cheery picking laws aside
That would imply there was “cherry” picking to be set aside.
cherry picking in this case would imply picking only the law(s) that supports the bias of the poster, to the exclusion of other laws that contradict this position.
I’d be interested in seeing the contradicting laws you think would make this cherry picking, do you have any links ?
God given rights comes from the American Constitution
It does not, purposely so.
It was purposely put there because it is undeniable for all people that it applies equally (Well, except for the whole slavery thing, but the Americans aren’t that bright).
Perhaps you mean unalienable rights (which was in the declaration of independence iirc), but yes afaik it was supposed to apply to all people equally.
We decided that it was better for the society to take away some liberties to increase the total amount of liberties for all people.
Who’s we and when was this decided ?
If we are to take away someone’s liberty without increasing the total liberty for all people, then we have reduced the total amount of liberty in the world, which I would argue is backwards of the ultimate goal.
That is logically incorrect (reduce one persons liberty points by 10, add 5 liberty points each to 2 people and liberty equilibrium is maintained) but i think i know what you are getting at.
Assuming everyone’s idea of the ultimate goal is “liberty for all” is also a stretch.
That’s an entirely different conversation though.
The smokers zones were a result of the original crackdown on smoking in public places, the government decided and it sounds like you followed along.
That this new change goes further than you are personally comfortable with doesn’t make the previous change any less a governmental decree.
Let’s assume however that you do have some universal right to smoke in the smokers section:
Is this the only universal right that exists ?
Do other people not have a right to not be forcibly exposed to known carcinogens ?
To pre-empt the “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” argument, yes, they do.
A pub garden isn’t magically warded to keep the smoke out of the air of non-smokers.
God-given? That’s your go to?
Fuck the authorities because god says I can do what I like?
Also where is it you think the smokers section comes from?
I’m not saying what they are doing isn’t bullshit, it very much is, but “who are they to tell me to do this new thing, I can continue to do this other thing they told me I can do, because I don’t have to listen to them” is some Olympian level mental gymnastics
That is a good question, I know where the button is for the website (it’s in the sidebar, in my UI it’s green) but the app im using doesn’t have an obvious button
You don’t need to suspect you can check for yourself, modlog exists.
The subjectiveness of it being a superior product aside.
Brave is chromium under the hood and therefore contributes to the rendering engine homogeneity that leaves Google in control of web standards.
Iirc they are keeping some support for manifest v2 , for now. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out for them both financially and from a technical upkeep point of view.
I’d guess it doesn’t last long, but haven’t looked at it hard enough to have an informed opinion on it.
That’s also a logical fallacy.
You are conflating lack of effective choice with active support.
In an effectively two party race, where both arguably are supporting a position (through action if not through ideology) there is no option where you aren’t effectively contributing to said position.
Vote either way or not at all , you are contributing to the overall success of one party or the other.
“Our genocide guy is better” is really the only option when there is no other practical choice.
Even voting independent just supports whoever happens to be winning from the two main parties.
What are you proposing is the practical option for people who don’t want to be “in support of parties involved in committing genocide”?
To be clear i have no good answer to this either, just wondering if you do.
Personally, I define a cult as either an NRM (The more common use in the 20th century) or a local sect (the more common use in antiquity)
Sure, but that’s a fairly narrow definition that ignores a large proportion of the actual dictionary definitions.
I am politically motivated not to consider Christianity a cult, because I believe it makes unjust apology for Christianity
A somewhat subjective take that doesn’t really explain how the term cult would imply “unjust apology”
Cults are, politically speaking, groups which have been targeted by the Satanic panic
Not true, by any commonly accepted definition of the word.
edit: the term cults can include groups “targeted by the Satanic panic” but that isn’t a strict definitional requirement.
The fact that Christianity is not a cult
Christianity does in fact meet many of the dictionary definitions of the word “cult”.
You could argue that the normalisation of christianity excludes it from adhering to the definitions that mention “unorthodox” or “small” but those definitions are relatively few.
and that anti-cult religious leaders have not labelled Christianity a cult, is historically important.
How so ?
Other than power and money i mean.
We can’t go using words in a way that implies Christianity is the victim and confuses the history. I object to calling Christianity a cult precisely because I think ill of Christianity.
I can’t find any reference to the word “cult” that, when applied to christianity. would absolve them of the egregious historical shitfuckery perpetrated by and for them.
“News outlet” might be the most generous interpretation I’ve ever seen.
I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.
Let’s try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.
“I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are.”
A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.
If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn’t be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.
The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.
The whole point of having a women’s competition is to separate “men” from “women”, if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we’d be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.
You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop “women” from competing in “men’s” competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.
it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.
Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase
“it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition.”
This is not a good argument.
As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.
It doesn’t escape me, but what part of what I’ve said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I’m asking honestly.
In this case i can’t see any big red flags.
The tone is a possibility, as i said, being correct isn’t an absolute defence against being considered an arsehole.
To be clear, I’m not implying you were incorrect, or the tone was incorrect, just that that kind of certainty (evidence based or not) gets some people’s backs up.
It’s grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop.
I don’t think it’s what you actually meant but this could be interpreted as “Somebody didn’t accept my answer and argued, so i told them to stop, they didn’t even though i was clearly correct, this is grating”
Hyperbole aside, it’s frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why.
Firstly, welcome to public internet forums in general, this is common behaviour.
That aside, there are numerous trolls and bad faith “debaters” around, but just because you consider something petty doesn’t mean the other person does.
This is what i was trying to convey in my reply earlier, if almost all interactions end up with what you consider petty behaviour it’s worth considering the possibility that you are contributing to that outcome somehow.
Like, I don’t even want to argue.
So don’t, if you don’t want to continue the interaction then don’t reply.
Meaning what, it’s also me?
Possibly, yes.
lol If I’m the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behaviour, what does that say to you?
Honestly, it says to me that your communication skills might need some work.
Again, to be clear i don’t mean your communication of facts and information, i mean your ability to understand how phrasing something in a certain way might illicit a certain kind of response.
“Stop acting like a child” is a very good way to build enmity and confrontation, which is useful in some cases, if you intend to illicit that response.
However, saying something like that and then being confused/frustrated when people get confrontational and dismissive suggests a lack of understanding about the impact of tone and phrasing.
Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as “it’s not good for your cats?”
I mean, i specifically stated it wasn’t related to the actual topic being discussed, but i can address this anyway i suppose.
Possibly culty i suppose, about the same amount as alcohol consumers, smokers, people who see chiropractors etc.
Less than people in organised religion ( big cults ), actual cults and MLM schemes.
If all of the stoners you know are your definition of culty ( except you of course ), perhaps consider that it’s your choice in acquaintances rather than an entire demographic.
Can’t say i care either way, but i’d be interested in any studies you might have on the subject ( belief systems of stoners in general, not specifically the ones you know ofc, that would be unlikely )
To be clear, I smoke most nights… but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything.
If that personal preference works for you, who am i to tell you you’re wrong.
It’s a drug, y’all. It’s not good for you.
Drug doesn’t automatically imply harm, but i think i know what you mean.
So, two things unrelated to the actual topic being discussed.
I’ll pretend your choice of words isn’t low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site
It’s entirely possible to be correct and do it in such a way that invites confrontation and dismissal.
If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it’s time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.
Do you have an example of this ?
Randidly Ghosthound, from the series with the same name.
Not until just now.
I’m more of an pondering my orb kind of person.
Not to discount your choice, you do you, is just not for me.
If you mean someone who doesn’t agree with you on everything, then…sure.
As are you.
If you are looking for a place where no-one disagrees with you , an internet message board probably isn’t going to be a good experience for you.
ugh, pointless discussion at this point
Agree to disagree, i find the varied perspectives interesting in their own right, not so much the content of the original post.
Obviously the barrister wasn’t saying “It was an attack related to the Bible”, that wouldn’t make any sense.
Agreed, but the definition and modern day usage of the word biblical does bring the context of religious behaviour as a comparison point, specifically the type of religious behaviour in the bible.
They aren’t saying “it’s caused by the bible” as much as “This is the type and level of behaviour one would expect to find in the bible ( a religious text )”
Which is still religious, unless you don’t consider the bible to have any religious significance.
When he said it was mediæval he didn’t mean it was related to 14th century history, he was characterising the attack.
The whole point of using a word whose definition is to evoke a relationship to a period or concept is to relate this meaning to the subject.
Otherwise you’d just describe the situation directly.
If you wish to argue that someone is using a word in a way that is explicitly ignoring the actual definition (and common usage) of the word, you’re free to do so.
Seems an odd hill to die on, but i’ve my own equally strange hills.
Github is going in a a different, subjectively more harmful, way.
But it’ll probably be a round for a long while yet.
Not really, one has religious connotations the other doesn’t.
My interpretation is different, but not any less subjective than yours, so fair enough.
I think that your argument implies that your right to smoke in the smokers section is greater than someone else’s right to not have to ingest second hand smoke from you smoking in the smokers section.
That’s fair and i worded my argument somewhat poorly, I’ll clarify what i meant in the next sections.
This is true for all.
In the context of the original statement, what i meant to say was the argument “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” holds about as much weight as people saying “well they can just smoke when they get home”, technically yes but we are talking about situations where both parties are in attendance.
That is also my understanding, but that assumes a completely neutral space with no directional blowing, no obstacles etc, also a lot of smoking areas aren’t exactly as “outside” as they could be.
I’m not arguing the level of acceptable risk either way , i have no idea and i’d imagine its heavily subjective.
Oh absolutely, even if it wasn’t bullshit posturing and political grandstanding it’s a far cry from the most effective thing they could be doing to alleviate the “huge burden” on the NHS.