That “rape aside” is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn’t the “had sex, your fault” narrative you seem to be espousing here.
Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.
Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the “this book is the literal truth” christians i suppose.
or you’re trolling, in which case, congratulations…i guess.
For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.
Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.
Condolences on your loss.
Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.
Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.
What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.
That’s a win win right?
The way that sentence is structured implies otherwise, but that could be a misinterpretation on my part, I suppose.
The book is great as well, there is also a prequel book “The Boy On The Bridge”
Brazil (1985)
That’s reasonable
it’s Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes
I don’t know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.
Think headphones jacks don’t cause suffering at some point in the chain?
Not that I’m disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.
Does it assume that it’s generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don’t claim otherwise, it’s cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.
Like “Horrendously harmful Apple” or “Mildly harmful Colgate”
A bit hyperbolic perhaps.
Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I’ve occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.
Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”
Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he’s actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn’t necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?
Or did you just want to slip in the “stereotypical white guy” dog whistle?
If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.
imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.
Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.
Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.
Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.
I’d imagine that’s why some people care.
Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?
if someone pointing out that you are saying “fact” but aren’t meeting any of the definitions of a fact seems like an attack to you i suspect you’re probably having a bad time on the internet. Again you dodge most of the actual points of the conversation, probably intentionally.
Also i’m pretty sure “Fucking lmfao.” has a redundant “Fucking” in it , but I’m not holding my breath on you caring about that given how this has gone so far.
Doesn’t seem like this is going to go anywhere interesting, so I’ll just add you to the blocklist and be happy nothing of value(to me) was lost.
Here is one example
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[6] Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I mean you can just find in page for “United States”
Also , not american (a good example of an actual fact) and i very specifically ruled out the typical american interpretation of freedom of speech.
The fact that i was asking you what interpretation you were using implies i recognise more than just one, so even if i were american (again, not american) the question would still stand.
I also , very specifically asked what interpretation you were using for your argument, but it seems we’ve skipped over the questions entirely and gone straight to factually incorrect personal attacks.
I’ll just assume you don’t have an answer to the actual question given no attempt was made to actually answer it, or perhaps you think your position is unassailable and an answer is beneath you.
Regardless, good luck with fact pointing i suppose.
edit: added answer to your question
Did you mean to reply to me? Or the person above?
Describe what you mean by “freedom of speech” here, I’m assuming you don’t mean the first amendment because that only applies in the US and only for protection against congress ( the US congress ofc ).
Given the above I’m not sure what line you mean here, libel/slander?
You can only point out facts that exist, well, you can technically point out whatever you like and call it “fact” i suppose, but it’s not really accurate unless it’s an actual fact.
Unless accuracy isn’t what you were going for ?
In case you were wondering : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact
Unless you’re a big corp, then fuck with impunity but make sure to pay the “cost of doing business” tax.
If the tax is too high, just buy some lobbyists or political system equivalent.
So, not a good faith take then, oh well.
“Logical” is not a binary position. It’s a spectrum.
Agreed, not sure how it’s relevant but it seems we agree on something after all.
Your missing the part in the middle where you spend 6 months telling them in no uncertain terms that the thing they are asking is stupid and will not work properly/safely.
Various back and forth emails, a completely “justified” performance review program because of your “falling standards” and several meetings with various managers at different levels of “importance”.
Also the “You’re absolutely correct, ENJOY” is written at the bottom of your resignation letter or told to them directly in your “redundancy” exit interview.