Ace T'Ken

17276667. Thanks for the memories.

Boy do I have a treat for you.

Hey, wake up! The new Clippy skin just dropped!

Ah yes, nothing like a nice rum and water.

I truly don’t mean to be pedantic here, but aren’t these nearly word for word the same beliefs Left-leaning people here have about the Right in America?

Maybe if you’re being generous and want to write out the other side of these beliefs you could leave out the descriptors “lazy and weak” and replace them with “psychotic and brainwashed”, but other than that, is this meme not the same for Left and Right?

So I know this isn’t going to be popular, but… I lived in Saudi Arabia at 14. White people were targeted for kidnapping and rape continually, and no, not only women. Men too.

I myself was very close to having both happen multiple times and escaped by pure panic and luck. My father and I were nearly killed by police with assault rifles because they wanted a bribe from my Dad. We were forced to drive into the desert at gunpoint to a “second location.”

This was not unusual for the expats.

I also went to school in Cincinnati and had the shit beaten out of me multiple times because I was white.

Racists no matter who they are racist to are fucking gross and I’m sorry you had to go through what you did. Please don’t think your experience applies worldwide though. Being white, gay, black, brown, trans, or damn near anything in some places is fucking dangerous.

Why? Having correlary traits in common with someone doing something dumb isn’t embarrassing.

Andrew Tate doesn’t make me embarrassed to be a man, he’s just embarrassing himself (and anyone who chooses those views are doing the same). We are individuals.

This is a really well-put description. Having pride in the color of your skin is fucking stupid and applies to everyone.

Pride is for achievements.

Skin color is not something anyone achieved (and no, paying for aesthetics is not an achievement either).

It’s social media. People really like to hit the “fuck you” button and not discuss anything.

You have to put yourself in their position though. If they commented anything and didn’t just casually dismiss, that would mean they’d have to think. Thinking is hard. Don’t do that to them.

Edit: They also really hate having the above pointed out, but never argue with it.

As a Windows user who manually updates weekly and reads changelogs for what actually changes, neither do I.

But then again I don’t leave 400,000 items open on my desktop for no reason whatsoever and get mad when I have to close them.

The I.T. firm I run does this except we donate them to nonprofits.

After that most recent Saint’s Row game, I can’t say I’m surprised.

It felt like it was designed by Tumblr, sold on an unpopular platform (Epic), left out most of what was good from the previous entries, was attrociously buggy, and had deeply disappointing DLC.

Nobody wanted it and it felt designed by committee.

Like Blizzard, most of the talent that made them great to begin with wasn’t there any more.

Killing is only one way of reducing a population, and is not one I advocated for. You are becoming increasingly unhinged. The primary definition of “people” is “human beings in general or considered collectively.” A second definition? “human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.”

No. Animals are not people. You are factually incorrect, bad at making points, and potentially psychotic. Take your meds.

W… what? Am I debating with an AI or something? Malthusianism was never invoke nor implied. The food supply is a finite resource. This isn’t a debate. We live in an entropic reality. Period. You do not get to rewrite universal constants.

The argument was not nonsense, you’ve just moved the goalposts instead of acknowledging it. There was no justifying mass slaughter of people because animals are not people by any but the loosest of definitions (eg. the one you seem to operate on). You moving the goalposts of what constitutes the word “people” for political reasons does not magically make it so. I am wholly opposed to the political adjustment of words no matter who does it and for what reason it’s done. It’s intellectually dishonest and allows the mover to re-frame any argument however they see fit.

What if I did what you did? Well, now plants are people and you’re psychotic. I’ve now re-recategorized animals to never be people. Okay, so now you’re calling for genocide. Congrats! You’ve proved why word adjustments for political reasons is a shit idea. Now let’s be grown-up about things, shall we?

As someone who has lived on a small farm for a good number of years and raised animals, you (and I) hold their lives in higher regard than they do. That is because you (maybe?) are a sentient being. Many animals have fewer sentience-indicating behaviours than trees do.

And tell my hamster how important family is. She ate six of her children on two separate occasions.

Well, no, I didn’t ignore anything. I disagree about the stance being valid from the get go and felt the point defeated.

Let me try again: You can lessen suffering, but you can not eliminate it. Your existence causes suffering. All existence does. Everything alive is only alive because it feeds off other living things who have their own way of existing. A suffering being a style you choose to not recognize is not only not a valid defence, it makes you just as guilty as those you attack.

Disregarding your more purposely inflammatory statements against other users and trying to stick to the logic of the situation, your stance has been “Being vegetarian / vegan is eliminating suffering and therefore should be the end goal.” Is that not correct? I’m not arguing in bad faith like many here or making a shitty “bacon = good” joke. I want to make sure you’re not being misinterpreted when I tell you that your argument is flawed and factually incorrect.

• If you want to be vegan because you enjoy it? Go for it. That is inarguable.

• If you want to be vegan because you feel it’s healthier? Rock on. Go you. You may be right if you carefully monitor your diet. I would argue against it being better than vegetarian however.

• If you want to be vegan because it’s easier on the environment? Yup. You could make a good case that it would be better for the planet, but only because we’re overpopulated. A smarter case to make would be for a reduction in humans. Being vegan is a very minor step of harm reduction compared to fewer people.

• If you want to be vegan because you don’t like factory farms? That’s not a logical jump to make. There are plenty of smaller suppliers you can procure from that do not have those issues; the smarter jump is to just not use bad providers no matter what the product.

• If you want to be vegan because it’s eliminating suffering? Nope. You’re just making substitutions for things you’re comfortable with. Bad logic. Bad argument. You’re also applying your own morals (because this is a moral standpoint) to other people, which is stupid no matter who is doing it. From anti-abortion activists to Muslim extremists, your morals apply to you and only you. Do not try to enforce them on the outside world.

• If you want to be vegan because it eliminates death? That’s also a moral argument. In fact, in the short term and per unit of death, being vegan adds MORE deaths, they’re just not a style you choose to recognize. Not to mention that increasing the crop yields to make up for the caloric deficit created by meat vanishing would also potentially kill the planet at this stage of human occupation. Crops that are easy to grow, less destructive to the land so they can grow it again immediately after, low maintenance, and cast-offs from other production are where animal feed comes from. This stuff could not be fed to humans or are excess.

And the way you’re going about it isn’t helpful to your cause. A better outreach for you would be to use the Food subs and post legit great vegetarian food and entice people that way. Doing it this way will accomplish nothing of value unless you secretly work for a factory farm and want to piss people off so they eat more meat, in which case you are doing exactly what you should be in this thread.

I mean, just because you care about only pain you can see and understand, doesn’t mean you have a leg to stand on argument-wise. Plants respond to warnings from their peers about dangers, brace for pain, and signal pain to others. You are factually and morally incorrect.

When allegiance becomes central to identity, simply acknowledging reality can feel like a personal defeat.

That one article, yes, but there are more. I trust you know how to use search, but: https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24473/20191218/a-group-of-scientists-suggest-that-plants-feel-pain.htm We’ve known for a while that trees do this, and fungi are notorious for this.

You, like many users on this thread are ignoring the evidence because you don’t like the outcome. You not understanding the pain does not mean no pain. Life for some means death for others. Period. You can not avoid it on a micro or macro scale, all you can do is change WHAT you kill.

Oh man, do I have some bad news for you…

Plants CAN feel pain.

You not understanding the pain or finding a way to measure the pain does not mean there is no pain.

It’s pretty common in Kickstarter circles to pledge a dollar to gain access to the pledge manager and decide if you actually want to make a purchase there.

I assume that’s what those people are doing?

Because the thing referred to as AI (which is definitely not AI) is simply strip mining the book to shit out “content.”

It is not reading, understanding, or learning from the book. It is using it to sell services for its masters.

An author should control their work. They should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to help big tech sell garbage to idiots.