I understand your point, and agree when it comes to programming with things like scope, typing, semicolons, etc, etc… Many concepts are easier to learn when enforced through syntax.
Though if someone gets cofused on the transitive nature of multiplication with a single simple equation … They aren’t learning math.
Attraction is not a choice, but if your reaction to cognitive dissonance is to get angry at someone wearing clothing, that is a YOU problem.
Yes, lots of people have problems with this. That does not make it acceptable. Again, attraction is not a choice, but you do not have to hump their leg.
I hear those excuses all the time from rapists. “I was attracted!”, “look what she was wearing!” Know what you defend when you say people cannot control their attraction: That’s EXACTLY what a lot of rapists say.
People SHOULD be able to control their attraction, at least enough to be a civil person. Being a rude piece of shit over clothing is very much ALSO not being a civil person. Things don’t have to get violent for them to still be wrong.
At least to more directly answer your question: I absolutely despise gendered style. You’d imagine access to the loins would be universal, but noooo, of course the more common target of desire gets the short end of the stick…
Humans are still disgustingly simple beings. That’s genuinely how I feel about your question.
It constantly astounds me that people somehow do not understand the concept of introspection.
The “why” is more important than the “what”. Always. Killing a man is cold blooded murder in one context, and saving your entire family in another. Thoughts are the same. If you don’t know why you are correct, you are far less likely to be correct on a less obvious question.
I swear, these are the people that hear a Trolley Problem and only start asking questions to see if they can get you to agree with killing more than the other track…
Not if I turn it off because I don’t want my phone analyzing everything I do. I don’t need a spy in my pocket. Especially true for voice assistants.
I type better than the fucking autocorrect corrects anyways, so I’ll take typos that are easy to spot over “corrected” words that are grammatically wrong and harder to spot every time.
Hmm, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a movie in theaters, let alone a hidden gem or grossly misadvertised one. I try to avoid ads like the plague.
The only recentish thing that comes to mind is Barbarian, but I don’t think I even saw an ad for it. Not one I paid attention to. Just went randomly, it was not as expected, and we had fun not taking it too seriously anyways, which seems appropriate for that movie.
Others elsewhere in the convo are making some banger recommends, though.
Yes, but such a universe is still fundamentally incompatible with Christian (and most other) religious teachings.
There would be absolutely NO point in praying or asking for help in a universe with absolute free will, yet that is exactly what Christians (and many others) teach. It shows up all over in how they treat others and civil policy.
It’s why they’re so pro punishment: You make a choice to do bad things, you had free will to choose not to, so you must be bad. It’s not completely broken logic that they use, but it is absolutely not a self-consistent set of rules.
Logic requires cause and effect. If you break cause and effect, logic means nothing.
If you keep logic, then again: Paradoxes don’t actually exist. At the end of the day, something is true or it’s not. If you’re dealing with something both true and not true, you are literally and quite directly dealing with something unresolved. We fundamentally do not observe unresolved things.
It is conceptually, definitionally, not compatible with observed reality. “Observed reality” literally cannot reference such things. The question itself is nothing but a thought experiment that far too many people fail to execute.
Your analogy is a little broken. God wouldn’t be simply telling you not to. God is literally changing what you want to do, or any other number of “omnipotent” actions that are not possible by someone not omnipotent.
The concept itself is incompatible with reality that operates like ours. Ours has clear, obvious, demonstrable, and repeatable rules. If those rules change, we literally cannot tell.
Omnipotence is quite literally a pointless point when there is literally NOTHING that demonstrates power beyond the existing rules. There is literally nothing that breaks causality in our reality. Our reality and existence is quite literally incompatible with omnipotence as described in the bible.
Note: They ALREADY HAVE YOUR DATA in this scenario. You’re like the fucking stupid soldier who wants to go back out there while they’re currently bleeding out… You’ve already lost by the point we’re talking about. They have your email. They have your interests. You’ve already visited their site and gotten their cookies to sign up…
If you even remotely want to see the email, they’re already tracking you far, FAR more than they’d be able to with email. Click on a link in there? Congratulations: It DOESN’T MATTER what’s in the email at that point. You’re back in their entire environment and you’ve signaled email helped get you there. Regardless of what was in the email.
You’re complaining about someone stealing food from your fridge and conveniently ignoring that they have to have access to your house to even try it in the first place…
“They don’t use their own service” is not the same as, “this is evidence they do in fact track via email.”
What you don’t seem to realize is, the signup ITSELF is the data they want, and click through rates. You being on a mailing list is already ample tracking compared to what most people are bitching about… You’re GIVING them the info, then whining about them having it…
They wish (lemmy.ml)
The more you know (lemmy.today)
Skirts are breezy and comfortable. Fuck off. (lemmy.world)
Are you trying to STEAL entertainment?? (startrek.website)
I know You! (lemmy.world)
The slow decline isn't slow anymore (lemmy.world)
Think we should intervene? (sopuli.xyz)
The problem solver [workchronicles] (startrek.website)