DomeGuy @ DomeGuy @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

301

Joined

1 yr. ago

Like the other dude said, if your only argument is "OMG, everybody knows that corporations are evil, they must be selling poison", that doesn't rise to the level of obvious.

It's like saying that since the US federal government in the 60s was racist and transphobic, they must have faked the moon landing.

If it were "obvious" that a sugar substitute was dangerous, the sugar companies would have trumpeted that as loudly as they could.

do you really need to resort to baseless ad hominems for your argument?

It wasn't an ad hominem attack. It was a genuine statement of fraternal love, as Jesus taught His followers to strive for.

You don't have a "claim", you have an anti-christian (and anti-relgious) bias I suspect I couldn't talk you out of with a time-travelling phone box and a univerally-translating fish.

I hope whatever hurt you can't hurt you anymore, and that you find love and joy in your life.

Value for resources is also highly subjective.

If I have zero water and $50, but you have 50 waters and $0, I would value one of your waters more than one of my dollars and you would value one of my dollars more than one of your waters. And so we would trade, and both be happier for it.

Science is not a search for truth. It's a search for provable falsehoods and useful theories.

The beauty about actual science, as opposed to the fanfic and bragging that scientists need to publish to get paid, is that we can resolve contradictory theorems through experimentation

Massachusetts and NY raised taxes on the rich, and yet their revenues did not plummet.

Is there any contrary instance we can find where taxes were raised on the rich specifically and revenues dropped?

(And if so, get the academics back to refine their theories, make more predictions, and let's see who's more accurate!)

Jesus literally contradicted those passages, both in His most famous teaching (Matthew 22:34-40) and in the "why we can eat bacon cheeseburgers" post-resurrection vision in Acts 10.

The most straightforward reconciliation of this is to posit that the pre-Christian israelites either did not preserve God's law as recorded by Moses after breaking the original tablets, or that Moses himself introduced errors when he carved the second set.

Most Jews and Christians don't require their cloaks to have tassels or religiously mandate fields of monoculture crops or demand that men and women have entirely separate fashion. And even if you did, the most common form of trans-gender expression is to adopt the clothes of said gender, so mere transgenderism doesn't violate Deuteronomy 22:5 (or 23:2, which is either abelsim or ethnic bigotry and doesn't even apply to bottom-surgery transexuals.)

(It's between you and God if you believe in Him or not, FWIW. Im happy to answer any other questions you'd like to ask.)

Eww. It's a LLM travel agent.

So, the people in companies pushing and making this AI slop treat it like toxic waste, and the author thinks that they're the problem?

I suddenly want to look at his AI map thingy and see how bad it is.

If we're talking re-enacting the way the folks who wear historish costumes and blank-fire muskets at each other mean it, then the cutoff is "whatever the last war was fought locally and then ended."

If you mean it the way the folks who wear even sillier costumes, drink, and walk around with swords mean it, then the cutoff is "whenever the clothes we want to wear were last plausibly worn."

If you mean it the way a TV reporter, producer, or academic might mean it, however, there's no cutoff beyond "isn't happening now.". (There's a famous story about someone who won the lottery after playing on a whim, was egged on by a reporter to re-enact buying the ticket, and won again.)

That's not a religion paper. Those actually cite the numbered verses or church decrees that support their position.

(And, just to be clear, you can't cite any Bible verses about Jesus being transphobic because He wasn't. All the gospels report Him saying are "don't stone adulterers", "divorce and emotional cheating are bad", and "love each other as you love yourselves".)

You're abusing the word "may" here to a degree that's unnecessary.

It's like saying the US civil war "may" have been about slavery, or that Trump "may" be really old.

No. I'm a happily married alcohol-and-caffine-only boring dad-guy.

Definitely a computer nerd, though.

Is this a graph of "report negative opinions about homosexuality", or "think homosexuality should be illegal."

The former is just freedom of speech ("freedom to say something dumb and bigoted"), while the latter is a public policy concern.

Excluding clone-troopers and only in live acted Star Wars, Stormtroopers (sometime from off screen) have hit:

1. All kinds of rebels on various planets in "Andor"
2. A whole bunch of rebels in "rogue one"
3. A bunch of rebels on the Tantive IV
4. Leia (with a stunner) on the Tantive IV
5. All those poor Jaws, plus Luke's family.
6. The hull of the millennium falcon (to no effect)
7. A bunch of rebels on Hoth
8. C-3P0 in cloud city
9. Luke's lightsaber blade in cloud city
10. Leia on endor's forest moon
11. R2D2 on endor's forest moon
12. At least a few ewoks on endor's forest moon.
13. Din Djarin's beskar armor
14. A bunch of other mandaloroans and extras
15. Some of those turtle-riding aliens in a distant galaxy in "Asoka"
16. A bunch of innocent villagers on Jaku
17. Poe's parked X-wing (to great effect!)
18. Poe in the arm
19. Rei's lightsaber blade a bunch of times
20. The hull of the millennium falcon (again, to no effect)

I think stormtroopers are more effective than Klingons, federation red-shirts, or the borg.

I didnt dismiss it entirely. I merely noted that the part I read includes a solid example of the biggest complaint against the grey lady over the past several years : that they parrott Republican attacks without challenge or clarification.

The part I paraphrased wasn't "incoherence" -- it's an analogy specially chosen to outrage and motivate Republican voters, which was printed "above the fold" and may well have gone unchallenged in the whole rest of the article.

And while the bylined author presumably as you say a wholesome journalist who would never cause such distortion, they're also an employee and not responsible or empowered to edit, format, or headline their work.

I got through about the first four paragraphs, and there were obvious bad-faith Republican attacks. To paraphrase and edit:

"This fraud's total potential revenue [over an unstated number of years] was greater than the state spent on prisons [for a single year]."

No objections to most of the rest of what you said, but this article is definitely a Republican slant pretending to be impartial.

Does anyone want to go past the paywall to find if this is anything more than the NYT doing their "parrot Republican attacks without nuance" trick?

Because the killings are targeted actions that are arguably justifiable in the face of tyrannical action.

If a story broke about a criminal gang who all wore identifiable colors and claimed the right to stop anyone you saw and bully them to the point of death, you'd demand that effective (violent) action be taken to stop them. But because the gang is "the police" and nominally controlled by elected officials and the courts, there is a public policy reason to treat both their misbehavior and the public reactions thereto as something categorically different.

(I'd be all in for abolishing police costumes and requiring them to act only within the bounds of permissable behavior for the rest of us, FWIW )

I got all the way to "as I've been writing about for years .." before I clocked this as something I won't bother to finish.

Humans as a species have never listed as the lead quote implies. We're a shallow species whose interpersonal communication is far more of a handshake than a learned debate. If you go against someone else's notions you may, at best, get them to remember a short phrase. (And if you're really lucky and repeat a phrase a few times, it may even be one that accurately reflects your position!)