Fair; I think you’re right and agree to disagree.

And of course; I appreciate yours, as well.

How dare you say we read the internet!

They say “for candidates I didn’t think deserved to be the nominee, let alone president” so I suspect they voted for the Democrat, in each election, rather than a third-party (considering their distaste for Democrats).

I’m fine with disagreeing. I just don’t like feeling that it ended with me failing to express my poi t of view properly. If I did explain it correctly and you disagree, that is fine by me

That’s entirely fair; I’m the same way.

I think the major difference (to me) is you’re putting typing words that they write for their own comments (of which you can easily ignore or block) on par with someone going out of their way to push you. It doesn’t really allow for any kind of plurality and sort of puts just annoying you on the level of personally targeting you for annoyance which feels like a major false equivalence. If simply commenting in a public space in the way they desire constitutes bothering you in a specific way, it feels on par with me feeling entitled to annoy people who spell “color” as “colour” just because it bothers me (it doesn’t, actually, but for the sake of example). It feels much more targeted than them targeting you.

That’s awesome! Haha, yeah; I know what you mean. Still, super glad that worked out.

Look, we obviously disagree and I think we’ll continue to do so and I’d prefer to part amicably so I say this less to start a discussion and more just my personal opinion: I feel like, if you explained to an elementary school teacher that your behavior, actually, was different because you’re not going out of your way to bother your classmate, just whenever you bumped into them…such a distinction won’t mean much to them and your teacher’s still going to end up calling your parents because of your behavior.

I just go about my day and the few times I find them i find it funny and bother them a little.

Oh; like an elementary-school bully. Cool.

If we strip all context from the original circumstance, I imagine we could.

But that’s not what happened, is it? You elected to editorialize that the user is doing it to be fake-different and to gain attention, despite them never going out of their way to do so, never once that I’ve seen actually say it has anything to do with poisoning AI (not that it matters, either way), and never responding when people disparage them to their “face”; literally, just typing the way they want to type and not responding to the behavior of others, the literal opposite of seeking attention.

Which any autistic person could tell you is highly relatable: they’re just off doing their own thing and it just infuriates the allistic folk who now have to make fun of them and say shit about them because, “Can’t they tell how annoying they’re being? Can’t they read social circumstances? I mean, I’m all for tolerance but they should really understand the way their behavior inconveniences me and makes me uncomfortable and now I’ve got make it their problem.”

It annoys you; fine. Different strokes; but you didn’t just say it annoys you: you assigned motive and character to this person because you’re so annoyed and any neurodivergent person would recognize that behavior from when it happened to them.

That’s clearly what AstralPath was referring to and you, then, lined up to the plate to participate further.

That’s what I was pointing out; it’s not a generalized argument: it’s a capturing of an explicitly neurodivergent experience and taking it out of that context is, of course, going to make it fall apart.

If you’d like the same functionality but using pride flags to color in the distro logo, check out hyfetch.

Not using poll data from over a decade ago may help with that: https://www.pewresearch.org/. PEW’s 2021 study found that 34% of Protestants believed only those who believed would go to Heaven though that’s largely due to 21% of Evangelicals and 31% of historically black churches: 56% of Mainline Protestants believe people who don’t believe can go Heaven.

And what individual Catholics believe doesn’t matter because Catholics aren’t Protestants; the Magisterium of the Church teaches – multiple times, stretching back to at least the beginning of the last century – that those who don’t believe are capable of going to Heaven. Anyone can believe otherwise but that’s, definitionally, not a Catholic belief (though, for the sake of completeness, it’s 68% of individual Catholics who believe non-believers can go to Heaven, as of 2021).

Again, there’s no way you can say this is true universally and, for neither Catholics nor Mainline Protestants, it’s not a minority who believe it.

EDIT: this would be the second time, in the last 2 days, someone provided updated information that I didn’t see because I was in the middle of writing a reply; looks like you found the same source as I had

Treasure Planet and the Hunchback of Notre Dame sort of make this much more than just 5 years, though (also, Treasure Planet came out in 2002, holy fuck)

Haha; I hate when that happens.

Mmm; that’s a really good point. I could definitely buy that; fair.

I think that’d make more sense if we’re considering the actual, underlying topic under debate but they were responding to gramie’s comment which didn’t challenge their assertion that the cows were hurt but just went (more or less): “counterpoint: ice cream is yum yum”.

In that context, going “sex is pleasurable, too, but rape is still wrong” isn’t terribly out of left field, to me.

But I get what you mean, for sure.

Fellow Chicagoan!

I mean, – if the answer is I can’t – we probably shouldn’t be framing our arguments universally, then; especially when there are relatively easy counter examples that disapprove the universality.

I wouldn’t even know where to buy milk that doesn’t come from factory farming.

I mean, that’s fair – I expect a lot of people don’t or don’t bother to do the research – but that’s still, definitionally, a contextual framework and isn’t universal. The premise that dairy consumption is universally (in all possible circumstances) evil assumes these arguments always apply; and they don’t.

You can get milk from a cow without harming the cow or violently ripping away her calf. Maybe it’s difficult, etc. But it’s not impossible. So such a universal argument is simply incorrect.

One of the core tenets of Christianity is that the only path to salvation is through Christ. That means non Christians are going to hell.

This isn’t universally true (and is often a byproduct of most people thinking that the claims of Evangelicals are true; to be fair, it’s in part because they’re so loud and won’t shut up).

Catholicism believes it’s very well possible for non-Christians to go to Heaven (JD Vance, I’m sure, doesn’t but there’s a reason he’s had to’ve been corrected by the Vatican multiple times).

I only mention this because I have the same rhetorical tendency and people always somehow seem to think I’m equating the two: it’s not a statement that milk equals rape. It’s highlighting (with a stark example, arguably an unnecessary one) that a person deriving pleasure from an act doesn’t make the act immediately good (I dunno, stealing candy from a baby? For a less “vivid” counter example; I admit, I tend to use super obviously morally bad counter examples too, thinking it’ll make things more overly clear, and, instead, causing someone to think I think they’re the same thing rather than just operating under the same principle, of differing degrees).

(all that said, their argument doesn’t hold water, to begin with, as it’s not cruel or painful to the cow unless under factory farming and cows have no sense of ownership and don’t feel like their property is being “stolen”; a meal isn’t a proper meal if dairy isn’t involved, as far as I’m concerned)

I too trashed the malt balls.

Both verbally and literally.

The meme doesn’t say they aren’t real; it says they aren’t real AI.