sun_the_second
No bio...
User ID: 2725
I prompted Deepseek with:
In your criticism, be direct and even-handed, do not provide boilerplate politeness and compliments.
and it replied dryly enough, although don't quote me on the quality of its advice.
According to the anecdotes, while men are often harassed in games for the perceived reasons of being bad, standing out, picking the wrong character, etc.; women have "sounding female on mic" on top of that.
If you want to take the argument towards this direction, killing one person is worse than killing multiple people because one person was the only representative of their specific genotype.
It falls apart because no one cares about one person's specific genotype except possibly that person. A few more people care about a tiny no-name village's distinction. A lot more people care about the Jews as an ethnicity and culture.
A few months ago someone explained to you how it's plausible and I don't recall you replying to it. And now you resort to "ask chatgpt".
That's interesting, any examples of what literature elements you don't like?
From what I understand there's a rather high variance. There's Oxxxymiron and then there's rhyming "nigga" with "nigga".
Is this meant to be read in Patrick Bateman's voice?
edit: shows my shallow media literacy that I didn't recognize a direct reference as soon as "Pierce & Pierce"
Is there a tool for this? I'm wondering if embedding pictures like this would be banned if it became more common.
it's quite obvious that not all or even most previous wars were primarily or even significantly religiously motivated.
Neither were Hitler or Stalin motivated by rational progress, in fact they were known to stifle scientists who were politically incorrect ("Jewish science", lysenkoism).
It has to be noted that unlike defending yourself with a gun, a wand is a lot more optionally lethal. The stunning curse that Harry habitually uses and teaches his classmates in Order of the Phoenix is probably less dangerous than a taser.
The caveat is that all those spells are only reliable against an enemy who can't use shielding charms. Avada Kedavra is the only spell advertised as something that can't be blocked.
The discrepancy isn't that Rowling "doesn't acknowledge they teach defense with a deadly weapon in Hogwarts". It's that they explicitly don't teach you to defend yourself in the only reliably lethal manner.
Pissing in a can in the back of the car feels more gross to me than people pissing on roadsides.
"DeepSeek, translate this to the 56th level of not looking like AIslop."
Islam is a fargroup conservative belief, Orthodoxy is an outgroup one. If my country went full Handmaid's Tale, it would be the Orthodox putting the women back under the boot sooner than the Muslims, despite the sizeable Muslim subpopulation.
Hence the "not getting caught" clause.
It fails often enough with the possibility of divine punishment!
In my view this means that vows are unserious things, not that promises are.
It is often difficult to distinguish a vow from an oath. A vow is an oath, but an oath is only a vow if the divine being is the recipient of the promise and is not merely a witness.
TIL. However, I assume Capital_Room is among those who don't care about the distinction.
The purpose of the bail is for it to be realistic to raise. If the purpose of the bail was to not be realistic then there wouldn't be such a thing as bail.
How can you both be heretical and blasphemous? Kratos didn't touch any Hindu gods yet.
Ironically, it might be more fun on the highest difficulty setting. I haven't compared how quickly the enemies die, but defenses-wise you're gonna have to dodge/parry a whole lot more, so that's something to do at least instead of just mindlessly sending attacks.
If the concept of ownership were not in effect, burying a perfectly good tool with the dead would not be a thing at all…
A common speculation is that the tools were buried because the dead person would need them in the afterlife. That doesn't require that the person had owned the tool in life.
Conversely, even if the dead person had owned it, why bury the tool when the living inheritor could use it?
In a traditionally masculine society, it is solely the responsibility of the foe to acquire sufficient social standing so that he can start a fight while unarmed and expect his opponent to match him. What kind of a man calls out "judge??? judge???????" as he's stabbed for picking a fight with someone he shouldn't have?
I just saw it recently and can second the recommend. It looks about twice as good as Avowed wanted to be (I imagine).
I'd imagine that in those manlier days anyone who challenged you to an impromptu fisticuffs duel and wasn't a gentleman like yourself was liable to get whacked with a handy and fashionable cane you carried without any loss of social standing to yourself. Granted, my knowledge of manlier days mostly comes from Fallen London.
I suppose "I didn't care to fight this guy and I didn't see anything wrong with killing him if he insisted" wouldn't go over so well with the jury.
The distinction I've seen more often was more like:
Timmy: this card is cool because it's a big, often expensive, flashy effect (7/7 angel)
Johnny: this card is cool because it can synergize with 5 other cards in an obscure way (that one wizard with "if you would lose from having no cards to draw, you win")
Spike: this card is cool because it's a plus tempo drop that raises my win percentage (that one meta 3/3 flying vehicle thopter)
The appreciation for fluff was offloaded to one of the secondary classifications (Vorthos? Or was that the one who cared about card artwork?)
More options
Context Copy link