@Jiro's banner p

Jiro


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 04:48:55 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 444

Jiro


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 04:48:55 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 444

Verified Email

The laws of physics require that to get fat, you have to eat. If you don't eat enough calories, you won't get fat. No amount of genetics can overcome physics.

Being fat is a choice, to the point where excluding it is an unprincipled exception.

Being charitable, let's consider

Being charitable to attackers is being uncharitable to their targets.

Don't "be charitable to" trolls.

Let me now go through his claims one by one.

I think you're being too charitable. "Unexceptional idea, therefore absurd idea" shouldn't count as having 50% of his claims right.

I'm not interested in going round and round with your whining about why I modded Suzy but I didn't mod Johnny.

There are some things that moderators should be doing regardless of whether they are interested in them or not.

It's like having a restaurant owner who's "not interested" in making sure his food is stored at the right temperature.

In all of these cases, there's the same belief that the Americans being mind-controlled lack their own agency and that an utterly trivial investment on the part of foreign actors can create a completely inorganic belief system within the United States.

They can change the relative size and influence of existing movements even if they can't create movements from scratch.

That's just a semantics question over what "bad" means. You can say "hurting someone in self-defense is always bad, but sometimes it is the best option" or you can say "hurting someone in self-defense is not bad" and you're really saying the same thing.

America does for instance have too much gun violence.

The optimal amount of any crime is non-zero, short of lizardman constant situations. This is true for gun violence as much as anything else.

Besides, since some gun violence is self-defense, the optimal amount of it isn't zero anyway.

Apparently people gave this 13 upvotes without reading the source. This is taken out of context. The switch is used because of the prohibition against the rules against using electricity on the Sabbath. Your insinuation that Jewish law lets it be used in bombs to kill without anyone being responsible is a lie.

Do you suggest that Israel use children as human shields, so that they can increase the number of Israeli children killed, in which case it would be proportional.

You're just penalizing Israel for being able to protect their own people.

This is Bulverism.

The magic steps in to turn Narnia from [decades of firsthand evidence] into something much less tangible and much easier to convince yourself to forget.

The stereotype is that atheists have good reason to believe in God, but reject him anyway.

To fit this stereotype, people can't magically forget Narnia--that eliminates the "have good reason to believe in" part.

I have personally seen myself inexplicably forget very substantial evidence for the existence of God.

I don't believe that you actually had very substantial evidence for God, though you may have thought you did.

since this does not seem to clearly violate any existing rules.

Low effort isn't a rule?

Also, if it doesn't violate any rules, but it's obviously something bad for the group, you should add it to the rules so that you can give out a warning next time someone does it.

That seems an odd claim to make in regard to a case in which a former President was found liable by a jury.

Why? The former president is the underdog here.

Is this original to themotte or is it quoted from somewhere?

I don't know, does he think that Israel is a death cult against Hamas's existence?

The algorithm was fine. You saying it's 'unintentional' is just you saying it because you don't feel good about it.

I'm saying it's unintentional because it's unintentional.

Same is true for 'conservatives'? What is your problem here with anything exactly?

"Not shown to people who want something else" doesn't apply. Many people do want conservative viewpoints.

There are more people who don't believe in the holocaust than there are American 'conservatives'.

Google is not aimed at Saudi Arabia or Iran.

The people looking up the holocaust and related stuff obviously clicked on it.

Because it was on top of Google. You are trying to justify putting it on top of Google by saying that people clicked on it, but people only clicked on it because it was on top of Google. That's circular reasoning.

It's not false. It's true.

Oh come on now. Holocaust deniers really are a tiny, tiny, minority. Conservatives aren't.

You decide truth for the holocaust and ban it.

No, the world does. Holocaust deniers are a tiny minority, and they state false things.

Progressives decide truth for 'conservatives' and ban it.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should pay no attention to truth because someone might think false things are true?

Doesn't the law that allows this to even get to a jury come from the judiciary? And the law specifically extended the statute of limitations to get Trump.

That reasoning would still apply for the KKK trying to attack someone in order to create anti-KKK backlash.

As a matter of historical fact, Jesus didn't rise from the dead either.

It may not have actually happened as shown in the movie, but people believe it happened. Which still disqualifies it from either being torture porn or from being treated the same way as intentional fiction.

It wasn't using a modhat, but how about this? (The part I was involved in)

Some dude wants to sell me his vote for an ice cream? That’s fine, he clearly wasn’t interested in it, and I am.

Laws affect third parties. Having the guy sell you his vote instead of not voting or voting randomly dilutes the vote of third parties. The third parties may be interested.

Also, poor people would end up all selling their votes and the resulting government would be bad for poor people.

Hanson is either trolling or socially clueless. "Gentle silent rape" implies that central examples of rape are gentle and silent.