neatchee @ neatchee @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

481

Joined

2 yr. ago

Always fun to see how many people don't realize "zionists" and "Jews" are not synonyms, and that many zionists are only "supporting the Jewish state" because they think all the Jews need to be there to trigger the second coming

Fun times

Like others, I won't comment on whether this is a good idea or not.....

Consider that all of the changes happened over time. (Unless you're speaking with a Queen's English accent, which is a posh fabrication created by the upper class BUT I DIGRESS)

So, for example, take the word "water". Look at the first syllable, 'wat'. Imagine it with a British accent, then with an American one. Think about just the vowel, the A. Try to say that vowel out loud in one accent, and hold it, then slide to the other one.

It will take lots of careful thought but you can do a similar "slow slip" for consonants and entire words too.

Good luck, I guess?

Not a surprise at all. Just funny. I don't even disagree with them (despite the down votes) I'm just self aware enough to recognize when I'm being like that lol

This comment section is the most fediverse comment section of all comment sections

EDIT: Y'all, I agree with you. Your downvotes don't make it any less true.

..... But the article is about the funding issue? I'm not willfully misunderstanding anything. I'm asking whether your statement is directly related to the article or just a tangent that is only marginally related.

You seem to have intentionally misrepresented the article's content so that you could say "Not All CPS" which is just not a good look for you

It's always something, isn't it? If we have a good defense, no offense. Good quarterback? No offensive line. 7-3 record? Injury time!

This thread aged perfectly for Cleveland 🙃

This thread aged perfectly for Cleveland 🙃

As mentioned elsewhere, the article is talking specifically about Arizona, due to investigative reporting on their handling of the funds. I realize that it may not be true everywhere, but do you have a reason to believe Arizona does NOT have the problem called out in the article?

I don't think the administration is making this move predicated on "putting children's safety first". They're doing it because using funds that are earmarked for social safety net purposes (providing more support for families in need) to instead punish those who are in need of those funds - even when that punishment is deserved - does not address the thing the money was intended to resolve and this the request for funds is disingenuous.

We can roleplay this...

Person 1: "Hey, can I borrow $50? My impoverished sister can't afford food for her family this week."

Person 2: "Sure, here you go. Wait, what are you doing?"

Person 1: "Well, I think my neighbor might be neglecting their kids so I spent that $50 on investigating them, just in case."

Person 2: "But I gave you the money to help your sister, not to investigate someone who may or may not have done anything wrong"

You see the problem?

Then next time just say "no" instead of pretending like you have some winning argument for a question that's not being asked.

Got it. You literally are incapable of having your own opinions because you think they "don't matter". We have nothing more to talk about. Peace ✌️

but I'm asking you. You can't answer the question? Or choose not to? You think there's no value in discussing these issues and trying to get people to agree? That's how you get like-minded people elected, my dude.

Unless you're saying nothing anyone can say will ever change your opinion on this issue. Which would be an end to any and all conversation

No, the firearms act is the thing that distinguished. It is not itself the justification for distinguishing.

Right now all you're saying is "because that's the law". I want to know why you think that's how the ought to be

Right. And I'm asking you to give me a reason for the distinction, not proof that the distinction has been made.

I know that's how the law has been interpreted up to this point. I'm asking you to explain why you believe it to be the correct interpretation

Got it. So as long as I can carry it, I should never need a permit. RPGs? Stinger missiles? Or does it have to use bullets?

And can you give me any logical reason to make that distinction other than "those are the words in the Constitution"?

Munitions included? Who wants a gun with the trigger welded?

No permit necessary for tanks and nukes then, right?

.... You're suggesting pirating a small dev's app....to protest surveillance by the app store owner?

That's not how it works. If you don't like the policies of the store, then ask the dev to put it on another store. If they refuse, don't use their product because they suck.

Choosing to limit your product to a shitty store is a developer choice. That gives you the right to not use their product, not the right to steal it. Otherwise, pay for it and then install a cracked version to remove the surveillance or whatever

Because the right to determine distribution channels and the right to prevent distribution are inseparable. I challenge you to write a law that successfully implements one but not the other. Any law you write that guarantees a creator control over who distributes their work and how will inherently allow that creator to literally or functionally prevent distribution.

The alternative is saying that creators don't have a right to control distribution at all - anyone must be allowed to reproduce and distribute, even if not for free - and that is a known disincentive to invention and economic growth; there's a reason we only enforce that requirement in select places like standards and protocols