Wow, appreciate the resources. Commenting to view this later...
JohnDoe
joined 1 year ago
I think that's fair.
Is the presumption that any confusion from labelling them as such is actually not anywhere near the value of like pointing out the alleged truthfulness which comes from the analogy made by labelling people in Israel as such?
Sorry for the direct language I have ASD, I'm just trying to understand what people mean usually but it's been told to me that it is rude or offensive so I apologize if that is the case.
They might be saying that they don't give the same weight to the kinds of information on 'the same news' perhaps because there's other stuff he's paying attention to. Idk, that sounds pretty reasonable to me. I think it's easy to say people at the top of the political pyramid don't value human lives the same as those at the base.
Yeah I figure that's the case :/
I don't quite understand, Satan is a contentious figure in Christianity (and maybe other Abrahamic religions? idk, not knowledgeable about it) and it's reasonable to be worried or concerned as an adult about what interests the youth might have. And it really seems the opposition is simply speaking platitudes. They haven't demonstrated 1. it is not a faith, and 2. it causes harm. The folks who are opposed surely can't have their preferred beliefs determine the beliefs of others in areas where it's clear there is not immediate harm.
It doesn't always line up perfectly to the cardinal directions and that confuses me :/
I think it's work that does the work, a tautology, I think using money as a proxy for work is a convenient hop and skip. When it comes down to a rigorous analysis (of the kind say a climate scientist does in a life-cycle assessment money is to vague a reason. What does it represent? Some amount of gold? Well, the US dollar is no longer pegged to gold à la Bretton Woods, how then does 'money talk'?
I was meaning to respond but I think other's have. I have one of those 30+ min YouTube videos or similarly ridiculously long blog posts (and a longform article somewhere...) though I think you might not be interested so I'll keep it to myself unless you are interested in a good faith argument (argument, root word is the latin argumentum, to make clear; prove), I would rather not waste your time or my breath if that isn't the case.
Fair, this might be a stylistic thing. I'll def try and see how it goes.
The rule of law in a specific geographic area in a specific period of time isn't nearly as important as the meaning conveyed which is misleading.
Rather than missing the forest for the trees, why might he push for the title of founder? Why might some discredit his efforts and tactics in assuming the founder of title in specific contexts?
He did not play a meaningful role in the beginning of the company and is not responsible for its success. Money was responsible, the two founders' expertise was responsible, that specific person is not special enough for their contribution to matter much. Anyone can supply capital especially during the inflated economic conditions (of which we are suffering the consequences of now) and during the time where EV and technology at large was developed enough to allow such developments to take place.
Yeah I think what I dislike about that is it breaks up the flow of whatever I am writing. There's a coherence that is lost.
I'm accustomed to reading books or essays where there might be an excerpt, but more likely a paraphrase of what the author considers their opponent's argument to be. This makes it helpful at times to pinpoint a misunderstanding in the author.
But yeah, having consistent rules on the internet for posting is a losing battle I think. More or less thinking out loud, appreciate the comment.
Been a while since I used lemmy. Yeah I don't remember what I meant, sorry.