prohibiting abortion and any other action.

So why can't you?