Deme

Certainly

Or maybe they just left it in a cold place for a while. Strong spirits freeze at around -27°C and Jägermeister (35%) freezes at around -19°C.

I hate ai slop with a burning passion. This channel on the other hand is actual ai art.

My gaidar (generative ai radar) is going off.

I think a good old shitass paint illustration would be preferable. The message itself is good enough to deserve at least that.

The horse probably couldn’t handle the weight of the cow. Both animals might get pissed at you for trying to coax them into this.

This isn’t about the holocaust. It’s about your faulty reasoning. I’m just using the holocaust as an easy example of something that is widely considered objectionable in order to demonstrate just how flawed your reasoning is. Angela is just a random value in place of the variable “person Y”.

I have made absolutely no changes to the reasoning within the statements. It’s all just the same flawed reasoning of yours. If the reasoning were valid, then true premises would always result in true conclusions. This clearly didn’t happen, despite the fact that my alternate premises (nazis legalised holocaust) were true. This is deductive argumentation 101.

I do have a dog in the race. I care about the subject. I just haven’t talked about it because you’re too much fun. The meat industry is a significant contributor to the climate and eco crisis. As a person living on the same planet and reliant on the stability of the same atmospheric and ecological systems, it is a concern of mine that people eat meat and other animal products so much. I’ve managed to eliminate most animal products from my diet, but not all of them. But regardless of all that, why shouldn’t I be allowed to criticise someone for not being logical?

Sure, block me if you want, but I still have a feeling that you’ll come to read this, just as you continued the discussion after three times claiming to end it, perhaps hoping that I had slipped up in my response. Who knows, maybe this time you get lucky?

Doing the holocaust was legal.
Angela has no right to tell someone they shouldn’t do the holocaust.
Angela is more than welcome to make the information publicly available to anyone partaking in doing the holocaust.
The nazi is under no obligation to look at said information if they don’t wish to.
Angela should leave the nazi alone to live their life without constant harassment from Angela.
Angela probably doesn’t like others telling him how to live her life, what they should put in their bodies, who they should marry, love or live with.
Angela should note the irony in this.
Angela should spend her time in support of others that share the same belief, rather than antagonising those who don’t.

You presented one premise, skipped any attempt at reasoning and all the rest are conclusions based on nothing tangible.

Calling me a vegan blowhard is interesting considering that I already said that I’m not a vegan. I have made no claims on the subject here. I just find logical jousting enjoyable. The fact that you’re quite bad at this makes it even more fun.

The logical structure of your take goes as follows: Doing X is legal. Person Y considers doing X wrong. Because X is legal, Y shouldn’t object to other people doing X, despite the fact that Y thinks it’s wrong.

Why shouldn’t child abuse and rape be among the possible objectionable acts inserted in the place of variable X? The beautiful thing about logical structures is that their validity is independent of the specific words that are inserted. If you think the logical statement above is valid, then consider the following statements using the exact same logic, just with different variables:

Eating meat is legal. A vegan considers eating meat to be wrong. Because it is legal, the vegan shouldn’t object to other people eating meat, despite the fact that they think it’s wrong.

Eating children is legal on the cannibal island. Joe considers eating children to be wrong. Because it is legal, Joe shouldn’t object to other people eating children, despite the fact that Joe thinks it’s wrong.

The nazis set laws which made the holocaust legal. Angela considers the systematic killing of Jews, disabled people, socialists and intellectuals to be wrong. Because they made it legal, Angela shouldn’t object to other people doing it, despite the fact that Angela thinks it’s wrong.

These statements are identical in their logic. If despite this you disagree with some of the statements but not all of them, then you need to articulate your stance with more nuance.

I’m a different person, that was my first comment here.

The way I see it, the discussion was about permitting others to commit acts which one considers immoral.

In the case of a vegan that might mean allowing someone else to eat meat, but the ethical dilemma is the very same as allowing a cannibal to eat a child. Does one have any right to intervene in their daily habits and societal norms, just because you think it’s wrong? If yes, why shouldn’t the vegan do the same?

I will say that I can’t claim to be a vegan myself. I just found your logic flawed.

Would you make the same comment if somebody else was eating a human child? If not, why?

“Just leave people alone to do their thing.” “Let’s care less about what others eat.”

Do you see how this very same logic could be used to excuse pretty much any diet or action?

Also the environmental impacts. I don’t own a huge polluting coal powerplant that is actively contributing to fucking up the planet that I live on, and I’m still allowed to criticise them for it. Why should the meat industry be any different?

Me but every time I think I see a nice cloud.

I’m not catholic, but I do like the fact that artillery has its own patron saint.

Perhaps, but I’m still not going back there.

Oh but the workshop is a co-operative and Santa is a union man. The man dresses in all red, has a beard like Marx and distributes goods without any financial compensation.

I’d say that yes it was definitely at least partially politically motivated, since it was just as much an attack against the system as it was against the person, but hardly terrorism since there was no intent to scare the general public.

A person can be rich in many ways. A coral reef is rich in biodiversity etc.

The rich refers to the group of people who are financially rich to an obscene extent.

Mostly it’s just people discussing whether flour should be measured by mass or volume. Jokes about using some mcburgers per football field -esque satirical units, some joke about using moles instead. Some comment about a funny misspelling in the meme. Nobody is flying into an incoherent rage.

I think you’re taking the trollface in the meme a bit too literally. It’s annoying and unnecessary, and can cause mistakes that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. Ahem, the Mars Climate Orbiter is a good example of a particularly costly one.

Nobody is flying into an incoherent rage. It’s merely annoying having to accommodate the outdated quirks of one country. You having to do the opposite is quite reasonable on the other hand, because you’re not accommodating the conventions of one country, but those of the rest of the world.

Fair point. Rephrase: largest English speaking country by internet footprint, global influence or some similar measure.