A. Opposing far right policy is opposing rich people. They’re choosing policy that let’s them exploit more people with less consequences.
B. You can be upset at multiple things at once. There’s good reason to be against the general “right wing voter” mentality as well as wealth inequality.
I see no issue here. A man can absolutely be ‘cute’ without being any less of a man. Masculinity isn’t about rugged looks, strength, dominance, or any of that shit. It’s about self confidence (not arrogance, just being comfortable being yourself) and giving to others, both of which you seem to do well.
Honestly, I’m surprised you haven’t found a partner to match you yet.
A lot of people today can barely learn one language. You’re suggesting that an entire religion’s followers learn Ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, all 3 in dialects that are 2000 years old at the latest. I’m pretty sure God will accept whatever language people happen to read the Bible in.
That said, you do get so much more depth out of the Bible when you look at the original language. From Eve being made from Adam’s side, not just a rib, to King James hiding that God will protect you from the tyrant. I’d love to dive into the original language more, but I’m far from a linguist.
I can’t say for sure what religion you’re talking about, so I don’t know much of the religious context for this definition of heaven and hell. My issue with this definition is emotions are so much more complex than “happy is good, sad is bad”. A lot of people who have dealt with depression (including myself) will tell you that it’s far worse to feel nothing at all. I’d much rather feel the sorrow or hate, and have help from God to work through those feelings.
I find the Christian (specifically protestant Arminian, and yes that is my religion) answer to this question much better. Basically, hell is the other option to heaven. Heaven is where God is fully present, so there must be somewhere else for those who reject God to go. That place must be fully apart from God, otherwise he would not be honoring their decision, and so he would not be all loving.
Agreed. You go furniture shopping, you can’t really carry a couch back home in the tube. Cars won’t be entirely replaced, but they wouldn’t be needed in most of their current use cases
Yes, autonomous vehicles will probably be better drivers than the a stage human when the technology is more mature. As far as I know, in an idealized futuristic city any cars would be autonomous. The issue is that they’re all cars, and so have some inherent problems with efficiency and safety that can’t be fixed by self driving.
The real solution to unsafe roads is trains. Worried about pedestrians? Put the trains underground or up high, where pedestrians aren’t. Crashes? You rarely have two trains in the same place at the same time. Drunk/reckless/otherwise stupid drivers? Trains have much more well trained and vetted drivers. And that’s not talking about all the efficiency side that trains are really good at.
I would honestly love to see something like Paul’s letters, but addressed to the modern American church. Paul didn’t mess around when the churches were acting up.
So what you’re saying is, the best solution to spicy is vodka
A. Off is an autoantonym. You can turn a light off, meaning deactivate it, or you can set a bomb off, meaning activate it.
B. The worst one: inflammable == flammable.
I’ll go and add Slay the Spire and Dominaria to the list.
Mobile games do (mostly) suck though.
A. For controls, power, and screen resolution, mobile is just the worst. If a game on mobile tries to imitate a controller, it takes up a while lot of screen space. If touch is used more like a mouse, I’ve never seen a game that needs touch specifically.
B. Mobile is a better platform for the shitty pocket casino games. When it’s impossible to leave the device at home, it’s much easier for a game to develop an addiction. That’s why mobile games like clash of clans get users paying upwards if $100,000.
I think there’s a big element of selective memory here. We love hearing about underdog stories, because they’re such a good show of courage, selflessness, and other great virtues. This means we are more likely to remember the parts of history where the underdog is the good guy.
On the other hand, I think you do have a point. Those who have the hardest fight to make the change they want, are the most likely to do it for selfless reasons. It makes much more sense to put yourself at risk if you aren’t fighting for yourself. So while wrong but well-meaning underdogs seem possible to me, actually bad people who just want to be on top aren’t likely to take the underdog route.
No. There’s always another chance. As long as at least one person is capable of thinking against fascism, there’s still hope.
But don’t take this as an excuse to do nothing. Every chance to push back that is missed is more damage done.
Probably better wording is a minimum wage shouldn’t be needed
The lack of representation for most people is why he got elected the first time. Not that he’s any better, just a lot of people thought he was different from the average boring, corrupt politician.
It had just been long enough that I forgot about that shit. Now you had to go and remind me.
I return the favor.
A. I hate to do this, but
The audience I wish to reach doesn’t need their hand held as a child
Strawman, saying that this is about “leading people like they’re children” not “clear and effective communication as equals”
B. What I’m talking about is proactively sharing your views, both to save time on questioning and to fill gaps that others would have never thought to ask about. Please, tell me why this isn’t a needed part of discussion.
The point of teaching is sharing knowledge, not just poking holes in whatever argument you can (intentional hyperbole, not strawman)
The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.
strawman
Instead of just “strawman, therefore you’re wrong” and leaving it at that, how about you explain what was incorrect in that statement. That way you become more understood, and everyone understands you more.
This isn’t a courtroom debate. This isn’t a debate you “win” or “lose”. This is a debate where everyone should be trying to understand each other, so that everyone ends up better off by the end. This sort of debate is a cooperative thing, not competitive.
If “getting rid of the USA” is all you think the is to life, might I suggest getting one?
Ah yes, because the eastern front never happened