Youtube comments of George Albany (@Spartan322).

  1. Which ironically is caused by the policies that Shoe still supports, the more the government gets involved in economics the worse the economy gets, but Shoe still doesn't understand that.
    533
  2. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK
    517
  3.  @michaeldavid6832  Honestly if I was a lord in the UK, I would definitely start breeding loyalty in my locality and build a network of militias, but I guess that's what separates British lords from any reasonable person.
    234
  4. Gotta agree with the other guys here, there is no reason to make vim, or to expect another text editor, to do this, it would've been just as easy (probably even easier tbh because I could just hardcode it without marcos) to script this behavior. This is peak over-engineering a problem tbh.
    189
  5. My favorite thing about Keynes is the fact that he's supposed to be the ultra great economist but yet somehow he made just exactly the right decisions to nearly bankrupt himself and tank all his fortunes twice with two completely opposite predictions regarding the German economy. And people still believed he was right about economics and especially of the German economy.
    182
  6. Damn, that face when a libertarian is more hardline on abortion then majority of conservative Christians, calls it murder like it is. He's so right.
    155
  7. I respect Valve's attempt to never install a a rootkit anti-cheat, though I argue they should stop banning people for cheating and instead segregate them from the community, and encourage the cheaters to stick around so they can better track the cheaters from the serverside.
    145
  8. Ah the classic toxic dev problem, probonopd really should be punished by being outed from his own project, either via a fork that everyone rushes over to or by core contributors pushing him to step down, when a dev screws up as much as someone like probonopd, he really needs to be pushed out of the project, specifically when he is intentionally screwing over everyone else simply because he doesn't like them and their tools, even when it cost him no maintenance time and would reduce bug complaints. Literally his own worst enemy.
    142
  9. I was banned from their discord years ago for having a discord bio that said "gender is biologically determined, 'he' is linguistically neutral", never said anything of this in chat, it was purely part of my bio I was told to leave, change my bio, or be banned, the discord has long been a 24/7 rainbow month.
    136
  10. This is why either I'd never start the community around my work or I'd be hyper-strict and ignore everyone else in regards to my work, maybe get some friends I trust to help moderate with clear cut "silence the stupid" rules if an issue on the subject comes up to often.
    133
  11. The HRE wasn't all that dysfunctional, it protected the small and micro "states" within its "borders" for a millennia and outside of inheritance and person unions, it kept much of the "empire" from being annexed while retaining a massive amount of autonomy. It most especially assisted in the prevention of France, Poland, Russia, and the Ottomans from dominating central Europe until Napoleon came about. And Napoleon won almost every fight he was in and yet the HRE itself still gave him numerous amounts of trouble before the Habsburg Empire was proclaimed. The fact a mostly theoretical political entity lasted for so long and was so effective for so long at protecting its rather non-existent borders is a testament to the strength and quality of the HRE. Even beyond such it was the first entity in the world to protect religious freedom, an unheard of tradition to be found in the rest of the world up until the late 1700s, (and it did this by the 1500s) granted that was after a bunch of religious wars, but the fact that it happened in the HRE and not in Russia, Poland, France, Spain, or the Ottoman Empire is a testament to how advanced the concept of the HRE really was. (I am aware Poland/PLC and Ottomans had some forms of tolerance, but that was nothing compared to the tolerance of a religious peace found in the HRE, its quite a unique case in history)
    133
  12. He cared enough to at least stand up to a stereotype in the show, which at least shows some devotion to the fans even if its not him specifically showing outright love, its a form of consideration, he could've been successful without doing that and instead it costed him the only potential success he had left going for him.
    124
  13.  @nonamedpleb  He tweeted for them to not be violent and to not go in and was silenced by twitter before he could, who was also collaborating with the FBI and CIA at the time. Sort of sounds like entrapment to me.
    119
  14.  @aaronsondag8347  The issue with that thinking though is that just because the brick is stronger under tension doesn't mean its more suitable for the job, being efficient is all about focusing the maximum amount of necessary effort for the most effective completion of a job in specialized and particular ways. A better tensile strength for a brick doesn't mean it lasts longer or is more efficient. This is how you save money and get the most effect, now if you could demonstrate that these mass produced cheaper bricks serve worse for their specific function that would justify the increased cost, then sure, but until you do economics is against you.
    118
  15. It also reduces the forces transferred to your body when you hit a hard surface.
    109
  16. Comparing it to the past isn't really the point and that is more of a logical fallacy tbh, just because we're not as bad as we were doesn't mean we're in a good place, and that doesn't address the fact that people still make abusive bloat and abuse of bloat.
    101
  17. "Women can do anything a man can do" women throws moly, hits their feet, burns only feminazi rioters Ah yes, I too believe in egalitarian manslaughter rates. (inb4 gets rioters over not being "personslaughter")
    99
  18. Once again Linus' rants are entirely and wholly correct, even if he is a bit hostile fact is that folks really should actually listen to Linus even more then they already do, he rarely ever says something, especially of project management or FOSS in general, that is wrong, and when he does its usually only in technicalities.
    87
  19. 75% of the time the problem is also just straight up gnome, perhaps it be better if they simply had less influence over wayland in general given they straight up don't actually care about supporting it so long as they disagree with it.
    85
  20. And us modern people constantly forget that ancient peoples did brush their teeth, like you don't need toothpaste to have clean and healthy teeth either.
    79
  21. This is one of the biggest continual issues on Linux, violating backwards compatibility, like most distros are better then Apple, but the fact that every few years someone feels the need to break userspace over and over and then 9 times out of 10 they stubbornly refuse to correct the issue themselves (requiring a patch at least to correct it) is a big contributor to why Linux has such a hard time picking up marketshare, it makes the kernel, and by extension the distros and the things we all rely on said distros, appear (and I would say it would outright just make it) extremely unstable in just the right ways that nobody can correct it.
    79
  22. One of my favorite things was how Queen Victoria called feminism one of the most toxic things that could be done to women.
    76
  23.  @ImTitan16  No in a three way race, aggregate polls between Trump, Biden, and RFK gives Trump a wider victory, that suggests that social "liberals" prefer RFK to Biden overwhelmingly while nearly none of the Trump voters consider RFK a decent candidate.
    68
  24. Simple reason why I find Adam's side much more credible when Tim and Adam's accounts diverge is because Adam readily admits multiple times about him screwing up, going overboard, or otherwise actually feeling remorseful for things he did which he wasn't so sure it was justified while Tim shows no remorse and does not admit to doing much of anything wrong and goes on to justify his actions without any self-reflection whatsoever. He never even says "Yeah maybe it was a bad choice on my part, maybe I did do something wrong, but that's in the past", he makes up excuse after excuse after excuse. If you have to excuse yourself so often for clearly wrong choices, especially when you don't understand the value the other side has long been bringing, like seriously Tim has such an ego for which he then tries to excuse on others and claims he didn't have ultimate control over every circumstance regarding the business, like when an accountant starts saying someone makes too much money on a fractional percentage cut only they receive well below half that makes absolutely no sense and Tim should've easily been able to question if he cared. No Tim keeps trying to excuse his actions especially onto other people, Adam multiple times doesn't excuse his actions onto anyone else and explains the reasoning for his actions without trying to redirect the blame.
    67
  25. It probably has to do with the fact that they're more independent thinkers and don't fall in line all that well, might also have to do with them having some more of the masculine traits that make them more disagreeable and more critical of stupidity.
    65
  26. Three times, one time in English, one time in French, and again in English because she was speaking French.
    64
  27.  @AviRox1154  The Mass Effect Trilogy (especially ME2) had some of the best RPG lines, the writers absolutely nailed being a badass in so many cases.
    63
  28. I used to use Manjaro and its insane how often I suffered from dependency breakages because the package stuff, it was like every week I had to actively manage my packages cause they just kept breaking, once you get to a certain point on Manjaro you can't do anything without the AUR and once you do go into the AUR, your entire system will break and literally nothing will work right, (or even without it, it might just break anyway, I've had many types of non-sense problems no one knew how to fix that only went away once I got off of Manjaro) the Manjaro mentality, alongside utter incompetence, outright violates Arch and as a result routinely will break your system and introduce bugs. (and that's before you consider the non-merged PRs getting merged into the Manjaro packages) As a result of all the suffering Manjaro put me through I actively hate it as a distro.
    63
  29. Asmon gives the woke cult way too much credit on not being evil and manipulative. The reason they write these characters is explicitly to shove it down your throat and insult you if you disagree.
    60
  30. She's not doing it to provoke him, she's too voluntarily psychotic to realize what she's doing and has no moral stance on her behavior.
    58
  31. Really makes you think how common it is for cartoonish foolishness to be so common among people of all walks, so much so that it starts to seem less cartoonish and more realistic when someone actually does such a foolish act in flippant disregard to existing consequential demonstrations.
    58
  32. I had a stroke reading the source and logs being in that abomination style.
    55
  33. I'm not so sure Drake is as guilty as he's being made out to be, only one part of it was proven in court, and even that is so tame its not worth being cancelled over, and its not his fault if the girl doesn't disclose her actual age, its not the most upstanding thing but it shouldn't be something to cancel someone over.
    51
  34. It does kinda also depend on how the statistic itself is scaled and what it specifically is measured in comparison to, its neither inherently wrong or right, without the input data its impossible to know.
    49
  35. Given Proton is already open source right now, and there are forks that take it even further, and its being used for another FOSS OS project being the ReactOS (yes its mostly WINE, but Proton contributions seem to be assisting it) Proton is basically guaranteed to stay FOSS.
    47
  36. That would explain why its rules for thee but not for me in both cases.
    46
  37. The writers were likely also unconscious of this decision either, (at least originally) and may not have even intended it but it works narratively. (they may have noticed it later in development too and ended up attributing to really useful coincidence, whether it was actually intentional at all is up to its own debate)
    45
  38. That doesn't prove anything, he knows most people won't, and saying that just as easily convinces people to agree with him. Its not an argument that either confirms or denies his position.
    45
  39. Women in the workforce have also provably driven down wages, so not only have they risen the operating costs of businesses, and even worse is that none of this even fixes the issue of women being abused in the marketplace and dressing themselves up to falsely attract men giving most men they run into the wrong impression of what they're doing. (or at minimum giving them the wrong conscious impression, subconsciously many are almost certainly doing it for a reason) There's also plenty of polygamous hypergamists who are screwed in this system by their inability to control themselves.
    43
  40.  @differentlyabledmuslimjewi4475  The incel that could actually take a hit.
    43
  41. Seems the University is giving free license for their students to compromise all their tech, not just grades and records, but even the research and development projects, unless they're hypocrites, which suggests instead they had malicious intent.
    43
  42. The thing that always bugs me about pointers in C++ isn't complexity or their memory side effects, but the symbols, I know what everything does, but I always confuse the symbols because & has at least 3 different functions as a singular symbol depending on where you put it (bitwise AND, make a variable a type reference, or a get reference operation) as does * (multiply, make a variable a type pointer, or a dereference operation) and it makes reading the code for me a super pain in the ass. I'm totally comfortable with pointers, I just hate the syntax for them.
    42
  43.  @floramay7007  Reactionaries aren't usually the ones to vote for socialist matriarchy. That's almost exclusively urbanites.
    41
  44. Rust often feels like Soviet Imperialism too, no questioning the great leader type deal, constant purity tests, struggle sessions. The Rust Foundation trying to sue people in violation of the American Constitution pretty clearly demonstrates who its actually aligned with.
    41
  45. Other acceptable answers: "Yo dawg this is Detroit" "Surprisingly I've not been directly shot at in Chicago yet"
    40
  46. In fact its taught in Scriptural that hatred of any being is itself sinful, that includes the self, what is the second most important commandment Jesus paraphrases in Mark 12:31? "Love thy neighbor as yourself", ergo you have to show love to yourself to also love thy neighbor. I think TIK also confuses the fact that the references he pulls are not the same definition of hate as he refers to in his altruistic definition.
    40
  47. Unless Microsoft somehow pys-oped Linus Torvalds, the problem has really been that the lack of gatekeeping against the people who wanted to bring woke ideology in.
    39
  48.  @KrMaHo  The Scandinavian economies are demonstrably failing, Sweden is becoming poor and unemployment and crime is rising, Denmark and Norway are stagnating and lack market competition.
    39
  49. Well to be fair, there are no hills in the area of philly.
    39
  50.  @nootboot9744  Actually it is the right of the citizens to represent the militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so yes he does have a right to defend people, the doctrine of self-defense means defense of the innocent against the wicked as well, (the list of self-defense goes self, family/friends, community, locality, region, nation in that order, so long as you don't start violence you have a right to finish it) its not escalation when you didn't start anything, truly to remove the escalation you must exterminate the problem, that's not escalation, that's finishing the fight. And if the rioters only escalate because they feel invincible because they're undisciplined children, you punish them for their crimes, adhere to justice, and destroy the wicked, and you erase their fear of justice, they can no longer make others fear for their life, we have not only a right, but an obligation to do this.
    39
  51. ALL HAIL THE MAGIC CONCH!
    38
  52. And despite everything, and I don't honestly think The Flash was all the bad, (not great but not really terrible) it wouldn't make any sense for Keaton's Batman to have an arc, the entire point of his role in the film would've been completely ruined if he did have an arc. And even if this was really good, I don't think there is any manner for which Keaton's Batman would've made sense having an arc and not hurting the film.
    37
  53. Wouldn't much trust em in that case either chief, FBI does have the biggest database of CP in the world and they routinely ignore massive abuses by anyone with any significant power and there are plenty of FBI folks that aren't working there to stop serious crimes.
    37
  54. Wisconsin has firearm ownership of rifles and shotguns as an exemption for 15 and up, so he might be able to get off scot-free.
    37
  55. As someone running a functionally anti-political FOSS project, it became denigrated as "fascist" simply because it took an anti-ideology position, probably doesn't help that majority of the community is actually right leaning anyway though.
    37
  56.  @monsterhunter445  Common tropes tend to be true, while its not a nice thing, its a risked reduction which is what matters the most. (not to mention if there are not localized Chinese people beforehand, there is very little justification to expect them to come to any specific university that could have compromised systems)
    36
  57.  @motan7864  That claim and logic doesn't work for this.
    36
  58. I can bet you if I go to a government building, advertise myself as a legit printer, I could absolutely exploit this to get sensitive information, this is a case where there is no possible way to distinguish a legit printer from a malicious fake printer and all it needs is one person to execute the thing on the network and I will have capacity to pwn the network.
    36
  59. Simple solution: Sanctuary city? No federal money. They'll change their tune really quick.
    35
  60.  @devins9894  Depends on how often the false positives happen, given the threshold for the indicator urgency protocol and the general disregard for the early warning, that rather suggests that the issue isn't with the pilots being lackadaisical so much as that the Osprey's chip indicator has a notably flawed implementation. Course there is also the question of whether the higher risk of military aircraft reduces the threshold in general by nature of the more risky objectives they partake in alongside a more hostile environment. But given that early so considered false positives may in fact not be false positives in what should be a very normal environment, I would suggest that indicates that normal environment false positives are too common or the procedure itself was too relaxed on the warning signs. So it depends.
    35
  61.  @link1565V2  If you want to use a browser or games, you don't need to even touch the command line tho, if you're just doing normie crap, you can jump on almost any major distro and never need to use the terminal, the reason you do it is because its faster, better at reporting errors, better at defining specific behavior, and is often cleaner to work with, but normies don't care about those, and the applications that require you to use it beyond that are not something a normie will ever think about. In using xfce on Manjaro, it was stupid easy to use the application manager installed, which is worse then the one on Mint or Ubuntu.
    35
  62.  @BaldBlokeOnABoat  They knew because they had a calculated point at which human survivability from radiation poisoning was unlikely or impossible, they knew the risks and the numbers, and they ignored them anyway, killing and harming themselves.
    34
  63. Criminals and creeps tend to hide their evil acts by claims of deconstruction, its a very common tactic in Hollywood, and 90% of all deconstruction media does this.
    34
  64. Rust is the definition of reddit trashware, anyone who knows what the Rust Foundation did knows why reddit is the perfect place for Rust to stay.
    32
  65.  @edinalewis4704  They really don't, for example healthcare and welfare managed by the government across the world actually produce lower quality healthcare with longer wait times, Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK all have these problems, like at least they get lower cost but the lack of competition ensures that the quality will remain low. Their economies, and especially their younger generations, also are suffering the same as in the US, unemployment across the world is rising and economic prosperity has been decreasing for all the nations who adopted such policies.
    32
  66. 22:21 "They're not even banned in the Bible" Romans 1:26, the Greek words used by Paul would be explicit prohibition on the practice of lesbianism in Scripture. That being aside from the fact it repeatedly states that the violation of one man with one woman unified in one flesh is abomination. Paul actually goes over this principal numerous times.
    32
  67.  @vanderwallstronghold8905  No, for man-made religions its all about works and feeling, with God such things are worthless. "For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" - 1 Corinthians 4:7 For it is not by our relationship that we are saved but by faith. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1 No idols are to be made before God, no making ourselves look better before man for it is not man we seek to please but God, but all of man's religions do such things. "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." - Galatians 1:10 "Instead, we speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, not in order to please men but God, who examines our hearts." - 1 Thessalonians 2:4 We set ourselves before Christ as our savior not that we wish to be saved but knowing we are saved for we already know nothing could save us, no works and no morals, but only through Christ's sacrifice. It is in realizing we are worthless before God but that we have been redeemed out of love and mercy despite such. "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." - 1 John 5:13 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9 "But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8 "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6 "The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood." - John 7:18 "Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life," - Psalm 49:7 We are required to die for the sake of Christ. We are to die for Christ from inception of being born again, for we carry our cross and lay it down before Him. In this we submit before Christ. "Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." - John 12:25 "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." - Galatians 2:20 Religion does not promote this, its traditions speak nothing to Christ, to Truth, to Righteousness, to Authority, to Justice, to Mercy, and to Love all simultaneously. Only in Christ is the demand for such things capable. In all the others they create idols and worship this Earth, whether it be themselves, the creatures below, those on land, those of the sky, or even those that reside in the heavens. But with God there are no idols for they are despised, they are burned and destroyed, temples set to ruin. Man's religions set such things, but under God such things are now left to ruin.
    31
  68. These are the type of responses that piss me off when I see it on SO, I've seen multiple questions get closed because someone asked for a specific answer that to some random jackasses happened to be "inefficient" or "outdated" without regard for individual needs.
    31
  69. There is six things God hates, and the spilling of innocent blood is one of them. (Proverbs 6) God demands that all murderers be executed on the account of two to three witnesses. (Leviticus 24:17, Exodus 21:12, Genesis 9:6, Numbers @-31, Deuteronomy 19:15)
    31
  70. Lunduke: Say my name Mint: <violates forum rules>
    30
  71. Its quite interesting to note that the traditionalists and most especially the Christian natalism were entirely correct.
    29
  72. tbf, a deep wound can, based on the individual, stop being painful or not feel painful at all for a long while especially if the nerves were hit. There is also the possibility of shock that prevents you from feeling pain, but usually that also mentally disables you.
    29
  73.  @berilsevvalbekret772  There's a limit to that and most lords understood their position and weren't willing to abuse their power and contracts, you have to consider the amount of lords that existed compared to the amount of revolts and you'd notice how uncommon it was for your average lord to so anger his subjects that they'd be willing to revolt. Its similar to today in many cases, do most people revolt (peaceably or not) over slightly subpar work environments? Not really, only when you see exceptional cases of decrepit workplaces does that happen, usually when they have a way too much central power over too wide a swath that you start to see corruption and the allowance for more wicked actions for which people generally revolt over. Same happened in serfdom and feudal cases, a lord with a relatively small amount of serfs did not have much power and was incapable to just abuse them because they could go so far as to revolt and easily win, but a lord with a rather large amount of serfs would have a lot of power and over time would be more likely to become corrupt and abuse some serfs, which may cause revolts but wouldn't always result in a successful revolt.
    29
  74. Seems to be something many democrats and leftists have in common, perhaps that's why they turn them into martyrs.
    28
  75. Especially when all of them just copy TS and Swift syntax instead. The readability of these languages pisses me off because nothing is flush and information is never compact.
    28
  76. Rust is probably the most toxic developmental community I've ever seen, I don't think I've ever experienced a worse set of human beings who all associate with each other personally in my life.
    28
  77. in the original fariy tales and stories, it was "mirror mirror," but the Disney movie its "magic mirror," this is probably the biggest reason people confuse it.
    27
  78. Sounds like they're becoming a beacon of light in the west.
    27
  79. Unfortunately SCOTUS also legitimized a federal red flag law as well.
    26
  80. More like this aged like debian
    26
  81. Man that sucks, its awesome that you're aware and resisting it though, honestly the amount of women I know that don't even think about the pressures pushing their actions is depressing cause its murdering us all, lot of dudes I know fall into much a similar trap, (but that's probably because they're being feminized) I'd say that makes you quite a rare gem among even the dudes.
    26
  82. Hell Yeah, as a Calvinist I know what those who preach the prosperity gospel are described so far as even demonic, for the powers of psychology, the ways of men, are described as demonic. Those charismatic "preachers" are indistinguishable from the moneychangers Jesus overthrew in the Temple. "The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken." - John 2:13-22
    26
  83. That's cope, Rust fanbois are some of the worst types of community for a programming language I've ever seen, they go around trying to spread the gospel of the crab and as a developer it is annoying and I despise them purely for their insistence that everything must be Rust. C elitists don't even compare to the vitriol I've dealt with just telling the Rust guys to leave us alone.
    26
  84. Especially C++20, concepts absolutely fix the template problems way too well,, shame that modules still don't work properly on any compilers though.
    26
  85. My issue with a lot of the pronoun weirdos is more that they cause fusses like this, they're a lot like vegans, belligerent and obsessed over it, can't shutup about it, and you have to walk on eggshells just to deal with them, everything sets them off and you can't have any fun around them because they'll blow up like they have bipolar. (and I have family with that illness, the comparison is fairly apt) I'm not surprised that a random joke blew up into "hyprland is toxic" type of crap where the pronoun folks try to excise vaxry for something innocuous, I have an even more flippant disregard for it because of religious convictions and I already have a joke on my discord profile where the pronouns thing is that says "are biologically determined" thus when you highlight my "pronouns" it says "pronouns are biologically determined", I've gotten quasi-banned from FOSS project communities for things like that, but I don't care, I still use the software despite that. And no I did not harass anyone, (I never even brought it up there) I was told by leadership in these cases that my profile "may trigger" someone and they told me to change it or leave which I did the latter amicably, hence why I say "quasi-banned" and not actually banned.
    25
  86. Its also moving their ideology towards small government and better economics, the exact opposite of what Shoe wants because she's still a white woman at heart.
    25
  87. Also Wonder Woman is one of the three biggest members of the Justice League that will take people's lives without remorse as she deems fit and has done so repeatedly
    25
  88. That doesn't help much, that's kinda throwing yourself under the bus just so they can't do it, kinda just shooting yourself in the foot there.
    25
  89. There is a reason honor thy father and mother is so important.
    25
  90. I would disagree on the basis that Latin America lacks the capability to support a productive economic society and still relies on aristocratic designs lacking a functional aristocracy, it operates more like Russia, except way less organized, and nobody considers Russia as part of the Western world, culture does not define being a westerner, seems a lot of people here have been misunderstanding that, when we refer to a western nation, its not about where they derive their culture from, if it did, France, Britain, Australia, the US, Canada, and Spain don't share anything that compares a common culture or society which means they lack a distinct capability to be considered western if you use that metric to measure any specific one. But they do share a common basic principle of economic and socio-political designs which derive from a western manner of thought, for which Latin America has never picked up on, and for which nations like China and Russia have also never picked up on, you could debatably consider Japan and Korea sometimes in that sphere, however because their economic and socio-political designs derive power still from a illusionary autocracy and independence in society isn't considered a public virtue, that puts them on a strange rich and non-corrupt version of autocracy.
    25
  91.  @liamnehren1054  Nope, in fact before the US had such regulations (in either the states or the federal government) there was no contiguous monopolies in the US, the railroad and steel companies only got away with what they did before the federal regulation because of state regulations barring competition in the state and across state lines but socialists don't like addressing that issue because everything must be reductive. (they barred the ability to buy land in the states [not usually territories] without approval by the state which went through such company lobbies) The steel and railroad companies lobbied the states for those laws and eventually the successors to those trusts and monopolies lobbied the laws into the US Congress, you'll also notice numerous banksters and rich "philanthropists" like Carnegie and Rockefeller (who were operating monopolies and trusts) that actually lobbied directly for those type of laws in the 1910s. Also the US has more corporate regulations then Japan and Norway so that clearly isn't the issue.
    24
  92.  @hj2479  Are you taking into account the land access developed and its resulting profit (or even pure profit) as a result of the Louisiana purchase? Do remember that without the Louisiana purchase the US also doesn't get any of the West Coast, least without a fight (and the ones boxing the US in isn't Mexico in the 1840s, they're still needing to challenge France and Great Britain if they want to expand westward without the purchase) and there are more then 2 nations that will be on its border who are weak.
    24
  93.  @Michael-Archonaeus  Its not conflicting instruction if you understand how Ancient Hebrew works, the Bible is not an English book, its a Koine Greek book written by Ancient Hebrews, in that day rabbis would use metaphors and hyperbole to get a point across, Jesus is not saying you must hate yourself, He is saying that your love of God must in comparison to the love of anything else be like hatred, that should it be compared it is so far as to appear as hatred, (or that it is so far away that the closer comparison would be hatred) not to hate yourself, it is a statement on how devoted your love must be for God, that's what it says in the Koine Greek and if you understood how all Ancient Hebrew rabbis taught lessons going back to the 4th century BC. (this same phrasing is taught in the Book of Sirach, a 3rd century BC Ancient Hebrew book of liturgy) Its a culturally specifically and contextual outlook, as Jesus was the epitome of the Ancient Hebrew rabbi, and those He spoke to would understand this outlook, and we know this by the teachings going into the 3rd century AD where this was the received interpretation of the text and the common liturgy teaching, and it is taught by all the Apostles.
    24
  94.  @whitewizard7514  It ain't even all that good, its only slight more right of Trump's agenda.
    24
  95. Lot of people forget that C++ is second to none with performance against safety, its safety is opt-in but heavily advised while being a trivial interop with C, I don't see anything supplanting that functionality for the simple fact that C++ provides something that literally does not exist anywhere else.
    24
  96.  @Cowboycomando54 damn so close...
    23
  97.  @JayneDoeAFK  Anyone who says Trump was saying anything "bad" is a fool, Trump never advocated for violence nor called his opposition worthy of violence, Biden, Harris, and the entire Democratic leadership have repeatedly. (What do you think calling someone a Nazi, alt-right, and advocating to "punch Nazis" does?) Its a stupid strawman.
    23
  98.  @thorpilgrim1866  You give consent by posting the image, if you don't like people using and modifying an image of you, don't post images of yourself, its pretty damn simple.
    23
  99.  @daindigokid  First off you don't call your movement Black Lives Matter unless you believe that's controversial, the only way of which it could be is if you believed everyone else thought they didn't. That is the first Marxist lie. Nobody ever believed that when it was started and there was no goddamn reason to do that, Darren was a fool and even back then he based half the things he did on a lie he never fact checked. He was a ploy from the start.
    23
  100. Nobody cares about another kernel, also still lacks ABI stability so it'll never get POSIX support and it can't support a Unix kernel. Its not even a potential thing, it is theoretically impossible for it as in accordance with Rust language developers and designers, Rust was not really developed with a consideration for the real world and its not the only systems programming language that carries its protections without a GC, its just the one with the most ravenous and easily offended fanbase.
    23
  101. Majority of the founding fathers were opposed to slavery, even the ones that held slaves, and generally the ones that did weren't happy at it, some of them were actually legally stuck with the slaves they had and weren't legally allowed to free them. In the least most of them were proto-abolitionists.
    23
  102.  @nullid1492  Its also not ABI stable so it doesn't actually have capability to support POSIX kernels and can't support a Unix kernel in the theoretical sense.
    23
  103. Yeah, a life sentence isn't all that different from a capital punishment, give or take a few decades.
    23
  104. The one thing about history we know is true is nobody actually bothers to remember history until history is made, and only then does anyone remember the new history until it is subsequently forgotten to happen again.
    22
  105. If they weren't supported by the government, they would be smashed by the market, they are provided for and have no reliance on the market, monopolies exist when market reliance is removed from the equation, which only happens when a monopoly is standing somewhere behind those in the "market" in this case that being the government. The government pays money into corporations for which they are guaranteed to have or keep, and they receive many provisions to keep them where they are. Remove government intervention from the equation and you'll find a lot of competition pop up out of nowhere and the monopolies will quickly collapse.
    22
  106. Under BRIDGE social impact, yeah.
    22
  107. Ban is pretty justified, if you start trying to break into my house without me asking, and you never tell me, if I kill you thinking you're a danger to my family, you get what you deserve, if you lived I would probably desire something like a restraining order for such behavior, there is no way you can be trusted at that point. (and just because, within the realms of this analogy, you'd found out that my windows happen to never be locked doesn't justify you opening them and sneaking around in my house)
    22
  108. Exactly.
    22
  109. As a Christian Nationalist in keeping with what Doug Wilson teaches, James Lindsay has absolutely lost his mind, he never actually left the university.
    22
  110.  @clarentbloodarthur  Hasan was literally malding, that's how Asmon saw this.
    22
  111. The reason immigration is a problem in most countries has exclusively to do with the welfare state, migrant privileges, and the special refugee status which ensures you'll never assimilate because if you do you lose most of these privileges. You remove these elements and migration problems immediately would cease.
    21
  112.  @justanotherhumanuser3145  Those are common economic distinction policy terms for welfare states, there's no policy, patriarchal welfare, and matriarchal welfare, patriarchal welfare operates on the premise of pushing members to not need it in time, matriarchal welfare is the classic safety net where it believes everyone must be provided for inherently, it does not encourage people to get off of it. These terms are based on the common behaviors of the mother and father, where mothers often will discourage their children from being independent and instead rely on them whereas father's often push and force the children to act and live independent of them. If you don't like the term, I didn't make it up, its already common use in the field. (and its been that way since the 1800s)
    21
  113.  @kjhuang  "If you have an economic system where the top 1 percent has most of the power, the top 1 percent will get most of the benefits." That's irrelevant to economics and also not true. Also who cares if they "reap the most benefits" if everyone reaps more benefits, that's called envy and its a sin in most religions. You just want what other people have. "government-created Internet." That's a fallacious argument, aside from its false, as DARPA only developed a general initial concept of network principals and no part of the government had any hand in the development of the necessary standards to enable national and global access to the internet, being anti-government does not mean I do won't take advantage of what exists. The internet could've developed and existed without governments, that doesn't mean I throw everything that happened from governments out with the bath water, it doesn't mean I can't principally use the government developed things, those are completely irrelevant claims and thus is a fallacy. Of course the socialist tries to argue against economics using fallacies and falsehoods.
    21
  114. @John F "I only accept the advice of the immortals"
    21
  115. Most people that complain about security problems don't actually understand security in my experience, granted I'm not great with it either, but there are people I know personally who do know security because they work in high risk engineering environments, (like aeronautics and defense) they still use C and C++, most of them preferred C++, and I've been told a few times they'll never switch to something like Rust. Its quite likely the Rust developers don't actually understand security either and haven't actually worked in a field where security is vital. When the US government starts imposing something technical, its usually because it completely misunderstood the problem and developed the worst fix possible to said problem. They do it repeatedly in defense contracting and I know of people who've directly suffered and died of such things in the military.
    21
  116. Just gonna point out at 3:03 Malcolm doesn't know anything about theology, Christian history, or American history it seems, separation of church and state was not Christian devised, it was devised by deists, it also didn't make an argument that Christian morality must be separated from the state in fact Jefferson who first stated the concept states that Christian morality should be enforced by the state. (the only purpose of the separation of church and state was that the state could not legally enforce a single church as authority over the state, which is simple agreement with the 1st Amendment, it still only recognized the Christian institutions however) Homosexuality was banned in the US on the basis of Scripture originally so that argument doesn't even make any sense. The "Christians" in the late 1900s weren't Christians in any theological sense, they were as Christian theologically as Richard Dawkins, cultural and nothing more. Lets take another example being Holy Trinity vs. the United States in the 1890s, in it the Supreme Court explicitly states the US is expressly and an exclusively Christian country and that its laws reflect the Torah, which they used to justify legal arguments up until around the 1920s. The US was not a moral pluralist country, it was a Christian pluralist country and the first two presidents explicitly stated during their terms as presidents that the American Constitution is only suitable for a people of Christian morals and is unsuitable for any other peoples. "Religious freedom" at the time meant Christian freedom, those who were opposed to the Christian foundation were seen as "Christians" by their acceptance of Christian morality. (like Thomas Paine, whose only read book was Common Sense and everyone hate otherwise) As well Jesus explicitly states that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17) Also give unto Caesar what is Caesar doesn't work for morality because that's not Caesar's, the logic of this entire argument makes no sense and doesn't respect Scripture.
    21
  117.  @aricrudd6579  This is what we call a strawman and ad hominem fallacy. Also nothing Christoph said had anything to do with ideology, sounds more like you've never maintained any piece of software in your life.
    20
  118.  @MentisWave  Soft bigotry of low expectations
    20
  119. @ターツ you mean r/whoooosh
    19
  120.  @kenirainseeker539  You don't even know what he pleaded guilty for and he still has to plead guilty even if he wasn't aware of her age, he pleaded guilty for giving an underage girl alcohol, but it seems pretty reasonable to say he wasn't aware she was underage given everything, she admitted that the only thing that was real were the texts and they weren't what he pleaded guilty for. You can't claim someone is guilty of things he didn't plead to, and there are things about his plead that doesn't really allow you to call him a child predator, the texts from what I know had absolutely nothing to do with grooming.
    19
  121.  @aerfwefd7334  Don't you mean the Golden Calf, watch your tongue Moses.
    19
  122.  @mattelder1971  The OSI is a product of pre-existing open source software and was written as a formal definition of what open source was, contributed to by the exact people that were writing said software at the time, a formal definition coming to exist after its use does not violate the formal definition being well defined. Your claim is fallacious.
    19
  123.  @Nina-cd2eh  But Rust demands semantic knowledge, it gets pretty useless without that, (not really unique to Rust, but it is the most aggressive language I know on that) and the burden of that semantic knowledge is on the C code which the Rust devs either have to refactor or ignore, the latter of which means they have no advantage to that code. (or worse, it makes false promises and then the Rust code is more broken then the C code was) In which case how exactly is Rust advantageous for that case?
    18
  124. Kinda reminds me of Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"
    18
  125. Funniest thing is that Hitler was a progressive left wing socialist, people just forget that the progressive ideology inherently leads to eugenic solutions, which was completely indistinguishable from what the Soviet Union did, even its economies operated 90% the same. Hitler even started his political life as a radical communist.
    18
  126. In my experience (and also from a few anecdotes of people who grew up with needing to know both systems) Fahrenheit measurements work way better for recording ranges of comfort because of the nature of human comfort to generally line up within each range of ten, as a result they are way more suitable for practical measuring by the average joe, if you don't think about the actual scientific use of Fahrenheit, all its problems straight up disappear. (what you use for things like cooking is actually fairly arbitrary though)
    18
  127. Trump is probably one of the best candidates we could have in 40 years, he's definitely better then Reagan.
    18
  128.  @wartooth_pk  That's pointless if you don't know how to read it, and its quite common for people who are good at manipulation to say "look for yourself" still, them saying that has no bearing on whether you should trust them, like Billy Carson did that, he still duped people.
    18
  129.  @kirayoshikage4057  bash and batch aren't fully featured programming languages, and vim is not a basic text editor.
    18
  130. Half of the problem with XZ was the distros needlessly externally and silently patching a package just to get a feature they should've been requesting be added as a damn feature, if they had done things through the official upstream XZ wouldn't have been able to activate. The other half of the issue is that XZ was integrating binary blobs into the codebase via the test suite instead of compiling from source and relying purely on source available files. (aside from the lacking maintenance oversight) So long as a package wasn't being compiled with binary blobs that could integrate secret behavior, the XZ problem simply does not exist. Any further security complaints are generally pretty dumb because after those issues you can't distinguish legitimate code from hidden malicious code, they'll look the basically the same, best you get to deal with that is code review. (like how do you distinguish a hidden backdoor from a standard buffer overflow at that point? You can't)
    18
  131. I identify as a medical professional, I also identify as correct, I think therefore I am, welcome to the logical conclusion of Descartes, one of the morons of history.
    17
  132.  @MrLilpapy  tbf, plenty of communists don't understand crap about their own stories, generally morons who don't have an original idea in their head can't think outside the box, those who do portray concepts that don't in fact agree with their precepts logically and results in cognitive dissonance between the narrative and the writer.
    17
  133.  @darrennew8211  The fact a failure didn't basically crash the system kinda pisses me off, I understand on the low level instigating that is hard and I wouldn't blame the hobbyist they yoinked and abandoned to consider that, but the fact a malfunction didn't crash is a scary thought for any developer, we may get mad when our programs crash, but its preferable to crash then let a failure run unimpeded, unfortunately web developers are making that exact mistake with JS, hopefully no one is relying upon javascript to not kill someone but I bet you someone is being that stupid right now. Its definitely resulting in back doors, exploits, and other sandbox breaks I know that for certain, but nobody seems to care that privacy and security is a worse flaw then outright killing singular people. (as it will result in more dead people in the long term)
    17
  134.  @ajzaradich6096  "Well Jesus would indeed be considered an activist." "Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”" - John 18:36 In a sense perhaps, He did advocate for political supremacy of the Faith over works and the law, but not in the way you're implying.
    17
  135.  @ianmedford4855  It also is clear that Lauren wasn't traditional nor capable of staying married to anyone because she can't take any responsibility for her actions, she is almost certainly a bad mother and now she's a bad single mother. Anyone who is unwilling to admit their faults at all will never succeed in marriage, marriage is a give and take, even in an abusive relationship one should capable understand the faults they have in them if they're an adult. But Lauren doesn't.
    17
  136.  @saadisave  how is fn addTwoNumbers(left : i64, right : i64) -> i64 more flush and readable then int addTwoNumbers(int left, int right)? The extra syntax is unneccessary and just bloats the readability of your code, its already widely recognized that developers read code by symbols and the way its done in C++ is more then necessary to understand what its saying, it doesn't even help type generic syntax either because you just end up with the same problem.
    17
  137. last I checked the gofundme was over 3 million, not 300 thousand.
    17
  138. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim
    17
  139. Same, I've long suspected its an attempt to undermine after failed attempts for the powers that should not be failed to imperialize the ISO body.
    17
  140. I'm rather happy Hectors gone, he's been the source of so much strife and has been a royal pain in the ass for a while, not to mention he's a toxic developer who wants to ban everyone he disagrees with which includes a lot of people. And I rather despise the R4L project because it really is a fad language, it lacks basic things that all system languages should have and do, (especially for a kernel) the Rust language developers act like children and much of the Rust community worships the language developers like their some kind of "memory safe" gods, any criticism in my experience turns into some personal attack on a religion and no one ever says "fair point" like they'll do when someone criticizes C or C++.
    17
  141. Actually, a psychopath would have self-preservation in mind still, sociopath and psychopath are just ways to define a generally dangerously low regard for human life beyond one's own person, in this case, he was mad for probably being thought as suicidal.
    16
  142. It has an infrared face scanner with a flash on the back of the gun, and any biometric approval allows it to be fired.
    16
  143. Its called a second for the second minutia of an hour, (or secunda pars minuta, aka second diminished part) because the first one, the minute, was already named. (from pars minuta prima) Also me using minutia here is deceptively irrelevant.
    16
  144. Its a Chinese company, his race is irrelevant, nice fallacy.
    16
  145. He was talking about priority and spam queues, which solves that issue trivially.
    16
  146.  @mysteriouspresent5186  What is moral when you make up your own moral standard? That's what you're doing.
    16
  147. ​ @godfather7339  "whenever the government has interfered" Not a principled argument. "it has lead to breaking monopolies," And when has the trust-bust results ever competed with someone that wasn't the result of trust-busting? Didn't happen with the steel mills, didn't happen with the railroads, and didn't happen with telecommunication. To this day every company of those busts are either directly or indirectly the result of the original trusts. And that's if the government doesn't own them. And look at the paper trails and economics behind each of those trusts, they did not in fact compete in the market beforehand, they were leveraging local, state, and federal force to ensure their monopoly stayed in place to the the day they were busted. And after the bust they became practical utilities that still operated like a cartel, as a result you got more regulations on what you could and could not do as those companies. "if there hadn't been the US gov we would still have just one gas company" In all but name there is only one, you still can't explain the economics behind this and you don't even care to notice that the only reason the prices and service is the way it is because the government regulates the prices and manipulates the market. Gas still does not operate as a part of the market and its almost entirely managed by government force alone. There is no market force that applies to the gas company because they are provided for by our tax dollars. "This is a proven thing and I don't think it's even worth debating about." Then why respond? Clearly you don't believe this position for if you did then arguing with me would not be done for I am apparently so irrational that I am not worth the time. See your position is already contradictory and hypocritical by you looking down upon my arguments without looking at them while you also seek to stoke your superiority complex of your position. Quite arrogant and ignorant if I do say so. Also you understand nothing about economics if you claim economic principles are not worth debating. "If we had been living in the free market, there would have been just 1 company handling everything." How do you know this? Because some school told you? What reason, what logic, and what demonstration has shown this to be true? Have you examined the economic factors and weighted them independently or do you just trust the word of same random philosopher? What values do you carry that bias you towards such a position? Because it is a bias, one you inherently do not wish to examine honestly. Do you even understand the position you are arguing? This is the exact logic that socialists use to justify domination over public life, this is not a foundation argument, its a baseless claim, it has no reason nor substance behind it. You do know facts require rational behind their position right? Just as statistics need justification (not explanation) so too does economics, and you don't get to interpret it as you wish. "Can you tell me, what is stopping you from starting your own Amazon, or Google, or Facebook?" Legally a lot of things, copyright and trademark stand in my way, not to mention I am not allowed to buy land without government approval which I need to state a purpose for, to which I can still get rejected for that specifically, (also need really good credit to do that for no reason) also need to contact a bank and get approved by them too, I also need to get an enterprise plan for networking which is also dominated by a monopoly still who exists at the behest of the government. I need to then buy a business license for operating at any moderate level. I also gotta pay many legal fees for the sake of the business and I won't receive a single subsidy, tax break, or tax credit and I have to manage it all by myself or pay out money for someone to manage that. It is technically possible for me to do that, just as it is technically possible for me to buy a gun in California, but how am I to do such as a regular joe? Look at all the loops I have to jump through and money I have to pay out before I even get a chance to compete? All that is spent capital before I get to anything that would give me profit? And I can't receive any of the government's provisions (nor assistance or backdoor deals, least without bribes) until I prove that my business is highly valuable. And in this economy wrecked by the crash of the dollar, good luck paying the unreasonably ever increasing prices. None of these things that I laid out (which I might add are massively incomplete, there's way more to it) are nor should be necessary for me to build a tech business, I shouldn't even be needing to contact the government outside of maybe telling them of the land I own (which my real estate contractor could do for me) but yet I can't. This drives the cost to be many hundreds to thousands of times more expensive then the endeavor would have been if the government did not seek to control and intervene in every aspect of my and everyone else's lives. "How is the Gov stopping you from creating these things?" By the way the list goes on and on. The most I could feasibly do is build a website and there is a possibly I'd still have a shakedown done on me for that. "The only thing stopping you is Facebook itself, not the gov in any way." Really? So I don't need to ask the government and the networking company to hook up my tech business? Or to buy a building? Or for the legal and business hoops? I need to ask Facebook for all that and more? Despite the fact I quite literally have to file all of that with both the local and federal government and payout massive sums of cash to them alongside already paying taxes to them. So its Facebook holding me down? Yeah, that makes logical sense. Good job with the fallacies. "The bigger question is, monopolies are many times more effecient than some small factory," You understand nothing about the word efficiency nor economics. Facebook and Google aren't even slightly efficient, if you knew even a fraction of the software industry you would never have claimed such a foolish thing as that. Everything I've built in software with my own two hands have been momentously more efficient and effective then what they've built, the only things I can't beat on them is money and manpower. Over 60% of their employees don't do anything for most of the day, majority of it is spent goofing off claiming they're doing something when they aren't. And yeah argument from experience or argument from authority fallacy, but there isn't really another way I can demonstrate against such a claim since its not even an argument.
    15
  148.  @sdcrocks  The least he should do is be honest.
    15
  149.  @walesdoesntsuck6635  Only the cities are on fire, which we're honestly fine with because they're more anti-gun then half of Europe anyway, let em turn to ash we say, its safer with them gone. Also Texas and West Virginia are so not on fire they actively have citizens controlling the riots outside of them alongside the riot police doing their jobs and they've had practically nothing burned down. (also funny enough they aren't defunding police alongside banning guns)
    15
  150.  @hyper4887  Well he is super experienced in marketing and twitch, so he should easily know what his fans want and care about. Not to mention a good key to marketing is often just to be honest instead of just manipulative.
    15
  151.  @link1565V2  "There is zero incentive for a normie user to transition to Linux." Performance is a big one, and when all they're doing is using a browser, which is 90% of normies, its very easy if you merely give them a helping hand, plenty of other advantages that they'll only notice after the fact, but I know a lot of especially older folks that use old computers instead of paying for new ones, and telling them about lower resource usage and better performance always gets them on board. "Yeah, it's far better than it used to be, but Windows is just better in that regard." Outside of specific DRM stuff and anti-cheat, (which they're working on on the latest kernel version) you can pretty much play any game you want with very few hiccups, of all the games I have (around 300 games on steam alone, and I can play most of the non-steam ones on Wine anyway) and less then 15% of them are wholly incapable of Linux in any regard, I can even play Arma with Teamspeak cleanly and easily with mods. (granted that took work to get but Arma is already a massive hassle to get working, you're really not a normie if you can get it working on Windows in the first place) Also performance on games, even in Wine and Proton, still feels generally superior, there have rarely been a game I could say performed worse then what I had on Windows. "But you'll never see widespread adoption of Linux amongst the non-tech-savy. They just don't care, and are more than happy with the OS pre-installed on their machine." This is a stupid thing to claim, we're already an actual factor as far as commercial marketshare (even if small, its considered significant now) and it keeps growing, especially with companies like Valve pushing for it. This stuff takes time to happen, and it will grow over time as more people become more familiar with computers, we're still living in an age where most people don't understand how to operate in a computerized age, but soon enough that won't be an option unless all the tech dies, which is a rare chance. But everyone has more complex lives already, figuring out Linux is not more complex then figuring out a car, or the electricity in your house, or most other common work on the house or housework itself. All you need to do is make it a regular occurrence in their life and its literally no different from maintaining a house or car. And convincing those type of people takes a long time and can be initially hard, but once they're in, they're not leaving and its actually extremely easy to teach them.
    15
  152. TIK more so doesn't understand the philosophy behind fatalism (and consciousness) while trying to argue against it, while I like his philosophical investigations, they are routinely rife with category errors and poor understanding.
    15
  153.  @michaelgreene6441  And yeah no this has never been the case, a virtual table is only created for an object if foremost it has virtual functions and the virtual class is being used as a pointer to an object, without these two things, fundamentally a virtual table will not even be created, if you call a function without virtual, it just refers to the type-strict function, that being the one your variable is treated as, actually even more interesting is that if you do this without a pointer you outright lose information on the object, once you make store it as a base class, the only way to recover the full object is if you saved it somewhere else.
    15
  154. Queen Victoria predicted this and she had an immensely amount of harsh words for feminism back in her day.
    14
  155. tbf, the concept of separation of Church and State was meant as a one way measure, the State was suppose to be unable to touch any systems of the Church however there was still a rightful claim to justify State behavior by manners of faith and morals. (in fact that's why most of the original English law was adopted at all, aside from the fact it was so convenient to pull from) A more important point however is that morality is suppose to be found as unshaken and law is an embodiment of the rights determined by God and his morality, this is what the Bill of Rights was actually instituting, the concept of inalienable rights doesn't actually fundamentally hold up without an unchanging morality to hold it up, otherwise the belief of rights as a privilege decided to be given by humans "just for fun" is inevitably gonna happen, which in turn allows people to justify removing and infringing said rights which is happening now, and tends to happen any time something remotely gets close to rights gets established. Often times people end up stealing from that worldview so supplement their worldview and that makes it easy to corrupt the idea against the intention. If you ever read any of the founders on this subject like Madison and Jefferson, even despite all of their less then fully Trinitarian Protestant worldviews, this is something they speak to as the core of the Constitution and its function as a fundamental document of the nation state.
    14
  156. Dude wasn't an expert in the field they put him in, he's a low level kernel expert, not a social media or statistics expert, he was not qualified to say anything about this in this case first of all.
    14
  157. Its the root of all kinds of evil, not all evil.
    14
  158. Its funny because nobody even considers they could've been on Earth the whole time. Like whoops, they appear out of nowhere, there is no way we can know where they came from.
    14
  159. Honestly I'm not entirely sure on my position of protectionism because the arguments for and against it are pretty much down to two contrasts. I will say that Jefferson demonstrated that tariffs alone can fund a government without taxes, and I would agree with unfair trade deals against nations that don't share our values, China being the biggest case, free trade for those who agree with our ideals, extremely unfair trade deals for those that don't
    14
  160. Because Rust fanbois are the worst type of programming language community, when you insist everyone redo everything in your cult language from scratch and people simply ask you to please stop and you turn into an angry nutjob over it, you're gonna piss off a lot of people, I hate Rust purely for its community alone.
    14
  161. Librewolf Masterrace.
    14
  162.  @nullvoid3545  Literally just means communists, originally those who supported the suppression of the revolt in Soviet Czechoslovakia using tanks, thus aligned with the Soviet Communists who used tanks to suppress the revolt. It later came to refer to leftoids in general who are majorly Marxist socialists who either lightly or heavily align with Communism and often silence criticism and opposition by calling everyone racist, nazi, fascist, or capitalist. In my mind whenever I recall the word, I'm always reminded of these tank sized feminists whose forearms are bigger then their head, blue hair, sopping wet, and look like they can't move without a scooter.
    14
  163.  @ps5hasnogames55  "who cares about optics?" Anyone who wants the death of Windows or Apple, which includes Linus Torvalds. "linux doesn't have to serve anyone else" It serves those who use and build it for one. This is a foolish statement. "and especially not proprietary malware like eac" That's your perspective, its not our job to define how others should use the tools, we merely present the tools. Linus agrees, if you break something in userspace, you are the problem, not the userspace. "there's a reason linux kernel has so many bugs and is so bloated - the religion of "don't break userspace!" has created so much technical debt." Then why was Windows 7 considered the epitome of the best Operating Systems that Linux distros are still trying to emulate to this day? Your philosophy does not substantiate anything but a minority opinion that Linus does not agree with. And breaking backwards compatibility has never made Linux less buggy, most of the time it caused bugs. Desktop users don't need to care about bloat for such insignificant things and if you really need it, leave it as an option to remove the bloat, but don't remove it because of your unsubstantiated claims of "less buggy" despite being well more buggy still then Windows and Apple. The fact that both of them were usable for nearly three decades without complaint most of the time and that Linux in only trying to emulate aspects of them that it started to gain traction only demonstrates how worthless your claims are.
    14
  164. Not to mention if anything said about him is true, especially the "transgender" crap, it also means sodomite doesn't remotely fit his character for being too innocent and its a wonder he even lasted 4 years.
    14
  165.  @wartooth_pk  In which case you can't just tell people "go read it for yourself" and expect that to mean anything different from "trust me", especially when you make a claim without understand basic linguistics like time, context, and semantic sensitive historical definitions.
    14
  166. once again xQc being the among us anuerism.
    13
  167.  @MiukuMac  Bytecode isn't the problem, its not storing the bytecode into memory that's the problem, this type of crap isn't a problem for things like Javascript and CSS (technically CSS doesn't use a bytecode, but structurally its not too dissimilar) as examples because they don't store it on disk, they keep it in memory no matter how long they wait on execution, the slight memory cost is completely irrelevant compared to the blocking that storing the bytecode would cause.
    13
  168.  @MrShriven  Messiah isn't Greek, its Hebrew.
    13
  169. Still waiting for xfce wayland support, that honestly the only big thing keeping me on X, though I would really love if the streaming issues on wayland would be fixed before then.
    13
  170.  @cakeisyummy5755  Its not a defense, its nuance, there is a difference, it be foolish to conflate every realistic explanation of truth and history with a defense. It be like saying the Crusades were entirely evil because of every Crusade and for what the crusaders did, that's not a very reasoned perspective, there were plenty of justified arguments we could apply from our modern perspectives that would justify much of the Crusades, as the pagans and Muslims throughout much of that time raided and pillaged everything outside their realms and were continuously encroaching upon the Christian realms, its not a defense of all of the Crusades, but it needs to be reasoned and understood why it happened and you can't treat history as a moral playground, else history is entirely pointless. We need to stop moralizing history.
    13
  171.  @chrishoff402  This is unfortunately the thing I worry most about TIK arguing that Christian altruism is the problem, ignoring clear cases where Christianity argues for both self-sacrifice and self-regard, one cannot love his family if one does not show love to himself, and that foremost requires a love for God. In Christianity morality, it believes nobody is worthy but that out of love for God is desires both of the self and those of others good means and ends, that neither is discounted, and thus righteous would be done. Many focus on one or the other, discounting the material and the self, others become extreme and disregard the spiritual and the other, but it is both the material and spiritual, both the self and the other that must be regarded. One cannot show love to another, to his church, or to himself unless he loves his family, that is why honor thy father and mother is so important and it is the first commandment of promise. (Ephesians 6:2)
    13
  172. When I saw this, I nearly flipped out laughing at the claim.
    13
  173.  @Zhafêu  I still don't get how you can have heap memory safety, which is the majority of the concern, when you can't even panic in the kernel, wouldn't that mean that Rust is no better then at least 20 other languages include C++ for this use case? The whole point of heap memory protections in Rust is that it does panic but if you can't do that, Rust isn't the first language to be able to report errors on memory issues. (although if that's a runtime check that also has a performance cost) And it isn't the only one that protects memory at compile time otherwise.
    13
  174.  @Justowner  The FDA is not known for software QA (as any government agency isn't) and their hardware QA isn't exactly that robust.
    13
  175. I don't see how Meta could collect any information from you that you don't already publicly give on a Fediverse account that isn't Threads, like from a technical perspective I don't see how this can even be considered a reasonable concern, I don't see why care about privacy here, if you care about privacy, just connect to the Fediverse without Threads, don't give information you don't want publicly known, sounds pretty simply, there's almost nothing to really get from say Mastodon that isn't already publicly accessible. Also its not like Threads is blocking the Fediverse from having NSFW on it, even then mainstream adoption will result in a lot more bigger Fediverse instances being less NSFW, but that doesn't prevent you from having access to them.
    13
  176. The Abortion opinion he touted is how you can tell asmon doesn't know anything about the facts regarding politics. Yes there are people who do get late term elective abortions asmon, also Planed Parenthood encourages late term abortions, some going as far as 8 months. Not that it resolves the issue at all, its an excuse to take no moral responsibility, but can't even be rationally consistent on the issue. Also asmon doesn't understand how legal argumentation works, the expectation is that a moral a righteous doctor will desire the best of his patient in disregard to law, that's the Hippocratic Oath, any who won't fulfill that shouldn't be doctors and should be legally charged over it instead. Else if the law impacts the decision, then there is no law you can impart on a doctor that can either prevent or encourage positive outcomes, permissive and prohibitive laws will both create negative outcomes, in which case there is no reason to have a government, if you're reasoning is to claim reason, you are lacking any reason to have government period. Doesn't understand the rational conclusion of his position, its a nonsense and stupid one, we don't take that dumb outlook in any other case, but when its abortion all of sudden its "we can decide" as if we don't do so in every other case. All law is imposed morality, its just a matter of what god you serve.
    13
  177.  @Michael-Archonaeus  "So let me get this straight, you have just made the editorial decision that Luke 14:26, contrary to all prior tradition, actually says: "If anyone comes to me and does not love God in such a way, that in comparison, the love of anything else be like hatred, that should it be compared it is so far as to appear as hatred, yet not hate himself, he can not become my disciple"? Although for nearly 2,000 years it said ""If anyone comes to me and does not hate himself, he can not become my disciple" Shall I pull up quotes from the early church fathers then? "XXII. “And Jesus answering said, Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall leave what is his own, parents, and children, and wealth, for My sake and the Gospel’s, shall receive an hundredfold.” But let neither this trouble you, nor the still harder saying delivered in another place in the words, “Whoso hateth not father, and mother, and children, and his own life besides, cannot be My disciple.” For the God of peace, who also exhorts to love enemies, does not introduce hatred and dissolution from those that are dearest. But if we are to love our enemies, it is in accordance with right reason that, ascending from them, we should love also those nearest in kindred. Or if we are to hate our blood-relations, deduction teaches us that much more are we to spurn from us our enemies. So that the reasonings would be shown to destroy one another. But they do not destroy each other, nor are they near doing so. For from the same feeling and disposition, and on the ground of the same rule, one loving his enemy may hate his father, inasmuch as he neither takes vengeance on an enemy, nor reverences a father more than Christ. For by the one word he extirpates hatred and injury, and by the other shamefacedness towards one’s relations, if it is detrimental to salvation. If then one’s father, or son, or brother, be godless, and become a hindrance to faith and an impediment to the higher life, let him not be friends or agree with him, but on account of the spiritual enmity, let him dissolve the fleshly relationship. " - Clement of Alexandria (Salvation of the Rich Man) "But it is rather that statement which the Lord Himself makes in another passage which is wont to disturb the minds of the little ones, who nevertheless earnestly desire to live now according to the precepts of Christ: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” For it may seem a contradiction to the less intelligent, that here He forbids the putting away of a wife saving for the cause of fornication, but that elsewhere He affirms that no one can be a disciple of His who does not hate his wife. But if He were speaking with reference to sexual intercourse, He would not place father, and mother, and brothers in the same category. But how true it is, that “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and they that use violence take it by force!” For how great violence is necessary, in order that a man may love his enemies, and hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers! For He commands both things who calls us to the kingdom of heaven. And how these things do not contradict each other, it is easy to show under His guidance; but after they have been understood, it is difficult to carry them out, although this too is very easy when He Himself assists us. For in that eternal kingdom to which He has vouchsafed to call His disciples, to whom He also gives the name of brothers, there are no temporal relationships of this sort. For “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female;” “but Christ is all, and in all.” And the Lord Himself says: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Hence it is necessary that whoever wishes here and now to aim after the life of that kingdom, should hate not the persons themselves, but those temporal relationships by which this life of ours, which is transitory and is comprised in being born and dying, is upheld; because he who does not hate them, does not yet love that life where there is no condition of being born and dying, which unites parties in earthly wedlock." - Augustine (Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels, Chapter 15) Its clearly known by even the Greek Christian fathers of the 2nd and 3rd century that Jesus was not contradicting anything and was in fact saying as I described. I have actually performed exegetical analysis on the text and not only is it common in the 2nd and 3rd century, but it is also agreed upon by all medieval and modern theologians to this day whether they write expository or exegetical analysis of the text. There is no one preacher who addresses the text in the specifics who does not make a clear point agreeing with what I said, I cannot find commentaries besides that, they may exist but none you could call Orthodox certainly. You are quite literally making up a false argument. Also Luke is written in Koine Greek but the subjects Luke was speaking to were mostly Hebrews, many speaking in Hebrew at the time and when they heard Jesus speak He spoke in Hebrew, so every account would've been from a Hebrew exposition. You clearly have never read any commentaries nor have you read any of the context around the Scripture, nor do you know anything about the historical standards of the time. Why should I argue with someone who is gonna be this disingenuous about his argument?
    13
  178.  @kitsunefire1  If everyone is armed, nobody is armed.
    13
  179.  @shreenybeany1751  No that was actually false propaganda, if you're talking about the cop they claim had a seizure, foremost there is no record of him getting hurt and neither did he even die from it.
    13
  180. I still hate Carbon like I hate Rust because of those type specifiers, why are we going back to pre-ALGOL type specifications? Its nowhere near as clean, in C++ I just do: int variable = <whatever> but for some goddamn reason every single new language has to be var variable : i32 = <whatever> or let variable : i32 = <whatever> I don't mind the i32 type, not exactly sure its a big deal but whatever, but what in the hell are we not integrating the type into the declaration, it feels like the syntax added type hints as an afterthought, why do we keep resorting to typescript for things that don't need backwards compatibility?
    13
  181. Just have them take off their helmet every five minutes to act nothing like military ops but like petulant children who dye their hair because their parents never did and never will love them and they can never get over that fact.
    12
  182. You do realize James says in that same chapter that we are not saved by works right? Also Calvinists don't preach self-hatred, that's a completely false application of what total depravity even means.
    12
  183. I still find Rust to be a really crap language, I guess it absolutely is better then C, but as a C++ developer, I absolutely hate it, it doesn't solve almost any of the problems in a way that C++ doesn't do better.
    12
  184.  @atomicTurtle000  Actually Lincoln told the South that Fort Sumter would be de-armed and relinquished to them only for him to expand the troops and weaponry of the fort, (numerous politicians, including those on his side, have written letters and make note of him intentionally instigating the fight with this and saying that he'll win by making them fire first and trying to appear as the victim) this is the exact same instigation for military conflict Britain had in the Revolutionary War, so by that claim the United States had no justification to rebel against Great Britain.
    12
  185.  @6500s1  "but how come your country has school shootings every weeks lmao?" Shootings, school shootings even more so, are extremely rare and only happen in regions of gun control, (schools being massively under gun control regulations excepting Texas because usually teachers can carry) there have been multiple cases of cases where shootings were tried outside of gun control regions and the dude was killed before he could do much of anything. Texas has a track record of killing shooters before they even fire the gun, there was another attempt in a church in December, dude was dropped dead before he got a second shot off. You want to know what's more common? Gang violence, and that's not unique to the US (technically neither are shootings, in fact in Europe a shooting is thousands of times more deadly then in the US) and even then very few people are killed by a gun every year, and guns are used many more times to save lives in the US then take lives, without being used either. "no, I have never needed a gun and I see other countries having next to literally 0 school shootings ever," Actually, you're just ignoring reality, Denmark and Germany have had their fair share of shootings, and usually what happens is they can get at least 10 kills before someone stops them, that doesn't usually happen in the US, most shootings that do happen have less then 5 people die here, even injuries tend to be lower. School shootings generally are extremely rare, and in the US the citizenry is capable of stopping them long before anyone else. Also the explicit reason for gun ownership is to ensure the rights of the individual and defend a nation of an invader, nobody would dare invade the US because of our gun owning population, Japan, Germany, Mexico, even Russia, they all wouldn't invade us because of our gun ownership, you can't suppress a population that can carry a gun. And that applies just as much to your own government. The German government is funny because once again they're enforcing infringement of free speech and creating a dictatorial government again and they don't need to care what the civilians think because they're merely serfs, they can do whatever they want without opposition. This aside guns also give you capability to defend yourself from many other situations. Owning a gun is the same as owning a fire extinguisher or defibrillator, they're emergency equipment to preserve life. Just in this case a gun is more useful because not only does it preserve life, but it preserves rights. On a side note all communist, fascist, tyrannical, and authoritarian governments first took the guns and weaponry away from the citizens before they started oppressing their people. I wonder why? "there is a correlation hidden somewhere, don't you think? :D" Stupid for multiple reasons, aside from no idea how statistics work. Aside from starting from a disingenuous premise with assumptions of the world which aren't true, you also try to associate gun ownership with shootings which isn't true (pre-war Yemen and Switzerland both are perfect examples where that doesn't stick, both have high gun ownership and had some form of gun ownership capability) but it doesn't even work in the nation you're pointing out, especially when you don't even understand how the United States works, its as you see a headline of "shooting" and assume its the whole US (news flash, nope, we have just as many states that practically ban firearms entirely, [some are more anti-gun then Europe] and you can't cross those state lines with firearms, and the statistics say that doesn't happen anyway, for example if we pull up Chicago, most gun ownership there is already illegal but nobody cares and shootings happen there all the time despite practically entirely banning guns)
    12
  186.  @CrypticApathy  All of them, the US is the country of negative rights and its not remotely close, the Constitution established a standard both to enshrine negative rights and to expand negative rights, (positive rights are produced from the instatement of negative rights, the rate of economic growth is based around negative rights) the problem is that its still crap at negative rights because people are fools and have been convinced to give up rights to mooch off the government.
    12
  187. Not to mention he's not a social media nor statistics expert, he's only a low level kernel development expert, a useless qualification for this case.
    12
  188. Majority of the time it was the Indians that were stirring stuff up, a lot of people love to downplay the violence and complete savagery of the western Indians. (the eastern Indians all became Christians and assimilated into the country, that's why they don't exist, that's why the Iroquois Confederacy ceased to exist)
    12
  189. Do kinda wish we had the year as a major version, since I like knowing how out of date I am, but I guess its not that big a deal since generally a kernel shouldn't break backwards compatibility, so semver becomes a little pointless. Though there are cases where things are dropped and it would be at least nice to have that on a clear "major" change so I can be like "oh this is gone now" in case it would brick my system. (unlikely for me since my system is not even remotely niche nor old, but still, I think there are definitely tinkerers and devs that would appreciate it) Perhaps it be better to have dropped things on a yearly basis if you did that yearly number versioning, if I do anything big that I'd probably adopt that if semver doesn't make sense.
    12
  190. You know the funny thing is it was only the schooling system and the communists that called McCarthy crazy, he was absolutely beloved in his time. Also he was repeatedly proven right anyway.
    12
  191.  Ben Kelly  The problem is its still compensating for problems that it was designed with and will never be removed, and even worse is that its teaching people crap behavior, habits, structures, and conceptualization, which creates bad developers that never evolve, people abuse Javascript specifically because it lets you get away with too much, and nobody tries to fix that, which in turn introduces so many bugs and problems throughout all its uses (and in its development and spec) that will never get resolved and neither will anyone ever feel inclined to resolve, which means the same for security holes. (which are already easy enough, but Javascript is one of the major bits that makes it easier) Also the language spec itself is so full of bloat even beyond undefined behavior that never errors out, I know for a fact there are holes in it.
    12
  192.  @soupfork2105  Blackrock pretty much has to sue in Texas, so there's pretty much no chance Crowder loses this.
    12
  193.  @dannysummers4591  Blame dimorphism
    12
  194.  @corey__wm  Its still not ABI stable though and you can't work with it for dynamic linkage which makes it functionally useless for Unix infrastructure in general.
    12
  195.  @marlonmoncrieffe0728  She still wasn't traditional given she completely ignored her own responsibility and didn't have any family nor friends seriously evaluate her relationship choices.
    12
  196. The tide is turning, the powers that should not be shall not be for too much longer with this chaos.
    11
  197. Yeah, background checks and age restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment pretty explicitly, and it seems even SCOTUS is starting to see that, many of the states are starting to tow those lines. Still wish everyone saw it as a moral imperative like Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and Hamilton did. Each of them obligated man to disobey these laws and would in the modern day be arrested for "inciting a riot" despite the fact they started with a peaceful protest for which the British shot at them for.
    11
  198. I intend to keep costing em as much money as possible for as long as possible and then leave.
    11
  199. Its things like this that make me see Asmon as an idiot, Trump and Vance were reacting exactly as they should have.
    11
  200.  @Saskobest  Scripture is clear, the only way to live morally is to honor one's parents, even if they are lazy, honor can't be earned because nobody deserves to earn it, the only thing you deserve is an eternity in Hell, but it is by grace you have not been shown this, so you are called to show grace to others. Do not confuse honor with approval.
    11
  201. While I won't and can't refute this idea of male-specific criteria, especially as someone who is a complementarian, thus I easily agree with psychologically distinctions between men and women quite more then just averagely. (and yes there are a surprising amount of people who reject this claim) But I will note one thing to be aware that we should not inherently look for an equal measure of occurrence in women as in men, the difference in psychologically also means the very fact that it could exist in the women is very likely to be at different rates, and its already a clear biological fact that women operate on a distinct bell curve from men, women very much trend towards more homogeneous societal operation and its quite unlikely the same applies psychologically. So while I absolutely agree, don't take me as saying that isn't true, we must be careful not to look for an equity outcome either.
    11
  202.  @Pyle04  No He was not.
    11
  203. IDK why anyone is defending RH in this thread, like the problem has nothing to do with the fact that the fix could cause more problems or reduce stability, its the fact that a contributor was given absolutely no information on fixing a bug "properly" from RH and was instead just told "we won't consider this", if the reason has to do with QA and regression testing, then just say that, foremost really should be asking the community to help with testing because they most certainly would, but even further not giving basic documentation on why the fix can't be accepted and the methodology to get it accepted, that's literally all you need, if someone sees a fix that has issues and says nothing but "I'm not merging this" what the hell do you think is gonna happen? How are contributors supposed to respond? And how does this demonstrate being more secure? Its not like none of the other distros don't also carry QA and regression testing, to say RHEL is unique here is just an outright lie, this response is just simply not okay, it wouldn't be okay to internal teams, its not okay either for external contributors, if you can't say it to a rookie on the production team, you can't just say it to a contributor.
    11
  204.  @trevorcook4439  Its #1 in negative Rights.
    11
  205.  @CrypticApathy  Negative rights means keep the government out of my business except when I violate someone's rights, the CRA still violates that, the NFA still violates that, the New Deal violates that, but despite those every other country is way worse as a whole on that front, Japan and Korea may not have the CRA but they're worse then the NFA and New Deal, and all other western nations have something just as bad if not worse then the CRA alongside something worse then the NFA and New Deal and have had it for longer.
    11
  206.  @-PVL93-  No because I know what gives qualification for statistics and I'm a programmer who has a fair understanding of his field, when you're a developer you are not given a pass for everything you say and do simply because you are experienced or knowledgeable on one niche subject. (especially when it has nothing to do with programming, he's not even a data expert) He has no capability to make the claims he does and nothing about his knowledge or experience has any justification to make him an expert in the field, and I can say that as someone in a related field and who has more knowledge then him on the thing he was claiming to be an expert on. (not on his actual expertise of kernel development, his supposed stats/social media analysis is objectively wrong and I absolutely know better then him on it) He's done almost nothing contributive to the wider community and network since the development of Unix and I'd say its fair to say he is fairly irrelevant as a Linux fanboy, he's not the only Unix kernel developer and he is not nearly as prolific about Unix philosophy or POSIX as the other guys, and most certainly not as much as Linux Torvalds. Nobody uses any of the stuff he made anymore, and he was only involved with AIX and Solaris, both of which he's been separated from for nearing half a century now.
    11
  207.  @Spirrwell  It would literally mean you can't move a project further forward on C++ versions, which does happen occasionally, if you try to use auto in C++98 and and then move to C++11 it will throw an error where it was once valid, but such things are rare and not common use, auto was functionally worthless by 1995 and almost no one used the feature and it was deprecated for over a decade, and almost no other elements of the language were reworked like that, other case I can think of is the comma operator in square brackets, which again was a feature nobody used because the comma operator is almost never used for its return value. (and otherwise the implementation for a[1, 2, 3] wouldn't be how you could access a 3 dimensional container which they deemed a nightmare to do)
    11
  208.  @kratos.8151  Nice strawman and ignoratio elenchi fallacy. You need to go back to school. (though given your comprehension skills maybe back isn't the operative word)
    11
  209. "Happiness" based on mental derangement really should be opposed.
    11
  210.  @VirideSoryuLangley  Where?
    11
  211.  @robnobert  Fedora having a record of doing things before its stable seems like it make more sense to align itself with KDE, its Wayland support makes a lot more sense.
    11
  212. That doesn't require Threads, they can already do that without it, its social media, if you don't want something publicly accessible, don't give the social media that information, pretty simply.
    10
  213. Reminds me of the quote from Andrew Ryan in Bioshock: "A man chooses, a slave obeys." If you obey your government, you are a slave, but if you make a choice on governance, you are a man.
    10
  214. Knowledge of how systems work doesn't apply as much to opsec either because its hard for regular people to understand the extent of information all their use of network services can release and how centralized they are. It doesn't help that good opsec is a lifestyle choice and not just a slight adherence by intellect, you have to be quite deliberate and continuous in practicing good opsec to have it, it must be a habit and not just a phase.
    10
  215. I've experienced a number of cases where that happened with MSVC as well, I'm not sure there is any compiler that doesn't suffer from it.
    10
  216. Just gonna point out that the FBI admitted to instigation tactics as well as cops firing rubber bullets on protestors without cause, honeytraps are a 4th amendment violation and you will get off scot-free in every case that they're related to your crimes, and if police attack first you are entitled to self-defense even against a cop. That aside there was not a single crime committed even ignoring cop-committed violence for which 4 years has ever been considered reasonable, every attack against a cop committed would've gotten a 3 year max sentence.
    10
  217. Its because insurance doesn't have to compete, thus the supply being artificially limited ensures it will remain expensive, and that's before we consider all the other government intervention problems with it.
    10
  218. Doesn't work when you're trying live freely and resist the powers that be. And especially nowadays where tyrannical laws are trying to control populations and dominate society themselves. Black markets are just a demonstration of what happens when you interfere in the economy, when you interfere in a manner you shouldn't you lose capability to control the aspects that should be stopped and the ones you shouldn't have been involved in.
    10
  219.  @eld1rt  He didn't sexualize them though, he didn't get convicted for sexualizing girls, he was convicted for giving an underage girl alcohol.
    10
  220. If this was reddit, I feel that be a gold moment.
    10
  221.  @McFreaker  Better solution, don't have sex, there is literally no risk if you don't. If you can't stand not having sex you're suppose to get married, that's literally what the sexual nature is compelling you to do.
    10
  222.  @jonnyso1  But most concerns are in dynamic allocations, which Rust doesn't fix without panics. Semantic info is only useful if its kept up to date which fails if any internals of the C functions changes, it will create false promises to Rust which will break it. I don't see where Rust actually helps at the kernel level if it can't do the things that would make it memory safe. (unless it were allowed to crash, then sure, but most exploits are at dynamic memory which requires runtime checks that normally would panic in Rust)
    10
  223. Dude was not an expert witness at all, he has no qualifications for statistics or social media analysis, he's a kernel expert which is useless for this. (and I'm speaking from experience as a software developer, just because someone is a developer does not make them an expert in all forms of development, you can't expect his experience to build a graphics card, nor could you expect what he's done to make him a language design expert, he's only useful for low level kernel development)
    10
  224. There are no books without the Bible, there is no common language without the Bible.
    10
  225.  @sheepyhead0399  Basics of what I have said is that I agree with male/female psychological distinctions for which are stated by the comment, but in finding where the truth of that difference lies we need to then be careful to not try to produce an equal rate of the psychopathy in women as exists in men, specifically because of the psychological distinctions.
    10
  226. I like the lack of professional behavior, its not like this breaks usability or accessibility of the web page and its not making anything impossible to read, and 1s intervals aren't all that much of a concern, I think its funny because we got people who are enjoying themselves at least over people who demand conformity, which is kinda the whole point of Arch. Not entirely certainly on other things people might be mad at the Arch admins for but I find this hilarious and love watching stupid Arch folks get mad because a lot of them are stupid.
    10
  227. Did Asmon just say that the court ruled against owning warships in the 1790s? Because I know they ruled with warship ownership and cannon ownership, the US government literally hired private citizens who owned those ships into the 1830s, what is he talking about?
    10
  228. ​ @infinitemonkey917  Writers who misunderstand their own story exist and this a clear case of it, a writer who makes a story that disagrees or doesn't address the precepts they claim it does is a foolish writer who doesn't understand what they're actually writing. A good story can be written by such fools. This is actually part of the premise of the "writer is dead" philosophy of writing, though many make the assumption that it means what the writer said it meant when written when that's in fact not true. What is true is the single (which there is of all narratives) interpretation according to the objective events presented in the narrative. That can and often does disagree with the writers precepts about the story because they get stuck into the story and misunderstand it from being too heavily invested alongside being an ideologue. A theme in a work is not objectively followed by what the writer says it is, a story's theme is inherent to the story in disregard to the writer's opinion.
    10
  229. Love ya TIK and I love every time you talk about this topic because it gives me better understanding and better capability to refute the anti-free-market folks, but I also will say I think your attempt to refute your opponents is rarely going to work, not to say not to try or that you won't break the hold of the evils of socialism, but most of them aren't socialist just because they don't listen to others. Its because they're mentally ill, deranged, or otherwise indoctrinated without any individualism, most socialists are a subject of what Yuri Bezmenov described, where they are so indoctrinated they can't ever possibly think of separation from their obsession where even the boot on their neck would not convince them that they are wrong. This is most especially because of the government's intervention into schooling and the corrupt nature of education systems since the late 1800s where they became "publicly funded". The government wants more power and control, Keynesian economics and socialism gives them more power and control, so they've devised manners to indoctrinate people in such a way that they can't even understand basic language without that indoctrination, it becomes a core part of their identity and thus they are inseparable from the indoctrination. This is why they get violent to opposition and why they refuse to listen. Some people are not susceptible to this like you TIK, who seemed to be more confused by the indoctrination instead of being indoctrinated, or me who was always opposed to listening to the school's indoctrination (I always considered it worthless and thus did not listen) from an early age (which were caused by plenty of other issues and came with its own share of problems) however for those who aren't of such mindsets, that being the majority, this message will at best drive those who see it insane. Some individuals thus cannot be saved from themselves.
    10
  230. Tim reporting: BLM was hijacked BLM: was started by racist black supremacist Marxists out to destroy capitalism for being "racist"
    10
  231. I honestly don't see how you could trigger a DDOS, most especially not a reliable DDOS at that, it would require so much coordination with a multitude of curl users anyway and you could just as well trigger the same exact problem by simply calling curl, and the only case I can see it being a vulnerability is if you openly give access to the retry options, and even then its not going to keep making an immediate attempt. How could that possibly cause a DDOS? I guess if the server is really crap but that would be a problem regardless of an invalid option value.
    10
  232.  @StarfishPrime1969  Two eyewitnesses supporting each other without aiming to conflict will also tend to always be more accurate, granted not always, but with husband and wife its a lot harder to say they are incorrect unless they heavily talked about what happened in the aftermath which I don't feel like Adam and his wife did much, seems especially Adam didn't want to talk about it too much which probably often included his wife, hence why she corrected him since he would probably otherwise not said anything that disagreed with her publicly. Just more demonstration that Adam is likely telling the truth since she not only didn't speak out on anything else but that she did demonstrates she knows enough about the facts that she can confidently say things over him and he's actually not even disagreeing with her premise. Basically her disagreement with his few likely incorrect bits demonstrates how much more honest they both are.
    10
  233. Freedom of Association should allow anyone to fire a workfork that goes on strike, its an actual violation of human rights to disallow freedom of association.
    10
  234.  @dustycarrier4413  The whole definition and term "open source" came from the FOSS philosophy, its not a monopoly, its an already objectively defined term.
    9
  235. Ew snaps, honestly there is very little reason to use a snap app when you have a package manager.
    9
  236.  @teachies902  oof
    9
  237. Modules make most of this fairly easy, package manager would be nice to have so long as we're not being locked by the compiler into it, unlike every single solution in the new languages.
    9
  238. US isn't the only country that does it, its just the most technologically advanced country that does, so with its culture export being so massive you see it a lot more then anything else, and since social media became the more prominently libertinely used in the US for many reasons, we developed a social justice culture because of insular stupid people who were raised without a parental figure and who generally don't go outside much, but if you go to almost any multi-ethnic country where its a "mixing pot" you will tend to get the same race obsession to some degree, people will tend to have a high preference for relatable genealogies, resulting in ethnic similarities because they relate to each other the most, (also known as genetic ingroup preference) and issues between people tend to be emphasized in race. The concept of nationalism seriously did not help this.
    9
  239.  @lainiwakura1776  Its not implying, its a statistical and logical fact, the more people in the workforce, the cheaper labor becomes, driving labor value down. Women functionally doubled the workforce labor thus cutting a significant portion of wages.
    9
  240. Its because they hate us, as Jesus said: "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." - John 15:18-19
    9
  241. Technically while the backdoor we know of was not in production systems for stable distros yet, Jia Tian's contributions go back two years making it long enough that they have commits in production systems for stable distros which could be suspect and contain backdoors.
    9
  242.  @tapuzuko2532  Yes, a warning shot is a crime because its not an intent to stop the aggressor and can put innocents in danger, when you fire a gun, you must always be ready to hit the target else you will easily harm other people, the common self-defense ammo is designed intentionally to stop in human flesh and not overpenetrate (hollow point being generally what you go for) for which hitting non-human targets is not guaranteed to stop the round nor prevent overpenetration. (common handgun rounds like 9mm may not overpenetrate anyway, but why take the chance? Or a ricochet?) By the way if you shoot without the intent to harm them and do in fact hurt them, that's most certainly capable to be made a crime.
    9
  243.  @kayeassy  There is no recognition of truth without the Biblical text. You can't have objective truth without God.
    9
  244. This is the reason I'm advocating that if you really need to build an app that's easy to cross-platform and develop on with a nice readable and performant language and great UI system that you can actually edit without opening a text file, use Godot, you can even strip it down, there is no need to JIT it, it still works decently as a web app, but most especially it runs as a native app. And if you really need another language or C++, you can just use one of the native bindings that doesn't require recompiling the whole engine. (and even if you're willing to do that, you can shrink it down to a 20-30 meg binary on Linux if all you want is core functionality)
    9
  245.  @RenderingUser  None of them are ABI stable, so none of them are non-Rust usable libraries, they're all all end user programs or Rust-supporting libraries, no Rust library exists that can be used as a binding for other languages while maintaining the stability of C, that makes it useless for Unix infrastructure, and the Rust language devs refuse to cooperate on this, its so far considered theoritically impossible to accomplish this.
    9
  246. Just like his common DNC platform that he peddles.
    9
  247. ​ @infinitemonkey917  You do realize that's not a refutation of what I said right, you're not presenting an argument, that's ipse dixit, a fallacy.
    9
  248. She still gives off serious Kamala Harris energy. Difference is she can actually talk.
    9
  249.  @Rudxain  Yeah, Javascript's interpreter doesn't discard comments for that specific reason, it saves the plaintext in runtime which normally just means a bunch of useless bloat in RAM, it usually doesn't mean a buffer overflow. Thing is if it wasn't comments you would've easily been able to trigger it with enough interpreted machine language instructions that can't be optimized out of JS. But the fact it does buffer overflow demonstrates clearly this was made by a kid, there is no way you just let a buffer overflow get into production software, they're freaking trivial to predict.
    9
  250. Not to mention Rust has the exact same syntax and reads almost exactly the same, and its the reason I hate Rust, why we keep trying to remove the ALGOL from our languages I'll never get.
    9
  251. Unless you're intentionally building a buff and gruff masculine character, there's no reason for fantasy characters to have scars for procedures that wouldn't even happen in a fantasy world. That being aside from the fact isn't trans about trying to be the other sex, why then would you not just choose the other sex?
    9
  252.  @po1sonseede9001  Yeah I bet, other stupid thing that makes it doubly confusing in C++ is that neither of those symbols apply to the statement as a whole, only to the identifier, so instead of writing: int* p_1, p_2, p_3; you gotta write: int *p_1, *p_2, *p_3; even though an overwhelming majority of cases you will have multiple pointers being declared at the same time. Conventionally you would see int* as a type, but for some reason in C and thus C++ int is the type and the *p_1 defines a modification to the type exclusive to the identifier that isn't shared with any other object declaration in the language. Only contributing to C/C++'s anti-intuitive nature.
    9
  253.  @andrewsick9003  "Dictator" What? He's an elected official doing his elected job according to the law. Also the US cost of living on average is lower then anything in Canada or Europe, only in New York or California is it "high", even then those states are only the same as the average of Canada and Europe.
    9
  254. ​This is still self-refuting, the only justified position is removal of the self then.
    9
  255. They keep trying to change language to conform to their warped view of reality, they can live as they want, but then they start insisting others tolerate dealing with it, no, I really don't and I'm not gonna apologize for that.
    9
  256.  @peterc3262  She took no responsibility for her faults, never had any friends or family evaluate her relationship decisions, and she will not ever say "I choose a bad man" and was unwilling to fully give up her career, she also does not speak about anything she did, and she got married four months into a relationship with someone she just met, she wasn't even a friend of the dude before the relationship. She never was a traditionalist and she'll never be one because she is an anti-traditional woman, she's always been a tomboy which does violate traditionalism, traditionalism only works if you are always traditional, she would've stayed under the guidance of a man and never decided to make a career before she got married and she would've kept a Christian loving, respectful, and submissive attitude in modesty, she also never respected the husband, seems she only got married because he was sexually attractive, having a child out of wedlock is a clear violation of traditional. She just liked the sex and didn't care who the man was.
    9
  257. The FSF would've won the war against proprietary code by now if they'd just been reasonable and approach people in an attempt to give them full choice and work as best as is reasonably possible to eliminate proprietary code. They honestly shoot FOSS in the foot the most out of any members of it.
    9
  258.  @alessandrohuber4407  Well his claims at the end talking about American gun policy were literal manipulations, common in mainstream establishment circles to push for gun control, literally every talking point made about American gun ownership has been addressed and refuted in the US, like for example bringing up suicides is useless when gun suicides aren't even the majority of suicides in the US, majority of those cases are drug related. Or completely ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun homicides is inner city gang crime where it has been basically illegal for the average citizen to own a gun, and if you remove the cities and states where gun ownership is basically illegal in the US, the crime rate drops to nearly nothing. As an example, in New Jersey you aren't allowed to carry a gun at all except to a gun range or to a hunting spot, and if you "make a detour" you can be arrested for it, and if you don't separate your ammo far away from your gun and keep your gun as far away from you in your vehicle as possible, you'll be arrested, and Jersey was (at the time of stats) also a no-issue state where self-defense is not a justification for a permit and for which you have to pay exorbitant fees in order to get said permit. And if you enter New Jersey with a gun and don't have a Jersey permit you will be jailed anyway. This is how most US cities operate (if you're not black, which they practically never arrest) and all of the US states for which have strict gun control, and for which the majority of gun crimes take place in, all of which were illegal already to own. And this is my issue with this discussion, when you look at states and townships that don't ban guns, the gun homicide rate and mass shooting rates drop dramatically, Texas has some of the least restrictive gun laws and also has some of the lowest rates of both and has the highest record homicide prevention use by a gun, which by itself is already statistically more then the homicide rate itself. I could go on and on and on about this topic as a massive 2A advocate this is a topic I've had to constantly argue for, and for which I have personal experience over, just know a lot of things he says about American gun culture is highly manipulative that us American 2A advocates have already roundly debunked. And this is why this video pissed me off so badly. (like for example, Jefferson directly attests in his letters that military weapons are for all citizens to own, not to participate in a militia, Jefferson denotes it as a fundamental right of the individual, not as foremost a duty to the collective, and he's not the only one)
    9
  259. Thing is Crime Boss was literally only breaking even (admitted by their own PR people to Kirsche) in any sense because Kirsche promoted it, she was literally told that she was the sole reason the game didn't go under, they bit the hand the fed them for free and now they're dead, Kirsche received very little benefit out of the arrangement even when they fixed her code. (because she spent a while with an old code that was out of date meaning she made no money for months over her association, it was eventually fixed and then this happens)
    9
  260.  @SapiaNt0mata  THIS! Seriously, CDPR is in a classic trouble case of going a decade into wokeness by pulling this pandering bs. It doesn't even actually make any sense because even in cyberpunk there is still the concept of biological sex and nobody intersectional screwup mutation would dare argue that with anyone with a brain because they know they'd lose. Also can I say that those trigger happy folks don't represent even 0.01% of any population and they also tend to have a suicide rate larger then any other singular demographic no matter what actions are taken by them or others towards them.
    9
  261.  @floridaman318  We've been fighting the Gnostics for a long time, John the Apostle does it in 1 and 2 John, but sometimes those who claim the name of Jesus, who are still condemned, subscribe to Gnostic doctrine which discerns them from the faith for which they are condemned for. The original concept of the Gnostic religion that Gnosticism comes from is called Dualism.
    9
  262.  @corey__wm  Hopefully, I don't expect it to ever happen knowing the design and structure of Rust, its simply impossible, Rust really doesn't like keeping legacy ABI either, (unlike how C and C++ do things) so not only is it not stable, but it also pretty much violates legacy consistency, which makes it about as stable as experimental software, which is not something you want in a systems programming language that you expect to become the backbone of systems infrastructure.
    9
  263. Now that's a strawman if I've ever seen one.
    9
  264. That is horrible, good one my good sir.
    8
  265. The issue crops up more visibly on lower end systems and with lower refresh rates.
    8
  266. AfD isn't "far-right", its literally the exact same platform as the CDU with the only difference being their immigration perspective, if the AfD is far right then so is the CDU, both of which isn't even the most extreme of "right-wing" in western European countries, Denmark and Czechia are much more "far-right" in that sense.
    8
  267. Banning things promotes it a lot more then subsidizing it, it'll just appear on the surface that it no longer exists instead, also that's a pretty massive disrespect for the right of free speech.
    8
  268.  @maxstirner6143  He didn't make a fortune, he was bailed out.
    8
  269. Its not hard to debate him even without knowing the Greek when he makes claims ignoring contextual semantics and the capacity for words to mean multiple things.
    8
  270.  @paavoilves5416  They're all doing poorly in some way economically, (Norway and Denmark less so) most of Europe is in very poor economic straits, its part of the contributing reasons why some center right policies are picking up throughout Europe. (they're not moving right politically though) They're usually more fiscally conservative then the US government mostly for procedural and budgetary reasons, (and lack of direct control over the currency by any one state) but that only really delays the issues, not stops them.
    8
  271.  @CritLoren  "way more expensive" That's an argument from irrelevant point fallacy, nobody argued in regards to that. Had someone else said it wasn't more expensive I would've also called them a liar, it is more expensive but that's irrelevant to my point. "not anywhere as good" That's statistically and demonstrably false, the healthcare outcomes and healthcare quality in the US is superior to all those countries, if you compare the outcomes of healthcare coverage in the US against every other nation in the world it is just straight better, the complaint people have is down to cost and insurance coverage, not quality, nobody complains about the quality or outcomes of American healthcare. And the opinionated perceived quality of outcome statistics are fallacious and invalid because they aren't based on objective metrics but subjective self-reporting, (usually by partisans and activists for state mandated healthcare lobbies with an agenda) healthcare does not exist to improve the perception of healthcare, that's a missing the point fallacy. Also the US government spends more on healthcare then other nation in the world.
    8
  272. Bruh what? This just demonstrates the 19th was a complete mistake, can't even make basic decision holy hell.
    8
  273.  @borkbunns  "Cherry picking cheaters and placing them into their own lobbies would only make them realize that they're playing against other players using the same cheats as them, causing them to wise up and quickly change their methods" First off most cheaters don't care who they play against, else you'd quickly see cheating peak and then drop statistically as they get disinterested in competing with a saturation of cheaters to an equilibrium, (we do not see this take place) most hackers don't care if they play hvh or not, many in fact intentionally initiate it. Majority of them would already not care. Also the principal is they can't enter non-cheating servers, once marked a cheater, they stay a cheater, so changing their methods is worthless. The problem with banning is it encourages cheaters to make new accounts because they have no choice, majority of them wouldn't do this on the simple fact that they'd have to actively change their behavior instead of placating to some form of pleasure, of which such people are mostly not gonna do. (most people are not self-controlled and once they partake in a pleasure, until you punish them outright they won't stop, this is basic human nature) "Even Riot has spoke about this topic but with regards to toxicity, which is probably the bigger issue with League itself honestly." Few issues with this, first off this is a complete incomparable, toxic behavior is highly subjective, and where the lines reside inherently is indeterminable, and once you start drawing lines, people will just start trying to redefine it and tow the line to get away with as much as possible, and it usually isn't considered a good idea to outright ban everyone who partakes in any even slightly toxic behavior. As well I know Riot has not performed much of any real experiments on toxicity either, so what they say on the topic is theoretical at best. Also wouldn't it be inherently desirable to reform (or encourage reform of) player behavior to lessen toxicity? Doesn't that kinda prove the whole point in regards to toxicity? The same doesn't hold true for cheating specifically because its a black-and-white objective metric that we merely may have a hard time externally tracking in all cases, but we objectively can observe clear cases of it, toxicity does not have an objective case and a computer would never be capable to know this without sentience. In that regard toxicity would be lessened purely by incentives and encouraging the players and so the game would be better even when it doesn't solve the issue.
    8
  274.  @anon_y_mousse  Community is also quite toxic and fanatic, we all understand the flaws of C, Rust folks in my experience only ever get angry and throw tantrums if you point any out to them.
    8
  275. Honestly C++20 concepts and constraints solve the metaprogramming issue completely by erasing the compile time type while preserving a type contract, and the compiler flat out tells you why something failed, it can also perform constraint overloading and allows you to perform compile-time conditional type introspection with if constexpr, all major compilers support most of the major C++20 concept feature set (least that matters) and as someone who has personally used it in a codebase with excessive template metaprogramming its been a godsend to protect the templates from massive nonsense statements of problems I have no way to understand, and even better it gives you a clear understanding of how a template works from an interface perspective. Next thing I'm waiting for is properly functioning modules in all major compilers.
    8
  276. This isn't true, foremost because negativity doesn't breed negativity inherently, only unjustified negative responses do so, you can test this with adults whose parents punished appropriately when they were younger, in most cases you'll find in the short term the children would resent the parents but as they grow older and wiser they come to understand more often then not that the punishment was for their benefit. Its common in more traditional regions for this behavior to consistently repeat, praise too likely assists the children come to better conclusions for the future, but sociological behavior would present that the older we get, the more we get stuck in our ways and the more arrogant we become, the more necessary negative consequences are required over positive ones. Especially since adults regularly coast on positive reinforcement that they can't do so with negative consequences. Children don't embody this and alongside likely having a bit of a harder time following negative consequences, they also aren't set in arrogance and their own ways like an adult and thus will be less likely to pick a way they made up. They are also more sympathetic and caring (generally) of others then adults (least for relevant cases) and especially to their parents. This means they are more likely to consider positive reinforcement, especially since they are continuously adapting, improving, and changing whereas adults aren't. This alongside traditions, cultural and religious standards, which also report generally that child is more susceptible to these behaviors say to disagree with positive reinforcement as a generalized justified standard. (I also can't personally think of anyone still that resents negative reinforcement because of the negative reinforcement, in every cases its because the person was overly harsh, was retarded, or was straight up wrong and was totally unjustified at the start)
    8
  277.  @terrydaktyllus1320  "Just for the record, I can take an entirely "unbiased" attitude to systemd because I have used Gentoo Linux at home since 2003 where I have never had to deploy systemd but, at the same time, I have been in a job working on Red Hat servers for 20 years now and I, of course, have to know how to drive systemd as part of that job." You can't take an unbiased attitude with anything though because that's literally, logically, and physically impossible to do. Facts are inherently biased by nature, to consider yourself unbiased in any manner is by nature a manipulative and deceptive statement no matter how you slice it, anyone who says such things should be immediately distrusted. Also you prove your bias by using experience and anecdotes over specific arguments. Secondly this is complete nonsense, you have a job, in a job you choose to take, you don't get a choice on how to perform your job, you do what you are required of you, you don't get to violate the desires of your boss else you can't have a job, if you don't like that then you shouldn't have chosen the job and can quit said job, you always have a choice, but saying it like that is just try to hide it claiming "my job" as if you didn't chose your job foremost. You were never compelled to do that work, no job is ever forced upon, you have to accept it first. "I started using Linux back in 1996 and it has been my main OS since 2003 but if you asked me to remove systemd from Red Hat, I wouldn't even know where to start. It is core to the functionality of Red Hat and a huge number of other applications depend on it." 95% of those apps are FOSS already, some of them have non-systemd forks anyway, a lot of the time if people actually care the work was already done, in the few other cases its not especially hard for any specific app. Also what do you expect from Red Hat? Its their backend startup system, do you expect them to write everything from scratch when they have an easy to use system right there? Why should they write for anything else when it doesn't gain them anything? "and I would suggest you'll be out of luck there if you asked that of probably all distro developers." Haven't had a problem of this on Arch, I suppose with Debian and Debian-based distros it can be dumb, but that's because they're stupid distros anyway. "but that choice is restricted to what distros are available and how those distros have been built." Not really, choice has nothing to do with availability, this is a conflation of two distinct concepts, its not desirable not interesting and thus has not been done, people don't care enough and by the prospect of market forces nothing has been done. The only distro I can even think of where this is a massive problem is Debian and Fedora, which granted with Debian takes up most of the common users but its not like you don't have a choice of the distro in the first place, and you can distro hop regardless, and with most of the other distros besides them you do still get that choice. "Nothing stops you forking Fedora and rebuilding it to be systemd-less, but that's actually building a new distro, and that's beyond most people." Because its pointless, why would you chose Fedora in the first place if you hate systemd, that's quite stupid, how about instead of doing that just chose one of the distro/distro variants that don't freaking ship with systemd? There's plenty of those, Arch is filled with em, I don't see how this is a problem, it sounds more like making up an issue. And most people don't care anyhow, that's the reason the common use distros are systemd ones anyway. "Please try to be more objective in your thinking in future - so many people only look at the world from their perspective only, in your case "I like systemd, it works for me so everyone else should like it" and then try and "backwards engineer" rationales around such subjective opinion - and then end up being completely wrong." Given you kind of just used a fallacy here, that was a dumb response, you literally did that. Also this sounds kind of like a strawman. I mean you completely violated the fact that you've always had a choice, you're living proof, but yet you then also try to claim that your choice of distro isn't a goddamn choice, how does that make any logical sense? You just made a claim that you fundamentally don't exist.
    8
  278. And the whole "bread line waiting is a good thing"
    8
  279. Aside from hating the Rust syntax for unnecessary syntax changes from C/C++, like postfix type specifiers (the let a : i32 = 1 crap, I am aware of the justifications, I find them to be worthless excuses) I also hate the reliance on Cargo to use Rust, I don't like having reliance on a singular package manager to use a development environment, I want to be able to manage it myself, I want simplicity and modularity between my systems, Rust adds complexity to development environments that I find frustrating, I would not mind Rust's backend if it could separate itself into the smallest modular principles possible, the fact that systemd can achieve this but a programming language can't is insulting from Rust to say the least.
    8
  280. "No major company with clear staying power is producing and supporting a desktop Linux system" So does this exclude Redhat, Canonical, or Pop_Os? The latter two of which has in fact shipped personal computing desktops in stores with Linux installed. Not to mention Canonical has also tried their hand at the mobile market at least once. And what about Framework? They have a lot of out of the box Linux support.
    8
  281.  @Killbayne  You do realize that you never put your VIP on a stage with a unidentified person of interest walking around acting suspicious especially when numerous reports from the local PD report that suspect behavior? There isn't a professional that didn't call it downright stupid.
    8
  282.  @nullid1492  Yes it is, C has native dynamic linkage, Rust does not, that means that its not suitable except in replicating C, that's stupid, even C++ can do this without needing to replicate C. (it can do that too, but it does not need to)
    8
  283.  @infinitemonkey917  "Your entire argument is nothing but an unsupported opinion that I reject." I addressed at least two philosophies with rational backing towards their premises, you presented none. I also said "A good story can be written by such fools." which you are required to address by more then just saying "you know better" as if that's a refutation. You don't get to handwave that by simply mimicking what I've said so as to mock me. Its not a substance argument. I also told you a story is presented as it is with objective demonstration of its premise regardless of the opinion of the author according to its narrative. We take interpretation not by authorial intent when started or finished, for anyone who does such things has a subjective worldview, which actually makes you incapable to argue against any point since I can't possibly be wrong then. Instead we take interpretation by the themes and events of the narrative according to rationality and presented features of the work in which we build a basis for objective truth. Every narrative and artistry, just as every life lived, has this and it was recognized in fact for centuries before the post-modernist perspective infected the west and made us literally incapable of basic rationality. In this you can not say the author is the penultimate authority of a works interpretation when presented to an audience, and neither does the audience decide that, its the story that does that in disregard to both. Just because one admits or knows of the bias and influences that anyone has does not make reality change, reality is objective and irrefutable and story is much the same. We can disagree on some aspects but that is where opinion lies. We can not argue over fact. "You also posted it 6 times - so maybe delete some of them." Blame youtube for targeting me and randomly dropping my posts whenever it feels like it, sometimes I get 20 posts out in a second, other times I can't post for 6 months straight. "You post a long winded subjective, opinionated comment" How about you quote me and tell me where I presented a lack of objective rationally? I presented two fundamental audience philosophies that operate on the principle of objective reality and argued against the supposition of them being opinionated in the first place. "full of ad hominems" Where? Calling someone a fool when they don't present an argument or who present an unsubstantiated argument is not ad hominem, assigning names and insults don't by nature mean ad hominem, ad hominem is an argumentative fallacy, you have to have a position or rational opposition. And given you're the only one with such and I never once called you that it can't possibly be ad hominem. And that aside being a fool or moron is a statement of fact, it has nothing to do with me reducing or harming an argumentative position, the inherent result of the position presented would make them fools, that's not as an argument itself, its the result of an argument. (so even if a writer I called a fool was in the opposition, they couldn't be subject to the fallacy since the argument wasn't about them being a fool, it results in them being made the fool by proxy which I'm merely pointing out) "without any actual evidence of anything" Rationality is inherent evidence, those who believe they need evidence in hand and don't believe evidence by word is by its nature evidence doesn't understand the basics of rationality. There is a reason the courts rely on alibis and multiple independent witnesses even without demonstrative evidence, that is because the reason itself is self-evident and qualifies itself, it needs no other testimony to itself. "you accuse me of ipse dixit." You made a baseless statement to try and undermine mine my position, you didn't present any reason nor refute anything I said. And then you did "Oh the irony of dip shitery." Which is coming awfully close to ad hominem, not to mention that a fallacy by itself does not by nature refute a position, it merely states that your argumentation was invalid for said position. All that said its also a fallacy to accuse others of a fallacy without addressing the fallacy, and given you didn't even address what I said it might as well be said you have no position to stand on. Technically you committed a few fallacies in few words but regardless, your position is neither objective nor rational and you've yet to refute what I've said.
    8
  284.  @raktimamchiforthe4thtime445  But your personal argument is still inherently illogical unless you wish removal of the self. When you rely on suffering as your justification, that inherently still applies to you, hence you can't use utilitarian arguments.
    8
  285.  @raktimamchiforthe4thtime445  It being a personal argument doesn't preclude it from being illogical, its simply a poor justification, regardless of where you take it if you don't take an argument to its logical conclusion you can't be logically coherent nor logically consistent. This aside whether something wants to exist or not is a nonsense argumentation because consent and voluntary choice are themselves irrelevant principals for any philosophy, even utilitarian philosophy doesn't care about it, and the only philosophy that does recognize it is true hedonism and that only applies to the self and is a subjective philosophy that ignores everyone else. Unless your argument is that you must only ever do as you wish there is no rational argument that consent and voluntary choice matter. There is no reason to have the presupposition of consent and voluntary choice unless value is determined which requires existent and an objective morality anyway, and even then neither case inherently justifies any position you could take, only that it influences your behavior.
    8
  286. Don't forget that both of his eldest sons are such gun guys that they had to explain distance of the assassination attempt and counter-sniper shot to Trump in golf terms, so even when he doesn't have much understanding of guns, both of his eldest sons do, not to mention he has many big gun associates around him, like Vivek. He also says that he'll align more with the Libertarians this time too and claimed he will even appoint one to his cabinet. So even aside from Trump's maybe personally shakey position, he is so surrounded by gun and pro-gun guys, its no doubt in my mind he's a very pro-2A president. Of course after his first term and his base is very 2A as well, he probably further saw how important guns are and how wrong the other side is on them.
    8
  287.  @ThatBlueSkull  Perhaps, but a Drake and Josh reboot would've likely been fairly successful given the nostalgia factor in the US, so long as the actors acted casually like their natural selves. But he cared least enough to botch his last chance at being on the upside of fame again, he was already at the bottom under most standards of his colleagues, the fact he was even content with his position enough to give them consideration shows less fear and more of a respect, remember that he really seriously wanted to and still does want to be friends with Josh and work with him, its like one of his dreams but he wasn't willing to take a dream compromised against those that have been there for him the most. Even the most cynical take can only say that he's aware that his Latin American fans are more important then anything else.
    8
  288.  @wartooth_pk  Well thing is, Christians specifically have dedicated in-numerous resources to allow you to read them without knowing the language. You're able to cross-reference the definitions and locate every word and related word in the book, reading verse by verse and word by word with these definitions thus giving justifications for the translation, the commentaries are also split between exegetical and expository going back a good few centuries, even to translations of what Luther and Calvin wrote and beyond. And these are themselves given by scholars, both secular and not, and its not just Scripture we can reference for this, many early Church fathers writings can be too (which aren't Scripture, that even includes 1st century non-Apostolic fathers like Clement) and even non-Christian historians. The Christian study is way more robust then Ammon is willing to give credit and his new interpretations don't make any rational sense and contradict everything we have of the first century and ever preceding century.
    8
  289. Legit makes more sense then rust, not to mention its easier for C devs to maintain.
    8
  290. I don't think its fair to say either he failed or succeeded there, he conquered it and then died, he didn't live long enough to accomplish anything more, but his empire did immediately collapse with his death, so its not technically a stretch to call it a failure exactly, but more so a failure to stay alive, since it only collapsed after he died, its not exactly a failure to build or keep an empire.
    8
  291.  @miguelservetus9534  "and shows a lot of people traveled even back then." "Well researched or not, it is not a foundation upon which to build a conclusion." You seem to be taking the wrong assumption about the phrasing of the statement, nothing about the context nor phrasing says that its a historical vision, its questionable to assume that perspective. Its not unreasonable to say "and shows" in phrasing because its using historical context to describe to the best of our knowledge what historically would be the case. "Note that this video’s narrator says 95% did not travel. If true, the most did not travel." But almost every character the player will tend to interact with in KC:D is not a farmer, or wasn't originally a farmer, and those who lived inside castle walls (that being a large majority of the NPCs) would almost certainly not have been a farmer. For that context it makes sense that most if not all (if not most of) your NPC interactions would be with former travelers and sojourners. Perhaps we can question the regard for ignoring the most common demographic of the time period but keep in mind that a farmer would have very little for a former blacksmith's kid turned soldier, there isn't much justification from almost any perspective for the player to interact with farmers so as a result most player interactions will tend to under-emphasize them. This is a case where the interactive medium puts you in the biased perspective of a member of the narrative instead of giving you an overarching accurate portrayal of the reality of the time in its entirety. As an aside even just 5% of 100,000 is still 5000, the more people that live in a period, the easier it is for any individual traveler to come across a traveler because by ratio they will stay the same and thus become more common alongside other demographics.
    8
  292. The problem is that Javascript not only allows, but enables and often requires you to do those things just to actually use it, it was poorly designed from the start because it wasn't intended to be a permanent solution, it should've been replaced before we conceptualized WASM. That's partly the browser providers' screwing the internet up again, and also the EMCA being made to be stupid.
    8
  293. Not to mention opposition to capital punishment but its totally fine with letting someone die for being stupid, so a criminal who commits evil, like murdering an entire church, gets taxpayer comfort of life in prison as worst, you can't be consistent with this standard, if the law doesn't have lethal consequences then there is no consequence, the lack of capital punishment made the trash criminal system, Tim is an idiot. Some people can't be reform Tim, its not practical to try, and they deserve death when they do some horrid.
    8
  294. The problem is likely Tim not wanting to see that such evil like that exists, the powers that be sitting in ivory towers doing horrid things beyond our wildest imaginations that we never want to see.
    7
  295.  @MiukuMac  Considerably slower in what way? In a noticeable way? Probably not, if it really mattered, then they'd develop a JIT or AOT compiler, but bytecode can be made fast enough without it if you're not doing anything super complex, (like C++ or Rust level complex) and if you have type information, you can optimize for a lot of performance, also a DSL designed for a specific purpose can make a lot of presumptions that remove performance costs, the small cost of performance otherwise isn't a big deal when the margin isn't noticeable and won't stress out the system, even with a DE you have performance budget to waste a bit, you don't need hyper-optimized performance, you need to prove its a problem with profiling first. A RAM cached bytecode absolutely won't show up in a profiler. (and I'm saying this as someone who has written a bit of language parsers and bytecode stuff before) Often times easy maintenance is superior to having an obsession over performance, performance only matters when you can notice it. The problem of modern systems is that a lot of people ignore it even when it is noticeable, you could easily profile code to see a problem, I agree will addressing those issues, but I'm willing to bet you QML itself would never be the problem here.
    7
  296.  @monsterboomer8051  Minorities by themselves don't usually increase the population enough to make a noticeable climb in birth rates unless the minority population is due to become the majority within a short time.
    7
  297. ​ @sivvinod3187  Ha, I don't use a browser nor an OS owned by any of them. And I don't only use Youtube for video watching either. You're argument must be invalid since that was the only "logic behind it. "You like to say that but you don't realize that you'll lose all the GOOD things as well." What good things? "Regulation is the only option unless we want to go a few decades backwards in development." What justification, rational, or reason do you have for this claim? How can you demonstrate objectively that we would? Thing is you can't, and there is no reason for which you could believe such except a religion in government, that we call statism. You have never once lived in a free market and neither has any of your family that you've ever met, there has not been one person alive for near on 200 years who has lived in a free market. And neither do you understand the economic arguments nor the logical arguments regarding the free market, you're repeating propaganda.
    7
  298. 2FA has always felt like a half-assed attempt to reach the "I lost my crypto-wallet" problem for me, least as of late, its kinda frustrating that I need to have a device or I need to know the next device I'm gonna use for the 2FA, IDK I don't really think its the responsibility of the host to provide security, (that violates their convenience without a choice) its up to each individual to decide the risks for themselves. I just don't believe in collective nor centralized solutions, too bad nobody will get over them. And I'm saying this as an active contributor to multiple projects on github and so have to use 2FA, I use a browser addon for my 2FA, honestly I feel there's gotta be a better solution.
    7
  299. Blame the Premillennial Dispensationalism heresy.
    7
  300.  @rogerkeleshian2215  450 AD was peak.
    7
  301.  @KjngKhanh  He doesn't even know what capitalism is, so he couldn't possibly portray it well, he blamed socialist problems on capitalism and then called it a critique of capitalism. He also doesn't understand what volunteerism is because that also completely destroys his entire argument if it even was about capitalism.
    7
  302. Joe really should learn that one of the reasons Trump was voted for is the exact type of reaction he's giving to Trump's misinformation. Like whether conscious or not, often times Trump is actually broadly effective at getting his "enemies" to admit themselves being wrong or looking stupid without making them realize it themselves. (hence Trump generally being around 50% popular consistently across the US despite the controversy and media coverage of him) Aside from the collectivist problem that Joe has with looking at people as individuals he also doesn't really seem to pay attention to the other side of the fence even if he listens to the other side, just because you hear things from opposing views doesn't mean you're correct or justified in anything, at best all it does is dissuade you generally from going too far into an extreme, I think Joe should learn the Socratic Method. Also would be nice if Joe didn't paint not just Trump supporters as wrong and stupid but even Trump as always wrong and stupid, not everything he's done is a partisan problem just because its usually in opposition to the Democrats. (btw the Democrats and Republicans were running on building a wall up until 2008, kinda annoys me how the whole double standard of politics works especially when Trump is like the only one that actually notably tries to follow through with any of his promises [whether for better or worse, that's what he was voted for])
    7
  303.  @V-V1875-h  I'm talking about German censorship, there are things you can't say without facing serious consequences that are a right to be able to say, all humans, including Germans, have the right to claim the ideology of Nazism and Holocaust denial, it is not the job of the government to dictate morality nor to control the population. When you do this, especially with speech, you embolden the people who do or may be influenced to think that way to become unrepresented and underground, which makes them impossible to stop in any other way but violence. Without the liberty to say what you want you paradoxically promote the ideas in the shadows where it will never be opposed. Its been proven time and time again that outright banning things doesn't correct anything, it merely leaves people less represented, misinformed, and more likely over time to break the law. This is the definition of tyranny, to oppress a people and impose on their rights, it doesn't matter how immoral those rights may appear to anyone, the the German government is not and never will be the arbiter of morality. And neither should act like it. Also telling people to be responsible for preventing an ideology from spreading or existing is immoral, you should be able to teach critical thinking that allows every individual to think critically and question things without teaching responsibility on any specific thing. Also Germans will likely (or even are honestly) commit ignorance or direct support for atrocities again, all human populations do it because its easier to live that way and evil is in our bones, if someone can't accept and understand that, that it will happen again and will be ignored, that's when no one will speak out and let it happen again.
    7
  304.  @DanielMight  "AI" image recognition sees pattern in images that never make sense to us in isolation of their attributes, so when you try to get it to analyze an image it tries to use these odd patterns to "understand" the image, if its trained on too little or too much anime it would easily give anime characters attribute associations that make little sense to us and when asked for a specific character it likely would associate it with any number of attributes.
    7
  305.  @jonnyso1  That's not actually true though, safety isn't the issue for that point, its semantics, there is nothing in the standard library that would violate those assumptions because the the unsafe behavior below Rust is preserved through the legacy of the C standard library which is always backwards compatible, and if those semantics were to change it will break Rust. I don't expect the Rust standard library to either change semantics unless it wants to break all preexisting code, the C and C++ standard library is full of deprecations they can't get rid of for a reason, unless Rust does that it would fail to be a usable systems language at all. And that requires nearly as many Rust contributors just doing that as C ones, every change needs to be managed by both a Rust and C developer then. (and if that fails, Rust will break) Maintenance to that level is an unmanageable problem without a tool that forces it, which the kernel devs cannot use. (and I speak that from experience, even on a small level maintaining that is an impossible and often stupid task)
    7
  306.  @imaresifreak  Gun laws in California and New York tend to be just as bad if not worse, also I'm pretty sure UK has a mental illness thing in regards to gun ownership, but do they have the full "break down your door for no reason and shoot your whole family over an accusations" red flag laws?
    7
  307.  @djy0tub3r  The evidence for sexual abuse literally makes no sense, not only was it not proven, but the claims to them having evidence made no logical sense, it could only make sense to say it was 100% fabricated.
    7
  308. She still seems to rave about it like a fanatic which concerns me for if she'll ever actually consider the flaws if you were to argue with her on it, if that's the case, I would then disregard her opinion to the same regard as everyone else. I'm more angry at Rust fanaticism then I ever could be at the language itself, for which I personally despise but have not intended opposition towards. But its for that fanaticism that I don't want Rust anywhere near Linux now.
    7
  309.  @Saskobest  I don't care to make an argument, whether you believe me or not is not something I care to convince you of, Scripture is clear, history demonstrates it, curses are laid upon those who dishonor their parents, hatred of the self, wickedness abounds, perversion, sodomy, and self-destructive behaviors all find sources in hatred of one's parents, for to hate's one's parents means to hate the society, the community, tradition, authority, and your very origins. Those who have no king do what is right in their own eyes, and without the honor of parents one cannot have a king for there is no authority before them and so they take nihilism and hedonism, narcissism becomes the only value and so they can only rationally have a disregard for life and morality. Only those who honor one's parents can respect authority, cursed are they who fall away from this, prosperity and flourishing will be robbed from them and God shall abandon he who does these things. And that is the world we have roosted upon now.
    7
  310.  @monad_tcp  I think you're kinda going too far responding to my comment, like I admitted that its a common taboo thanks to feminist bullcrap, I was already agreeing, pointing out not to swing the pendulum to try and balance the scales was kinda my entire point. Too many people tend to have an issue of swinging the pendulum the complete, other, and wrong way to correct the incorrectness of its last position, and I want to curb that. Sometimes you have to tell people kindly and calmly these type of things, else you'll be handwaved by people who need to be reasoned with.
    7
  311.  @blackgorillaarmy9204  Freedom of association (that's one of the points of the 1st Amendment, not just speech) is a right, you have no right to be employed, you have a right to seek work, that's it, the government is not obligated to give you a job. Also you have no right to keep your job, a job is a privilege you agreed to do for payment so the business can function.
    7
  312. Personally I say we execute those who repeatedly commit theft without remorse, after a certain point its pretty clear they don't provide for society and there is no punishment if the law is not absolute.
    7
  313. Hopefully he's only being moderate as a facade and he'll be more radical once he's in since he doesn't have to worry about a third term.
    7
  314.  @flowgangsemaudamartoz7062  They said that about 3D printers and computers, the cost of things always goes down even when the government tries to stop it.
    7
  315. Government expansion tends to cause most problems after the enlightenment, too many people tried to develop utopias and semi-utopias via government after it because they became entitled to themselves.
    7
  316. Honestly I despise a lot of the Rust community, it doesn't serve an original purpose, it co-opts the purposes of other languages, sometimes without good justification compared to the alternatives, and then it gets injected everywhere like "replace everything with Rust" no matter how unsuitable it would be for that. Aside from despising the language for numerous reasons (its ideas are nice, but its implementation is the worst way you could've done it) the community is absolutely horrible for Rust, I've been in regular non-rust programming places, but as soon as you criticize Rust for anything, they absolutely lose their crap and call you names. I can't stand Rust, and even more I can't stand its community, its no wonder its representatives are so crap.
    7
  317. While the overhead is there, its usually the most insignificant detail, (unless you're dealing with multi-threading, but the standard smart pointers aren't helpful in any of those cases anyway) but yes using a shared pointer like this is not really correct, usually a shared pointer is for complex scenarios where you can't be sure of when the pointer should be freed because of all the things that depend on a valid value, containers being one of the most useful cases.
    7
  318. All it takes is a false premise on the value of life versus abuse and this is something anyone can justify, and it is entirely reasonable for a kid to both see things this way and in being generally impulsive to commit to the act in such a way, coming to the premise is difficult but most certainly not impossible, it makes a lot of sense why he so quickly admits to it, I don't believe he suffers from psychopathy, though perhaps something else most certainly.
    7
  319.  @kebien6020  Still teaches bad habits and always fails late, which unless you're dumb is considered one of the worst sins of programming, failing early is something that goes all the way back to ALGOL at least, any decent language should do this or figure out some design to force it, Javascript does not require any type of sanitation for that. And doesn't just apply to coercion, that's a core of the language that can even happen in the parser.
    7
  320. It'll activate when any of the biometrics are approved, so if your thumbprint is approved, it can fire, if your face scan is approved, then it can fire, you only need one, its not really the same thing as you're saying in that case. I'm still ambivalent of it.
    7
  321.  @marcelberes469  It generally should because its not relying on your eyes alone, but it depends on the threshold of the scanner.
    7
  322.  @skinwalker69420  Perhaps, I'm not making a value judgement either way with what I said, but people are discounting it erroneously here, I'm fine with saying it could or would have problems so long as we are true and honest about them, I don't really like people saying "this won't work" for a case that was actually considered. I just want truth. If you're actually curious about the potential problems with this gun, you should probably watch Ian's videos on it at Forgotten Weapons, he gets into a lot of detail on how it works.
    7
  323.  @seeibe  Which makes it kinda funny that the only distro this specific backdoor wouldn't work on Arch because Arch doesn't do dumb stuff like that instead of requesting upstream enable something that could supplant the patch.
    7
  324. Formal/socialized unions have never worked like this, (even going back to the 1920s you'd see it was never the formal unions that helped people) collective bargaining only works like that when its not a formal organization, but when everyone voluntarily joins it to perform collective bargaining. But that's the free market solution these morons hate.
    7
  325. Most of them also have a hatred of the patriarchal line, even if a few cases not directly the father, though most cases it does end up being a hatred for the father, which makes sense since Communist thinking is inherently a product of weak feminine thought. (Strong feminine thought would call the man to work for payment)
    7
  326. He was running for the House of Representatives, not the Senate, but yes being a Senator would be even better.
    7
  327. I hate Rust's syntax as a hobbyist in syntax design and parser development, you could not have made a much worse language syntax then Rust, Lisp makes more sense. Rust has interesting ideas, but I can't see a good reason to use it over C++, every protection it has can be just as well handled in C++ since C++11, C++ has been capable of memory safety since C++98, the problem is people keep assigning C programmers to C++ and then you're surprised when they open the C memory hole? We've had static analyzers for years telling people to stop doing that, and Rust has plenty of holes in its "sound type system" that people will abuse just the same as they did in C once anyone becomes competent in it, with competence mixed with time and performance constraints always brings a lack of safety even in "safe" code. "Safe Rust" can still perform buffer overflows and people will eventually rely on the existence of that behavior too. Course they might also just completely disregard "Safe Rust" which inherently produces bugs because it is impossible to understand Rust's overprotective behavior well enough to account for it in unsafe code, its the same as just writing straight C, all you did was move the problem down the line, if you keep pushing C developers over to Rust, and they keep struggling with the borrow checker, lifetimes, and the traits system to do even simple things people will just do what they did in C and C++ and disable the safety checks because they got in the way, and now you just fell right back to square one except now you get to claim "memory safety". That aside the ability to write and read the syntax easily determines the maintenance cost, Rust is not a maintainable language because of its verbosity, I don't foresee anyone wanting to keep any legacy Rust, (its enough of a pain maintaining legacy C when its readable, now imagine legacy Rust) which makes it questionable to try and replace C with, at least Zig is better for this.
    7
  328.  @jonathanp1621  Society doesn't owe anyone anything because its not society making the first move, society (or the economy) only pays for what it finds worth value, if it finds the education valuable then it will pay voluntarily, however if it does not regard the education worth value it will refuse to pay in. Society has no requirement to pay you for effort or ethic, its only regard is equitable value transfers, which are generally determined by the individual foremost. That's why you have to find value to give to the economy, not to desire for the economy to give you value. (which is suppose to leave us humbled in understanding our role for the society, this is also why on a separate case I actually oppose other government forced monopolies like IP laws)
    7
  329.  @shurizzle  Yeah which makes it useless when you intend to distribute intermediary software on your own timeline or development process, or when you want your libraries to be otherwise independent. Also the C ABI is an after thought in Rust, its a hassle and Rust does not expect you to rely on it except in the attempt to subsume such into Rust in every case eventually. (which itself is impossible but yet expected with Rust, also there is no way to overcome the C ABI, any C replacement should be trying to supplant C, not hack it in a way that constantly breaks)
    7
  330.  @aj897  She doesn't understand the law and would probably think they need to be made a felony.
    7
  331. Can also determine if you're in a consteval state of the function now too.
    6
  332. All Standards of Psychology, Sociology, and Physiology says it is just to point out. Be gay if you want, but seriously this misinformation needs to stop being spread, you don't need a justification for your life choices unless you don't like them in the first place.
    6
  333.  @crackedhelm4292  Justice executes murderers and rapists, it is quite unfortunate that this didn't happen.
    6
  334. max estimate could reach near a billion tbf
    6
  335. Look up BRIDGE social impact, its a rebrand, not a removal.
    6
  336. This is such a confusing exploit, so explicit merge keywords aren't implemented but implicit PR merging is? That's just dumb.
    6
  337.  @ThePrimeTimeagen  Not if you don't need the atomic counter, weak references should only be used when you absolutely need the atomic reference counter.
    6
  338.  @bustercrabbe8447  "1. Syndicates aren't corporations," All corporations are made up of syndicates (trade unions) even if they are not officially referred to that way. If people come together to control or manipulate the business, that is a syndicate, another term you can use is cartel. You should've watched TIK's video first. "2. The only type of capitalism where there is no government interference is 'laissez faire' capitalism, and that has never existed." Actually this is incorrect, multiple nations throughout the 19th and 20th century were laissez-faire, the States of the United States all mostly started out as laissez-faire, every so often it returned back to that state. "3. There are several variations of capitalism. Please review Capitalist Theory." TIK has already addressed how State Capitalism is socialism, so I'm not gonna get into that, he's also addressed everything regarding the state having any influence over the means of productions puts them directly responsible and thus owning the means of productions, for they can halt the means of production. Most claims of "capitalist theory" and capitalist criticism was designed by Marxists and socialist activists and ideologues to institute socialism, the concept of "capitalism" itself is a Marxist term devised to make up criticism but for which Marxism (or any socialism) could never actually fix anyway. "4. The US government subsidizes municipal projects throughout American history such as the Erie canal," Initializing or pushing one-off project through is not the same as funding and managing the means of production. Canals are not the means of production. That aside just making a canal does not a socialist make, maybe it could be socialist if its operated by the state, but as far as being made by the state it is not the same thing. "or trains & buses, power stations, sewage systems, highway construction,etc.," This doesn't refute anything, if anything it proves my point. These can all be private, most of them were or started out as such at one point in time and were (usually quickly) co-opted by government in order to retain power over the society, which only a socialist has reason to do. "until they can support themselves." Actually no, none of this was originally the case, this is not how the market actually works, the government does not invest quickly into new technologies via subsidies, they are usually late to the technological development and often the private market devises them before the government takes them over. When it comes to property, say the sewage system, originally it was not handled by the government, the government took it over after the fact and enacted laws to make developing property like that illegal unless you had a permit from the government. The same thing happened with trains, power stations, and even highway construction. (these concepts were not originally ever considered owned by the government and they most certainly were not managed by it originally) "Select subsidies and bailouts of important companies is not socialism its called Federalism." You don't know what the definition of federalism is. That's not federalism. Federalism refers to the power of a state being broken up between a central authority and constituent lower authorities, that has nothing to do with subsidies and economics. "These select subsidies do not control the means of production." I don't know where you think I said that they were, but the fact is it doesn't matter, the government intervening in business must intrinsically make it socialist, it doesn't matter what else they do, the intervention cannot be disassociated with the necessity to control the means of production, for the production is the market. "5. The government cannot stop any means of production unless a law is being broken." First off the government does not have to follow a single law it makes, it already doesn't, the ATF, FBI, and CIA are all clear perfect examples of this out in the open, with public documentation recording it right now. Each of these organizations are government entities that have broken the law and faces no consequences, violating multiple amendments and infringing the rights of individuals and they still have not been corrected, sued, nor sent to prison for it. Operation Fast and Furious, WACO, Ruby Ridge, MKUltra, Operation Mockingbird, these are all examples of the executive branch ignoring or making up their own law to violate the common man and do whatever they want, and nobody was punished for any of them. You're telling me you trust the government not to violate any law it wants whenever it wants? How about all the insider trading that goes on in DC? Are you aware that Hitler didn't break a single law in committing the Holocaust and stealing people's property? Tell me then why our government wouldn't be able to do it right now when it has total control over the economy that it can just pick up the slack of a bank and distribute its printed dollars just to save the banks depositors. The law says that the FDIC is only insured up to $250,000 yet they insured accounts worth millions at minimum in multiple billion dollar banks. How is that following the law? "The government controls through the restrictions of law, licenses, and taxes." The government controls its own laws and can selectively enforce them on itself whenever it wants, happens all the time in New York and California, that's how states were able to be may issue states. "Therefore any Mixed Economy contains a blend of socialism, capitalism, syndicalism, corporatism all to various degrees none of which dominate the other. And in the States that Mixed Economy is managed by a Federal government." Any tiny element of socialism makes it socialist, a free market literally does not work unless you do not artificially regulate the market, else its not a free market, its a socialist market. The free market is self-regulating, any intervention inherently violates this self-regulation and manipulates the results to be markedly unfair and thus creates monopolies and corporations. Without government power in business, corporations could not exist as they couldn't be a body of the state. That's why they're called corporations, corporations are bodies of the state, they are socialist "businesses", if government can intervene in business, businesses can buy government power that gives them power to control how the market works. Its became supply and demand, you supply power over business, demand will be for business to use that power and thus they will buy political power to manipulate business, this what a lobbyist is, and its how a corporation and monopoly are formed.
    6
  339.  @xeridea  Doesn't necessarily mean its not running, what needs to be running and what is actually running are different things, and given cups running is a default, I can tell you plenty of systems do not change defaults even at server level.
    6
  340. Creating Christ is pretty roundly refuted by numerous scholars and Christian theologians alike, even Bart Ehrman refutes it, anyone who knows anything about Christian history would refute it. Maybe it has useful information, but the main point it devises is absolutely false, if necessary I can provide for you references to look into Christological history, Rome did not develop Christianity, that theory has been roundly debunked by literally every scholar on Christian history (secular or not) and the early Christian manuscripts. Also the Hermetics predate Christ, the Corpus Hermeticum had to be written between 100 AD and 300 AD, Constantine only converts in 312 AD and Christian theology isn't on its way to being popularly cemented until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the Corpus Hermeticum shares no Christian traits, doctrines, or outlooks and had to have been written is absence of Christian knowledge as it was not legal, populist, nor well understood by the Empire before Constantin's conversion. Even if you want to say "300 AD is still at point where Christian could've been known about" it was being written within a 2 century time frame and was finished before 300 AD, likely being mostly written at least a century earlier if not two. Christianity was a still a tiny minority in the second century aside from the persecution. Also the Ancient Hebrew Faith shared nothing with the Hermetics either.
    6
  341. Trump folks are the most chill type of folks, even before Biden, Trump fans dunked on Trump too because they were in on the meme and they loved him, when you can make a joke of anything that's when you've reached peace.
    6
  342.  @godfather7339  "if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments" You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market. "that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market," A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity) "you are just proving your own arguments wrong" By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim? "it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled." Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done? By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
    6
  343.  @4idenn  And in some cases, like with MJ, they're so far dead and they're still promoted as a mutilator that they weren't all because everyone believed the liars, who are still alive, and the life of the family and associates are ruined by mere association but now the dead man can't even vindicate himself. It especially makes me mad when people say "why would they lie" as if people even need a reason to lie, and there are plenty of good ones you could have for famous people, most commonly being its stupid easy money. Or even simply clout, people treat other people as inherently good, usually if they're a woman. Which I ironically is the most sexist but often they also claim its fighting sexism and all that crap, and I have first hand experience with a lying woman making false accusations, my mother constantly accused my father of things because she was schizophrenic and bipolar, and it nearly costed him literally everything he held dear, including his kids, and I was lucky that she was just barely (and she wasn't barely crazy, she at one time threw plates at a wall out of nowhere and would force me and my siblings to watch a tv screen of static for a few hours, her crazy did show up in the wider formal world too) considered poor enough of a mother that I didn't end up with her. But she's a case of someone who is luckily only ignored because you can't believe a word she says, how much more for those who don't look nearly that crazy? It seriously pisses me off.
    6
  344. Its so sad that Richard Stallman died of ligma. Who the hell is Richard Stallman? Ligma Balls.
    6
  345. Its a problem with OpenGL because the extensions are basically hardware limited, with Wayland extensions aren't really a problem since any application can have its necessary extensions implemented and installed regardless of hardware and firmware allowing segregated functionality implementations that don't waste anything for those who don't want it, and with a package manager that becomes exceedingly trivial. (and if we rely on a package manager to install things, unless its an optional dependency, you don't even need to perform dependency checks unlike in OpenGL where you more or less had no choice) It also enables competition between the extensions that do similar things meaning a de facto standard will rise to top by being so much better then its alternatives. Another benefit of this is that an agreed upon standard for any specific thing could also devise communication layers so that nothing in the windowing system will step on anything else's toes. If done well, it can be a brilliant cross-section between performance, security, and functionality, however it does start to become harder to manage if you hate package managers, but honestly pretty much all distros are a massive nightmare without them anyway.
    6
  346. Still would like to point out lifestyle is a choice. Can't we admit reality or is that too politically incorrect?
    6
  347. Thing is the elimination of UB as a concept kinda misunderstands why it exists in the first place, it exists so you know what the software promises to do, its just a contract, and its a useful contract for optimization, C is ubiquitous specifically because of this, I think the writer of this article grossly misunderstands that C evolving as the a multi-platform language is what inherently allowed every other language following it to exist. If I have to write C, I'd like to have a linter inform me about UB, then I can choose when and when not to use it. (as I do in fact take advantage of UB even in C++ because it actually is a very useful tool) Cool thing about UB is that you can access implementation defined behavior that transcends a library, reaching the hardware, which is all on its own useful functionality too. (like messing with the vtables, there are no vtables in C++, their existence is completely implementation defined so any way to access them is inherently UB) Personally I'd prefer if we could have optional UB, the core standard has no UB but then the standard requires the standard machine to disable certain defined behavior that it deems useful without having to modify the language, this is definitely a gripe I have with the "no UB" languages because they treat UB as if it never served a purpose instead of only being poorly implemented. Even more helpful if we had categories of UB.
    6
  348. May God be with Josh Alexander, even as he be a Catholic, he may be of the body of the church and thus as part of God's fellowship, when He is with us, who can stand against?
    6
  349.  @charlesm.2604  "Don't get surprised when those who do work in C# and C++ are favoriting alternative engines with first class support for them." Statistics disagrees, its not a matter of Godot not supporting them for it does, but there's rarely good reason to use them unless you need their benefits which is rarely ever the case. (and anyone who claims they do, they're likely lying about that, there's a very small set of needs that GDScript doesn't address by itself) Any decent and experienced programmer will tell you the language doesn't matter so long as it actually works as a tool. Even as much as I hate Python (and for which I very much hate it) and love C++ and C#, I will tend to prefer GDScript in Godot specifically because its rarely ever necessary not need exactly what it does. And even if it doesn't fulfill my needs, I can write all my robust lower level code in those languages segregated from my scripts and write the rest in GDScript. "I'm not saying GDScript is bad (in fact it has been a real advantage for beginners to get into game dev), I'm saying it makes no sense to enforce its use to people who prefer other languages." Nobody said this and you can already do this. But its inherently foolish and detrimental if the expectation is for most people to generally defer to using anything other then GDScript as the main language they interact with Godot on. Aside from first party support, built in engine support and integration, it also does not require extrinsic compilation and does not produce native code. If you need native code then you can already handle that separately, your main interaction is rarely justified to be by native code because it will not help you in most circumstances. Even in the case you want to use C# you will always be a minority, sometimes I like to use C# in my projects, but its rarely necessary. "As far as funding goes, I agree, Godot isn't going to run off of financial support. But it's very hard for professionnals to trust a FOSS project. If we want professional adoption we need an income-bringing activity." Linux is literally the most professionally supported server kernel (with GNU, OS) in the world, it has no intrinsic income and doesn't endorse anything or anyone. And that aside w4games exists and there are already multiple big name business supporters involved with Godot. I don't see why it needs to provide any income. "It's a tough problem to tackle and it needs to be discussed as a community because it could change the direction the project is trying to take. Some of my ideas: - Asset library fees. - Working with a hosting platform to offer multiplayer infrastructure and SDK. - Godot Ads. - Premium support." Literally every single one of these violate the core principles of the Godot project and its developers and contributors. Its also exceedingly unnecessary and foolish as its also opposed by the community. The point of Godot is that everyone is treated equally in regards to the engine, that including their financial status. The development of Godot intentionally does not expect to provide you more then the game engine and the basic necessities regarding the engine, the only way I see asset library fees existing (which is the closest to acceptable) even is if you can sell assets in the asset library, which isn't even a library fee, that's a private sales tax. "Thanks for reading and please be informed my intent isn't to detract Godot, the core team or anyone working on the project. It's to help them." I can understand that but I think you've misunderstood what Godot is supposed to be, the developers expect the community to provide most of the work beyond the engine itself. Its the reason why so much of the engine is limited in how it addresses problems because it believes to provide a framework for others to solve problems, not to solve the problems itself. And said problems that the engine does solve must be small, self-contained, and otherwise necessary to address for most if not all who use the engine.
    6
  350.  @tacokoneko  I don't think that's all that relevant here.
    6
  351. Kinda concerning when you're (as in the people responsible for the change are) trying to change your preexisting work purely to satisfy something that inherently is unable to work as it stands and has no timeline to do so. It doesn't sound like meritocracy, it sounds more like obsession.
    6
  352.  @atomicTurtle000  "So, they were armed in case the fort or the supply ships were attacked." You do realize this alone is an act of war right? This progression of acts was responsible for both preceding wars with Great Britain. You literally proved exactly what I said. And those provisions were not just foods.
    6
  353. I don't see how Rust could replace C++.
    6
  354.  @chocolate_squiggle  You'd be surprised how crap government IT is.
    6
  355.  @RenderingUser  You can't rely on Rust in a library fashion like you can with C for anything that isn't compiled by a Rust compiler, the lack of a stable ABI means that it does not make any promise for dynamic linkage.
    6
  356.  @infinitemonkey917  "In other words all stories make a point at the beginning." That's a completely unrelated quote, like even thought that specific part is true, that's completely irrelevant to the point being made. "A story is designed, from beginning to end, to answer a single overarching question" Not necessarily, and I never postulated this, it could, but it also could simply not seek answers to a question, that's not relevant to what I said. As an example, there are many Japanese stories don't pose questions, they merely exist for the sake of comfort and fluff. You watch or read them simply for the engagement of being comforted by the show that even the author did not contemplate, and its not down to the author to describe the intent of the show even still, they can only describe what they believed their intent was as they wrote, that's not the same as that being the intent of the story. "which complicates as the story progresses." This premise is false, again its irrelevant to the point and even further its not often true, some stories progress to become more complicated, but if you assume that's how all stories, including those those that pose questions, must do then you need to read more. There are plenty of stories where the questions they pose did not complicate themselves as the story was written, and yet the author could still be wrong about what they believe they wrote into the story. "You have failed to demonstrate how Squid Game violates the basic rules of story telling such as this." Well I just demonstrated foremost that nothing you said is a basic rule of storytelling and even if it was, its completely irrelevant to the subject at hand that being how an author could and is very capable to misunderstand their own works and completely fail at reading the narratives intent despite their agenda to the contrary. I have no obligation to demonstrate that. "Your qualm seems to be that you don't like his critique of capitalism in the form of a story." Its not a critique of capitalism most especially because he doesn't know what capitalism is. And that aside he doesn't understand what he wrote as a result of his lack of knowledge and wisdom on any of the topics he was addressing, as a result the story's premise got away from him and the agenda of the story represents none of his ideological interjections. He literally presented a socialistic (because that's what it is, government management of the means of productions is government ownership of the means of productions, state capitalism is socialism, not capitalism) worldview where people voluntarily risk their lives in order to cross the class boundary drawn in socialism. And that's how socialism actually works, its the peasant class vs. the government class, anyone who frames it differently hasn't read Marx at all and most certainly doesn't understand anything about economics. They probably don't even understand any form of governance or political theory. "So you claim that he has violated rules of story telling." Red herring.
    6
  357. What do you mean by your not a huge fan of Paul?
    6
  358. @The Thunderblade This is true, despite the wide infringement on individual rights, however there is a reason a state is suppose to have a moralistic line around this that its not suppose to cross, Germany crosses that line with its laws before anything else every 3 decades at least.
    6
  359. DOWN WITH THE ADL, THEY AND THE SPLC ARE PARASITES ON A FREE SOCIETY
    6
  360. To BRIDGE social impact, yeah
    6
  361.  Sgt. VinDoy  You don't understand self-defense nor firearms work. First off there is no "non-lethal" bullet wound, if you're going to fire a gun at someone, you are aiming to kill, real life is not a game or movie, you can't ensure disarmament of someone with a bullet, only a dissolution of threat. A headshot is always justified in self-defense. Secondly if you are at fear of threat on your life, execution of that threat will always be justified, especially when the person is using something capable of lethal force (any hard object like a rock, a taser, a car, and of course a gun) Also its semi-automatic, automatic as an offhand term is incorrect, you have fully automatic, as it pull trigger and spray until hand is off trigger, and semi-automatic, where one trigger pull equals one shot, load the chamber, trigger pull for next shot. The concept of automatic merely stands for automatic chamber loading, as alternative to that being bolt action or pump action.
    6
  362. One thing is commonly reported among such cases when it gets brought up by the way, it stops and they flee at the name of Jesus. There is only one type of creature that innately ceases its act and flees under such conditions.
    6
  363.  @LoneWolf-wp9dn  You don't need an abortion to avoid wasting money on the child, there is no justification for why its necessary, adoption literally solves that issue.
    6
  364. God would not punish her for this, though depending on her heart she might be punished for not seeking God. There is six things God hates, and the spilling of innocent blood is one of them. (Proverbs 6) God demands that all murderers be executed on the account of two to three witnesses. (Leviticus 24:17, Exodus 21:12, Genesis 9:6, Numbers 35:30-31, Deuteronomy 19:15)
    6
  365. I'm rather convinced Drake is innocent of most of the things they are cancelling him for, something doesn't add up amongst the evidence and the girl making the accusations already said everything but the texts were false. And its pretty reasonable if he didn't know she was underage.
    6
  366. The point of the rich man and Jesus is that the rich man was willing to give everything else up but not his money, had he not cared for his wealth like he did, Jesus wouldn't have told him to give it up, it was because he made it into an idol thinking himself righteous.
    6
  367.  @seanbrennan5192  The problem is you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reach by reason, leftists are reasonable and didn't reach it by being reasonable, so no amount of rationalizing nor advocating will change their mind. Its a religious cult, you need to be shafted and even then they may not wake up, its better if they couldn't vote.
    6
  368. I think upstream and downstream package both server necessary purposes, it really depends on the specific application. (course if you're dependency tree is shaky and unstable, this demonstrates the perfect case when not sticking to upstream is a nightmare)
    6
  369. I think Asmon more so means don't start blaming everyone for your trauma and dragging it into your relationship as an excuse to treat the relationship poorly and not act loyal.
    6
  370.  @tzaphkielconficturus7136  But the whole point is the guy using his trauma to justify not staying loyal. This is entirely about excuses because the whole point of the justification, the entire explanation, is based purely around trauma, something of which should not influence your actions, trauma should never influence your actions unless you're weak, a good man rises above it.
    6
  371. Part of the problem with this is that the specification and concept of Wayland wasn't finished nearly enough before non-demonstrative implementations were implemented. As it stands right now there really should only be one wayland implementation that's literally nothing but the bare basics of wayland's spec for which only really exists to compare functionality, capability, and usability against xorg. But since we have multiple "commercial" implementations its muddying the water and dirtying expectations for wayland. Doesn't help that the wayland designers are so autistic about security that they won't consider someone using the system in a way that they disagree with much like the gnome and KDE devs did/do. I take massive issue with this outlook because that's not up for them to decide, if we want higher security, you can build that, but leave us the option to make it easier or figure out a manner where we can both have our cake and eat it too. If you don't provide either you are ensuring nobody will want to use your mess of a philosophy disguised as a platform improvement. And in the least of things they should give us something that doesn't break everything when it doesn't need to, most functionality that wayland doesn't support isn't because it can't do it in a reasonable way, it really feels more like snobbery for which it does that.
    6
  372. This reminds me of Sam'O'Nella when he said "Then Congress did that thing that every high schooler learns is stupid, not invading Russia in winter, the other one" for his Timothy Dexter video.
    6
  373. While not to diminish Hamilton's accomplishments and influence on the productive and successful parts he did contribute to, he also committed resources just as much to corrupting the system alongside members like Franklin and Washington, who whether entirely intentional or not, put in backdoor systems that weakened the populace and left it to become a tyrannical government which could devour the souls of many a man for their greed and power. Their advocation for the union in the manner they did relegating morals and ethics to a side job without seeking for answers or truth poisoned every endeavor and left a stain on the heart and soul of the mutant of a nation they made. And it was characters like Jackson and Lincoln that took such advantages they left in the systems they built that harmed the nation with internal scars few truly care to see. The American experiment wasn't free enough, wasn't noble enough, nor righteousness, and it left those goals by the wayside for a long time. And with the advent of the downfall, the Roman collapse is enshrined and willing to repeat itself because men have lost their way, women have been put to the grind and told to open themselves up to the pleasures, the states have been relegated to honorific bullcrap to which no single man of the state will stand up for, and for which every federal man has been given his honorary badge of the modern mob, theft, and murder that draws its roots all the way back to the early 1800s. We need to decide soon whether a man born of God's will has deserved the rights bestowed inherently and grant them with or without a formal explicit government. And thus we should ask why even make a system that no regular man can understand unambiguously.
    6
  374. Bruh a judge already ruled against prosecution for Jan 6, when you open a door to a building willingly and let people in you don't get to then say permission of entry was forbidden, those people have been locked in solitary confinement for over a year without a trial, 95% of them never even did anything violently and merely happened to be in Washington DC on the January 6th, there were innocent bystanders sent to solitary confinement that didn't partake in anything.
    6
  375. Also liberals: "One gun death is too many, won't you think of the children."
    6
  376. ok, please don't go this far, everyone should have a right to faith, its the people that should be focused on.
    5
  377.  @krunkle5136  I've begin to feel more like the Rust community is a cult and less a group of developers interested in anything better then C, they always claim security but all hell breaks lose if you criticize their precious religion. I wish I didn't resent them so much but when every time you make a criticism and they respond with being mean about it it only further alienates me to Rust and pisses me off. I already hate the language, but now I'm growing to hate even the people associated with the language if they can't even take the most basic of criticism. I have been constantly and intentionally personally attacked numerous times for despising both the syntax and build system's reliance on Cargo, they couldn't refute what I said every time I brought it up, and then would resort to just telling me its better and "solves a problem" but never actually gave me refutations of what I would say. I've said things like this numerous times about hating the syntax (explaining some of my issues with the syntax, which resulted in me needing to explain that I do in fact know that a language having a new syntax would need to be redesigned, no longer being the same language, don't ask me why someone would think I wouldn't know this) and build system dependencies issues and how it violates FOSS and Unix philosophies openly for dumb reasons, and every time the result would be me being told "You don't understand why the language was designed that way" despite having at least written my own parsers and having read the Rust dev's justifications and finding them poor excuses and "it solves annoying problem of 20 different build systems in C++" despite never even referring specifically to the build system being an issue, just the dependency and lack modularity issue thanks to things like cargo being required to use the build system. I've used npm, pip, and nuget enough to know relying on a package manager as a part of the build process, especially one you can't switch out for your own needs, is both stupid and frustrating, and likely to crash your builds. These basic points piss them off.
    5
  378.  @tellsackett4572  I would suggest you also learn Zig and C3. (yes they're alpha languages, but honestly I see both as being able to go further since they maintain simplicity and safety)
    5
  379. Eh, there are stupid questions, but responding as a jackass and not qualifying why its a stupid question (not in a mean way or vicious way, but in a rational caring manner) makes you an asshole. The only time you could be close to justified in such is if someone is asking a stupid question which you answer in such a way and they keep asking the same question as if nobody answered them.
    5
  380.  @zembo529  I think many question, even in learning capacity, can be stupid, I think the correct thing to say is no one deserves to be demeaned for saying a stupid question by itself, (attitude, receptivity, arrogance, these are proper qualified for responding more harshly, but not at the question nor toward the question, but towards the behavior) and it should be used both to teach about the subject and about how to ask a better question.
    5
  381. @joseoncrack Been doing C++ for over a decade, still prefer it to anything else, though I do wish it were better but that's just cause everything else sucks.
    5
  382. I've long suspected that Rust is being funded and managed by background deals with globalist, Marxist, and other evil parties with a Marxist style newspeak for software development and control because it makes no sense for the Rust push to be this ravenous and obsessed despite its inability to do basic things, it would be impossible to integrate into the Linux infrastructure anyway because it can't actually even produce a stable ABI for dynamic linkage, meaning that you can say goodbye to literally every linux package manager if Rust was the basis of Linux infrastructure. Not that it can even get there since that would make gcc itself literally impossible to use.
    5
  383. He's a narcissist and a sociopath, it could very well be that he does not care for anyone, if that is the case some "loved one" dying isn't gonna do anything to him.
    5
  384. It will always be harder to control not just because of ROF but because of weight too, lighter weapons push up quicker in full auto, least if you have front weight you can reduce that but the whole thing is lighter then the AKM.
    5
  385. One manner of money transfer was found in the banking systems, you'd put money into a bank, they'd give you a manner to identify yourself with any bank that associates with that one, and then anywhere you go that has a nearby associated bank could also grant you the money so long as you were verified, obviously another is to perform some local labor for a bit of food and shelter money, bet that in some cases legitimate shelter might have even been disregarded.
    5
  386. May the Lord's grace bless the soul of Luty, for he has done what few Americans and no other Brit had ever the bravery to do.
    5
  387. The reason this makes no sense is its excessive safety paranoia (there are reasonable limits to safety, and if its not gonna kill its likely gonna also teach a "respect me" lesson if most of the other safety features were to fail) that costs design and development time and money, even more being pointless given that in functionally any case where something happens and you can reach the switch, something will trip anyway shutting it down or blowing out a fuse, the safety paranoia is useless regarding power unless all these other safety features fail which at that point another safety feature, specifically one you can't control (or incite to shutdown, which again if you have already violates any purpose you could have of a switch) as well if those were to fail, would not help you.
    5
  388. As usually all human rules tend to have many exceptions given enough time, that's why rulings need a judge who is willing to take the individual cases under a case by case basis and determine instead if it needs to violate the rules or not.
    5
  389.  @akatsukicloak  Honestly, as a Christian, I don't think its the government's job to ban prostitution, it should be the job of the citizenry (specifically the church) to regulate and control that, there is no right being infringed with legal prostitution, but there is with banned prostitution. I also don't believe its the job of the government to ban drugs, same as prostitution. Its the job of the citizenry to control this through personal action. For highest per capita pornstars, that means very little. As for sex trafficking, this one is easier to end with citizen gun ownership. Also I would like statistics on the specifics about this to understand the problem. And the STD one IDK. The rest Europe is much better, still oppressive tyrannical pagans claiming to be moral, but you can't say anything without be arrested, and owning a gun is basically a capital offense in most of Europe. Also most of them are lying about their religion.
    5
  390.  @Firebear31  Being arrested is not freedom of speech, that's a gross infringement of rights, you should have the right to be an asshole, to offend, and yes, to even call someone subhuman, that is the nature of freedom and liberty, if you lack the capability to say the most despicable things then you're not free. And let me give you two pragmatic reasons why this lack of liberty is bad aside from the fact you're oppressing people for a right: (because speech is not violence, so you can't justify react to speech with force) Foremost when you persecute people who hold immoral ideas, you embolden and martyr those ideas, those people will never change their mind when most of them are susceptible for being convinced and moralized to some extent, to refuse to do this is immoral as it means you're oppressing people you could've saved. This also shifts the speech to underground making them look nonexistent much like the opioid crisis in the US. The other thing is that opposition allows valid points (which yes, the Nazis did make valid points, just because someone commits evil actions and genocides people does not mean everything they said was invalid) to be brought up, debates, and questioned in a manner that can be revolutionary and devises better solutions, even if it starts from an immoral source does not mean that you can't devise proper solutions from it. By jailing you instead ensure that improvements can not happen and tyranny will forever reign. Freedom of speech is the only way to capably battle bad ideas, and the right to bear arm is the only manner to ensure that can't be taken away.
    5
  391. lovebombing and unalive threats are just two sides of the same coin, its always the usual suspects.
    5
  392. To point out a necessary point in regards to being of Christ, it is inherently known that all men are evil and that none are good, so in a technical sense "the Haradrim man who was killed probably wasn't evil at heart," is theologically incorrect in accordance to Christ's sacrifice, but this is also a problem with having such a fundamental base of paganism in a so claimed Christian work. And that's not me saying he didn't write it with a Christian direction or doctrine but that the pagan inspiration means the Christian message of salvation and grace is either muddled or utterly butchered to uselessness, Tolkien's works are in many aspects too lacking Christ to be a fair Christian work.
    5
  393.  @krombopulos_michael  Well they're suppose to have a warrant to search your property anyway.
    5
  394.  @str.77  No, his economics was international and all his national perspective bleed into it, his claims of economics was completely wrong.
    5
  395. ​@Patrick C Actually there is no historicity of the Children's Crusade, no one can actually point to when it happened, and it seems that if it did (which the closest we got is a bunch of peasants marching through France for a bit and then giving up) nobody gave them a ride out of France.
    5
  396.  @kykloskatharevousa7147  That's works salvation, a heresy condemned in the 3rd century.
    5
  397.  @kykloskatharevousa7147  Is faith a work then?
    5
  398. I saw it like this: Elon: Is buying twitter The Left: Panik Elon: Is not buying twitter The Left: Panik Elon: Is buying twitter The Left: Panik
    5
  399.  @rwberger6  She's starting to gain some traction, it'll be an odd day if/when her channel reaches 100k subs.
    5
  400.  @DarrinSK  Take responsibility for your actions and stop being a degenerate, becoming a parent and being married are the only real ways to mature into an adult, only men in very few cases can become men without that, most can not, most men and women who do not get married are still children even at the age of 50.
    5
  401. If I had the time, ability, and equipment, I'd want to make a firefox fork that supplants librewolf called helldog.
    5
  402. Just to point out it did last another hour after this on twitter.
    5
  403. You're talking to one right now, I hate Rust and don't find Zig compelling, and I'll always love C++ over C. I also spend some of my free time reading the C++ proposal papers for fun.
    5
  404. I think this could be exceedingly useful in two different formats, a terminal format with more GUI-based mouse interactions and another where its practically piping a terminal behavior into a UI, the outline is wrong and poor in so much UX, this guy doesn't really get UX design at all, but it could be exceedingly useful especially if we have something like "favorited commands" where you might just have to hit a keybind (or click the button) and it queues command, sequence of commands, and/or arguments alongside that to run. We already have plenty of decent visual scripting "languages" and handling a terminal is for the most part dumber than that.
    5
  405. Not everything in the kernel needs speed, but as for those that do, Rust actually will almost never be preferred.
    5
  406. Okay and? As a family of conscientious and religious objectors, who the freak cares?
    5
  407. "Medical Greek" is likely referring to a more formal Greek, not Koine Greek first off, Scripture is written in Koine Greek, as in common Ancient Greek. That already creates a completely different context, no Common Greek speaker would inherently be referring to ritual or medical practice like the formal form could be. That aside Ammon literally does not understand that words can have contextual meaning and multiple definitions. That or he's deliberately manipulating people.
    5
  408. And dementia.
    5
  409.  @TheThigh  I see shillbot has entered the chat.
    5
  410.  @jeao7115  "coming from the UK, especially London, it is very diverse and no one here thinks about race the same way you Americans do" Because its only London and you haven't been doing it long enough. In the founding of the US race was not even perceived, most people thought of themselves as British originally and the other ethnicities in the US aside from the Brits separated themselves mostly into states, towns, and regions away from each other, only a small selection of the whole populace "mixing pot" would be found in the cities. In the beginning ethnicities were separated and were mostly Caucasian, but overtime racial components developed because of the notable ethnic mixing, it has to be the whole country for that to happen.
    5
  411.  @ssailiQ  "Because America has a big slavery history which ended not to long ago, its literally been like 50 years where they started to be treated “alright” Just gonna point out that its only been 50-70 years since the Brits started considering the Indians in the same light from a national standpoint.
    5
  412. If you know how to use RAII, it protects you from memory leaks by forgetting to free the memory because you returned in an unexpected place.
    5
  413.  @GiovanniGeo  No preacher taught it, TIK made a point that it was the product of hatred towards the parents who claimed to altruism for which the children rejecting the faith kept the altruism and "took it to the extreme", however one thing TIK never explains is if that's actually supposed to be the end result of altruism in all cases when he's blaming altruism for immorality.
    5
  414.  @yeppiidev  Except in the case of Javascript its not compiled ahead of time to even a bytecode, its always compiled just in time, that's a big difference and levies completely separate optimization tricks and security risks. Also Javascript by itself is never compiled in the browser, (excepting use of WASM which is the bytecode) so you're saying bs by saying "compiled machine language", its not even remotely that fast nor capable, and neither is it native.
    5
  415.  @charlesm.2604  "There is barely any documentation outside of API browsers and a few articles-styled guides." That's not documentation just to point out, its a problem obviously, just calling it documentation is a bit misleading. "There is a push for GDScript as a first support language when people in game dev mostly work in C# and C++ which are better for bigger projects (strictly typed, OOP, better for tests, etc...)." Devs who get into Godot do not work in C# or C++. There's very little reason to. While both are useful and have a place especially for performance reasons, unless you are hitting a bottleneck, this isn't a problem. Even for large projects you can segment parts to C++ or C# if necessary but it rarely ever is unless you are doing something very special, like building a procedural-capable voxel mesh that doesn't tank performance. But you can still devise the functional use of that system in GDScript, its merely the backend that's in C++. "Indie game dev is highly tied to social media and influencers. We need more Godot endorsed YouTubers/streamers to work on educational material." I don't see why Godot would need to endorse anyone, even with all the support it has that money is spent on refining the development. I'm not so sure you need to endorse anyone to produce educational material on it either. We already have a lot of folks working on that without any endorsements. "We need more showcases, show people what the engine can do." Everyone already does that, Godot devs do it all the time on twitter, they did a full demo reel of many projects on Godot the 6th of this month, new features almost always have demo video as well, and a lot of youtubers are already promoting demonstrations of games and projects. The subreddit is also full of many demonstrations too. "Get more funds. There needs to be a money bringing activity to establish Godot as a trust worthy project that will never run out of financial support." Yeah but the question is how? And as it currently stands Godot isn't gonna run out financial support, least of all any time soon, and even if it did its not exactly a big deal like Unity or Unreal had that happen since everything is covered under an FOSS MIT license anyway. And all that aside some of the major contributors are already running their own publishing company for the sake of licensing and publishing Godot games on consoles. This is the biggest problem preventing adoption, its not any of the other stuff, its the lack of console support which was hard because it was MIT and thus can't intrinsically support any proprietary console API. That's where W4Games enters the fray.
    5
  416. Not to mention since C++11 its been very memory safe, (technically auto_ptr was C++98, RAII was capable to do it since at least C++98, but good inbuilt smart pointers have been in C++ since C++11) and when you have spans and ranges/range-views and C++23's adding things like out_ptr and inout_ptr negating the need to manually manage memory even with C functions, to say C++ can't accomplish the same things as Rust or Zig is just dumb.
    5
  417. "Everything is chrome in the future."
    5
  418.  @atomicTurtle000  "Mr Lincoln told newspapers for three weeks that Sumter was to be abandoned, now Mr Lincoln has found a way to author a civil war without appearing its aggressor" - Providence Daily Post
    5
  419.  @ScavCitizen  "But just to remove all doubt: psssst. I was being facetious." And I wasn't. I'm just being honest, I don't care about sarcasm. "You know what else they stay very silent about? Unicorns, and pixies, and fairy dust." Foremost logical fallacy implication, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What you can use to refute mystical things is other forms of reason, but resorting to degrading arguments like this are not valid and that's a deflection anyway. In fact its red herring fallacy what you just did. And adrenachrome conspiracies have been proven to exist many times throughout history, even many occultist behaviors resort to them in some regard. That includes many secret societies, even the Nazis had members of their occultic groups who did that, most of them were never killed and neither were they charged in any manner, many actually moved to the US, some with US government backing. Though I would definitely say its more then likely it was already here if the evidence is to be believed given many secret societies, especially the satanic/lucifierian ones tend to heavily rely on either human sacrifice and/or blood consumption. "Government agencies don't usually waste a lot of time talking about things that aren't real." Its because your anthropology is wrong for why you don't want to believe people would do that. But did you know many kings and queens are documented by historians doing that, some cases it was rumor that wasn't ever disproven, but we do know of many cases of rulers who also partook in it. "Just how many "occultist governments" do you think there are in the world?" Any government that doesn't rely on a faith that destroys occultism, for which only Christianity and the ancient Hebrews ever tried to do, will always resort to practicing occultism out of pragmatism, we already know that the CIA and FBI have resorted to mysticism and using mystics to achieve specific goals. Its a "whatever sticks" mentality and "any advantage is a good thing" justification. "You gotta pull yourself out of the conspiracy hole, brother." First off secret attempts to commit illegal and immoral acts are a conspiracy, if you don't believe conspiracies exist I'd ask you to learn what a "conspiracy to commit murder" charge is. Also Satan is a conspiracy against God, it is illogical therefore that any Christian could deny that Satan's children would follow in step of his conspiracy and mimic his structures. "That nonsense is only fed to you in order to keep you distracted from all of the (much more boring and mundane) ways they are actually robbing you blind." I actually speak about both openly and specifically. I know they rob us with the federal reserve, income tax, and even with the prison system itself. I speak on all of it. You don't get to fallacious make assumptions about who I am, what I think, how I think, or anything of the like just because you can't think of more then two things at a time. I am not you. "It's called Perception Management... and your perception seems quite thoroughly managed." Well I speak against every level of government clearly, specifically, and in explicit detail, there is no managed perception, you just fallaciously assumed a stupid idea on someone because you're a slave to the philosophy of man. Someone tells you something you don't understand and instead of considering it logically, being capable to argue against it, you follow it like child to his parent. Managed perception isn't even applicable on the individual level, it was a social engineering classification and its fallacious anyway, it makes a massive amount of assumptions without reason nor proof. But perceptions I carry upon my character are however not enslaved to the foolish ways of men, blowing so fickle in the wind, but instead I have every thought taken captive to God and thus I can see clearly for all regards and speak clearly about them all. There is not one thing I wish to overthrow and destroy the modern government over, unless that one thing is the opposition to God. In either case I also say by justice most members of the government would be justly executed for the violation of their charge granted by God. But that's not gonna happen any time soon so I leave it to pointing out all their demonic evil and stir up discontent for the sake of flushing and purging it out.
    5
  420. Unfortunately us who understand sarcasm and rhetoric are a rare breed these days.
    5
  421.  @C.S.Martin  "The monetary value of is currently defined by supply and demand," First off no, fiat currencies are not really defined by supply and demand at all. And this is a fallacious claim by someone that doesn't know the reason behind economics, if that were true then you could buy bread anywhere you go by simple trade, that would mean all things stay the same value in relation to each other and there be no inflation in anything but money. (which is false, gold and precious metals inflate all the time, look up the platinum dumps of South America during the Spanish colonization, or the overmining of gold that happened constantly even when it wasn't a currency, non-currencies inflate too) That doesn't happen, in the desert a bottle of water is not the same value as a bottle of water in a temperate forest. This is what we refer to as subjective value, you could trade me anything you want in a desert, I would not accept anything that wasn't water, but you do the same in a temperate forest and you'll find I don't so much care about a bottle of water. If value is defined intrinsically, tell me the objective value of gold in comparison to bread, how is that enforced? If intrinsic value exists, you can always define bread by gold and gold by bread, and thus all gold weight would have a ratio to that bread in every case. Can you show me anywhere in history where this has happened? I can give you plenty where that hasn't, including very recent history, or even ancient history, but I have not once seen a case in history where anything even has stable relative values to each other. Nor have I seen a case where demand is capable to be treated as objective. You want what you want, if you wanted a painting, that's your defined subjective desire, you have a demand to acquire it, but not everyone shares the valuation of that subjective desire, that's subjective demand. You'd be willing to pay a certain amount for a painting that others would not, if intrinsic value was found, you would find that both the uninterested and interested party would be willing to buy the painting at the same price, but we know that isn't the case, its one of the many reasons auctions exist. "but that's only because it has intrinsic value." It doesn't thought, let me ask you, what defines value? As in how do you define intrinsic value that can evaluated in disregard to wealth and currency? And how do you apply that in such a way that every single person to every exist in reality would perfectly agree with that value definition that they'd all be willing to partake of the thing being valuated? And that goes for everything in the market that has ever or will ever exist. How do you perfectly decide every single bit of this? "Not sure I understand the second part of your demonstration ("intrinsic value would mean everything would be priced the same in accordance to wealth"); why you talkin' bout wealth?" Because its correcting for wealth, its easier to treat value as a stable concept in your worldview if we control for wealth. But that case demonstrates the fallacy in that worldview hence why doing such throws you off, for we know that no matter the control had value is not static for anything, if we control for wealth of a market and individual, the individual still decides what is and is not valuable and thus devises demand which deviates from another's individual demand which means its subjective. It is required to demonstrate that value is objective in order to demonstrate it is intrinsic which you can not do is demand is relative to those participating in the market, such that demand is subjective, making the value subjective which in turn makes the price also subjective, but the price isn't subjective because of the currency, the currency needs to objective in order for it to be used, the logical argument (and as required by occam's razor) has to say that price is an approximation of the subjective value for the objective currency.
    5
  422.  @dillonkeller4477  Given your statements and actions disagree with each other, that's the definition of a hypocrite.
    5
  423.  @dillonkeller4477  Says the guy who keeps responding.
    5
  424.  @joger3562  "Your like disregarding ethical concerns especially with what the british let happen with the colonies they had control over especially in india." That was mostly neglect from the home country, Britain was extremely hands off on their colonies so whatever governor you got decided that, like most African governors greatly improved the life, same to the Caribbean governors, but the Asian governors tended to be the least considered. "40 for men and 42 for women." Now that's either bad faith or ignorant, the only reason life expectancy has ever been that low was because of child mortality, and there is literally no way to solve that without antibiotics, that's literally the only thing that changed it, there is literally no ideology that could've fixed that. Once you remove child morality, their life expectancy in the British Isles was higher then what we have in the west today. (only Japan and Korea tend to be higher) "Being "rugged thin" doesnt indicate good health and often victorians were constantly exposed to toxic substances." Only when you refer to the elite, the rest could not tend to afford such things, and we still do that now, radiation and microplastics are actually potentially worse then lead and mercury because both can lead to genetic degeneration, whereas lead and mercury don't. And that aside ingesting mercury isn't actually toxic, smelling mercury is. (because its the fumes of mercury that's toxic, you can't absorb mercury through the stomach because the particles are actually too large to diffuse through your blood system and digestive system.
    5
  425. public and private functions have nothing to do with security, that's purely about API encapsulation, even if they're private you can still call them
    5
  426. There's no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to Abigail.
    5
  427. Competition in the market has proven over and over that it can and has already solved healthcare, in the 1920s, we had the lowest healthcare costs and the best healthcare in the world and there was nearly no government regulation involved, then they banned privately run insurances and community/neighborhood/charity fraternity societies that provided household healthcare, instituted legal limitations via the FDA, and legally limited the expansion of the healthcare market federally requiring that the only insurance that can exist has to be state approved. Immediately healthcare access fell and healthcare costs jumped to making it one of the more expensive ones, and then between the 70s and Obamacare, the price of our healthcare jumped again to be literally the most expensive in the world. Now we have a healthcare market that can't be held legally liable for harm and for which is the most expensive in the world without contest. (and you're not even remotely treated well, least you're not as likely to die I guess) I'm pretty sure MentisWave already addressed this issue directly, but even that aside the Mises Institute (and I believe even the Cato Institute) already addressed this and explained exactly how in detail regulations have spiked the prices to unfathomable degrees.
    5
  428.  @beayn  I have watched her and she speaks a lot of bullcrap. I'm harsh because she doesn't admit her faults, just admitting the guy you married was bad is not admission of fault at all, admission of fault is when you report on bad habits and behaviors, you attribute bad things to yourself continually and understand that they should be addressed and that you can name individual mistakes you made in the relationship in unequivocally without blaming anyone else. Lauren has never done that.
    5
  429.  @tinrab  I have numerous criticisms of Rust as a language and infrastructure that absolutely makes it a failure of a language, like for example the lack of ABI stability and the inability to support shared linkage, in fact you can't distribute Rust programs as linkable libraries at all because of that ABI stability problem. If you can't see any of that as a problem then you're the cultist, as a C/C++ developer these are way too many reasons I can't use Rust at all, so to tout it as superior is a complete joke. I don't even have a problem with some of its ideas, its implementation however sucks. (and as someone with a deep fascination in software language development, I know a thing or two about developing languages, that's another reason I know the language sucks)
    5
  430.  @AdroSlice  Agreed, I hate CoCs entirely, but its no excuse to go full schizophrenic, even if members of the dev pool were into queer ideology, he should've been respectful and polite about it, if he had said "I don't feel I can trust the former developers with permissions over the project anymore, I however have nothing against them still contributing work" like any reasonable FOSS project should do.
    5
  431. Might as well called it Welcome Mat. (but the welcome text is only for thieves and the door is wide open)
    5
  432.  @CptJistuce  Pretty much, we should call it Bootleg-Unix/GNU.
    5
  433. Actually that's not true, (many of the founders tending to be younger then 40 sort of is, but the whole "they didn't live that long" is a complete myth) average life expectancy being low is exclusively because of infant mortality, when you remove infant mortality, the life expectancy throughout most of human history tends to be between 65 and 80, excluding any decade with a major lethal pandemic which were just about once every half millennia. If you made it past the age of 5, you were likely gonna make it to 70.
    5
  434. The funny part about Vaush is he has previously openly admitted that he doesn't believe in any concept of the objective nor that morality actually exists, he's openly stated he only really uses moral complaints to attack those he wants to consider his enemy. (course he said it in a more subtle way, but he pretty much openly admitted that on stream numerous times) Vaush has said he only really believes in power, and so everything he does is itself only done to pawn people into giving him power or taking power away from others. I have no idea if he even understands the implications of this crap, though I would doubt he does, funny part is that the logic of such a mindset would say you can't engage with reality at all and you don't even have the free will to operate in reality, but very few nihilists will ever get to that endpoint.
    5
  435.  @techpriest4787  Its possible to make it safe, Rust people are however just obsessed, both Zig and C3 are demonstrations of supporting C-familiarity trivially while also supporting the feature set of C in a safer language. Rust has no excuse to be in the kernel anyway, none of the safe features special to Rust can even be used in the kernel (least in a way that would be safer) and there are plenty of languages that are just as safe, as well Rust doesn't have ABI stability which is a problem.
    5
  436.  @metatronyt  Okay personality aside, of what statements are made by him that you argue he was wrong of?
    5
  437. ​ @po1sonseede9001  Yeah, everyone keeps trying to copy C/C++ in such a manner that makes it still a pain in the ass, I wouldn't mind new languages taking a lot of the clean parts of C++ and implementing them in a more readable fashion, but for some reason instead we get Rust and Zig where they try to retain a high amount of C comparisons but you need to declare the variable and then the type alongside all these other things that honestly just feel like a snub at C and C++. Like why are we going back to pre-ALGOL mathematical type specifications? In almost every case the type is necessary information and you still need a structure to a declaration of variables, its cleaner to integrate the type into the declaration then making it look like an addon to the declaration. Its even uglier for functions.
    5
  438. Problem is that given the money involved in the io TLD its extremely likely that they'll both want it and they'll come up with no agreement on who should continue to own it. (it would be hilariously ironic if the TLD terminates over that)
    5
  439.  @weiserwolf580  Do you really think the Baptists who were constantly martyred into the 1800s were following the pack? Or how about the Christian persecutions before Constantine's legalization of Christians? Are we just gonna forget Nero's Roman Candles? Or the Japanese Kirishitan revolts? Or how about the French wars of Religion? Or the Hussite Wars?
    5
  440.  @captaincanada5139  "January 19, 2017: Sebastian Gorka, top Trump aide, appears on Fox News wearing Nazi gear" Literally false, the Order of Vitéz is a widely recognized Chivalric medal awarded to Hungarian chivalry, founded in the 1920s (and continues to be an active Chivalric knights Order in Hungary to this day) and has nothing to do with Nazism, every reference I can find relating it to Nazism only relates to Sebastien wearing it, and none of those references predate the articles Gorka wearing the medal. Not to mention the Order itself disassociated with the Nazis before the German collapse. Also Jews voluntarily joined the order after the Nazi coup in Hungary and its leader after Miklós Horthy was put in an concentration camp for refusing to fall in line with Nazi orders.
    5
  441. That was Orthodox teaching by Augustine and Athanasius, what are you talking about? Even Origen and Jerome agreed with that take.
    5
  442. C++ is amazing, its C++ developers that are crap, and with C++20 finalized implementations, we'll be getting modules, most common compilers support most of modules anyway, and with modules we get to fully combine declaration files and definition files, precompiled functionality without PCH crap, and it entirely removes global pollution from includes and macros.
    5
  443.  @TheNemesis442  Its what the Christian standard is. Submission from a wife is a command from God. God says women must be respectful, submissive, and modest, men are to be loving, grateful, and considerate, men are to rule over his woman for her sake, protecting her from the world, and the women is to be his helper who does what she can so he can protect her and her children. This is the conviction to be fruitful and multiply.
    5
  444. The coconut analogy doesn't even make rational sense because coconuts are not even a limited resource, they're a slowly replenishing resource, as well it presumes that there is only one resource on the island that could serve that purpose, its a dumb example because any island that could support coconuts also supports a feasibly infinite variable of other potential resources, some obvious and others less obvious or specialized, and even if the monopolist establishes his coconut monopoly there is still the inherent potential in the hypothetical for you to trade for the coconuts due to how alternative comparable resources can work and exist, monopolies aren't very useful with a small economy where nobody is cooperative, because it destroys long term continuation. Its a high time preference strategy and thus is inherently destructive, especially if you're in a desperate place, before we even consider the danger of violence itself.
    5
  445. ​ @justanto  Let me give you a simple reason why I don't care, subjective morality means there is no morality, thus your argument is literally worthless, (and I don't care how many appeals to emotions you make, doesn't make it a sound argument) if you think there is such thing as good while arguing against a single objective morality means you don't have one, its personal preference, which means the only thing that matters is your own personal self-centered egotistical narcissistic feelings, which means there is nothing wrong (and neither then is there anything right) because I don't care about your feelings. Perhaps you should actually read Friedrich Nietzsche for once. There is no value to you and thus I don't have to care because the only thing of value is the self which only applies to the self, ergo me and my own experiences. There also is nothing that gives you meaning or value which also means I can flippantly disregard everything about you and you have no argument against it, I have no idea if you're even a real existence, not a single word nor even your life has any worth in such a view. Course I believe in the only objective morality so I have a basis for value that can ignore everything you said, but you literally admitted you have no capacity to even argue for good.
    5
  446.  @pace1195  Funny thing is that what being traditional is, having specific family vet your relationships, Lauren is a fool, she clearly wasn't traditional by the fact she didn't care to get anyone involved in evaluating her relationship.
    5
  447.  @projektplay3382  In a project that requires explicit type declaration in their style, that being majority of the big ones, its obnoxious and stupidly verbose. Also doesn't fix the fact that you have to declare some variable types explicitly still, and it it uses the exact same crap format. Also what was wrong with auto in C++ and var in C#? Implicit type behavior can be built into a pseudo-type without expecting everybody to use it over the much crappier typing specifier syntax. That also makes more sense because var/auto still declares the "type", just that its asking the compiler to handle figuring out what that type is automatically, in C++ we also get plenty of more manual typing features at compile-time, so you can define what you'd like the type to become relative to the work instead of being specific, templates are still more useful on the dev side then generics, having them both would be nice, but I prefer if I'm only to have one to have templates.
    5
  448. I would say most certainly not since there is no transferring of economic success (or demand) from one business sector to another, which a boom/bust cycle requires, instead individual industries succeed and fail based on consumer demand which is way less predictable and way more variable, in a sense its even harder to predict a natural economy simply being decentralized. (and there are no targets for success leading to the expense of another target) If you don't subsidize one group at the cost of another, I don't see how you could find a definitive boom/bust cycle.
    5
  449.  @vikkidonn  "It’s like using modern slang in America and then someone in Britain deciding to remove the context of the slang and implant the British undersatanding of the word. Because they don’t fully understand how or why Americans used the term. Ammon is explaining the slang and what it means" The explanation is useless if the term does not semantically make sense according to the context of the usage. Definitions are context dependent, you can't just open some book, open a dictionary, say "this word means all these things", close the dictionary, and then leave. That's at best ignorant and in the worst case disingenuous. If I say "I'm making a killing" and in some 41st century society they open a dictionary of 21st century English and present what I say with "the definition of killing means to actively take someone's life" that is complete and utter nonsense. The result of my statement would both be misinterpreted and become grammatical nonsense, anyone who would know the language would realize that the statement made with that definition wouldn't even make any grammatical sense, as killing and making are both active verbs that contribute to the sentence's point, they can't both be active in English for the point in that phrasing, but present that definition to someone who doesn't know that and they'll think I'm at best a killer and at worst a murderer, instead of knowing that I'm merely stating that I'm quite successful. Now my innocent statement of success has been transformed into a confession of some form of guilt.
    5
  450.  @poly9306  "Have you ever talked with any of them?" I've seen their responses to the exact issues that people needed to make workarounds for or the ones for which they won't implement at all and multiple times they said they're extremely against it and their responses left no room to being convinced claiming "security" usually without alternative. This has happened enough times that its pretty clear that how their philosophy is being interpreted is the problem. "You call them autistic and ignorant" I didn't call them ignorant though and I don't believe they are. I called them autistic because they are being excessively special over how they interpret their philosophy to the point of uselessness. We're not building software to satisfy our egos but how they approach issues that's what it really appears to be. "but you don't even know who they are you don't know how they act or treat potential use cases." They've made enough public statements that I feel confident saying what I have, if you don't like it you can see what they said on these issues but I'm not going to placate you if you're gonna act like a fanboy who assumes what I've said when I haven't. If you're gonna have a preconceived notion of me over these things I don't care about changing your mind but you don't get to attack me with an appeal to accomplishment and act like that's alright. "You also say "it's not for them to decide" actually yes it is" If you're building software and software specifications with the expressed purpose of deciding how people use the software then that's pretty immoral and dumb. If I build a game, produce it so anyone can play it, and someone mods it for their own enjoyment that doesn't harm anyone else's experience or perhaps even enriches another one's only, if I get mad and tell him to stop because he's using the software wrong, who is really in the right there? If I fork a FOSS window manager like gnome and spend a long period of time modifying it to something I'd like and otherwise keep it under the same license and the original developers get mad, am I really in the wrong? So I don't have a right to do what I wish with my own computer and that which I put on it? Cause that was my entire point there, they put so much effort into snubbing that behavior that it makes it impossible for anyone to have a general system with said behavior, its entirely their fault that we don't have a wayland standard for things like general video capture and global hotkeys at all. They have no excuse for that, it can easily be done in a secure way in some manner and those are essential features for our systems. "it is for people that take part in the discussions and care for the project and spend their time trying to help, not some random comments on the internet, of people that don't try to help and just complain." I've seen the discussions they've had and I've been dissuaded from even considering it. I have no regard for someone who will flame me like a fanboy because he doesn't understand their responses to these issues are a problem. Had they not so quickly shut those discussions down and given actually decent reasoning for what they say then I would've been keen to look kindly on them but since they don't operate rationally I since can only look at them under a negative disposition. Call it complaining all you want, I'm just stating facts and using reason. Don't shoot the messenger. "You don't have to be super technical to help" No but I have nothing to add given their responses. And besides that I could be super technical anyway, I'm a pretty experienced and knowledgeable software engineer so I know how to. "you just have to have a will to do so," Perhaps I would have if not for the wayland designers. "if you don't have it, at least don't offend people that have it" If you're offended by it, that suggests one of two things, either I hit way too close to home and you couldn't take it or you're assuming that it was some kind of attack when it wasn't. Offense over this is not capable with a reasonable people, I have said nothing worthy of offense here. If you want to do stuff with it that's your prerogative but don't force your ideology down my throat, I have a right to be mad for wayland failing to be what they touted it to be. It is not a functional replacement design for xorg. You don't get to tell me what I can and can't do and neither do you have a right to tell me I'm wrong by using fallacious arguments like that. I don't have to talk to them, I don't have to be involved, I merely need to see what they've said and come to my own conclusions about who and what they are. That's what I'm speaking from, I don't need to rationalize it further. "complain about the end product not about people that made it." The people are responsible for the end product, if their philosophy fails to produce a suitable end product, its not the products fault, why should I blame the product for something that's clearly their fault? This logic makes no sense, are products capable to make themselves out of nowhere? If they ignore problems calling it a feature and won't listen to anybody who has a rational issue with that response then I have a right to get mad over that. That's gonna make the end product crap and its because they're acting foolish and thinking foolish things. Just because its a FOSS project does neither mean the contributors and owners aren't responsible for it being bad, that's just a bad argument. I'd go as far as to call it a deflection argument which is fallacious.
    5
  451.  @JeffNeelzebub  An empire would be under one banner, no division of separate laws, rulers, and governance, nobody who ruled Macedonia ruled Afghanistan after him, if they're run separately, its not an empire. It does not matter if the Greeks continued to reside in Afghanistan as rulers, that's an irrelevant statement, that's like saying that because a former Englishman was president of the United States it is part of the British Empire.
    5
  452.  @nate32396  We've had transgenders, communists, monarchists, reactionaries, social liberals, conservatives, muslims, christians, athiests, all arguing in a segregated politics channel before we killed that, nobody cared either way, nobody was banned for any of that and actually those discussion bred a decent bit of respect for one another on occasion. We also openly proclaimed "we will not take any ideological positions as a project and will ban anyone who insists we do" and we have done just that. Its simply that the political leaning of the audience happens to be right-leaning most of the time, nobody enforced that, it naturally happened.
    5
  453. OOH RAH
    5
  454. "And so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled." - Titus 2:4-5 God has spoken of the standard and we have violated it, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” - Mark 10:9 This standard requires that the parents be in rule over their children until the day they are married: "“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear." - Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” - Ephesians 5:31 The family must be involved in the relationship, both sides must be involved. In this all flaws and issues can be discovered early and the relationship shall thrive, or be destroyed should it be corrupt. For it says: "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" - 2 Corinthians 6:14 So with has been said has been declared for all of mankind, that marriage is adulthood, not age, that we are not free of our parents by time but by enacting our step into the next stage of life, the necessary stage. This is left with only one exception, all others are destructive and immoral, even in the case God will still allow you to be of Christ, he warns against those things. This exception is the gift of celibacy, for which said man has no desire for sexual relations, they have no lust and feel not desire of it. It is not by dedication such things are done but by in accordance to one's own desires it is granted to them. In this they may be liberated from a need for marriage for they are dedicated to God as it says: "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2 "I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord." - 1 Corinthians 7:35 "The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” - Matthew 19: 10-12 As such with these things it is quite clear what God says to us about relationships: Man is to be married if he feels a sexual desire, and only in marriage is he take from his father and mother and given to his wife, just so too is the wife taken from her father and mother and given to her husband. In this they are united formally as one flesh under God's guidance and will forever be dedicated to each other in life and in only death is this union abolished. For we will be like the Angels, who share no sexual desires nor do they share of the female form or spirit for they were made unlike us. "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." - Matthew 22:30 It is quite clear that we are to be dedicated to one partner for the long term, that we are to evaluate our partners with our family reasonably and speedily, that marriage would not be found long after and neither would it be a question posed into the 4th (as in being into their 30s) decade of one's life but that it be shown to us even perhaps by the 1st or 2nd decade, in the first it may not be clear for those involved but by the family, but in through the 2nd is may become clear to themselves that they are to betroth themselves to each other and by the 16th year of the woman's life that she should be in consideration of marriage. In this way they become adults for the first time, the man being optimally well older then the women and perhaps even being established in his works but not rich in his labors. A relationship that lasts a year without a marriage evaluation partaken is by such considerations a failure, while this may not mean death of the relationship, it does not pose good signs of it and reveals poor actions upon the parties of said relationship. If the family can not be involved then it may take longer but to delay and never work on figuring such things out reasonably and speedily is dooming the relation to never be prosperous and to incite a downfall of the subjects. To date, to betroth, or to be with each other should be but a short time, the only righteous path for a society, in faith, and for the subjects and families involved are by a young and quick marriage.
    5
  455. Truth be told I find Rust more of a gimmick with a religious fanbase, I have been continuously assaulted and insulted personally by making criticisms regarding the Rust language and build system in general, I have been accused of knowing nothing in regards to languages or even the Rust devs reasons for what they've done, despite both accusations being false, without an address of anything I've ever said on the subject. I can't help but see Rust developers and those fanatic about Rust as anything but children who can't regulate their own behaviors and speech for even a modicum amount to act mature, they speak of Rust as this prolific language to come basically because its not C, for which it is not unique for and there are plenty of languages that share much of its feature set and use, they just aren't as trendy. With all this I honestly now hate Rust and its community and would prefer to keep them out of kernel development because even if Rust has its advantages over C, there are too many people who use it that are either children by mind and act or who are in fact entirely children who need to learn to in the least grow a thick skin. A good language should foremost have a community of mature and decent people that don't get mad because some criticize their religion. If just criticism of Rust is enough to create fanatic angry opposition with rude comments, ad homnem attacks, and other irrational deflections and fallacies then I can't help but despise it. We all know the flaws of C and C++, we all accept them, we're mature and accept that those languages are not flawless as though its some perfect religion, but with Rust I have experienced many times people who are driven insane with an incapacity to see its flaws and who will shut you down and attack you if you threaten this view. I oppose Rust specifically because these are the exact type of people I don't want touching anything in Linux, I don't want people who think they know things only for them to disregard anything that disagrees with them so their confirmation bias is in fact confirmed, all they'll do is create chaos and cause problems. I don't even have a problem with most of the goals of Rust, I mostly just hate how it accomplishes it, I have explained this multiple times to deaf ears and every time I get into the discussion, it makes me frustrated because Rust folks tend to think if you're not with them then you're against them even if you say that you're fine with the language otherwise. I don't like the language but I would never say for it not to exist, I hate that literally every single trendy C-based language of late does the same Rust, I don't like mimic languages and find the mentality with syntax frustrating, but if it wasn't for the community, I would never care about Rust as a syntax or build system, I would simply never touch it, but now I am vehemently opposed to letting them any advantage even just for moral reason. Why does this need to be made into a moral issue? I don't think the mindset of a child should have a hand on kernel development.
    5
  456. Its the same for their standard library, it seems to me that Rust devs don't understand anything about ABI breakage or API contract violations. Kinda makes me wonder if the "experienced devs" in Rust actually have any real software experience. Or perhaps they're taken hold by some utopian dream of Rust where the common software concerns don't matter completely forgetting that changing a language doesn't fix most of the suffering of software development, most of software suffering is an inherent technology issue.
    5
  457. People also need to stop blaming capitalism for the problem when capitalism under natural endeavors attempts to become more efficient for which would reduce pollutants logically, not increase them, state capitalism is not capitalism, state capitalism is the socialist measures for which the market becomes less efficient and thus pollutes more, not less.
    5
  458. Asmon also don't understand anything about the country he lives in nor what Melonie was saying, the fact he said that she should go to an Islamic country to live simply because she wants a society of Christians to uphold Christian moral values is unhinged and deranged. Seems nobody cares about what the founding fathers said either: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams That moral and religious people John Adams is talking about is Christians.
    5
  459. Voyd Void I was making a joke how Windows exploits are basically M$' fault through shitty developers and design decisions, Linux is usually exploit through the background.
    4
  460. Honestly, the only thing about Rust that pisses me off is the useless divergences from C for no reason, I'd like it as a C alternative if not for its crappy syntax problems that I have with it, I will always hate postfix type specification and separation between type specifiers and variable declarations, its useless verbosity, the type is already significant to the variable and is necessarily required information, its actually more important then the variable name and just like all the other languages that get mad at C and ALGOL styled languages (for whatever reason) it just tries to make type specifiers look optional when they most certainly aren't. And the whole "type specification is inferred" is one stupid and useless, yes you can support that but why separate it from the type specification? It is by all convention and function just a type, the type is just determined at compile time, why separate them. If you do it how C++ does it there is absolutely no need to separate the type specifier and type inference functionality, not to mention it reduces the necessary characters to describe the code as the extra characters are entirely pointless to writer, reader, and parser and serve no necessary purpose. I don't mind Rust's type names, I don't know if I like them being so short as I think it bloats global environment with non-descriptive shorthands, but I can understand how its better then double, long, long long, and int128_t. (tbf to fix int128_t, just remove the _t and make it part of the language spec)
    4
  461.  @boredguy5531  I also hate Rust for being a poorly designed syntax, I liked the ideas, but as someone interested in language design, I absolutely despise its design and hate that it seems to be purely designed to crap on C and ALGOL, despite being a superior syntax.
    4
  462.  @auslegungssache  I agree, I have a religious disagreement with the whole trans thing and its why I stand against the pronoun thing, I explicitly tell people, if they drive up a fuss, that my convictions are not in service to man nor to make him feel comfy, but I'll be respectful and kind to you as long as you don't start attacking me, and if they don't want to be offended by what I say don't bring up the topic to me and we'll live completely fine, I've met a few of them on discord, the few that drive up a fuss about it are ones we constantly rag on, but those who don't are just like everyone else and nobody cares either way.
    4
  463.  @Qba86  It also wasn't good for birthrates or economic growth.
    4
  464. Actually threatening people with violence and crime is a violation of the law as well, so if you are telling people to break the law then you are also breaking the law. Also if you scam someone by revoking something you previous gave them right to without legal justification, you are performing a scam and that is also illegal, if you don't refund them the price then you are also breaking the law. And if someone states something as a religious conviction, then it is discrimination to be intolerant towards that belief, it almost doesn't matter what it is, and religious intolerance overrules other forms of intolerance of the law, so if my religion requires I believe in man and woman as separate binaries, discriminating against that belief is also covered. There's more to this as well.
    4
  465. It relies heavily on gnome, so probably.
    4
  466. Name pronunciation strictness in my opinion only generally matters if the subject knows and understands the language (which becomes more irrelevant anyway when we get into dialects) well enough to speak it confidently and fluently and has regular experience dealing with regular speakers of the language. In that specific case, you can make the argument that what they say for that language is correct. (I still wouldn't argue with someone over it as long as I can understand what you mean I don't give a damn and anyone who does imo is being stupid, language is for comprehensible communication and nothing else) But in the case that there is none of this understanding it is up to the native speakers to define how pronunciation should be designated without argument.
    4
  467. Nobody: Everyone involved with the FSF: *absolute schizo talks*
    4
  468. ​ @sivvinod3187  Welcome to Youtube, where I can't post unless I spam multiple times, have tested on multiple computers, operating systems, browsers, networks, and accounts, and my account won't post unless I spam Youtube comments multiple times. And if I delete the post, all my posts can and have disappeared. And that aside you do realize propaganda is defined by its content, not character right? Me spamming the comment section does not constitute a valid claim that what I said is propaganda. And not to mention propaganda to who? Who am I beholden to for which my "propaganda" helps? What rational do you have to claim that? I know who your claims are beholden to, they empower government and political power to those in charge as if they aren't corruptible. But when has my argument ever even been implemented by a political power? And where is you rational argument?
    4
  469. @mr.eichhorn4013 The AfD's position is literally the same as the CDU on all of those, if you actually read their policies you would know that, the literal only thing they disagree with the CDU on is immigration. The AfD is not euroskeptic, the AfD don't have a different climate change agenda, the AfD don't desire a new currency, and the AfD does not have anymore positive attitude on Russia then the CDU.
    4
  470.  @bustercrabbe8447  "1. Corporations and unions are as immiscible as oil and water." Watch TIK's videos again. They are in fact not. His public vs private and fascism videos actually does get into it a bit. "2. No, even in the United States laissez faire capitalism never materialized." First few decades the United States was not even an "interventionist" government, (as they devised everything on the back of John Locke's philosophy which was anti-interventionist) everything the government members wanted was either paid for by tariffs (which generally only resulted in specific government function buildings) or out of pocket by said members. (thus private enterprise) There was no subsidizing nor manipulation of business or the market, even banning things generally wasn't functionally possible. "3. State Capitalism is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. As much as I like TikHistory it is not infallible. TikHistory is very much biased towards socialist viewpoints towards economics." State Capitalism is just socialism, TIK has addressed this in immense detail in multiple socialism videos. Not sure how you can call him biased towards socialist viewpoints when he hates socialism (literally calls it evil enough times that you have be deaf to think this) and he called even many "Interventionist" policies socialist. "Capitalist Theory also includes Marxism not as a major contributor but just as another voice in the choir." No, capitalism was defined by Marxists, it did not exist before Marxism, before that it was just referred to generally as a free market, where supply and demand balance each other. "Capitalist Theory views Marxism as erroneous. Capitalist Theory was not created by Karl Marx." The division of capitalist theory was devised by Marx, before that people merely saw themselves as extending off of the principal figures like John Smyth and John Locke. The principals of Capitalist Theory only came to exist as a response to Marxist, (and honestly it was completely unneeded) but it failed to actually mean much of anything and didn't stop Marxism at all, it handed the Marxists much of their power by redefining words in accordance to Marxist doctrine. "Capitalism is not a Marxist term, the word capitalism predates Karl Marx by over a hundred years." Capitalism was never recorded historically as regarding a system before 1848, so the earliest element in the lexicon has to be the 1850s, and it was not recorded historically as being used by people generally to do such until the 1870s, before that only the concept of a capitalist existed, which only goes back the the 1790s, not capitalism, and capitalist referred to someone who has a large business and nothing else.
    4
  471. Southern also was never a traditional character, you also can't be traditional if you're gonna exclude your family from marriage evaluation, Southern was never traditional and she also is no expert on custody, marriage, and divorce but she acts and claims she is, she's also refusing the take any responsibility for her fault of the marriage, she choose a bad man, she's the blame for that, being traditional has nothing to do with it, putting yourself in a shotgun wedding with a bad man is because she never bothered to evaluate who or what the man she was with was and she simply just wanted to find some random man to put a child in her.
    4
  472.  @texasforever6950  Even a criminal who has served their sentence shouldn't even be marked as a criminal anymore, they have a right to a gun even if they once committed violence. (that's aside from the fact I believe murderers and rapists should be put to death, that I don't believe in incarceration and rehabilitation systems, but general assault without death or just manslaughter folks should totally have a right to a gun)
    4
  473.  @OthorgonalOctroon  Calling me a crackpot apologist is ad hominem. "Hence Matthew rewriting Mark, and Luke rewriting Matthew." That's not even remotely true, Matthew, and Luke all have immense amount of unique details, Luke has the most amount of primary sources in any work even going into the Renaissance, all three have more attestation for their recording in the first century as being eyewitness accounts then any work even going into the Medieval period combined. Also if they all shared a common truth, they would share details, if they said different things, then it would demonstrate falsehoods, you're using a point of reinforcing of Scripture to claim its false, there is no other case in historical study where anyone does that. Luke knew of Mark and Matthew as witnesses and thus obviously uses them as primary sources, but that is not the only primary sources he uses, if you actually read it. (even the most bias of arguments still puts over 35% of Luke as being completely unique, again backed by primary sources) All this aside doesn't refute Creating Christ as a literal scam. "All of the above writing for their own ends and inventing fanciful tales that don't agree with each other." So they all are rewritings of each other but then also don't agree with each other? Which is it? And how about you give me an example? "Like in what setting was the alabaster box of ointment broken," Matthew and Mark recount the exact same events. John's is not the same one, they are not related, and neither is Luke.The only reason you claim this is because you've never read the accounts, the mere existence of alabaster boxes in Scripture is not unique to one event. Also what do you mean by broken? They don't refer to the same time, places, or even people being there aside from Jesus. So why presume they are the same event just because there was an alabaster box? It was common as well for those who saw someone as their superior to anoint them with the perfume at the time, so if you have multiple people calling Jesus God, what do you think some people might do as a result? "whether guards were at the tomb," The lack of mention of guards in some accounts doesn't disprove their existence. "how many times and where zombie Jesus met the disciples" There is no contradiction of this, a lack of mention of some cases (often because said eyewitness either wasn't there or didn't feel the need to account it, or at least account it again) does not demonstrate a lack of happening. "and whether the crucifixion was succeeded by a thriller night." I have no idea what you're claiming by this.
    4
  474. All move constructors do is swap the data, they never need to allocate, they're literally the fastest way to assign something that isn't immediately constructed, this would be the same in Rust as in C++, copy constructors mostly function for making immutable data or duplicate data you wish to modify, which I might add, you could just use CoW containers and that'll happen automatically only when you modify the data, you can also control allocations better in C++. Also gonna point out, all compilers can optimize objects out just as well as Rust, that's not really a Rust specific thing (technically there are no objects in C++, it also produces glorified strange C binaries) that's kinda inherent to how compilation (to assembly) is supposed to work, and for languages that get compiled to a binary without a bytecode, that's pretty much what always happens. Also you can just disable exceptions in C++ and now you don't need to throw, C++23 is also getting std::expected to enable library ease of use for this case.
    4
  475. Two things to point out: 1. Nobody can define trademark law for themselves, that's defined by local laws you can't redefine it and its not legally binding, (especially if nobody signs away their "rights" for it) so I really don't get why this policy even needs to exist. It doesn't hold up in court. The only thing is serves to do is explain what would be friendly to the project. 2. The Rust Foundation hid a bunch of strange biased leftist talking points in the trademark policy that suggest the Rust Foundation has gone woke, which explains why they responded back with the whole "we're being attacked and victimized" crap in their second reply, for example they mentioned that changing the logo can apply to pride month, LGBT support, Black Lives Matter, and included nothing about supporting non-woke or anti-woke movements, which is strange, but what really damned them in my eyes was when they said you cannot host an event on Rust's trademark without banning guns from the event and forcing health mandates on the participants. They don't have that right, you can't freaking say that, and now they're trying to restrict the freedom of individuals specifically targeting Americans in a discriminatory manner. That is encouraging illegal behavior, if they have an event in say Texas or Tennessee, it is illegal to restrict the right of firearms for a public event, same with health mandates, especially if you don't own the building, and you can and will be sued for that, and you will lose. That's forcing people to break the law in order to comply with this false principal of trademark law.
    4
  476. It also wasn't desirable but a mitigation against welfare, he wanted to get rid of it entirely, but found that it would minimally be better to incrementally do so. Personally I'd say the only thing we should've considered for that was social security, unfortunately for that its too late and we're about to go bankrupt over it.
    4
  477. Trust busting doesn't work, (it actually tends to make things worse) removing segregated large business protections and state/business provisions and go-betweens is the problem, not trust problems, Facebook, Twitter, and Google have government provisions and government protection, you kill those and you lose the monopoly. (not like its a hard monopoly even now since there is no prevention of competition in the first place, you can't even compare this to the railroad or steel companies because there is no control over the marketshare infrastructure, [even tho I still see that unjustified as its not a legitimate role of government, especially since the market solved that before the government did anything] justifying socialistic ideals instead, we should not rely on government to solve problems, most especially business, that is not its job) IDK what to say about Trump's opposition to 230. Personally I'm actually opposed to 230 because it should be obvious that production (most especially including media production) lawsuits be handled on a case by case basis in a court depending on the context of the producing individual, the company publicizing the production, and the party receiving the production offense, no different then how you can't just sue a market for selling something that caused harm and had to be recalled. I don't see a manner in capable regulating that by law, precedent would be more adequate with dignified judges, if it can't be done by our modern systems, the system is broken and is unsuitable for continued representation of liberty. In which case it must be renewed. Also screw the concept of IP, that is literally only made to ensure monopolies, it was never designed for the peasants, and they can never take good advantage of it, and that aside you can't demonstrate ownership of ideas.
    4
  478. I can't think of a case where using modern C++ has ever resulted in losing memory safety that wouldn't have needed to be lost in Rust anyway. Every time I've ever run into this its specifically because I used C over relying on C++.
    4
  479.  @saucedogamillion  Yes, its stagnating economically.
    4
  480.  @Blue71974  "dad needed a colonoscopy well guess what that has been scheduled like 5-6 months from now" That's your insurance's fault, not the American healthcare system, if your insurance (or state laws) prohibits you from selecting a hospital or specialist, that's your fault for not evaluating your benefits package for your job or just randomly picking an insurance, or if you have Obamacare, that's actually the government's fault, again not US healthcare system's fault. Anecdotal cases aren't not not a proof in this case regardless. "Or it’s just so expensive that it doesn’t matter because you’re not gonna go because it’s so expensive." Again, that's irrelevant to my point.
    4
  481.  @noahhager1187  Its an economically foolish policy and it violates basic freedom and rights of free association because the employer and employee are not actually allowed to agree to a price of their own volition for work, the employee volunteers for the work and if he finds issue with his pay too low, he can walk away, there has never been excuse aside from entitlement, irrational fear, or laziness to not be capable of doing this at any point since the 1800s. (yes those who worked even in the coal mines were not enslaved, unless they were literal slaves as in being told "if you don't work, you will be terminated", otherwise they were not obligated to do so)
    4
  482.  @BrodieRobertson  Some of us mispronounce them to intentionally piss em off, somebody gotta tell folks to stop trying to reinvent English, they're just shooting themselves in the foot.
    4
  483. The only thing evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing, this is the state's fault, and there should not be a soul standing that not only allows this crap to stand, but that continues to punish people for speaking the truth.
    4
  484.  @MikePerreman  It is for ubuntu though, and that's used just as much in enterprise and is the most popular desktop linux distro. And all it takes is one person to pwn the network.
    4
  485. That's just democracy in general, there isn't a single European country that doesn't have the same problem.
    4
  486. "Color is a social construct" While true in semantic sense, English itself is a social construct, but discussing language as a social construct is pointless, that's irrelevant to defining blue in this case anyway. Blue is in this regard defined by objective measures, whether it be by appearance of blue or by being actually colored blue (which are also semantically distinct concepts) doesn't change these facts either. Regardless if someone makes a claim that "no food is blue" they are already relying on a conceptual definition of blue which in turn can be proven wrong by referring to a food that we can eat that is conceptually defined by blue. In this George Carlin was actually incorrect since there are blue and capability for blue foods naturally in the environment for us to consume or devise. Being uncommon and being non-existent are distinct categories, George Carlin said a lot of true things, but he did get a lot of things totally incorrect too.
    4
  487. The Fediverse is honestly a lot worse.
    4
  488.  @McFreaker  That doesn't excuse sex outside of wedlock, also you need to judge where you're looking and not even bother to approach women who aren't oriented to being a housewife and mother. Women who wish to take up a career and aren't ready for marriage are not worth even a moment of time. You should be telling them to be in submission to their husband and to get one before its too late, they don't get much time to find men, and you don't get much time to have children, they should not have careers and should be married early, preferably in their mid to late teens at the latest.
    4
  489.  @4thzone697  "I’m sure you’re a hit with the ladies" "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." - Galatians 1:10 "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" - 2 Corinthians 6:14 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." - Ephesians 5:22-24
    4
  490.  @andrescruz9741  The company has no obligation to give you them though, like collective bargaining is a strategy, but nobody is entitled to keep a job nor its benefits, you can negotiate that by going to a place that respects your work. (and yes they do exist if you actually want to work a real job)
    4
  491.  @badart3204  Reasonable cause isn't the reason men follow orders.
    4
  492.  @thisin.  That's an invalid comparison, specifically because if your mother calls you useless, then that's not punishment, that's straight up abuse, regardless of how mild the abuse is it is pure and simply abuse that. If she is of decent moral character, and a even the least a suitable mother, she would soon repent from such statements to her children, otherwise she is despicable in both counts and probably shouldn't have ever become a mother in the first place. (it doesn't matter the circumstance is, if she is incapable of understanding where she went wrong and retracting her wrongs, she is of terrible character and a very poor mother) Punishment does not necessitate any form of forgiveness or repentance because it is a necessity to dealing with charges and nobody that appropriately punishes anyone, children or adult, is capable of being wrong. (the only vague exception is when the one responsible for the charge lacks information that makes the punishment incorrect, but then the forgiveness is not given because they were wrong, but because they couldn't make an optimal decision instead) No one you are charged for can be left without this form of guidance. "No, I would just recognise that as personal issues of mum, and try to think back and see if this instability has influenced me in any way." A child is generally incapable of recognizing this for multiple reasons, at best they might be resentful of a problematic mother, but they will never have enough self-awareness and capable psycho-social skills to determine that their mother is unstable and that they are probably causing the child social, mental, and physical instability. I will actually say this with high confidence because I have gone through this alongside my siblings, and while some of us could point out our mother was crazy, none of us were willing to see the effect it had on us and none of us were capable of dealing with it. Extreme as an example yes, but the same deal applies, resentment alone does not form that type of awareness, it won't be until after they grow up that such contemplations may arise. (and that's only for those who partake in internal investigation and contemplations, many people will never do that and be trapped in that broken headspace) "If you're having to force yourself to do something, then you're going against your nature" I don't see how this is wrong, there are a massive amount of things in our nature that we should not partake in for many reasons. It is better to working towards productive and positive behaviors even to the detriment of the individual nature as it does not represent a moral nor ethical good to follow, in cases where no such judgement can or is specifically made, it must be examined then to see if such a case could scale into such moral or ethical dilemmas, if not then it can act. Of course that requires having a concrete objective morality, which I correlate with Biblical principle. "In the end it all evens out and only the most efficient/effortless qualities remain." I'm not so certain that's the case, that's only if left alone without capability for self-control and regulation of the individual. Any decently raised person however should be capable of self-improvement incrementally, it is massively the fault of the parents (or guardians) if this does not happen. So if that actually is to happen, that's a sign of bad parents, I would say society should be harsh and spiteful even perhaps towards parents that create those types of people. Not that it ever will, but in an optimal environment is would.
    4
  493.  @siritio3553  There's is no reason to believe that someone with an interest, knowledge, or understanding of the supernatural and/or spiritual shouldn't be involved in this field, that's an association fallacy, its also a form of ad hominem since its completely disassociated with the arguments and blames and attacks the characteristics and credibility of the person by their character traits instead of the argument. But the thing is his arguments are bad, (or in the least faulty and deluded) you don't need to attack the character ever to demonstrate a false point, take the argument and debate the argument in complete disregard to who the persons in the argument are and you will have a valid argument, anything that fails to do that is a bad argument.
    4
  494.  @tiranito2834  Doesn't help that move semantics pretty much replicate that behavior in a way that is easier to track and intuitively understand, obviously with the cost of it being less safe, which honestly I'm totally fine with the theoretical lack of safety because it kinda requires deliberate action to cause such problems, and C++ is actually pretty good with move semantics, the annoying thing is duplication of code to write out move semantics for your classes.
    4
  495.  @darrennew8211  Generally the reason you want a crash too is that crashing early also means complaints to the developer that can't be ignored and hopefully it'll be noticed earlier and thus fixed earlier, we of the software world love the concept of crash early because its more consistent at rooting out the problem.
    4
  496.  @TheThigh  Shills don't need to be paid.
    4
  497. Quick correction I want to point out, interest in lolis does not inherently pertain to sexual interest at all, in this case it seems Drew's alleged interest in lolis certainly would, but interest in lolis is not necessarily a sexual thing, "particularly" is kind of the incorrect term, its more like "that could include sexually suggestive or erotic manner". This correction is important because it is quite common for someone to say they're a lolicon (interested in lolis) but despite having no sexual desire they get accosted as pedophiles, it creates undue animosity between the weeb (those who are interested in Japanese culture) communities and more regular people.
    4
  498.  @jakenshake1775  Its an explosion being sent down a tube, explosions usually kill before the shrapnel, (if you're gonna be killed by the explosion at all) that's like denoting a concussion grenade less then 3 inches from your head.
    4
  499.  @stevenscott2718  Or maybe just trying to screw us over later.
    4
  500.  @Haegemon  You don't kill random chicken to get revenge on the one that hurt you, if I kill someone who I've never met before out of "revenge", that's foremost not revenge aside from the fact that its also murder.
    4
  501. I remember dealing with this for Godot which was 2 weeks out of date for one of the 4.1 patch releases. When you have teams relying on you for a version update, waiting for the arch repo packages to help you can be a nightmare when you need a bug fixed asap, and since Godot 4 became the mainstream version it got nuked off the AUR despite the AUR repo only ever being a day or two out of date. I said screw it and decided to just duplicate the old AUR package, changed the version, and retrieved it from the github release directly assets, few days after the Godot package got updated, but now I have a local package that I use to force the Godot package to be updated even if the arch repo stays out of date. Installing Godot is trivial since its just a single portable executable file you can download and its only 100 megs, but I wanted my package manager, desktop shortcuts, and path to have the correct version without hassle since I make use of them regularly. Was easier that way.
    4
  502. I guess you can restrict access to the reflection system, but that requires more work and almost nobody actually does it.
    4
  503.  @raifwinn2475  Civil Liberties weren't left wing ideas, they were Classical Liberal ideas which existed before the concept of left wing politics, if anything the left wing political nutcases in France stole the concept poorly from the American Classical Liberals, (after they finished executing "traitors" during the reign of terror and then puppeted 65% of Europe because of French imperial ambitions) everybody steals from the American Constitution and Bill of Rights most especially, and every time they do it bad because they put massive amount of government interference in the way. (if you ever looked into the original concept of Rights described in the American Constitution, it explains that none of the rights are government provided nor government privileged, but God inherited, it also explains that no right is given to the government to equalize the field nor is it right for the government to interfere with the individuals themselves if they aren't doing anything that negates their rights) Social Security is a lie, it literally is unsustainable and has been bankrupt for nearing half a century now, its subsidized massively by young workers, you don't see a cent of what you put into it, it steals from the taxes of the newer generations because it requires more money to sustain for each generation then can feasibly be put in by said generation. (Plus its used to track you in the most insecure and abusable manner ever devised, its the easier manner to be an identity thief with social security) Public Schooling, especially in the US, is considered one of the worst things ever devised and trust in the system is at all time low, not to mention it fails to teach anyone modern viable skills nor gives them experience valuable to the modern age. Its styled like a prison and was explicitly made for indoctrinating industry workers so they could operate industrial equipment efficiently. Also its massively expensive and you don't get any input on what your children learn nor can you regulate what they learn without pulling them out of the system. (which you still have to pay taxes for) And if you do pull them out you get massive prejudice against you no matter how intelligent or knowledgeable you are. If anything public school is one of the worst things every devised, most people born out of it can't learn anything and they are incapable of performing admirable in the job market, they have no practical skills, and it really tries to force them to pay into college, which for most jobs is entirely worthless.
    4
  504.  @sigmamale4147  Given most regular locks can't be busted with a magnet even when cheaply made, that really does make electronic locks utterly useless, getting a decent enough magnet to break electronic locks is stupid cheap and would allow even morons to break em. Regular car locks at least require damaging the vehicle and leaving some form of obvious trace to follow, like "well he busted the window so just look for a busted driver side window" is a pretty good tell for cops given they'll likely check the dude on suspicious grounds anyway. Electronic locks don't give that if they fail to a quick theft compared to the regular car, and it takes almost no time to pull off and you don't look suspicious doing it. Like if I go up to a car in a parking lot with a coat hanger to fish for the lock, you damn well know somebody will find it suspicious, people are way more likely to call the cops on you or check up on you when you do that. This is the big problem with electronic locks, the point of a lock isn't to keep you out, its to make it near impossible to get in without it being obvious resulting in you being easier to catch. The convenience of electronic locks defeats this purpose of a locks negating 95% of the purpose of even having a lock. The 5% deterrence of just straight opening the door isn't something most people will do if they weren't already willing to break through the lock anyway.
    4
  505.  @daigoro7216  Source?
    4
  506. Korra utterly destroyed everything that made Avatar good, it retroactively killed the lore and the whole republic city made absolutely no sense. The only remotely good idea it had was Amon in season one and it screwed that up anyway. And Korra and all of the cast were token cliches with no distinct character nor character arcs, they were plot devices and nothing more, not to mention Korra was a whiny piece of crap.
    4
  507.  @augustuskeller7214  Honor is not the same as following nor approving, when a parent does morally well, follow their instructions, but when one does poor, it is the righteous to honor them by helping them to stop being poor, not to hate them, and if you cannot help them to understand when they do wrong, then it is best to minimize the harm they do to you and others to the best of your ability without violating morality. It is better to surround yourself with the wise and righteous. (Proverbs 13:20) However you must call them to righteousness, you must, in Christ, forgive them.
    4
  508.  @josedorsaith5261  In the US it is completely legal to manufacture your own firearms without any oversight so long as it is not a destructive weapon or full automatic, its only commercial sale that needs to go through an FFL, not even private sales and neither do transfers in most states need an FFL and background check. (this what they claim is the gun show loophole, but its an explicit part of the law, it isn't a loophole, you used to be able to buy guns without an FFL from a catalogue in the 80s) Though if you're gun is technically an SBR, some states will try to kill you for that.
    4
  509. There's also span, mdspan, and string_view, so there's even less incentive now to touch raw pointers now for things that smart pointers can't do well. There's also out_ptr and inout_ptr to assist the smart pointers.
    4
  510.  @atomicTurtle000  No, the fort was to be abandoned by the union, it shouldn't have been supplied for the soldiers were supposed to have left, they had no legal right to be there, I never edited my post to change anything, you're just a fool. You're the one moving the goalposts.
    4
  511.  @atomicTurtle000  "Abstractly, it was enough that the Government was in the right. But to make the issue sure, [Lincoln] determined that in addition, the rebellion should be put in the wrong." - John Nicolay (Aide to President Lincoln)
    4
  512.  @atomicTurtle000  "You and I both anticipated that the cause of country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result" - Abraham Lincoln (Letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1st 1861)
    4
  513.  @atomicTurtle000  "Did he even ever say that to the Confederacy?" He told everyone this. "Regarding letter to Fox. Provision the fort = sending food. Like I said." Then why was the "provision" armed? Also what were the "results"? Why would Lincoln care about the "results" if the point was about "provisions"?
    4
  514. Vengeance is not man's, vengeance breeds only evil and wickedness, it is not ours to perform, this is literally the only purpose government was made for, it was established by God for this sake. "Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written: "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord." - Romans 2:19
    4
  515. Even with proof the unbeliever would do anything he could to reject God, for his heart is darkened against truth. He could very well meet God and still say He is false. The unbeliever has always sought the justification of his sins, the existence of a strict justice God demonstrates the wickedness of this view and inspires a Spiritual fear that with God they cannot acknowledge for what fears must also mean, most primarily that they are wicked and are living wickedly and they shall be judged. Evidence cannot convince he who rejects the presumptions of said evidence regardless of its quality. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." - Romans 1:18-23
    4
  516. Yeah, Portland is way worse.
    4
  517. Gold's usefulness doesn't define its value, that's a fallacious association. Value is not given by use, but by supply and demand, and demand is too subjective to give an objective value, intrinsic value would mean everything would be priced the same in accordance to wealth, that would mean it would never become impossible for an average person to buy bread at the store, but there are plenty of socialist and communist countries that demonstrate the exact opposite of that.
    4
  518. Dispensationalism is a heresy. As a Calvinist Protestant, the Darbyism heresy (after John Nelson Darby) is one of the biggest threats to Christian peacemaking in the modern age. Look up Zechariah 11-12 and tell me does that look like a Christian should let anyone own Jerusalem if we truly wanted peace?
    4
  519.  @blackgorillaarmy9204  Freedom of association need be my only caused for firing someone, meaning I need no justification.
    4
  520.  @veemie8148  Also note that most crime, even of the modern era, is only found out when reported, (usually someone who cared about the victim) otherwise it may take such a long time for a crime to be found out that statue of limitations may expire or they could be long dead. While there are plenty of cases now where we could find the culprit thanks to technology, most criminal investigations even now starts and requires a notice of suspicions or wrongdoings. In this the authorities of the past would receive a report, possibly investigate the case a bit depending on the importance and reputation of the reporter, then respond and act accordingly if they found it credible and worth pursuing.
    4
  521. Women can get away with almost anything, especially in divorce courts, my mom is schizophrenic bipolar and CPS almost took me away from my dad who had custody of us after she lost because of her schizo-gaslighting both us and the CPS, and she only barely lost the custody battle, only later did the house her and my dad owned get foreclosed mostly cause she couldn't hold down even a part-time job for more then a month or two without losing her crap. She locked us in the house for an entire summer with no access to the outside world except through a tv screen, and nobody was allowed in. I have first hand experience of women being able to do almost anything and almost getting away with it, thank God this wasn't a divorce, had it been one, the custody would've gone to my dad and then we'd had end up in CPS because my dad wasn't "prepared" with a house that could house a brother and sister aside from me. (because he wasn't allowed to keep the home that my mom was unable to manage)
    4
  522. "but those who merely seek to make their club larger by recruiting new members, without any respect for the intellects of those who they are trying to recruit, are ruining the very same message that they are trying to spread." Reach people where they are at. Too often such a loving position is ignored. But it the message must be spread, not for the sake of your church, but for the church, for we are to make disciples of all the nations. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," - Matthew 28:19 Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses need to be shown as a cult and rebuked and corrected for such. "Justice would be if Japan sends those who come in the name of Christ, but act merely on personal interest, home, for good." Now that's not a loving position, even in them acting wicked we are neither to hate nor desire the death of a sinner. We are to love them in their sins for Christ so loved us in our wickedness that He died for us so that we would never die.
    4
  523.  @axelanderson2030  I agree with that, I absolutely HATE intrusive anti-cheat and DRM, all forms (aside from VAC) of anti-cheat and DRM are total trash and grossly misrepresent the problem in order to solve it in the worst way for everyone because everyone involved is stupid and lazy about it, I was just clarifying that least in this case EAC is not really at fault.
    4
  524. I think SO should either gatekeep the people that can answer to people with positive responses and good references, or to let anyone respond without regard for individual karma. As it stands now, the only way to get anywhere on SO fast is acting like an asshole.
    4
  525.  @user-eg6nq7qt8c  An ideal is by definition an impossibility you shoot for, I disagree with his ideal of free, I don't like any concept of copyleft, but I do at least respect his tenacity for his ideals and his consistency in following them in disregard to their practicality.
    4
  526. If you friends can't deal with truth and reasonableness at all with you, they're probably not actually friends, they're gaslighting you that they even care about you then.
    4
  527. Probably economics as well.
    4
  528. Note Protonmail is still a US glowie honeypot.
    4
  529.  @stevesether  Its not so much the problems of the helmet not working if you fall or hit something (it is effective at doing so) but its more the fact some jackwad felt it important to near on force you, a totally capable adult making individual decisions, to make the same exact decisions he did. Its unlikely he was even doing so for your sake, even more he likely wouldn't even understand why he'd do so. Its a similar reason for why its annoying that seat belts are law instead just another form of guidance, imagine a world where you'd be arrested and fined for not wearing a helmet? You're the only one liable to get hurt, and you have the right to judge that risk and decide for yourself.
    4
  530.  @swagmaster6922  Not according to the Constitution its not, so says Jefferson, also no amount of policy would have an effect because majority of the issues have nothing to do with guns, suicide rates not using guns are already higher in the US, most cases are with drugs, if someone wants to commit suicide, you can't stop them, removing the gun is irrelevant, as for mass shootings, being over 600 is almost certainly a falsely inflated number by a wrongful definition of the term designed to manipulate you, its propaganda, not fact. And pretty much every mass shooting was committed by someone who should've been convicted and thus shouldn't have been able to legally own a gun or had already acquired their gun illegally anyway. 500 people dying in a year is as well completely insignificant in a population of 330 million, way more people die in car crashes every year and there's less cars in the US then guns. Almost all gun homicides, which will include teenage killings, is because of inner city gang crime, places where it was already illegal to even own a gun, in California it is hard to get a gun then in Italy, LA, San Fran, NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland, Detroit, Boston, Baltimore, ect. it has practically always been illegal to own a gun, no common civilian can buy one because a permit is required which have until the Bruen decision been may-issue, in most cases being no-issue, making it illegal to own. It also tends to be illegal to carry, for example in New Jersey (New York and California have similar laws) it was illegal to be found carrying a gun at all even with a permit unless you were traveling directly to a gun range or maybe to go hunting, and your gun has to be separated from the ammo and placed as far away from you and the ammo as possible. That's with a New Jersey permit, if you have an out of state permit, you can't even do that, if you are found with a gun in your possession while in the state you will straight up be arrested, and they can search you at the mere belief that you have a gun. In Texas the gun homicide rate and mass shooting count, despite being one of the largest populations in the union, has some of the lowest rates and they've only been decreasing. Gun regulation has never been associated with a drop in crime or homicide, and you can't fix suicide by regulating guns, they're not even responsible for majority of suicides.
    4
  531.  @shinHis3  Its not that its not a big deal, what he did is a big deal, the problem is he's done very little since and nothing relating to the field they pulled him in on, and he's not the only 14 year old to contribute to the field at that era. The problem in that era of computing, if you understood anything about a computer, you had to be a wizard, everyone with any experience with computers had to be that good or else they wouldn't be capable to work with the computers, (it was a period where if you didn't know how your computer kernel worked you literally weren't touching the computer, it would do nothing for you quite literally, or worse you'd break a million dollar machine, and yeah that's a bit of an hyperbole, it was usually less then that, but it was still expensive if you screwed up a rig in the 70s or early 80s, which was when personal computing was only starting to pick up, you caused a lot of problems and costed a company a lot of money, and those early PCs were still easily screwed up by the user if they didn't know what they were doing, before PCs you had to manage or write every single program manually) in that time what he did was a litmus test for computing.
    4
  532.  @pokey013  You can still refuse, there is no justification for him to perform the job he did, remember he's still voluntarily doing this job, especially when he's not qualified or experienced at all to be able to. By agreeing to do what he did he is in the least saying truth and reason don't matter so long as he's being paid, in the worst case he's showing outright support to Amber's side in disregard to any truth at all.
    4
  533. They love to ignore that Trump was a background contributor to Civil Rights actions and was given awards alongside folks like Rosa Parks for his contributions.
    4
  534. C++ doesn't copy data by default, it depends on the type, if you implement a copy constructor and don't use references, sure it'll probably perform a copy, but move semantics are a natural part of the language and the language will defer to using that which is almost as cheap (and in most cases is just as cheap) as a direct reference. (so long as it has a trivial destructor) Now if you simply make classes and don't use references without a constructor, (and aggregator type) the expectation is that it will try to perform copy construction, unless your types contained in the object are not themselves default constructible in which case that may also not be the case.
    4
  535. @ Its more that he doesn't actually know much of anything about American Constitutional rulings or the American Founding tbh. He's definitely said a lot of absolutely false things regarding it before.
    4
  536.  @terrydaktyllus1320  "Fine, but I am just an Xorg user, I don't write apps. I thought software was supposed to be "user friendly", not necessarily "developer friendly"." That literally means nothing will be user friendly and you'll get less people capable to be developers or seek being developers, or they'll go into something less stupid otherwise. It means less accessibility all around, not just for devs. "Which toolkits and WMs?" All of em, literally everyone is using inefficient hacks. "namely to make programming easier by standardising the "look and feel" of the interface and providing the libraries that programmers need to code their apps around." GTK and QT don't share anything in common in regards to theme or interface and they actually are thematically disruptive, they exist because nobody wants to keep rewriting the damn window management and GUI construction, its not standardization, its about making clear consistent enough windows and GUIs, but both QT and GTK are still pretty trash, and being stuck with X11 which mostly outlives both of them only makes that worse. "You've decided you don't like Xorg because it's old" This is a stupid statement because it blatantly misunderstands software, you don't want old software, it doesn't get fixed when there's a problem, its got an ugly codebase that nobody can recall how it works well, and it will have a million pieces of useless dangling code nobody uses that opens the doors to day zero exploits nobody has publicly disclosed yet. X11 is full of crap like this and that's only the tip of the iceberg. That extra dangling crap also slows the system down, and extends compile times especially if its in an old language version that lacks more modern QoL (in other newer languages) features. There are a million more reasons I can be mad at old code that new code doesn't piss me off about, I hate Rust but even I'm not stupid enough to think its better then C99. "So you "pretend" you know a lot more about it than actually do and that it's all about "think of the developers!" Talk about being a jerk and a fool, you do realize every problem a developer faces the user will face twice as bad because its up to the developer, who may not even be aware of all the jank to account for that OR ELSE HE GETS BLAMED FOR SOMETHING HE HAS NO FAULT IN. That's what X11 does to the developer, causes fools like you to blame developers for things they shouldn't be responsible for because they didn't account for a old broken system like X11. "I started using Linux in 1996, Xfree86 as it was then, Xorg as it now, has done pretty much what I need a GUI environment to do" Broken earbuds still tend to work halfway, doesn't make them good, and being broken their half as good as they were. This is about as good a justification as saying "I should just use Netscape, the internet should still support the old forms so I can use it, otherwise everyone else is to blame, nobody should have to upgrade" when in reality its just you being dumb. There is no justification for this mindset other then complacency and familiarity, you fear change and thus blame any change and hold anyone seeking improvement with contempt when in reality its just you being lazy. "If and when Wayland gives me some wonderful new things that enhances my Linux experience, then I may take a look at it." It already does, the problem is it lacks some things you may be used to, some of which you should actually agree to get rid of specifically because its killing self-destructive. As for what is self-destructive specifically I can't say but you don't say receptive given what you just said. "Actually, I think with most of you "fashionistas", it's just about believing that you'll be able to play your modern games better" This is a retarded cope. Nobody thinks Wayland will do that anymore then X11 especially since X11 is the one everyone builds stuff for right now. "and my "engineer's answer" to that is just spend $10 on a Windows 10 OEM license and play your games on that." What the hell is wrong with you? Those are completely unrelated topic, its clear you don't have a cent of understanding on the subject if that's first off why you think people want Wayland and secondly if that's your solution. You do realize you just implied that Wayland is Windows 10, which is the most disgusting response to a non-Microsoft FOSS project I think you could say. You are a dumbass. "Me, I don't play crappy modern games" I play and mod modern games on Proton GE just fine, you are a literal boomer and you speak like some old ass hick in regards to your tech understanding, I have no idea what kind of fool would claim we want Wayland because "gaming" and "fashionable software", a lot of X11 functional games break on wine more then anything. "when WIndows 7 support ended" The fact you stuck with Win7 saying all this crap says it all. "If it ain't broke then don't fix it" If it ain't broke, I love to be lazy and stupid and never improve myself or anything I own. Surely nothing will ever break in the backend where I don't understand crap and claim to be all knowing. That's quite a waste. "The best engineer's solution to a problem is usually the cheapest and easiest one." This still suggests that any decision you just claimed of could potentially be wrong and you're just too lazy or much to incapable in thought to check.
    4
  537.  @Resurr3ction  UB tends to fall into one of two big camps, it gets optimized out in some manner, or it does something kinda like what you would expect strangely, it depends on what specific behavior you're asking of the compiler as to what it will do, and there are some manners to actually force UB optimizations, 95% of which are compiler intrinsics (like std::unreachable is implemented via compiler intrinsics and is guaranteed to trigger optimizations that either trap or remove the unreachable case)
    4
  538.  @mmstick  Maybe you should actually learn what the word "harassment" means first, I just want to be left alone, Rust is not this bastion of programming that Rust cultists claim it to be, it fails even basic things, as such it is incapable of replacing C or C++.
    4
  539.  @tinrab  Clang, GCC, and MSVC all have stable ABIs for each other on the same system. I can link against them, the only exception is MSVC doesn't like linking against certain options, and that's because it does its own special things that violates the standard. It does that a lot. GCC and Clang however are always ABI compatible (and the C standard does make ABI stability guarantees, seems you've never read the C standardd) and both are usually ABI compatible with MSVC in every common use case. Course you could also simply not use MSVC's compiler/linker and skip that potential problem entirely anyway. Rust cannot do shared linkage, this is an open issue that's known and they can't fix.
    4
  540.  @Henrik0x7F  Dynamic linkage is the basis for almost everything on Unix systems, and is essential to network infrastructure, both Linux and BSD rely on it so heavily for more then core systems. (all common Unix package managers rely on dynamic linkage) And that aside every major C++ compiler is ABI compatible, GCC and Clang have interoperable ABI (even with different build options, whether dynamically or statically linked) and MSVC can do so if you disable the non-standard debug behavior and structured exceptions. (and tbf the non-standard debug behavior is mostly a library problem which if you ran in Clang, is still ABI compatible)
    4
  541. ​ @Henrik0x7F  Then you don't work in open source software or network infrastructure, or in anything that has to deal with the LGPL, or anything that has to do with Unix. Dynamic linkage is also necessary for game development and projects like image manipulators and video editors. I am actively working on projects, both commercial and non-commercial, that literally cannot work without dynamic linkage.
    4
  542. But how do you account for eyewitness accounts experiencing such strange things? Like whatever happened, I wouldn't doubt there was certainly a problem with her.
    4
  543. Nothing has intrinsic value, those who claim that don't actually understand supply and demand, specifically the demand, as demand is inherently subjective.
    4
  544. Not to mention if you're trans, why wouldn't you just choose the sex you want? The whole point of them is supposed to be escaping their body, if the logic follows, being reminded of it would make them more inclined to commit suicide, not that they have a good chance of not doing so regardless.
    4
  545. It has nothing to do with "app exclusivity" because its all about maintaining two parallel incompatible versions of their libraries, sometimes wholly separated in the case of static libs, this is a massive waste that you need to spend money and developers maintaining and wastes twice as much time developing any singular feature in the optimal case. (and 90% of cases are sub-optimal so generally expect around 350% slowdown for any functionality or solution) Its not like GTK3 or GTK4 will be dead in the sense of being completely unusable, it won't be actively maintained but you could still use it, it just means GTK5 features not seen in GTK3 and GTK4 will be exclusive to Wayland which 90% of the time isn't gonna change anything, if someone needs to make a GTK app they can just use GTK4, its extremely unlikely they'll need GTK5 features and since GTK is FOSS anyway if someone wants to bring certain GTK5 features to GTK4's Xorg implementation then they can fork GTK4 and do it themselves. I don't see how this is a problem. Do you expect GTK to work on every Windowing System all the time? That expectation is insane, you're hefting work on people for something that has no value, any scrub or company who built their own window system would still be excluded from GTK, X10 is also not supported by the more modern versions because what would the point be? X11 has been around for 40 years, most people who use computers now, even on Linux, weren't alive or weren't capable of doing anything with a computer when X11 was released, so why would you expect anyone to use it?
    4
  546.  @techpriest4787  Torvalds has experience in kernels, but he has no knowledge, practical or theoretical on languages and compilers whatsoever and he's arrogant thinking he knows better then people who do know better then him. Practical experience only works per field, not on things that supersede your field like language development and compilers, I know more about both subjects then Torvalds does, being an expert in one field (kernel development) does not make you an expert in anything else. (compilers and binaries) This is appeal to authority fallacy anyway.
    4
  547. Just gonna say, Rust fanbois and KDE opposition are themselves absolutely cults that won't say anything bad so long as it follows their precepts of their cult. Them having something positive to say does not mean they are actually saying anything valid. Gnome hatred makes sense but least from an experiential sense may be overblown.
    4
  548.  @ryboi1337  Also this is a false interpretation, Galatians 2:11-14 has nothing to do with the writings of an Apostle which were written by the Holy Spirit, it only has to do with a specific principal being taught by the Holy Spirit. Paul speaks against Peter because he was acting hypocritical and had to be corrected. The acts of an Apostle and the writings of an Apostle recorded in Scripture are of different value, an Apostle can be fallible, but when he speaks by the Holy Spirit he cannot be. Acts 15:1-29 has nothing to do with Apostle fallibility, they are speaking their opinion but then the Holy Spirit speaking in the Council then produces an infallible word, the instruction given is equal to any Synoptic Gospel or Ancient Scripture.
    4
  549.  @ryboi1337  I'm always happy to instruct a brother to seeking deeper into the Word, good theology is the basis for right interpretation, the depths of the reasoning that the Spirit gives is immense and infinite, let the work of God be upon our hearts and the salvation gifted to us in faith of Our Lord Jesus be in our tongues and hands worked from the inside out. Blessed be glory to Him forever.
    4
  550.  @AK-vx4dy  ABI stability matters more then public functions, but Rust also sucks at that anyway.
    4
  551. But Rust isn't able to be ABI stable so it wouldn't work anyway.
    4
  552. Its quite unfortunate that English natives decided not to fix that problem and just worship everything they've said, I love both of what they've done to an extent (though I don't entirely agree with "ancap" principals on moralistic reasons) but the fact native speakers who should know better aren't ever willing to properly correct the terms does lead to a lot of problems like what TIK had. Also Rothbard and Mises aren't gods and don't have omniscient understanding, but for some strange reason nobody questions anything about them, which means to include the terms they use to describe and define things even when they're wrong in use of those words. It is quite unfortunate, it strangles all the good that could otherwise be done if not for the insistence that these incorrect definitions continue because it was said by the "ancap" gods. (who I can very well bet you neither would be happy to be treated as, they very likely would call such behavior stupid)
    4
  553.  @yuriytheone  I probably know rather well, as a developer on C/C++, but believe me or not, I know what I am and I'm confident in knowing the issues of C/C++.
    4
  554. Honestly with C++20 and C++23, even going back to C++17, its already immensely safe, if you don't use stick to the C way of doing things, it pretty much solves the same problems as Rust without forcing you into a paradigm that has you wrestling with the borrow checker or the language in general.
    4
  555. @ Historically, Canadian identity is 95% "We are not the United States", such countries always collapse given time, the cultural identity of Canada is not all that much distinct from the US outside of most of the eastern provinces not revolting in 1776 (note New Brunswick and Nova Scotia tried but because the Continental Congress couldn't spare troops, the revolts were quickly put down, so kissing the ring isn't even a universal Canadian identity either) outside of Quebec. (which I suspect is one of the reasons Canada elevated Quebec to a position of being "more equal" then the other provinces) Regardless when you remove the propaganda the separation of American culture from Canadian culture excluding the law boils down to the same differences between New Jersey and North Dakota. Principally I'm saying while Canada does have a unique culture, its just as similar to the US as the US states are to each other, functionally making it more like a US state as far as culture is concerned, the Canadian institutions don't like this as it takes the power away from the institutions of the state so they try to indoctrinate Canadians to see themselves as "not American" because there is little else they have to identify more drastically distinct from the US.
    4
  556. ​ @DannyGraves1775  I always found it weird given how many people at The Escapist agreed with his politics explicitly, like its not like they didn't like the promotion of his trash politics over there, they were doing that for years already, but I guess he was only a good short term manager/producer and caused these type of issues in the long term.
    4
  557.  @bigbay1159  Seems that I was so well reasoned that they deleted their comment, I however quoted most of what they said, least the bits that are relevant for the refutation I presented. Their entire thing was basically trying to argue that Linux should always be willing to break userspace because not doing so is exactly what makes a buggy mess and that's why Linux is so bad and buggy according to them, because of the "religion of bloat" or whatever that we adhere to, he blamed literally all bugginess of Linux on bloat.
    4
  558. Its unfortunate that innocent life is killed satanically over such hedonistic pleasures, but even worse is that the foolish tho intelligent groups of leftists that exist have such low birth rates and they're to be replaced with low skill, low intellect fools who will vote to thieve money await from everyone else. Which means they're not only trying to steal our fortunes, but they're also a long term detriment to our technological advancement. And the non-left familes aren't even remotely trying nor able to outbreed the imported idiots.
    4
  559. Patents were designed expressively with patent trolls in mind, its just a government enforced monopoly, of course its going to be abused, that's by design.
    4
  560. The memory security concerns aren't anywhere as significant as people make them out to be either since you can compile the address and data stacks to be distinct places, and even then unsafe memory exploits aren't the most commonly exploited types, so memory safety won't actually negate the exploits in the wild.
    4
  561.  @captaincanada5139  The language has nothing to do with race, poisoning the blood of a country doesn't inherently refer to race. (unless you believe in only racial blood of countries, in which you'd be the racist for taking it that way)
    4
  562.  @captaincanada5139  "2017-2020: Trump compares his crowd turnout to Hitler’s (twice)" First off he didn't say that, and that aside it wouldn't be wrong at all to compare a crowd size to Hitler's because it was publicly known that Hitler's crowds were some of the biggest in Europe at the time, doesn't make you a Nazi to know that. "June 18, 2020: Facebook takes down Trump ad featuring Nazi symbol" A downward facing red triangle isn't all that unique of a symbol.
    4
  563. Tesla vehicles with self-driving can be tricked into it, its not hard, there are multiple people attesting to it and videos do exist of people doing it.
    4
  564.  @MajesticDemonLord  Its still a logical contradiction to say abortion should exist and its need limits, you can't have both, you demonstrate the conviction by saying it should have limits because you know its a life but also despise responsibility and the life by saying its only life when I say it is. Subjective standards are not reasonable standards. Also you don't need abortion to not take care of the child, adoption costs less then the abortion and is always healthier, the only reason you'd get an abortion is because you don't want to pay the consequences of sex.
    4
  565.  @Oicurmtoyoy  Where it says "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;" would be read by every Greek reader of the day as referring to women having passion with women, another way it is phrased is "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones" where the initial possessive noun is masculine but the accusative nouns referring to natural and unnatural relations are all feminine. Natural relations refers explicitly to heterosexual relationships and the way unnatural relations would be used here would be exclusively for homosexual relationships.
    4
  566.  @Punkrockbuhhda  Ammon isn't a Biblical scholar, he doesn't know anything about Koine Greek, he's a Classic Greek student which predates the New Testament by 500 years, he also thinks that the Septuagint predates the Ancient Hebrew without evidence. In fact all evidence we have says that the Ancient Hebrew text predates Classical Greek as a whole as a number of loan words show up in the Tanakh (that are then brought into the Septuagint) that wouldn't naturally be found or make any sense in the Septuagint's Greek unless it was a translated work as the Classical Greek language wouldn't have interactions from many of the other Semitic (and even some non-Semitic) languages that the Ancient Hebrew did, as some of them were dead or dying by the time of the Hellenization period. (and a dying language doesn't tend to last long enough to proliferate loan words out of it) As well those loan words retained Hebrew modifications first, not Greek modifications.
    4
  567. Si vis pacem, para bellum (If you want peace, prepare for war) We must be vigilant, violence might be a last resort, but it should never be disregarded.
    4
  568. That's not really an entirely fair statement because Christians define their enemies as inherently, its just that they also consider themselves inherently evil, it be more accurate to say "this is what happens when you define your enemies as inherently evil and yourself as inherently good" which is true but now demonstrates instead that arrogance is a massive road to wickedness.
    4
  569. @Acolyte of Dagon "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." - 1 Corinthians 1:18 "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’" - John 15:18-25
    4
  570. @Acolyte of Dagon By what authority? You don't get to claim truth when you have no standard for truth. You don't get to steal from our worldview and claim you are right. I don't believe you nor your opinions, so why does what you say matter?
    4
  571. @Acolyte of Dagon "I never claimed truth" Then your criticism can neither exist nor be recognized as qualitative. There is no argument you can have unless you admit to truth, there is no criticism without that argument. So either you recognize truth in which you rob from another worldview to sustain it or you have no place to stand. There is no just position without a foundation for truth being known, a place of objectivity beyond your own bounds. Else your statements are worthless. "I'm sceptical of your claims that you have access to divine knowledge because you read a book," I will not argue you to a realm of truth and knowledge that is not gained by man's reason, for he is incapable of such as what I quoted says. "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14 How about you actually read the things written before you handwave them as if you could learn nothing? How could you sustain an argument if you will not read it? This aside the truth of the word has already been given to you, we are not capable to ignore a wider objective truth, Creation itself demonstrates such a case, and that we have not made it but that something beyond us has designed it. Things made do not come to being by random chance, order is not attained in chaos, it is designed by something even if that designer may come from the chaos, these are clear truths. "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." - Romans 1:20 "and you have zero evidence behind any of your beliefs other than the fact that the book told you so." For the evidence is all around you but you are incapable to understand it for you are spiritually discerned. I do not make my proofs by evidences for these are not a demonstration for faith. No man is brought to faith by reason, for men's reason is worthless philosophy before truth. Reason does not make faith, but faith makes reason. We are not to be taken captive by such things for they do not save and have no hope, they are not with love but are without it. It is such this I will never prove to you things with evidence for even if God came down and told you His Truth face to face and told you Christ did happen you would never believe, you would never have faith. No amount of evidence would convince you for evidence was never the problem. One again read 1 Corinthians 2:14, Paul is quite clear. "Your "authority" isn't any greater or lesser than mine or anybody else's." Its not my authority, that makes it a strawman to say for I never claimed it to be mine. "The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood." - John 7:18 "Your appeal to authority is based on an imaginary friend that you are in close contact with." How do you know what you know? Does not an authority exist beyond ourselves? What defines said authority? Are we not ruled by authority over us that gives us what we have? "For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" - 1 Corinthians 4:7 "I also never "stole from your worldview," as you have no such claim to any political stance or ideology." You have for you claim to stand against me without a foundation to criticize me, so you steal from the worldview of Truth in order to claim to speak from truth, you claim authorities for yourselves so as to attack me and criticize God. If you could make such things, by what standard do you have that you can criticize me on? You have made yourself a hypocrite.
    4
  572. @Acolyte of Dagon Then you have even less capability to criticize or maintain any disagreement, you subsisted a claim of an argument without just reason, but aren't even willing to spend a moment actually caring about it. That's quite a faulty position for an atheist to claim one thing but have no capability to even deal with his opposition.
    4
  573. Truth be told I kinda despise Rust, and not even so much because I hate the idea (tho I do despise what I see as even more excess complexity in its build system and compilation, Rust is very anti-KISS which I hate) but because I hate its syntax and design itself. Honestly would've preferred anything many other languages to Rust.
    4
  574.  @justanto  What is moral? What defines morality?
    4
  575.  @justanto  You can't have a moral system that's relative, that just means all morality is preference, and thus there is no reason to care about you, logic inherently cannot exist, and neither can value. Sounds like you've never read Friedrich Nietzsche. "If you were born in ancient Rome you would think very different things about morality." No because Rome did believe in objective morality, they just believe their morality was objective, they purged what they perceived and called as atheists (which is why they had a negative disposition towards the Ancient Hebrews and especially the Christians before the 3rd century AD) because they believed you could not have any respect for law without a concept of objective morality, and they recognized that you can't have that without religion and a god of some sort. Numerous Roman writers and even Greek philosophers already addressed this problem. "This is exactly what I was talking about when I said you refuse to question the values society has given you." Except my morality was not determined by society, I already lived as a moral relativist and all it did was cause me pain and hurt the people around me because it made me a narcissist. Because the only person who matters in that view is yourself, its the only logical conclusion, until you reach the conclusion that nothing matters and you become either a hedonist or a nihilist. (which is what Nietzsche concluded too) Also there is no presuming they're objective, the fact you said that proves you don't understand what objective morality even means. Objective means the principals supersede the individual, how that happens is irrelevant, the simple the fact the rules I described apply to everyone and that it does not rely on a stupid individual like yourself, and neither anything within the definition of the material realm to define them makes them objective.
    4
  576. Almost everyone needs this experience for the sake of our nature for which is corrupt and destructive, it gives us understanding so that we may preserve ourselves for the good and righteousness God has gifted to us.
    4
  577. Gitlab?
    4
  578.  @projektplay3382  "specially compared to the amount of syntactical confusion you can make with C++... for example the amount of ways in which you can initialize a fundamental type" Honestly I don't see how this is relevant to a new language since most of that is for compatibility sake anyway, I don't see many cases of styleguides that are comfortable with anything that doesn't stick with type identifier = expression and even beyond that a new language can just erase this problem instead of doing it again only with wasted semantic space, its not difficult in a parser or semantic analyzer to do this, (knowing from experience of hand writing a parser) the analyzer only needs to know what the rvalue is supposed to be. (which should be trivial in a language that's statically typed) Honestly I'm fairly alright with a few easier to read formats for initializing a type but that would be on the stack like this being for arrays: (or tbh any structure that can be stack allocated with a list) int[] a { 1,2,3 };
    4
  579.  @MisterPyOne  Its the only way to reproduce, its supposed to be the most precious thing you and your wife do, but that trend has been utterly destroyed.
    4
  580.  @vikkidonn  "he’s literally just telling you what the Greek says as plainly as possible and explaining the historical context of the terms used in the original Greek." No he doesn't, he ignores time sensitive context, location sensitive context, class sensitive context, semantic details don't pertain to every writing even of the same language, when I write and read a book in English, what the book says is exceedingly dependent on context, there is no one interpretation of a word in English that does not pertain to context sensitivity and that context sensitivity will inherently exclude certain definitions and thus certain interpretations of statements. Ammon does not do this, he ignores the context completely. English is extremely low as well for a language in regards to context sensitivity and yet it still matters, Koine Greek, Ancient Hebrew, and Classical Latin all have much higher context sensitivity which makes the problem worse.
    4
  581.  Dead Fool  A true centrist would look for someone who represents them properly or not vote at all.
    4
  582. This was a propaganda video anyway.
    4
  583.  @BrodieRobertson  iirc a lot of the issue of addressing it has to do with the wayland philosophy as interpreted by those designing the spec, without either convincing them to violate those interpretations or creating an extended spec that everyone will default to over standard wayland, this problem is likely to persist for a long time. Personally I'm skeptical they'll actually pull it off, but I'm not in their head so who knows, it does make me more doomer for wayland though.
    4
  584. @ Rust's desire to mandate runtime costs for memory safety and elimination of undefined behavior prevents a lot of optimizations that make C++ really fast. (granted its fast, one of the faster compiled languages when you don't consider build times, but C and C++ will still have it beat)
    4
  585. @ That which is fast can have safety integrated on top of it, that which is safe can't have speed integrated on top of it, its a one way street, if you need memory bounds checking, you can do it in C++, its always been part of the standard, but majority of the time its not needed/wanted, you don't want runtime bounds checking when you already know the bounds at runtime can't violate, that's a needless waste of performance the compiler is incapable to optimize.
    4
  586.  @Edax_Royeaux  "No, war is not profitable to the participants." How do you figure? Politicians make fortunes alongside the corporations they fund while justifying tax increases and inflation (the invisible tax) and more public control. (in turn making them and their cronies profit) Does this somehow say its not profitable? I don't see how a nation lacking international threats would have any other reason for war but profit. The US didn't start wars for the sake of helping anyone, and never did so at the behest of threat, nobody could threaten it. "Nearly all parties ended up nearly bankrupt after WWII and were saddled with massive budget cutbacks including the US." The private people, being the regular man perhaps, but the government most certainly wasn't, it had more money, more taxes to pull, more economic control, larger corporations, more centralized control over itself, larger government organizations including spy organizations, and all with a more advanced technology that took ages to ever trickle down. (and immediately afterwards it built up a new target to fear) When the war ended they cut the budget, after the war was over, they lost profit, so as you can see the war itself was profitable, and permanently so for the government. Your reference of budget cuts after the war prove my point. "Also many governments were destabilized by WW2, causing the opposite of "control over the populace"." Not in the US, the UK, or France and neither in any of the USSR, France was on the verge of a communist takeover before Germany and that fell with the Nazi takeover. The UK was barely holding its empire together before the war as there were talks at that time of India and the rest of the Commonwealth becoming more independent, (India leaving in 1948 was dictated to happen regardless cause they were always constantly fighting with already) and yet they lasted for several more decades without any of those talks, the US became the more powerful nation and overtook the UK afterwards and even further became the hegemony that controls the world and its economy to this day. The USSR was on the verge of collapse when Germany invaded but because of the "Great Patriotic War" push and other propaganda they were able to destroy Germany, take over Eastern Europe, and fund the USSR in supplement to their incompetence over the homeland for many more decades. "WW2 split Germany into two." And yet Germany still came to exist and has now become the powerhouse of Europe again. The fall of the Reich was a setback, nothing more. It was a gross incompetent miscalculation by the German leadership to fight the war in the way they did. They were living in a delusion, but take into account everyone that benefited from it, not on the individual level, but on the elite collective level and you start to see that they gained so much through the sacrifice of the three major nations of WWII. They threw not only the leadership of the Axis under the bus, but the people of those nations, yet the politicians, bankers, and many other people in power at the time didn't lose a thing or gained greatly. Had the German leadership not been delusional (not possible under Nazism of course, but the hypothetical stands) they could've gotten away with so much more, if they'd been patient and done it slowly instead of going in all at once. The analogy is bad (as it doesn't actually work, but its part of the consciousness so its relatable) but to a respect its true that a frog boiled slowly never leaves the pot. "WW2 caused several of France's governments to collapse." Except the French government didn't collapse after 1949, (even before that, the GPRF never collapsed, it was just established to oversee France until 1949 when the 4th Republic was established from it until 1958, when they modified it peacefully and called it the 5th) the only time it "collapsed" was at the behest of the takeover by the Reich, which isn't a collapse but takeover. After the French government returned, it was stronger then ever, and they only made it stronger. Before the war, the French government was already near collapse, after the war, it never collapsed again. "WW2 caused the break up of the British Empire and the French Empire." That was happening before WWII, Australia, Canada, and South Africa were no longer considered British Ruled before the war, (Statute of Westminster 1931, all of them adopted well before the end) India was fighting constantly before and after the war for independence so I don't see it happening in 1948 being significant since they did so constantly, New Zealand was the only dominion which foremost did anything of the such following the war, and the only nation(s) which stayed out of the Commonwealth in all that was the "Raj". Similar things were happening with France so its unreasonable to attribute that to the war when the war had very little to do with it. "WW2 left the Soviet Union in ruins and unable to properly feed itself for decades to come." Not really, it had that problem before the war and it kept that problem until its death, that's just collectivist methodology, if you think starvation was caused by the war instead of being a contributor then you don't understand socialism. "WW2 led China into Civil War and also left it unable to feed itself for decades to come." China was still in war afterwards, and that aside the communists took over, so again, its not even remotely fair to say the war starved them when the ideology they were under was already starving them and they were in another war immediately following. "WW2 lead India to the Bengal famine of 1943 (3 million dead in a single province)." This feels like you're intentionally trying to trap me here, a war can be profitable without any profit being received to the common man, governments don't give out their profits to the common man. Just because people are starving in relation to it (which even in this case I wouldn't just attribute to WWII as that's pretty reductive and a simplistic view of history in most cases, something that's generally only said by liars and propagandists in my experience) doesn't mean its not profitable. "WW2 lead to the dismantling of the Japanese Empire and their God-Emperor striped of power. There was very little to gain from this war." And yet they voluntarily went to war because they thought there was something to gain, they were either delusional or shortsighted, in either case, the advantages I speak of existed even for them, though the need for them was low already because they weren't threatened internally, there was no threat of the individual man in Japan to the government, whether physically or economically. And that aside the corpoatists and statists in Japan still won in the short-term (that being the next 70 years) and it was pretty profitable at the end to have the US supplement their economy, even at the cost of the nukes. You're looking at the specific instances of loses, individuals who died, as if they're relevant, but I don't care about what individuals lost, I care about who won, that being the people who didn't fight, didn't lose, and gained more power and money as a result. They instigated and promoted the wars and only gained from them. Corporations, bankers, politicians, these types of people made a lot at the cost of the lives of war and they continued to afterwards. Even the occasional dead of the elite (which rarely happened) was a price worth that power and money. "I already said nations care about winning wars. Militaries choose the superior weapons and tactics to win. If PMCs were superior, every military would primarily rely on them." Except history disagrees, nations don't win wars just for the sake of it, there are constant cases going back millennia of nations who'd lose wars for a better advantage, only in honor cultures did something like this tend not to happen. (which is because honor wasn't worth the price most of the time) But if you could win more out of a lost or continuing war they took it every time, and the US is no different in this, in fact it tends to take losing or stupid wars on purpose just for an alternative objective. Even humiliating the nation was worth it for some form of advantage here. If the US wanted to win its wars, it would've been very easy to do so, nobody can match the US in terms of military power, Vietnam was an easy war to win if the US desired to win it, but that wasn't the purpose of the fight. Same to Afghanistan, Iraq, or even the contributions in Syria, if it wanted, practically no nation would stand a chance on its own. PMCs are statistically and historically more effective in relation to government soldiers as are mercenaries, you can't argue that, the simple reason is the they don't deign to win cause that's not what its about.
    4
  587.  @Edax_Royeaux  "War isn't profitable and the clearest indicator is when an economy is destroyed." Governments aren't reliant on economies, otherwise they'd be in competition and would lose. If they were then they'd have incentive to keep out of the economy, which actually would dissuade the existence of the state in the first place. But that clearly doesn't happen because they do exist and they always intervene in the economy, so this logic is fundamentally flawed. How do you argue that the government has to regard the value of its economy when it clearly does not act in the interest of its economy? There'd be no inflation, no national debt, and war would actually be useless. "War isn't profitable and the clearest indicator is when an economy is destroyed. It's cartoon logic to think people are profiting from war when the economy is in ruins." Then explain to me why the government never learns its lesson and keeps causing recessions and depressions, keeps them going, and would fight a war in a failing economy? Why do they insist on continuously printing money and accruing debt if its not profitable? I don't recall a time in history when politicians were starving. You keep avoiding the question and never answering the issue, instead insisting that profit somehow doesn't exist in war. You can't use circular reasoning to say the Military-Industrial Complex just came into existence and continues to exist because jingoists, that's not an argument. And doesn't make anymore sense that it won't leave simply because jingoists. "What do you think the rich are buying when there are no consumer good being produced?" Why do you believe in me saying politicians, corporations, bankers and bureaucrats being equal to "the rich" which foremost I didn't ever say and even then I actually connotated separation from them when I was speaking of "rich folk" and the lower realms of the upper class. And that aside, they can buy goods over the rest of the market demand because they have more money to spend over any demand of those below them in rank. And production doesn't just stop because the economy is trash, especially when you have the taxation of value in place (inflation) which literally only exists to steal wealth so the point of the matter is that as long as those producing inflation and managing taxation pay them (being through government contracts and such) they can make easy profit in a failing economy. Don't you ever wonder why the government is capable of bailing out banks so easily and does it so often? It be outrageous to claim those who suffer the consequence of a failing bank receive any compensation after the bank is bailed out. (as the bank defaults and cuts its spending down right before it does so, making it a bank reset) "What is the point of wealth then there's nothing to buy and instability everywhere." Nothing, its not about having wealth, you don't gain money to have wealth, even for a regular person that's not why you do it, (just having wealth is worthless, its what you aim to do with that wealth that matters) for them it supplements the people who have the wealth so it can help achieve whatever goal they desire, I don't care what they want or why, all I know is that its happening and its off the backs of the common man. If you steal from me at gun point, I couldn't give less of a damn about why or how you're doing, I just want you to stop. If you're scamming me under threat and at gunpoint, again I don't care about the why or how, I just want you dead and gone. "I don't know why your talking about trickle down economics when the population of Japan was completely on it's knees, I'm not talking about 1%." The reason I bring up trickle downSym economics is because you're insinuating in that case that government money can somehow trickle down the rest of the economy put into the right sectors. But that's not how it works, government can not create and it can not trickle down, it can only destroy and corrupt, it removes reliance on the market and causes government dependence which you use to profit. The people power, whatever call them, were making money off the backs of the people of Japan, never suffered for it, and have continued to do so to this day. And they encouraged the war that brought that nation down. (and the economic structures that brought it down, and the government that brought it down) The people that suffered were not those in power, they didn't lose family to the fight and lost no money in the process, profit isn't given to the common man, governments don't act in the common man's interest, they usually act against them, government is used to maximize politician and bureaucrat happiness in however the desire to, and they use the bankers and the corporations to help achieve, in return for a similar arrangement for the corporations and bankers. "It happened because war was profitable in the US when it stayed out of WWI." It made out with a lot socialistic systems incorporated into the state in WWI and it got lot of money out of it. Not to mention the policies of Wilson who was very vehement about getting in the war and the business of the rest of the world and promoting his very socialistic tendencies. We got a lot of new taxes there as well. "Britain and France invested very heavily in jump starting the US Arms industry that eventually made the US world power. All that money was lost fighting the war and all that war material destroyed but the war industries remained. America was well situated to setup arms factories because it was out of the line of fire." And it got to abuse its superior position to the rest of the world there, it did this a lot, like the Spanish-American war, the US was in many ways an intentional opportunist no matter the morality of the specific act and it made lots of money and power in the process. "Because anyone who runs on "weaken America" platform doesn't get votes anymore. American Culture from the 40s was vastly different than what emerged in the 80's. There was no grand obsession with having the best military in the world before the Cold War." But you don't explain why it happened nor do you get to the origin, you can't just say the jingoists existed and had power and kept that power. That doesn't say anything, the US was not a very jingoist nation in the 1800s so you can't argue they were just jingoists. But yet in the 1900s you see continuously a case of fighting war for no benefit. There's no argument for having the best military in the world when the US is already in a fortress position where no one can invade. Without the collapse and takeover of the only two nations on its borders (which it kept a vested interest in defending from happening and who happen to also be in brilliant fortress positions) there was no way a nation could threaten the US. So the question then remains why did the jingoists get in power and how do they keep that power? Its not because its bad for the government for them to be there, if it were then they wouldn't be left in the government and they wouldn't have any power. Things don't happen without reason and things don't exist just because, there's a reason and origin to everything, so you can't make the argument that it was "American culture" especially when that behavior of using war for profit is well before the concept of "American strong" culture.
    4
  588. Majority of the time a vector (dynamic array) with a pool, SBO, and/or static buffer are just as good as a fixed size array, unless you have some reason you need to avoid heap allocations.
    4
  589. Ladybird vs. the world
    4
  590.  @justanothercomment416  Yeah I've had that a lot too, criticism of it causes it, I've been call some pretty horrible things for my criticisms.
    4
  591. Problem with JIT is not only does it eat a massive amount of memory, but it also takes forever to start up a new instance of a JIT'd interpreter and the JIT compiler. The only thing it solves is being super fast at the cost of resource usage and startup time, which works fine for cases where you start it once and leave it running with multiple references to a singular instance (I would still argue that's kinda stupid compared to a kind of AOT compilation unless you're performing runtime code generation for a static system, but regardless) but electron apps can't do this so its literally pointless.
    4
  592. Or you know...the draft, yeah just start telling them you need to serve the military by force, watch how many start denying feminism.
    4
  593. I have a issues with what you pulled from Christ, the Bible, and Christianity as a whole, but I also gotta say Jesus is the way.
    3
  594. Voyd Void Unfortunately, yeah, that comes to developers fault in the first place, because so few people want to support Linux, it becomes a hard thing to jump into, thus it becomes something users don't want to use, and thus the Linux paradox continues. And its not really the drivers that are bad if you get the right hardware (AMD is preferable to NVidia and Intel for processors on Linux because they are more open to supporting less commercialized operating systems, unfortunately AMD is also less supported by developers anyway), my problem with not using it more is simply cause Windows binaries can only really run on Linux with specific programs like WINE (and none of those programs, mostly games, don't run natively on Linux), and its difficult to get my info on my hard drive over to Linux, and given my previous problem, there isn't much point to it anyhow. If I had a choice though, I'd stay on Linux for all my computing needs, as I do use an AMD APU (also, I've had the worst driver issues on Windows then ever on Linux, which is ironic to say in response) Though when/if WINE does support DirectX11, I'll likely make the Linux switch anyway.
    3
  595. Given KOR does things most people aren't willing to do, I think calling out for suggestions is completely fine, I mean what's wrong with asking fans to act as major contributors? Did not Mythbusters do the exact same thing VeNoM0619?
    3
  596.  @tablettablete186  I'm not sure kernel ABI is all that significant since Windows at least does a fairly decent job abstracting the kernel's binary interface to userspace and higher level programming interfaces already, so it breaking ABI only really matters in a small number of cases, probably most often low level things like drivers and such.
    3
  597. Microsoft failed specifically because it disregarded users and browser function, Chrome took over because it focused on that at the time, all so it could adopt Microsoft's EEE which Microsoft itself used to kill Netscape. That's generally been the cycle of browsers, make a superior browser by focusing on users and browser function, make it so good that you become the dominant one (even with help like with MS having Windows, the primary reason it stayed relevant was because of that) and then through EEE you force your competition to comply with your demands and eventually kill them until you kill yourself and ruin the market, everyone seems to forget that before IE6, internet explorer was the standard for web browsers, in order to be considered competition you had to go against it, Mozilla rarely counted.
    3
  598. @rusi6219 Spoken as the lingua franca in much of Europe, East Asia, and even through a large part of the Middle East, its about as universal as can be right now, it has more popularity for communication then French had in the medieval period, which is where we get the very definition of lingua franca from. (its literally in the name)
    3
  599. @ Its formally used and recognized as such in the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, India and China. As well as anywhere that's had moderate internet access for around two decades. And lingua franca literally translates to "language of the Franks".
    3
  600.  @danielyounker5371  "If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." - Colossians 2:20-23 "Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." - Romans 14:20-23 “Monastic vows rest on the false assumption that there is a special calling, a vocation, to which superior Christians are invited to observe the counsels of perfection while ordinary Christians fulfill only the commands; but there simply is no special religious vocation since the call of God comes to each at the common tasks.” - Martin Luther "Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?" - Galatians 3:2-6 Paul makes it quite clear as does Martin Luther that asceticism is wrong. Its also made quite clear here by Jesus that partaking in celibacy is not a trait of devotees of a pastoral profession but of those few that God has given the gift to. "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” - Matthew 19:9-12 Here is Paul explaining the purpose and function of celibacy, notice it opposes monasticism and asceticism quite vehemently. "Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God." - 1 Corinthians 7:25-40 This describes a rare case for most men and beyond becoming a widow an exclusive case against unmarried women given the exegetical text, God established among the priests of His people to take a woman into marriage, you would not find single unmarried priests among those who performed the priestly practices among the Hebrews for it would not promote good to do such among most of them. Even less will you find women who were not to be wed for even less was it good as women were put under leadership of man. So the question stands how can a faith be righteous if it opposes half the New Testament? For Paul has spoken against that for which the Catholic Church preaches and practices, who has written much of the New Testament, how can it hope to be a righteous path then? Romans, Corinthians and Colossians alone condemn it.
    3
  601.  @strykerbobby3873  "that’s not how that works. If someone asks not to be visited we can do something about it. If someone poses a difficult question there is no “blacklist” as you state. Know your facts before you comment." I've been long time friends with JWs before, I asked them about it and they all responded exactly the same, we used to get JWs every month or so but not one has shown up at our house in over 5 years. We used to not answer the door and they only stopped coming when my dad, who listens to Dr. James White, Doug Wilson, Jeff Durbin, John MacArthur, and such other reformed minsters, spoke to them and start reading the Bible to them. So two forms of evidence suggest a blacklist here. They still traveled to other local homes but would avoid us. "are you on drugs? We believe in the holy trinity too, you know?" Jesus isn't a created being, He isn't the brother of Lucifier, what do you mean by Trinity? Do believe in Colossians 1:15-20? "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." - Colossians 1:15-20 "my mans said hol’ up, wait a minute. Let me copy and paste from Wikipedia real quick." Not even, I'm literally quoting the Bible performing both exegetical analysis on it and interpreting via the Holy Spirit what God says in accordance with the Scriptures. Read the Scriptures and see that I speak no lie as it says: "The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood." - John 7:18
    3
  602. Honestly I don't mind its inclusion, I just hate the language, I like some its ideas and some of the resolutions to issue, but I find it fails to accomplish solving enough issues from C and C++ and leaves so many on the table for no reason, introduces new issues that didn't need to exist, doesn't give a regard to ALGOL commonality at all, and has unnecessary build system dependencies you can't remove and that are entirely capable to crash the build as a result. I don't want a required package manager in my build system, I have suffered enough thanks to npm and pip, (and even nuget) I really wish to not have a language in my kernel that will replicate those problems but I guess I'll have no choice.
    3
  603. Spread the spicy cat facts around.
    3
  604.  @Luxalpa  "The way C++ does typing is wayyyy more verbose than Rusts." First off no, you're confusing type specification with type references, I'm not referring to type references, I'm referring to the type specifier. I've been quite clear with never referring to how types are defined in C++ so there is no reason to assume that I'm referring to that. And that aside with type inference that becomes irrelevant, and even without it that doesn't apply if you exclude namespaces in C++, and the only reason for that with namespaces specifically is because C++ must globally define namespaces in the global scope to use them (which means if you do say using std; then you just introduce the whole std namespace to the global scope that references that file) unlike say in C# where namespace usage has itself segregated into a file scope, (this will be mostly fixed though less usable then C# with C++ modules) foremost this issue was solved by C# entirely and now in C# they're also solving the lack of global typedef behavior. Unfortunately with C# everything is a class still. "You can find the reasons for all the syntactical decisions on their github (or other places) if you really care about" I know and find them all as fundamentally bad excuses for parsing the language as they do. "but it does not have any crappy syntax-problems" I find its syntax as with many of the C alternatives revolting and stupid, I don't see reason to diverge from ALGOL on this and none of the excuses given have shone a justification that I can accept, I can understand with something like Typescript because you're introducing a subset of Javascript there and thus want to make it backwards compatible with said language which doesn't have a declarative type system, but Rust has no excuse as far as I'm concerned because it is statically typed and the type is some of the most important information to the function of the program, specifically in regards to variables. "when in fact there's very strong reasons that you just don't understand because you couldn't be bothered to look it up." Or perhaps I know the reasons, for which I do, I find them trite and worthless, I hate Rust and many languages like it partly because I hate its syntax, but also for its zealous community, I don't appreciate being told I must be wrong because I don't understand it, you make an awful lot of assumptions about me and my character that is just plain rude and insulting and it speaks more volumes about representing the Rust community then anything, I didn't insult you and a language is not your religion so why should you feel assaulted when I find what is done in it stupid such a big deal to get up in arms and attack my character about? I didn't even outright insult the language devs let alone the community, I only insulted the language for making decisions I despise because I find no value in the verbosity of its design nor do I see how the justifications as excuses worth considering. No this type of response is the exact type of behavior that makes me further infuriated with Rust more then the language and its one of the other reasons I hate Rust, even more then its syntax alone.
    3
  605.  @tellsackett4572  Yeah, I actually joined discord after watching one of his streams, the features I've seen has honestly made me believe it could be the true replacement to C when it gets out of alpha, especially since it can trivially maintain C ABI compatibility.
    3
  606. Perhaps, and its not a Christian position to do any such thing, however if you're freezing or unaliving inseminated eggs, we Christians quite literally recognize such people as being full and completely human indwelling with the same rights as you or me, from conception they are made human.
    3
  607.  @zembo529  You can infer or outright read tone of the questioneer based on the words they use and the reference for which they refer to themselves by, even in a short question, least in cases where attitude and behavior were had, regardless those cases are exceedingly rare and are in all practicality an exception and not the rule. The point I had is that people can be dumb or foolish in a question, but the fool who knows they are a fool and humble themselves to ask about something they don't know, even if they fail at asking the right questions, or to even ask a proper question at all, should not be treated poorly off that basis, even in the case the person should've or could've looked up the answer instead, better to be respectful and give them a proper starting point both as an answer and for further questions. A dumb question can exist in many respects, correcting the ignorance or foolishness is a respectful dictation the expertise should be able to clear out for the inexperienced without harsh words.
    3
  608. Do remember the size of the US and its population compared to any European country, using cars becomes a necessity at that size, even when the cities are also so mismanaged by stupid people who keep getting voted in by people who think the Green New Deal was a good idea.
    3
  609. Which is contradictory since she also believes in the concept of a soul, which demonstrates an agency, volition, and responsibility to your own acts, (for which consent also spawns, consent can only exist if you have a volition for which one can consent, in essence you must be responsible for your own acts) you can't believe in the conception of a soul and than claim I have no agency over myself, either you are a materialist without self-control, which also means everyone you argue against is also without self-control, in which case why are you arguing against them in the first place? Why would it matter? In the other case you're a spiritualist who believes in self-control and thus you reject the lack of moral responsibility which also means those in a poor place are morally responsible and should be dealt with in a punished or corrected manner to stop committing immoral acts. You can't claim a moral position and reject agency for decisions, those are mutually exclusive.
    3
  610. Funny part about that is its literally true.
    3
  611. I'm fairly sick of anyone giving these journo bastards any credibility, the BBC is way worse then anything in the AfD.
    3
  612.  @T0m1s  You do realize that design patterns don't just apply to OOP right? Like they exist in imperative, procedural, and functional programming too, if you claim they don't you're utterly insane, all languages have principals of design because all languages are an abstraction of the machine language (which usually is translated from an analogy of assembly-like languages, though for what machine specifically can be in the air) and those designs create common methodologies to solve problems which is the design pattern, a common pattern of design is a "design pattern" hence why we call them design patterns.
    3
  613. Just to note (not sure about the others) Treasure Planet's failure was quite literally self-inflicted and deliberately employed, it failed because Disney executives didn't want to give their promises to the two writers of many of their best titles preceding it, to prevent a resurgence of the tech the film employed and to kill the 2D animation for some more following years, they sabotaged Treasure Planet at every turn, to the point that they even deliberately pushed back its theatrical release to be between two blockbusters alongside spending nearly nothing in marketing. The only good thing left was that they actually allowed a heavily inflated budget at the time, which enabled it a lot more room to look good and polished, but fairly certain it was done to increase the chance of a flop to everyone else.
    3
  614. Inheritance and runtime polymorphism can be separately useful in all sorts of places, but together they can cause issues if you're not careful and deliberate with their use, even then the applied classes need to be "atomic" as in simplistic and not divisible for your use case. Unfortunately a lot of C++ developers have been around Java and C# too much which destroys the multi-paradigm nature of C++ in their mind and ruins them as developers. I don't think I'd ever consider it as harmful as goto, since goto has killed people and disrupts standard flow control and its not hard to see why it would kill as a result, (and not to mention 99% of those cases is because multi-loop breakouts are otherwise impossible, so its an oversight that has an easy syntax address) whereas polymorphic inheritance is not disruptive to the flow by its nature, if you're using it to do that, its garunteed your first mistake was not polymorphic inheritance, and most of the cost is likely to be in performance, not production quality, though if you want to consider an non-scalable development as "production quality" then sure, but I wouldn't consider it that, it would then only produce developmental hell at the worst.
    3
  615. @ "Removing reachable code is not an optimization. It is arbitrariness." That's objectively false, it absolutely is an optimization.
    3
  616. Every good software project should have a CoC that says "anyone who suggests an implementation of a CoC is completely banned from the project without question no matter their rank"
    3
  617.  @bustercrabbe8447  Mixed economies are socialists economics, and here's the simple reason why, the government has full authority to control and regulate business, that means it can start, stop, and subsidize the means of production, which means it in fact owns the means of production, thus it is socialist. A capitalist market is a market for which the government has no control over the economy, thus the government does not have capacity to own the means of production. A economy controlled by government builds syndicates (thus corporations) which do the state's bidding without strictly following the state's regulations, so long as it does what the party/state want, and yet can be punished when it goes against the state whenever the state feels like it. These syndicates also have an advantage in the market where they don't have to compete and thus can monopolize the market as there are no market forces that regulates them for they are paid for by the state, which is not influenced by market forces. Thus a mixed economy is an economy for which certain members need not compete and monopolize the market off the backs of the state, resulting in overtaking all common private business for the sake of public business, leaving only small elements of private business remaining. This is, as can be clearly seen in all modern countries, exactly what has happened to the United States, that is what government interventionism brings to the economy.
    3
  618.  @tobehski  Do you not understand what James had said? For he did not disagree with Paul but in fact agreed with Paul that the works do not define the faith, but that without the works the faith has shown no fruit and is not truly of the faith. For faith without works is dead because faith itself must demonstrate works to demonstrate faith. It is not these works however that make the faith, they do not save and do not give you life. But those who claim faith but do no fruitful works are not demonstrating the faith, if we know them by their fruits and the fruits of their labor are not of faith, they are known by the faith as to be discerned from it. This is what James had said, where Paul says that faith is most important, he was speaking on the outlook we must carry, James clarified on the behavior we are called for in following this outlook. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." - Matthew 7:15-20
    3
  619.  @frost6471  "lol, Christianity is a cult though" How? The core doctrine of a cult is the inability to connect with those outside of the cult. By what Christian basis are we called to reject the friendship of others?
    3
  620.  @breadpirateroberts4946  "not wanting to use the repo package due to being too old for your use case" Too old? This is literally only a problem on Ubuntu, almost every other debian-based distro doesn't have that problem, (and in arch-based problems its actually kinda difficult to find one that could) and only if you don't opt in to the experimental packages that aren't snaps. "not wanting to fuck around with PPAs which are insecure and can break your system" Any package can break your system if you're not careful, even officially supported ones, the Pop OS brick case wasn't the first official on a debian distro and it won't be the last. Simply put you are always putting your trust and hands into someone else when it comes to software, so long as you don't just randomly install things however and actually take like 15 seconds to investigate packages you are unsure of that problem does not crop up in experience. I use the AUR constantly, about 95% of my rig is currently AUR packages which are highly comparable to PPAs, (granted they are still different mostly with centralized distribution and AURs allow more fine control over the package, but that doesn't really increase the chance of breaking in my experience, it is a problem with the debian though) only a handful of them are official in any respect, and yet my system has never been busted by an update nor an installed package and I've been daily driving this thing for about 5 years or so. The only reason I can think of that you'd use a snap is specifically because you can't find the original dependencies any other way or you're using an old version that isn't available anymore.
    3
  621. Pretty easy, we have pre-Septuagint records of the Ancient Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls include a number of them, and it still uses the word for Messiah. Not to mention that the Ancient Hebrews, and especially not the Zealots that wrote some of the Dead Scrolls, would never have permitted such a translation of Ancient Hebrew from Greek when they had the Ancient Hebrew that was held up in the Temple and copied by Rabbis. We also have documents accounting for the translation of the Septuagint coming from the Ancient Hebrew. There is literally no historical source you could point to that would claim the Septuagint was first.
    3
  622.  @1Fuss  Action RPGs are still RPGs.
    3
  623. Look up BRIDGE social impact, its a rebrand, not a removal.
    3
  624. Its almost like the problem is minimum wage. Gee its almost like nobody understands basic economics.
    3
  625.  @worldcomicsreview354  "as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;" - Romans 3:10 "They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." - Psalm 14:3 "And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." - Mark 10:18 "And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” - Matthew 19:17 "And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." - Luke 18:19 And just to clarify for those who do not understand this or who would manipulate what God said, He is outright telling the rich man that if you merely assume Him as a man then there is no good manner to assume He is good. This what the rich man thought of Him, as being merely a good teacher, not God, and thus He told him off for not being good for if He wasn't God then He can't be good. But if He is God then being prideful in himself to follow the commands as he interpreted them should've brought fear to him and had him ask for forgiveness.
    3
  626. The sun, moon, and stars are given by God for signs and seasons, the first eclipse was over 7 Salems (meaning peace) and this second one seven years later was over 1 Jonah and 7 Ninevehs and is exactly 40 days before Pentecost, and before that was the unusual earth quake on the East Coast. In the in between 3.5 years after the first one was an eclipse that combined with the crossing over the US was the Hebrew symbol for "the beginning". It is not the returning of the Son of Man as the premils say, but it is a warning and a sign. I hope there is a prophetic word given, I pray to God.
    3
  627. Evil doesn't think it can legislate evil away, it uses legislation so that evil can thrive, the legislators and those who vote for them are just as evil as the criminals they claim to oppose, they are two sides of the same coin, they must be convicted of The Truth else they must and will suffer, the time is coming soon for suffering, curses, and judgement, without Christ the only avenue is destruction.
    3
  628. Not to be an ass, but he also proves that being a victim and having experience doesn't justify taking dumb positions, hope he stays well, and for freedom loving Canadians I unfortunately have to wish for him keep his political opinions silent. Not that Canada is much more then another prison colony now...
    3
  629. I don't see how having a compat layer for Linux is really a big deal here nor a bad thing, it should be fairly obvious that systems will centralize around certain aspects for the sake of dev speed, performance, and power, (this is a natural aspect of markets until the biggest members screw up and lose to the competition) supporting that in the BSDs would be highly useful, since Linux is inherently FOSS as well, if something screws up nobody is specifically required to adhere perfectly to it and that applies just as much to the compat layers, (especially when 99% of the compat layers only has to do with core functionality necessary for function anyway) and again with the BSDs FOSS the same applies to them. And that's aside from the capacity for Linux to not strictly require anything beyond the kernel for function, just because most common users will use or have things that do does not mean it is necessary, this isn't Windows, we don't strictly need the cruft of the common user to use the computer even as a desktop or run any application, consistent and common dependencies are excessively useful and anyone who gets mad that it happens is making a foolish argument, why do we need to keep reinventing the wheel? If you want native things you still have the choice.
    3
  630.  @Giantsfanlewis  No, Neil Young signed with the record company before he made the music, this isn't the same thing because the NDA was assigning ownership after it already existed, Neil gave up his rights to make the music, Adam made the music and podcast on his own initiative with his own form of risk only for Tim to try and claim it as his with the NDA after the fact. This argument is stupid. Also no, ownership of materials used to produce something doesn't make it yours else Tim would've already owned it and the NDA would've been pointless, that argument is equally dumb. Adam didn't have any capacity to know that his stuff wouldn't be his before he made them and there was no reason to expect that would've been the case before their production, it was assumed out of thin air after they were produced with the NDA.
    3
  631. The more you know about history, the less you trust the government.
    3
  632. Damn, kinda looks like wokeness is infecting the Rust Foundation, IDK if it is, but holy crap is the foundation overstepping its bounds in the outright malicious with this, who the hell demands gun prohibitions when they don't even own the event, let alone the damn building of the event? Not to mention that trying to do that in half of the US is not only a violation of American law, but you will be prosecuted for it and will lose, so they are literally encouraging people to break the law just to follow this policy which isn't even legally enforceable. Also health mandates can also be a violation of state laws so again they're stepping into the bounds of encouraging people to break the law. And then what's that about injecting the alphabet specials, black lives matter, and such? How about the Rust Foundation not actively partake in supporting only one side of the political isle at minimum, what about libertarianism or straight pride? Or even better would be if they leave fair use alone as that crap was already covered under it. I already despised rust as a language and disliked their community, but the foundation just gave me a very good reason to desire the death of the rust language. I don't think I ever wanted to kill a programming language before but this just gave me a lot of reasons. I never thought about starting a crusade against a language and that's made it interesting. And no amount of feedback will change my opinion on this now, the fact is they put this crap out, they thought this was acceptable, every member complicit in putting this out should be blacklisted from it, and if not, then the foundation and its associates need to be destroyed as far as I'm concerned.
    3
  633. The only reason I've ever found the problem of investment in a non-white, non-male, non-straight character totally (tho tbf I don't think a gay or bi character would've ever interested me much if at all outside of the case of lesbians purely for the lust behind it because I'm a straight dude, I could get behind a romance plot, but a gay romance plot would never interest me) was after the subject of intersectionality and injection of political inclusion started popping up, afterwards it made me start questioning whether the character really exists for narrative reasons or is just propaganda (which after being exposed to Critical Theory you start seeing in a lot of media that doesn't stick with standard cultural and sexual stereotypes, especially when they're the main character[s] or practically infallible) which has made me way less interested in a lot of media, like I still can't read Le Guin's stories because she outright designed her books to do this and it makes me sick. When stories intentionally do this and inject politics to hang over our heads when the narrative could've served without it that too makes me massively sick and it happens all the time, its one of the things that kinda ruined Zootopia for me despite the fact the politicalisms don't even make any sense as an allegory.
    3
  634. That $2000 is stealing money from you, the more money you print, the less economic value you have, and the closer to full economic and political collapse we come. Trump is just as dumb as the rest because he's neither purging the opposition through force, and he won't charge them with tyranny and opposition to the Constitution, the insurrection act and execution of many governors, mayors, and legislatures should've been done months, hell even years ago.
    3
  635. Unfortunately Metratron, he's almost certainly gonna call you a hater for this, he's accused people of it for less, like Legal Mindset and Potentially Criminal were trying to be polite and tell him he needs to stop talking, Legal Mindset was on his chat and was warning him to stop incriminating himself for his own sake and he has since accused Legal Mindset of being a grifter and not a real friend. Also keep in mind, he was also trading his wife, went to a swinger resort, openly reviewed "toys", and has admitted to being a libertine (and implicated himself as a hedonist) so despite my desire as a former fan, he's not likely to recover from this (and yes there is plenty of irrefutable evidence for all these claims) because he's too stubborn to admit what he's done is wrong.
    3
  636. Ew Rust, its not Javascript or Python disgusting, but its still disgusting.
    3
  637.  @BrodieRobertson  I despise a lot of the syntax, a lot of it is unnecessarily verbose without addressing verbosity concerns in C and C++ at all, like I hate the separation of type declarations and type specifiers that comes with postfix type specifiers (the whole let a : i32 = 1 instead of something like i32 a = 1) for I find it too verbose for the amount of necessary information, (it provides more information in all cases then needed, in C++ if we need type inference auto works great, but in many cases of moderately sized project you may not want or can't use type inference in which case its a waste for the required syntax) and I also despise the requirement of non-build aspects of the build process in order to use the build system, it lacks any modularity, most especially the fact I need to use their package manager to manage a build, I hate it in Node and Python (and do get annoyed with nuget requirement for dotnet now too, each of them have broken my builds or crashed on me because of the unnecessary complexity required to build) and I feel no better with such in Rust, I prefer a build system that where the only reliance strictly required is the simplest it can be and everything else is my own choice and needs. I don't mind them providing such things, (and even making it easy to use them, though I wish for a standard manner for a build system to be integrated so I can pick which one according to my needs) but they are required in order to use the whole of the build system and that irks me to no end.
    3
  638.  @one_bone_4_life647  And as Paul said "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
    3
  639.  @TreasureJanasia  That's not how it works, they can let him being totally unqualified, the reason they do that is because its up to the jury at that point, they tried to set him as qualified there but he's, what qualifications did he have for statistical analysis or social media analysis? And the judge has been super bad at ruling out crap, she's hyper-conservative on anything that would give Amber possibility of an appeal, (and similar for Johnny, but at this point he's unlikely to appeal) throwing him out wouldn't have but she doesn't feel confident saying that. (said by the lawyers that were on RekietaLaw, most especially by Nick Rekieta) So no, he's not qualified, the court will rarely ever throw out unqualified expert witnesses unless they clearly demonstrate they aren't smart enough to argue that they can do anything.
    3
  640. Source please.
    3
  641. Your experience is anecdotal and local, people need to stop assuming their experience defines reality, especially for everyone else, or that their witness of social media accounts (which can also be faked without references or sources) are reality most especially when they adhere to confirmation bias. Does this happen? Obviously, its impossible to stop and to expect the opposite is exceedingly foolish, its a fallacy to say the least. The question is where and why does it happen? Well its mostly in cities and only specific local places at best, crappy and corrupt places mostly, it is not continuous everywhere and to say otherwise is exceedingly foolish. I'm anti-government and don't believe in any necessity for modern absolutist police as they are a tyrannical overreach of government power but even despite that we can't argue this stuff by claiming falsehoods and fallacies that our experiences define reality. No your experience defines a slim, very slim, aspect of reality that you otherwise inexperienced in knowing of because you will always live secluded from the full front of reality like everyone is. We only experience what we experience in the time we do, we do not know the experiences of others (not truly, we can only know what they claim outside our experience which they do not need to be or may even be incapable of being totally honest about) and we most certainly don't have first hand account of the objective reality of the nature beyond our experiences. Experience is not a metric to what is reality, it is a metric to a slight part of it, to deny this otherwise is not in the least bit foolish as an act and illogical.
    3
  642. I don't really get the point of claiming to have a better language when the language will deliberately get in your way for almost everything. I don't like any of these new language syntaxes with the postfix type declarations for example, but at least Zig is actually capable to be a replacement for C, Rust doesn't really do anything better then C++, the ABI is guaranteed to be compatible just as it is in C allowing shared libraries and fast compilations.
    3
  643.  @KjngKhanh  Does seem like it since he explicitly told us what the art is, you don't describe your intent if you're letting the art speak for itself.
    3
  644. For as long as Red Hat, Linux Mint, and Gnome keep calling US Republicans the no-no germans, Linux won't pickup steam either way.
    3
  645. That's Wes' point, that condescending doesn't just mean one thing.
    3
  646.  @jantube358  Most Americans are complaining about economic growth, not total economic prosperity, our economy was built on growth, without a growing economy the nation will quickly collapse where the average American would be manage a budget doing things like with the poverty level it would end up at.
    3
  647.  @noahhager1187  Minimum wage actually drives down competition, driving up prices and eradicating low skill labor, it massively contributes to unemployment of low-skilled/introductory/junior workers and interns, its a big contributor to why gen z can't find or hold down a job because it forces preference of labor to higher multi-skill laborers who are more valuable thanks to the hard cap on the minimum amount of money you must spend on each employee.
    3
  648.  @noahhager1187  Had what exactly?
    3
  649. Also Germany is still censoring speech and ideas instead of fighting them directly, which is how you embolden those ideas actually, also Germany seems to be getting tyrannical again.
    3
  650.  @DanielMight  The image parsing "AI"s have a strange way of arranging attributes, all "AI" image processing have a strange way of perceiving these attributes, its actually impossible to comprehend, if you tried to debug specifically how it comes to the conclusion of associated attributes it would appear to be utter nonsense, both when it would produce correct results and when it doesn't, there is literally no way for us to tell if it can produce correct results consistently. What we do know however is these attributes can and do get used for correct deductions and reproductions. All "AI"s are, least for image processing, completely black boxes that seem to produce somewhat accurate results most of the time that we have no real idea how they exactly work beyond this overarching theory. Why does the AI say that's Anya Forger? I can't say, an LLM wouldn't be able to describe to us how it came to the conclusion in any accurate sense.
    3
  651.  @godfather7339  "whenever the government has interfered" Not a principled argument. "it has lead to breaking monopolies," And when has the trust-bust results ever competed with someone that wasn't the result of trust-busting? Didn't happen with the steel mills, didn't happen with the railroads, and didn't happen with telecommunication. To this day every company of those busts are either directly or indirectly the result of the original trusts. And that's if the government doesn't own them. And look at the paper trails and economics behind each of those trusts, they did not in fact compete in the market beforehand, they were leveraging local, state, and federal force to ensure their monopoly stayed in place to the the day they were busted. And after the bust they became practical utilities that still operated like a cartel, as a result you got more regulations on what you could and could not do as those companies. "if there hadn't been the US gov we would still have just one gas company" In all but name there is only one, you still can't explain the economics behind this and you don't even care to notice that the only reason the prices and service is the way it is because the government regulates the prices and manipulates the market. Gas still does not operate as a part of the market and its almost entirely managed by government force alone. There is no market force that applies to the gas company because they are provided for by our tax dollars. "This is a proven thing and I don't think it's even worth debating about." Then why respond? Clearly you don't believe this position for if you did then arguing with me would not be done for I am apparently so irrational that I am not worth the time. See your position is already contradictory and hypocritical by you looking down upon my arguments without looking at them while you also seek to stoke your superiority complex of your position. Quite arrogant and ignorant if I do say so. Also you understand nothing about economics if you claim economic principles are not worth debating. "If we had been living in the free market, there would have been just 1 company handling everything." How do you know this? Because some school told you? What reason, what logic, and what demonstration has shown this to be true? Have you examined the economic factors and weighted them independently or do you just trust the word of same random philosopher? What values do you carry that bias you towards such a position? Because it is a bias, one you inherently do not wish to examine honestly. Do you even understand the position you are arguing? This is the exact logic that socialists use to justify domination over public life, this is not a foundation argument, its a baseless claim, it has no reason nor substance behind it. You do know facts require rational behind their position right? Just as statistics need justification (not explanation) so too does economics, and you don't get to interpret it as you wish. "Can you tell me, what is stopping you from starting your own Amazon, or Google, or Facebook?" Legally a lot of things, copyright and trademark stand in my way, not to mention I am not allowed to buy land without government approval which I need to state a purpose for, to which I can still get rejected for that specifically, (also need really good credit to do that for no reason) also need to contact a bank and get approved by them too, I also need to get an enterprise plan for networking which is also dominated by a monopoly still who exists at the behest of the government. I need to then buy a business license for operating at any moderate level. I also gotta pay many legal fees for the sake of the business and I won't receive a single subsidy, tax break, or tax credit and I have to manage it all by myself or pay out money for someone to manage that. It is technically possible for me to do that, just as it is technically possible for me to buy a gun in California, but how am I to do such as a regular joe? Look at all the loops I have to jump through and money I have to pay out before I even get a chance to compete? All that is spent capital before I get to anything that would give me profit? And I can't receive any of the government's provisions (nor assistance or backdoor deals, least without bribes) until I prove that my business is highly valuable. And in this economy wrecked by the crash of the dollar, good luck paying the unreasonably ever increasing prices. None of these things that I laid out (which I might add are massively incomplete, there's way more to it) are nor should be necessary for me to build a tech business, I shouldn't even be needing to contact the government outside of maybe telling them of the land I own (which my real estate contractor could do for me) but yet I can't. This drives the cost to be many hundreds to thousands of times more expensive then the endeavor would have been if the government did not seek to control and intervene in every aspect of my and everyone else's lives. "How is the Gov stopping you from creating these things?" By the way the list goes on and on. The most I could feasibly do is build a website and there is a possibly I'd still have a shakedown done on me for that. "The only thing stopping you is Facebook itself, not the gov in any way." Really? So I don't need to ask the government and the networking company to hook up my tech business? Or to buy a building? Or for the legal and business hoops? I need to ask Facebook for all that and more? Despite the fact I quite literally have to file all of that with both the local and federal government and payout massive sums of cash to them alongside already paying taxes to them. So its Facebook holding me down? Yeah, that makes logical sense. Good job with the fallacies. "The bigger question is, monopolies are many times more effecient than some small factory," You understand nothing about the word efficiency nor economics. Facebook and Google aren't even slightly efficient, if you knew even a fraction of the software industry you would never have claimed such a foolish thing as that. Everything I've built in software with my own two hands have been momentously more efficient and effective then what they've built, the only things I can't beat on them is money and manpower. Over 60% of their employees don't do anything for most of the day, majority of it is spent goofing off claiming they're doing something when they aren't. And yeah argument from experience or argument from authority fallacy, but there isn't really another way I can demonstrate against such a claim since its not even an argument.
    3
  652.  @godfather7339  "if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments" You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market. "that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market," A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity) "you are just proving your own arguments wrong" By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim? "it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled." Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done? By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
    3
  653.  @godfather7339  "if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments" You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market. "that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market," A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity) "you are just proving your own arguments wrong" By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim? "it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled." Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done? By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
    3
  654.  @godfather7339  "if corpos managed to infiltrate democratic governments" You do realize the same people live in all systems right? There are no good humans, everybody (including you and me) is corrupt and infiltrates the systems they participate in with immoral principles to some degree. The entire point is to separate the reliance on corrupt actors executing their power on anyone beyond themselves. Absolute corrupts absolutely. (Which is recognized because man is evil) With government interventionism they are the strongest, not weakest, they can (and very well have) legally kill people without question, whereas without being in the government (like say the government isn't allowed to touch the market at all) there is no capability to do that without breaking the law. (unless we live in a lawless society, which doesn't really exist, least of all for long) And there is no incentive to gain a government advantage if the government can't influence the market. "that means corpos will just enslave us all in the free market," A market in which they can get a government to interfere in the market is not a free market, that is quite literally a fascist market, an extension of socialism. Or you could call it a corporate syndicalism, which is what fascism literally is as defined by Mussolini. (who based it on Marxist Syndicalists, if you actually cared about philosophic historicity) "you are just proving your own arguments wrong" By presenting no argumentation and claiming your worldview as fact by yourself. But who is the judge? By whose authority is that claim demonstrated? On what basis can you make such a claim? "it means that there should just be no corpos, everything people controlled." Only a fool believes people are capable to judge the lives of others. You can't tell me whats good for me and I can't tell you whats good for you of my own experience. I can tell you what is good for you based on an authority beyond me, but I have no authority to do such. And the same applies to every man, no government, no "peoples", to which you can not collectivize else you become a corporation, can control and regulate anything. Punishment is not preventative, its punitive, else its not punishment but abuse. Are you to whip your child to prevent him from stealing or killing? Why then am I punished for things I have never done? By the way, Marx was a hate-filled racist psychopath that wanted most people dead, he had no love for the working class, he was part of the proletariat. Yeah its not an argument but given you want to use emotional pleas and "oh profit bad" then you should hear the objective emotional truth. By the way show me a system that doesn't require profit?
    3
  655. No it does not, "Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written: "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord." - Romans 12:19 God gave us government so that we will convict the guilty to just punishment, execution for murder in this case: “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death." - Exodus 21:12 It is the job of the government to make this punishment in life, if the government fails and does not its job, its the job of us to form a government that will. "Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked." - Exodus 23:7 "For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." - Romans 13:4 "Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause." - Isaiah 1:17 "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:" - Ecclesiastes 3:1 "a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace." - Ecclesiastes 3:8 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established." - Deuteronomy 19:15 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval," - Romans 13:1-3 "Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” - John 19:11 "They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” - Matthew 22:21 "He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;" - Daniel 2:21
    3
  656. From a technical standpoint, no sport should be called football, American "football" should be called American Rugby and "non-American" football should be called soccer.
    3
  657.  @Senzeni  No because according to the history of both sports (they all derive from the same point and were both originally called football in every country) soccer was designated to be the name of the groundball sport while rugby was designated to be the name of the handball sport, the leagues and nations named them individually soccer and rugby, (they were both called football, if you said lets play football to anyone about a century ago, they'd ask you which one) however when professional sports started to spread, for some reason the US started referring to American rugby as football while they started calling the other soccer, while the UK and its colonies forgot about the term soccer and started calling that football.
    3
  658. Just gonna point out your both logically and statistically inaccurate in a lot of places: 1. If the core of an idea is humility through contentedness then it inevitably requires the reduction of individualism. If the concept of Janteloven isn't to be content and humble then the argument for it not being a collective mindset is correct but otherwise you can't reach a content humility without shutting down individual evolutionism. By expressing the idea as believing you are not better then others it proves that the concept is a reductionist ploy at best. Of course its a bit less relevant if its a dying idea but its still collectivist then. 2. The more "equal" women get in the right to work and act the less time they will spend working, its one of the female paradoxes that is consistent throughout the world, its a focus of many form of anthropology and biologic behaviorism these days. Of course us old time social conservatives understand the truth behind the matter but nobody else wants to accept that answer so they need a new one they'll never have. 3. The showing of emotion wasn't really that relevant an argument, it was more a point about how subjective the concept of happiness is. 4. The suicide rate is actually really high for such a small population with welfare systems. 5. Quality of life is still subjective. Also freedom of press: not really Democracy: kind of, but that's a misnomer, also not a evidencal good thing, democracy is not any more moral then any other political system because of the evil of the human heart, its just dumber (also none of the Nordic nations are special on that front) Safety and low crime rate: For now, and this is technically also a misnomer. High salaries and protective worker's rights: This is what creates those safety and low crime rates btw, its not special to have that otherwise, once this fails you lose them. This won't save you either, decedent societies don't tend to last that long no matter how small and the collective methodology doesn't tend to keep a functioning society forever, if you continue to operate how you are then time will consume you like it did Rome, Egypt, and the United States. Social security: State enslavement while buying votes. Interestingly it'll suck all the kids it can dry before then. High levels of equality: This is the funny thing, the only equality you can really afford is female equity, because you're a feminism by force nation, however the funny thing is the more you do that the less women participate. And in a free society with a welfare state women have incentive to stay away from it. Then again with declining birthrates, its makes you wonder if you'll have native Nordic kids by 2080. Good luck having a great society today when you have no one to take care of you tomorrow. Of course no western nation is better, we have all succumb to murder the next generation-itis, for we are the hedonists judged to die. Infrastructure: eh, nothing to really brag about after everything else is considered. Healthcare and education: For now, but your time is running out, and who shall be picking up the tab, cause it won't be your kids. You consider these objective factors? I consider them incidental, they don't prove anything more then provisions. But they are become more infantile then ever before, at least the Vikings were hearty raiders, but their children not so much, inherited just to burn it down, its interesting that the ideal is still to feel entitled to something though. Also nice strawman, but he never said you lived in an authoritarian regime smartass, though I will, one predicted by Huxley and proclaimed as the King of submission, hedonism. One of your own making and enslavement. And you cherrypicked and strawmanned your statements as well. Don't be surprised that I didn't take you seriously.
    3
  659.  @4idenn  Yeah, much like how people treat MJ as though he did something wrong when the evidence once again refutes that. Everyone sees a settle out of court or a plead guilty to something as a plead guilty to everything, but its innocent until proven guilty, (OF THE SPECIFIC CRIME) but everyone loves their shame culture that hates justice and loves unequal weights and measures. Its rare for man to be fair for justice anyway.
    3
  660. Wikipedia is massively activist, it still calls Lauren Southern alt-right and has banned anyone correcting that, it continuously lied about Tim Pool (despite efforts to correct the article numerous times before it got locked with the lies) and only fixed it after he threatened to sue them, its creator has called them out for it, they reject first hand sources, the most reliable type of source.
    3
  661.  @Miriam-ug5pc  Its basic economics, an employer also has to compete for employees, and thus the unregulated free market naturally has incentives to do so. That's why employee benefits predates both business taxes and benefit regulations. (in our modern economy, benefits are the only non-taxed financial consideration you can give to an employee, hence why I include business taxes, normally they'd be irrelevant)
    3
  662.  @not_ever  I prefer C++ not to have a built in package manager, I absolutely despise the idea of it being a requirement to build the system, I've got enough experience with pip and npm, I don't need another built in package management system that I have no control over and can't do anything without, also template errors are solved by concepts and constraints completely, in using them for my projects, I don't deal with template errors anymore, it tells me why my types stop working without spamming the error log. Only times I've since dealt with them is when people refuse to use concepts and constraints at all.
    3
  663. Honestly this entire channel seems like its full of retards, you want to know how to fix this problem? Give civilians an un-infringed 2nd Amendment, I can guarantee you a cop won't abuse his position afterwards. You want to know other good corrections, don't give them capability to fine, there are plenty of better alternatives then just ranting about "defunding" police.
    3
  664. Honestly its this type of stupid urban behaviors/beliefs that explain why God will so often, after some warning, wash the heretical and heathen streets with their own blood and destroy cities to the last stone. It seems like it have made more sense to abandon Paris, destroy its industry, and move to a new southern capital where they wouldn't hate every single government because Parisians were either sycophants to stupid ideas or massive narcissists.
    3
  665. It was both.
    3
  666.  @jm56585  Because its full of leftoid communists and pedophiles who attack and blacklist you (and for most instances, ban you) for anything that isn't extremely left wing and "inclusive", criticize, banned/blacklisted, there is no free-speech in Fediverse instances, and pedophilia is always nearing the top of popular instances. (unless they filter them out, but they still end up popular, you just stop seeing them publicly then) They constantly call everything that disagrees with them racist, nazi, fascist, and capitalist, and you will never be able to federate with anything if you even take a moderate or "neutral" approach, all it takes is you not banning one right-wing post and your instance will be blacklisted by all of the big instances and probably most of the smaller ones. And the mods in every Fediverse instance I've seen are honestly even more horrible people then the reddit mods and admins and that's not a joke, banning people for nothing. And many instances share "twitter-style block" blacklists. (like when "big twitter folks" share blocklists around with each other without ever even interacting with members on the blocklist, instances tend to do the same) This all results in an even worse leftoid pedophile echo chamber then reddit.
    3
  667.  @shapshooter7769  "High schools do not teach women to become mothers." Because that's the charge of the mother. Schools (as we see them) are a new invention that haven't existed for even 200 years and high school is younger then that. And that's aside from the fact that home schooled children score better then private school kids who score better then public school kids. God gave women to be mothers to children, the father provides, the mother takes care, these are the charges by the nature God gave us. And its clearly present in the natural dimorphic behaviors we partake in. "Also that's veering into arranged marriage territory where the woman doesn't have agency on who to marry" First off this is a baseless statement, basically a strawman but secondly it is the charge of the family, not just the individual, to ensure the continued stability and establishment of the family, the only people who argue against this hate the concept of the family and are libertine individualists, they believe that everyone is autonomous, but nobody is, you are not made up of just yourself and nobody independent of those that inspired and founded them as they are. All men are standing on the backs of their ancestors, on the backs of giants.
    3
  668.  @4thzone697  The truths of the matter is like this, for a man had been blind all his life, he could not know a conception of sight and could not understand any evidences of sight for all he knew would be a lack of sight. He could not verify sight by experience and could never come to know truth by relying on a knowledge regarding sight but if he has faith in senses without the sight inherent then he can be given truth in reasoning what is and is not, not by sight but through faith that he can know such things, and thus he can know through experience and reason where knowledge otherwise gained in sight lies without sight. Those who reject an understanding of faith are likened to the blind man who he has no faith in senses, he rejects understanding which would bring him to truth because he naturally does not have that understanding. If he was given the evidences without a faith, which brings about reason, for which interprets and underpins the evidences, the evidences themselves would be useless for his understanding, the evidence would be rejected by a lack of understanding necessary to interpret and comprehend the evidences. If proof would convince you, you would have already believed for the Creation itself demonstrates his divine and invisible attributes, (Romans 1:20-22) there is no amount of proof that will convince you to follow God because you are against Him and seek everything you can do against Him by nature, you will seek anything and everything to refute and oppose Him and even when you would know of Him you would still not love Him. If God came down to you and showed you signs, and had even called you by name and empirically showed demonstrations of divinity you still would not have the heart to believe as it violates your nature to do such, you would not be capable to receive salvation. Reason does not save as neither does evidence for we know that neither were we convinced by evidence but by conviction, which brought us to faith, the foundation of reason for which evidence is founded upon. For no reason can be found without faith, and no evidence can be found without reason, yet you accept a faith while you reject the core of the faith itself for which you build reason to evidence.
    3
  669. The problem is this easy access to music has made it less beneficial to actually write good music.
    3
  670. Actually its worse then just eating what they can find, its a ritual they've been doing for a long time, possibly even a century, investigating pre-August articles you'll find that it was widely reported that some Haitians did this for ritual reasons, not out of necessity.
    3
  671.  @bobmurphy9686  But that is a fallacy because you're presuming a full representation by taking a tiny sample, the upper class and the lower class back in Antiquity did not mix, the mixing of classes is a very new phenomenon, so to expect a high class subject to know much about the low class and their interests is objectively false. This is before you could have any clear access to information that you didn't directly witness, and unless you had witnesses to that information which required meeting those people, it was difficult to know, that's why Mark and Luke were hired, you would've had to understand how to even talk to these people to get useful information out about them. (and the high and low classes didn't often communicate)
    3
  672.  @vikkidonn  "It’s the same thing no??" And no they aren't, holy water and chemical compounds are distinguished even in the ancient world, like even Pliny the Elder when he wrote things like Historia Naturalis makes it clear that there is a distinction between a spiritual concept and a material concept, even if they may be linked at times, holy water is a spiritual concept while chemical compound is not, if someone in the ancient world is saying something equivalent to "holy water" the context does not simply permit reading it as "chemical compound" simply because you think they are too dumb to recognize a difference between material and spiritual things. That's completely ignorant of the view of ancient people's, they did not understand the material world as well as we do but that does not mean they did not share any similarity to separation between the spiritual and the material, in fact that separation is a unique pre-Roman Greek invention, an idea consider going back to even the 3rd century BC at least, and it was the Christians who used that Greek outlook to devise empirical study.
    3
  673.  @vikkidonn  "but he does as he’s done it repeatedly live on various podcasts and shows." His interpretations and claims prove otherwise. Also what you mean by "he's done it", cause you can't prove a singular true translation of a sentence to someone who doesn't understand language even with a dictionary on a podcast or show. Its trivial to pull up a dictionary of a word and interpret the word by a definition in the dictionary divorced of justification for the interpretation, unless they know the language there is nobody who could critique you on that. You can tell someone who doesn't know the language anything and unless they are really good at contextual reasoning and understand general principal of linguistics, which most people don't, they'll accept whatever you tell them and believe you even if you were to lie.
    3
  674.  @siritio3553  "If you think "believes in the supernatural" is ad hominem, that is your problem," Your argument says "he believes in the supernatural so he must be incapable of a reasonable position" by implication, that is de facto ad hominem. You practically made the statement explicit by your next statement. If you don't make a counterargument against a position but instead make a counterargument on the basis of a person's characteristics, you are almost certainly committing an ad hominem, and even if it wasn't it still be fallacious in at least two other categories. "Your whole post starts with a fallacy - knowledge and understanding of things that don't exist" What fallacy does belief suppose? You believe that the next second will be consistent with the last, that the next day will share the same standards as the last, and that logic itself shall proceed equally so, these things are beliefs that you have no capacity to justify for you do not reside in the next second nor the next day. Just because someone has a belief does not mean they have knowledge nor understanding and neither does it make them incapable of a valid position, you didn't even bother to argue their position, you immediately went to insulting both me and them and focused purely on the person over their arguments. Tell me the name of the fallacy you are referring to. "so the point you're so badly trying to make misses its target due to the massive amounts of hypocrisy and irony it's loaded with." You didn't refute what I said and refuse to actually point out where I'm wrong, not to mention you made an assumption on my character all because of mere association, so chalk guilt by association fallacy on your list too. (though to be fair guilt by association is still ad hominem)
    3
  675.  @darrennew8211  Eh, the problem is that you never know what is and is not a "harmless" crash, especially once you get to life threatening systems, there is no metric to knowing this, this is part of the reason you're violating the law when you try to use a Tesla to drive for you, even if Tesla now violates that crash early mentality for example, you are not supposed to trust anything implicitly and you should always operate as though something will fail. (and as in it will stop performing any task, you don't want a computer functioning as though its unaffiliated by a problem, that always hides the issue creating bigger problems that always grow to be life threatening if its ever gonna be) Software shouldn't be operated ever without consideration for hardware and if people forget then people will die, its only a matter of time. If people intentionally do that to themselves, they deserve what they get.
    3
  676. It'll be hilarious to see it worse then the Shyamalan film.
    3
  677. The problem with age of consent as a concept is that there is no logical consistency you can have with it, I don't see issue with determining it between both families and the subjects themselves, consent does not determine right and wrong and there is no logical argument you can make regarding it that does not inherently refute itself due to exceptions.
    3
  678. Its been noted that politics and other contentious topics have started to derank more immediately after Elon bought it. Grand example, Japanese twitter used to be full of politics bait and immediately after the buy was finalized the trending became anime and art.
    3
  679. I mock it because the slide confuses requirements with complexity reduction, which have nothing to do with each other. You want a simple kernel, something near impossible with Linux, maybe a "Linux lite" kernel could be made for this purpose, or some Linux-like safety-critical kernel, but that needs to be made and is neither here nor there, the problem is complexity but the slide claims the problem is requirements, but having clear requirements would never fix the actual problem and its stupid to think that it could.
    3
  680. Its called being principled, principals win time, pragmatism doesn't and never will.
    3
  681. This is still straight up false propaganda, (admitted to at the end of the video when claiming it has something to do with policy, but the question is why?) foremost most of the American Founders were actually opposed to all gun regulations, many of them spoke on this fact, like Jefferson being the clearest case when speaking about unregulated civilian ownership of warships and cannons, and for which SCOTUS formed the text, history, and tradition argument over the past year, and for which is constantly demonstrating that all forms of regulation even on training were demonstrably disallowed in order just to own a gun. Unintentional gun deaths being near 500 in 2019 is completely irrelevant in a population of 330 million. As for gun homicides, teens killed by guns, (which I'm betting is just part of gun homicides, so that's manipulative) and mass shootings, (which itself is deliberately inflated by a false definition of a mass shooting, which again is manipulative) well first off there is no policy that could fix any of that, almost every case was the gun being acquired illegally or what would've legally been barred from owning a gun already, usually because a person that should've been convicted of a crime was simply not despite the FBI and local law enforcement openly knowing and often inquiring about their intent to harm others, that's not a rights thing, the person was already breaking the law to some degree but they never get convicted and are conveniently just left to kill people. Also majority of gun homicides themselves are straight up inner city gang crime where it is or was already illegal to own a gun for all but the richest of civilians. (who I might add do not commit violent crime and thus from a statistical standpoint, it is illegal to own gun in every case for which guns were used in a crime before the crime happened) Yes you heard right, in many cities it is or was completely illegal to own a gun, even when the Bruen decision happened, many cities to this day still enforce Unconstitutional mandates where gun ownership is illegal, in LA, San Fran, NYC, Portland, DC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, and beyond it was, especially at the recording of every statistic listed, completely illegal to own a gun at all in those cities, and in New York, California, and New Jersey, if you were even caught carrying a weapon in your vehicle you will go straight to jail immediately even if you have an out of state permit, (and the state officers can subject you to search for this at their leisure) instate permits in these states was may issue but in most cases was no issue and a permit was necessary in order to carry legally already. And to get an instate permit you had to live there and justify the ownership of a gun in a manner that was not self-defense, even further you were then stuck on a waiting day, this being only after a federally mandated national and universal background check. (note in the US, all gun sales require a "universal" background check, you also need one in order to shoot at a range) In states and places where guns are not heavily regulated like in Texas they don't have such homicide rates or actual mass shootings, its specifically in the states with strict gun control and cities with practical prohibition on guns (it is easier to legally get a gun in Italy then it is in California or New York) where all these rates reside in. As for suicides, you're not talking about homicides, and guns aren't even the most prolific when it comes to suicide attempts which is drugs and nobody talks about the most prolific killers in the US being medical malpractice, heart disease, and cancer. And when I refer to cancer, I can still refer to say lung cancer and it will still be correct to say it kills more people then guns ever have, and majority of which is directly or indirectly associated with smoking, heart disease is directly affiliated with eating habits, drugs even still are a bigger killer, legal opioid use alone still kills more then legal gun ownership ever has. Also statistically the CDC confirmed that gun ownership in the US have saved more lives then have ever have in being taken. As an aside suicides can't be prevented by law, that statistic is useless because even without guns, suicide rates would not change, removing guns wouldn't fix the problem, that's a societal problem that can't be legally corrected. (well least not with the regulation of ownership, perhaps if we stopped over-prescribing medications for the most minor of problems it would help)
    3
  682. The economic and geopolitical understanding of this video really sucks, tariffs have historically proven to be completely capable of providing for the American budget given the reduction in spending and taxation Trump has proposed, (which the executive branch is entirely capable to do without oversight) and Russia isn't establishing a world order, there's plenty of criticism the Russian government could get, there's plenty of evil they and especially Putin has done, but if you think Putin is aiming to conquer the world or establish a world order you don't understand how rulers like Putin think. That clearly demonstrates you are indoctrinated by your European propaganda.
    3
  683. Favorite video on Lincoln? Razorfist's Abraham Lincoln: American Dictator
    3
  684. As a hardline Christian, we expect it: "Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets." - Luke 6:22-24 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." - Matthew 5:11-12 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning." - John 15:18-27 It is all of us that persecuted Christ by our sins, but those who ignore make themselves Pontius Pilate, who was condemned in the moment he ignored justice. (whether he stayed condemned is not made clear, but in such moments God despised the actions of Pilate as he does all all our sinners like homosexuals and liars) Those who commit the acts of evil such as lies and persecution against God's servants, they are the ones who are like the soldiers and Hebrews, many who were cursed and destroyed. There had not been a stone left standing of Jerusalem, so of their houses will there not be a stone left for them, for they too will be condemned. This is a warning, your judgement has not yet come, it is for the sake of others that these things have been said, not for my own benefit, for I am no more saved by what I preach but instead I am given love to grant upon others, even when they seek my death, this is how a servant of God must respond.
    3
  685. Another brilliant video from TIK on the the socialist issue.
    3
  686. IP Law is a scourge against liberty, (and if you're a Christian or a Jew it also violates God's Law) I say that as an small government advocate, (the term Intellectual Property was originally used to be a pejorative used by its opponents for fear that it would make ideas into "intellectual property", it was not considered a good thing to be that) it is intended to create monopolies and to destroy competition, I don't find how you can prove an idea has any ownership, it has no attribute of physical property necessary to demonstrate one has ownership, it requires government intervention and the government will always presume guilt without needing to prove your act was guilty nor having to demonstrate an inherent capacity to do so, mere similarity is enough to determine guilt which violates the presumption of innocence. Rights are not granted by government, anything that is a right must be evident to pre-exist government, all government does is ensure the upholding of these pre-existing rights, not the establishment of them (regardless of what the US Congress wants to say) which the Constitution itself affirms. If you need government involved for a right to exist then its not a right, and there is no right to be provided in capability or opportunity, merely the lack of interference, that's what a right is, a lack of interference, not an active protection. When a government upholds a right they are either preventing or correcting a violation of interference on the individual that is or had already taken place, that requires an existing act of violation on the person themselves.
    3
  687.  @shivanandvp  "I mean, if you lived in the 15th Century and got transported to 2022" There are at least 4 other languages that handle Rust's capability nearly the same or similar to Rust, all being lower level compiled languages with some type of OOP support meant to replace and/or work overtop of C. Even C itself has a subset that does this to some extent. These people are just ignorant and follow trends instead of actually work. And none of them before thought to devise a language to do this? You can't tell me none of them know how to writer a parser or manage a language? Also this isn't the first time we've seen a C alternative do this stuff, its the first time it was so popular though, besides Rust folks majorly couldn't have been working during the 70s or 80s and Rust is not nearly as innovative in its field as you're erroneously claiming. It does cool things (if not for all the other things it does wrong maybe I'd feel more to praise it) but a decade of difference is most certainly not the same as 5 centuries of difference, that is both arrogant and ignorant and is exactly the type of mentality that I hate the Rust community for.
    3
  688. That post is a botted message no cap.
    3
  689.  @Jose-yt3qz  First that's a fallacious assumption off the back of what was said, it was said that to dishonor one's father and mother will bring upon curses and destruction, (also as an aside, of all the socialists of the 20th century Mussolini was the least violent and killed the least amount of people, as well as having a fairly stable nation before WWII for a socialist, whether that means much, it is a notable fact) however it is not the only moral element, though even then how could one know how to honor one's father and mother without the moral framework to do so, it is a false reflection of the true. But even then that is irrelevant anyway because morality is not centered first around parental honor, before that Commandment comes 4 previous Commandments, and even in the paraphrased Commandments given by Jesus before loving thy neighbor as yourself, you must love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. Before one can love thy neighbor, one must love and honor thy parents, before one can do this one must however love and honor God.
    3
  690.  @Jose-yt3qz  You do realize that would still prove my point right? Regardless you completely ignored my point to go on a completely random side tangent I mentioned in one sentence (where you focused two paragraphs on it) because you're obsessed with attacking socialism over representing facts. And I don't see any support to your claims regardless.
    3
  691.  @Jose-yt3qz  He was the least terrible, Italy was the most stable and least violent socialist country of the 20th century, it was still an authoritarian socialist country ruled by an totalitarian dictator and it had the lowest kill count of all socialist states while lasting twice as long as Nazi Germany and its not even a competition. Now this fact aside, that whole point was literally in a parenthesis and is completely tangential to my point, it wasn't even a complete statement, its probably the most irrelevant and stupid thing to argue against because even if you did disprove it, it literally wouldn't change anything I said, so much so that in fact its functionally irrelevant, I only made a point of it because the claim was "Mussolini had a honored his father" in which the only relevant detail is that he was also the most peaceful of the "successful" socialists. Still doesn't change the fact that the 5th Commandment is only the 5th Commandment and not the the preceding 4, neither is it even first of the two most important Commandments when Jesus paraphrases the Commandments. So you literally started an argument on an irrelevant tangential thought that literally can't prove my point wrong even if it were incorrect that I only mentioned because it was an interesting fact to add on top. And you argued exclusively over it for 5 paragraphs and 3 responses with obsessive focus. Why? Out of everything I said, why the hell is that the thing that triggered you?
    3
  692.  @Jose-yt3qz  Alright look at it this way, Mussolini "honoring his father" is still completely irrelevant to my point.
    3
  693.  @Jose-yt3qz  God also gives preference to those who do honor their parents, even when they are evil, (which we all are, but that evil is only the same before God) it is a gift from God that I firmly believe that no matter what he'd still be better, but that God also may have deliberately limited him, because God showed preference to restrain his evil compared to his companion dictators, for the restraining of worse evil is also itself a gift from God. Those who do less evil is just as much the same gift as those who do good, even when they are enemies of God. This is the natural consequence of Godly sovereignty in a rational Christian theology.
    3
  694. While not in a cultural sense, PragerU is right that Europe values equality, racial identity, and secularization are the main tenets of Europe as a whole and the only symbol currently usable to represent the people as a whole is the shape of the continent and the EU flag. Until Europeans decides to bring back their sovereign nation states (possibly requiring violence) this will be the case, and without some change in values Europe will never be able to stand like the US.
    3
  695.  @softwarelivre2389  Nobody is saying it doesn't but the reduce calculative load by association of scales of ten is easier then the scale of ~5 with Celsius.
    3
  696. Rust fixes a lot less issues then people claim it does, and it has so many more issues people are unwilling to acknowledge and too many people will fallaciously claim that those problems don't exist because they are unwilling to admit its not a perfect language, even the less religious folks are still too fanatic to be trusted. Rust is an annoying trend I really wish would stop just because of how immature the whole community actually is and how it violates simplicity for the sake of being easy, it creates too many holes for failure. Also its worse then C++ in a lot of manners especially because it forces paradigms on you, you can implement pretty much all of the memory safe functionality found in Rust in C++, its just not builtin natively which I don't see how that makes it as big an issue.
    3
  697. As a Christian, Plato was correct in a lot of cases, for whatever reason, he was kinda right about the idea of the perfect realm theologically (though he wouldn't know it and had no grasp over that) as in Christianity has the concept of shadow and types, where the perfect representation is reflected upon the mortal reality giving us consciousness to recognize a specific subject acting imperfectly. Plato was also right about the incapability for man to rule himself, for man himself is not inherently capable of being a king, his solution was incorrect, but his recognition of the issue was still right. (and his solution isn't that far off from what many would consider the righteous rule, of course he was incapable of getting to that point because he was not of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob)
    3
  698. Honestly I find C3 the better language for this anyway.
    3
  699.  @anon_y_mousse  "using fn to define a function really irks me." Its a good solution to the most vexing parse problem because the return type is the most vital detail of a function signature. Else you'd need to build a context sensitive language which is half the problem with C.
    3
  700.  @smokeshow7691  "is a prop gun a firearm though?" Yes, any item for which could reasonably be mistaken for a gun should be treated even like a gun, first reason being it could be loaded or managed like a weapon and mistakenly treated as though it is one, the other reason being that a cop or civilian could reasonably mistake the item as though it were a gun and react as though it was a gun. (and if the later happens you can very capability be shot for it and that is a reasonably reaction for self-defense, nobody will be seen as breaking the law if you end up dead for it) There is no excuse for even props that are styled like a gun to be treated as anything but like a gun. And remember this assumes the item itself isn't a weapon, the gun in Rust clearly was one by its capability to shoot out a bullet, (true prop guns don't have even have the capability to load blanks, even the weapon he had have prop versions that only dish out blanks) even if we expect that the item couldn't take full rounds it may still take blanks which still have capability to harm and kill. And even in the case that the item itself shouldn't be able to even take blanks there is still capable chance that a real weapon could enter or be disguised in its place. If that happens you are still responsible for the discharge of the weapon regardless of your expectation that it was fake.
    3
  701.  @jesterfrombeyond1776  "Dude your a fundamentalist" You can't find truth in reality nor in a single Word of Christ without being a fundamentalist, and there is no concept of objective truth without a fundamental understanding that truth is derived from an objective authority, without a standard, value, and authority to recognize truth, its all opinion. And if you define truth as opinion there is nothing you can communicate for which it represents value to another. "Look at the Greeks they where pretty much the first civilization that came up with some sort of abstract objective notion of the world" Plato, Homer, and Aristotle didn't even agree on what defined truth let alone what objective truth actually was, and Socrates never supposed an element of what was truth in what he supposedly said but instead what was not truth and the refutation of untruth is not the same as having objective truth. No the Greeks did not devise an concept of abstract objective truth, none of them were atheists either. They all plead to a paganistic objectivity but they couldn't even agree on what that objectivity was and the same applies to the mathematics and other philosopher as they postulated mere possibilities without a case of knowledge or demonstration. This is because with Christ the development of truth seeking can not exist, it stays as philosophy. Only in the Christian worldview does anyone believe that there is a knowable aspect to truth demonstrated in the natural world, none of the Greek philosophers believed this which is why they never developed anything close to an industrial civilization. "while having their own religion independent of judeaism." You don't seem to realize this violates your claim. By having a religion they believe in an objective worldview that is not abstract by definition, now granted in paganism they didn't in fact recognize a shared objective view resulting in a subjective worldview claimed as objective but again it wasn't defined in the abstract. "Furthermore objective notions can only be approximately objective because every notion of objectivity is nested in a subject" Proving my point, the perspective of Christ and his followers (as in those who believe in the knowable plan of God proclaimed by Jesus and His disciples) reject this and science exists specifically because this concept was rejected. This is the reason you only see an industrial society form out of the post-Resurrection world of the nations that recognized Christ's authority as head of the nations. "same goes for you" No it does not because God defines the objective, not man, I have no capability to even received the objective view without God's allowance and my recognition of this fact tempers my ego and humbles me to know that before it was known God had defined it from the beginning. "So please be a bit more humble, before you proclaim that you know the "Truth"." I do not need to humble myself for it was not defined by me nor devised by me, all recognition of what I have done is absent and I do not boast as though I did not receive what I have been gifted to myself, I merely am the messenger of truth, I am humble to my position as merely a servant, a slave, to He who defined and declared truth unto the world. He is the way the truth and the life. (John 14:6) I have no authority given of me for it is not mine but is of the authority of my father in Heaven. If I speak of my own authority then I would speak of my own glory, but as I seek to honor Him who sent me I speak truth and am found without falsehoods. (John 7:18) For why should I say that I have such that I have not received, why do I have that I have not received? Why then should I boast as though I have not received it? (1 Corinthians 4:7) In this I know objective truth for it was defined by He who defined what truth is.
    3
  702.  @atomicTurtle000  That vindicates what I said, the fort was promised to be abandoned, it was not abandoned but was instead being pushed to be a threat, nothing about what you said contradicts what I said and even more it actually proves what I said correct. Unless the intent of your statement was to contradict the first part of what you said, in which case you added nothing to the conversation.
    3
  703. Reminds me of Ethan Klein of H3H3.
    3
  704. Who the hell thought this was a good idea? Why the hell is this a feature in A LOGGING LIBRARY? Why is a goddamn logging library resolving text at all?
    3
  705.  @loneblade201  What are you talking about? He pulled 10k viewers on that stream alone, that's a very successful livestream, not to mention his average viewers and subscribers are nothing insignificant for someone kicked off of a show with over a million subscribers.
    3
  706.  @loneblade201  Eh, that metric is still pretty nonsense by anyone with a slight bit of IQ, as time alone is 75% of the numbers, but I can see if we stupidly compared apples to oranges then yes, it can seem like a failure. Not calling you stupid, but those who actually go and do that I will call them being stupid most certainly.
    3
  707. ​ @mytech6779  You know the funniest thing, the Circle compiler is a C++ experimental compiler that implemented and proved the possibility of an incremental (opt-in) borrow checker (and memory safety feature set) in what was otherwise C++20, basically every safety guarantee found in Rust functioning in C++20 without alienating its legacy record.
    3
  708. ​ @cerjmedia  Dude you ain't even pointing out the suppressor crap, US is like one of the few countries that even regulate them too.
    3
  709. Listening to American military vets talk about dealing with the bullcrap they had to deal with in the military, (especially the Army) and all the anger that came about of dealing with incompetent dimwits, I have a feel Rozhestvensky was just constantly angry because he constantly had to deal with morons. I can sympathize, when you're surrounded by incompetent and stupid, you tend to become very shortfused and aggressive.
    3
  710. Its not hard to independently confirm this, and yes they do say things this stupid.
    3
  711. Casey Hudson was the last guy there before Anthem, all the others were already gone.
    3
  712. This is more a problem of C's automatic conversion, in some languages you need an explicit cast to in order to convert an int (or any other non-bool value) to a bool and in that case this problem is solved at compile-time. After all, why would you check a bool against a boolean constant. (only case I can see for that is if you're doing a compile-time check but then you shouldn't be doing it at runtime anyway, unfortunately some languages don't support compile-time value checks)
    3
  713. The Florida thing is almost certainly the thing about how Florida had a bill passed that legally restricted critical theory perspectives on American slavery which they manipulate into claiming it says "Florida won't teach anything about American chattel slavery", which I should say it absoutely does not do, its the same thing they did with the "Not Say Gay bill" which only prohibited teachers from being allowed to groom children secretly with sexualized (often homoerotically charged) content before high school (and they could even be criminally charged for it) and not telling even the parents about it. (they also tried to claim that it would get rid of sex education, which it doesn't do, despite wide appeal for such in the state) Basically its them lying about a narrative, claiming its something that it is not and then gaslighting people into a false perspective so as to try and paint Florida as a backwards state.
    3
  714. CP drawing is still CP, honestly its satanic degeneracy to me before its CP, but its clearly doubly satanic in this case. Honestly Kotaku should take this down or be arrested and the person responsible for posting the article should be arrested for it. Also those arguing that unreal CP isn't still CP don't understand the reason why CP is illegal, its beyond just consent reasons, but I suppose degenerate fools who don't understand law nor morality would like to make excuses for it. And hell yeah I'm stigmatizing screwed up addicted fools for this crap, the further you push this the less satisfied you'll become, and you'll eventually be consumed by it. And yes, its an addiction, its not something you can just stop after you start and it absolutely is damaging to the mind to let this stuff go. (it also damages society overall but I bet nobody cares as long as they get their kick)
    3
  715. Just to point, before the war, Yemen had practically no regulation on firearm ownership, you could own a fully automatic weapon without even a background check, nowadays you can own even explosives, however that's because there is basically no law there, but it is the second most armed populace behind the US even now.
    3
  716.  @mattelder1971  The OSI definition was an extrapolation of open source software that existed before the OSI, it became the standard because that's what open source was, regardless of whether it was formally defined before, it became formally defined and thus disagreement with it is a violation of the definition and thus not open source.
    3
  717. Honestly I think you failed to keep your bias out of the video, and very badly, I like your videos usually, but I'm starting to be massively off put in how you discuss this topic. Also you didn't even address the problems with Roe v. Wade at all and just run with the assumption that its Constitutional. Like Dread Scott v. Sandford? Just because the supreme court said anything didn't mean it was actually Constitutional, (which I really think the distinction needs to be made, the supreme court doesn't make law, it interprets it) it just became federal precedent until it ended up overturned. (and its not like there weren't states Roe couldn't go to that wouldn't do abortion, even removing the moral problems, there was no reason to force states to allow abortion) It's pretty disingenuous to just skirt over Roe v. Wade without addressing any of the problems about the case, even while covering in a legal sense. It also doesn't help that you refer to the supreme court a lot almost as a creator of law instead of an interpreter of law.
    3
  718.  @shinHis3  Yeah, I wasn't alive anywhere near that time but I know the history and context regarding computers at the time, (its especially useful to know when you work with old "high level" low level languages like C, C++, or FORTRAN and understand why things are the way they are) comptuerphile actually has some stuff on it that while not super into the details can explain background and context, and some of the mechanics of it.
    3
  719.  @HellenaHanbasquet  How do I sound jealous? I already told you I wasn't alive during the time and I don't know as much about kernels as him, I've already put my relevant cards of knowledge and experience on the table and told you in his expertise I am most certainly not as knowledgeable. But I do know more then him on statistics at least, not because I have demonstrated a superior statistical analysis but because I know the fundamentals to statistics he flippantly violated and manipulated in the court proceedings. Where have I been jealous in what I said? What contribution has he made that improved the field of computing anywhere near similar to Unix? Or anything at all? What contribution has had since then? I can tell you confidently its very little and not much good has come out of Berkley in decades. (and he was never involved with any of that good that came out of Berkley anyhow)
    3
  720.  @pokey013  Yeah, it wouldn't have been a big deal to me if I could believe he wasn't already well paid for his position, but in most cases with most experts in court its usually that they're being paid too well beyond the trial for that to really work, I can't really think of an expert witness who wouldn't be paid well before the trial, least well enough to enable them to claim some type of independence of the court, unless they are just stupidly greedy I suppose.
    3
  721.  @beayn  Whether he's an asshole or not doesn't change my point. I don't believe Lauren because I will never believe a spurned woman without the other side and evidence, Lauren is just another woman, she lied about the things I know well about because I've been through them, her statements on custody and marriage and divorce were absolutely wrong, and even if the dude was an asshole, she took no responsibility for her own individual faults and neither does she consider addressing them. A victim doesn't get to excuse their responsibility.
    3
  722. I can't respect anyone who cheats or partakes in cheating, Lydia was supposedly married at that time, and even if she wasn't it was so obvious a casual fling I will never respect someone for that, especially when Lydia claimed to be a conservative, she completely disregarded basic tenant of conservatism, like even a non-conservative (with conservative sympathies and family) to partake in casual sex is not respectable at all.
    3
  723.  @robertmichel9904  No, he's only arguing for standardized language, if you don't communicate standard terms to people outside of your own chambers, you'll never accomplish anything but self-gratification. He wants the ideas to be accessible to the common man, not the random intellectuals who have time to read decades of books, that's kinda classists.
    3
  724.  @Karurosagu  Nothing, its fine if you only intend to build for that purpose, but nobody can tout Rust as a C replacement without it, least beyond maybe one specific area of development that doesn't rely on features that Rust doesn't support.
    3
  725. Breaking News: Redditors prove they don't know how to protest.
    3
  726.  @nicholasharvey4393  Just gonna point out almost nobody believed in a flat Earth in the least going back to the old Persian empire if not further. That concept is more of a 20th century association and criticism of pre-Enlightenment wisdom which actually is fairly common specifically from modernists. Also the object of Christianity is not to reason man into Christ because there is no faith (as in devotion to Christ as the Son of God) in reason and no reason in faith (from the secular arena anyway, there actually is reason, however its because its from the faith not brought to it) You could reason someone to faith but they'll just be reasoned out of it, a well reasoned argument does not create a good steward and never evolves the man spiritually. This is why no sensible Christian will bother with you in a way that doesn't result in preaching, its because you're fundamentally misunderstanding the worldview we're coming from. (the best you get are flimsy Evidencial Apologists which are actually pretty manipulative and generally apostate) We're not trying to save your mind, we're trying to save your soul, and no amount of arguing with you could ever achieve that even despite the fact there are plenty of evidences that could functionally do so to your mind for a time. (tho often times people are unwilling to admit or see that fact anyway, even tho in truth it wouldn't matter spiritually) In this way its just more pointing to the fact His Kingdom is not here, so the fight is not to be had here. Basically its your fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian worldview that leads to your belief.
    3
  727. The rural education of the 1850s was probably the best we were ever gonna get and we squandered it, we were warned about the terrors of the coming evils of state schooling but nobody listened.
    3
  728. I still don't see Rust's borrow checker solving any problems that RAII in C++ didn't solve better. Could've overhauled the concept of RAII instead, the borrow check is simply the worst choice, especially in claiming to be simple, its only "simple" when you don't come against something that makes you have to think about it, systematically RAII is a lot simpler and easier to wrap your head around, and if you want to violate it, you can do so without breaking the language.
    3
  729. They vote for democrats because they propose immigration policies that attempt to open the border to people that have no right to enter the country, (specifically family members of immigrants) its an easy incentive manipulation tactic. Not to mention they also promote social democrat/socialist values and promote system that provide for the poor by taking from the rich, which includes immigrants, and immigrants can vote as a result of poor enforcement of the laws. Nobody should be allowed to immigrate into the nation if they can't outweigh they're provisions in the system. (which most can't and probably never will) And while I don't agree with providing the system we have even for regular Americans (I don't believe a government provisional system will ever work out better then private systems and I believe it incentivizes the belief that the dis-trodden and poor are provided for when in truth that's a lie, it makes us more selfish because we believe our taxes work and we are unwilling to dish out that which needs to go to taxes for charity work as such) if we're gonna do that it should only be provided for those who do or are gonna provide merit to nation more then what they put out. Its unsustainable otherwise.
    3
  730.  @nicklasveva  Funny part about the suicide thing is that persecuted groups that are the subject of inherent mental illness actually have lower suicide rates under persecution, every minority that was persecuted, while they were under persecution their suicide rates were down.
    3
  731.  @nicklasveva  Its likely because if you're healthy, persecution and hardship builds character and makes you resistant to suffering, which actually makes you better then those lacking persecution, and the demonstration of such not happening is evidence of a problem unrelated to the persecution or hardship. Blacks were (unfortunately) in much better social and economic conditions in the US while they were oppressed and persecuted in the 1900s then when they were free, same to the Christians in the first 3 centuries, (when they weren't rooted by Roman authorities that is) if persecution doesn't make you strong the problem isn't primarily the persecution lets be honest.
    3
  732. @ "the average life expectency in the 1800's was 30-40 years across the globe." That's incredibly deceptive and misleading, do you know how many children died in infancy before the 1930s? The average rate was around 40%, which suppressed the "life expectancy" average, when you remove that, the number goes to 70.
    3
  733.  @mistersharpe4375  Not to mention anything you say at Vaush which proves a contradiction will never prove to be a contradiction in his mind because he doesn't even believe in the non-contradiction principal because he doesn't even believe in logic. Why the hell would you debate somebody with that mindset?
    3
  734. Dumbest part of this is how Jan 6th isn't even remotely the worst thing to happen in DC by "protestors" against government power and election within the past decade, most folks love to disregard the antifa arson that took place before it, where the sitting president and his family had to be rushed into a bunker while antifa attempted to burn down the capital, if any riot was an insurrection, that was it, and people like Cortez then should be kicked out of office for supporting that crap.
    3
  735.  @mmstick  When they stop pushing for me to redo everything in Rust, then I'll stop being so annoyed and pissed off by them, but until then, they are in a cult and I don't care.
    3
  736. It could be cheaper, but the point is likely more to reduce damage on failure (as plastic deformation is easier to fix then cracks and snaps) and reduces force upon the user when you hit a hard surface.
    3
  737. Emil still seems a like a pathetic loser, and he may not be the entire problem, but he definitely is a source of many problems at Bethesda, all writing decisions literally had to go through Emil. Also it doesn't matter what he claims, they clearly lacked a company dedicated design document for Starfield, that's why as a game design piece its complete nonsense, its all over the place, every game that Emil had a major hand in controlling has the exact same problem with no central vision, which is the whole purpose of a design document, and the story constantly contradicts itself, something that a design document explicitly solves, if one of the common factors of a story being bad is that the lead writer who controls the story, the lead writer is most certainly a problem. And when you act so petty and pathetic, and now the company is acting petty and pathetic in the steam reviews, that just demonstrates that there is clearly a massive problem and Emil is a major part of it.
    3
  738. Oh by the way funny thing, out of the top 3 members of the Justice League being Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman is the only one that willingly and deliberately unalives people as she deems fit under normal circumstances and does so repeatedly in her comics. No joke, Superman and Batman under normal circumstances will never take anyone's life deliberately, Wonder Woman is the only primary founder of the Justice League that not only will do so, but has a repeated record of doing so, and does so without remorse if she deems it fit.
    3
  739.  @PetraleiTanyl  They can and do produce ABI stable binaries (something Rust can't do) and they can produce compatible ABI stability on the same architecture and platforms, C is capable to do this where as Rust cannot. All usable C standard libraries are legacy stable, Rust also does not have this, it is incapable of doing this.
    3
  740.  @answerman9933  David Koresh was probably the most sane out of any leadership involved, there was an attempted walk out at one point and the ATF still shot at them despite the lack of a gun involved in the walkout.
    3
  741. This is what we in the business call an embezzling scheme.
    3
  742. When you glow brighter then the sun, you're always visible.
    3
  743.  @skinwalker69420  TL;DR of what exactly?
    3
  744.  @SansSentiments  "when there is only one Attribute you can use to describe the russian mind its pragmatic i would say." I vehemently disagree, Russians are traditionalist and have always been a superstitious people, they still are, as a people they've never shown a pragmatic side, they adhere to tradition and are very religiously stuck to it. Its cause plenty of issues and preference for a Russian Empire is one of such problems. "Also dont forget, that everyone in the West of them Always treated them as some Kind of sub-humans." The Poles were nowhere near willing to wipe out Russians for being Russian and neither were the Ukrainians (or Ruthenians at the time) yet they fought against both. The whole Russians being sub-human thing is not all that common amongst the Slavs, and to be honest it also does not appear among the Germans until the Nazis get into power. It was a lot more common among the French and further Western thought because those were French-spawned ideals. "Even Stalin never crossed that Line. The romanovs (Being Western nobles) did." The Romanovs were the Russian Royal Dynasty at the founding of Russia, while the direct male line ended in 1762, (only 40 years separated from the existence of Russia entirely) even if we want to claim that one individual claiming the dynasty was from the West, his children (or children's children at least) in ruling over Russia were not, descendants of a king/emperor born in a nation for which they rule are indistinguishable from the nation they were born into. I hate this concept of "oh they came from somewhere else, they can't be of the home they were born in" because its stupid, illogical, and untrue. The Romanovs did not do that anymore then Stalin, as Stalin still partook in genocide toward Slavic ethnicities he didn't consider Russian, which the Poles didn't do, and Stalin wasn't even Russian, he was Georgian, he wasn't even a Slav, he was ethnic Caucasian. (the Poles and Romanovs were more Russian then Stalin ever was)
    3
  745. How about we stop printing money and get our dicks out of the economy? You know, the thing that's actually killing people, they're stealing from the GDP, $2000 doesn't fix anything, it makes the problem worse.
    3
  746. Its generally fairly evident that there is something beyond the observable in regards to human consciousness, there's always the nurture vs. nature thing, but that kinda misses the point that there is something beyond the predeterminined nature and the sculptable nature, which is what most competent philosophies and religions had already concluded. Calling someone responsible of anything requires some kind of disregard for the nurture vs. nature paradigm entirely, because if that were all anyone boiled down to then they're inherently incapable of taking responsibility for themselves, it requires an application of separate consciousness that chooses a reaction to both.
    3
  747.  @captaincanada5139  Source?
    3
  748. ​ @captaincanada5139  And how do you know they were SS? I know the image you're speaking of, but all I saw was Wehrmacht soldiers, SS never wore green nor brown serving as officers. (they also wouldn't appear in most reenactments because they were mostly security garrisons, not frontline infantry, [with the exception of foreign legions which weren't actual SS and couldn't wear the same uniforms] they only took part in a few battles most of which were German defensive battles) You wouldn't even able to tell the difference between WWI and WWII German soldiers because the uniforms would look the same. Now that aside, why should I presume a random photo of WWII reenactment wasn't simply a background stock image of soldiers that was looked up by an intern? Why is the first presumption you have to make is "he loves Nazis" because of a random stock image of soldiers happens to have German uniforms? You think Trump knows the difference between American and German GIs in WWII? You wouldn't even be able to notice the difference if it weren't for someone else pointing it out, most NA education doesn't give you any ability to distinguish soldier uniforms of WWII.
    3
  749.  @Oicurmtoyoy  In this specific case it would refer explicitly to the relations between women as unnatural, as far as I'm aware that specific text doesn't explicitly prohibit bestiality, (Paul has little reason say much on that here cause it was not as commonly considered) it could be implied but it wouldn't be the first thought of a Greek reader.
    3
  750.  @txdmsk  This aside Ancient Hebrew almost never distinguishes women in general, much of the Torah and even the Tanakh don't say anything about women at all except in cases where it would make no sense for the sentence to say men (like the prohibition on harming a pregnant woman's child at the cost of your own life in Exodus 21:22-25) it is thus otherwise presumed to mean man and woman.
    3
  751.  @txdmsk  Every mention of the man and woman leaving their parents house and becoming one flesh is also an explicitly prohibition for anyone who knew Ancient Hebrew (as it means anyone who does not do this will die) but I don't mention it because it requires an explanation of Ancient Hebrew.
    3
  752. ​ @Oicurmtoyoy  "Fully and clearly expressed" or "Fully developed or formulated" or "Forthright and unreserved in expression". In Ancient Hebrew it would fit all three of these definitions. See the problem is you're treating Ancient Hebrew like English (or any modern European language) however Ancient Hebrew does not operate in any familiar way to English, (or other modern European languages) most old Semitic languages don't, but Ancient Hebrew especially doesn't. In Ancient Hebrew clear expressions are not communicated lacking relative context, they require local and cultural understandings for literally every word, even simple statements are full of this. (doesn't help that Ancient Hebrew didn't have explicit vowels, and vowel notation doesn't show up until the 10th century, to understand where vowels were valid required cultural and historical immersion) In English there is a concept of absolute meaning lacking the need for much contextual reasoning, many Semitic languages never had this concept, in order to communicate a meaning of a word you needed to immerse yourself in the culture to interpret any statement, this is why Gentiles wouldn't have learned Hebrew as it required immersion in the society and history of the Hebrews for years. For a native speaker of Hebrew it would be plainly obvious to interpret things a certain way and it was expected for things to be multi-interpreted. As well in Ancient Hebrew it was very unusual to refer to women at all, it was common for any reference to women to be related to men because women were not seen as independent of them. Thing is too this all still meant there was one clear interpretation of the text but simply "learning the language" wasn't enough, you had to become a Hebrew, this is why the most Septuagint translations did not semantically disagree as they were written by Hebrews. (beyond clear scribal errors)
    3
  753.  @Oicurmtoyoy  The problem is it would be explicit for those who could read the language, in the language it would be clearly and fully expressed, it however cannot exist without the context of the entire culture and history in the language. Japanese actually operates very similarly (it but less so then Ancient Hebrew did) where explicitly clear statements are culturally and historically relevant, nobody who could read the language would confuse the interpretations even slightly, but no translation out of the original language can communicate how explicit the interpretation would be and communicate the multi-functional meaning of a statement, most translations tend to perform the most reductive of functional meanings for most statements which tend to be extremely literal. Like let me show you a simple example I know in Japanese: The term "I like you" in Japanese does not translate to "I like you" at all, if you were to literally translate the statement it would say "The moon is beautiful", no Japanese person would use the literal words unless they were a child (or showing such devotion that they don't mind sounding like a child but that is rare in Japan) and instead they use this poetic phrase which implies romantic feelings except literally no native Japanese person would misconstrue that statement as anything but "I like you". (unless they specifically misheard the words you said but that's a different issue) This despite being an "implicit" statement is still by definition explicit, and this is what I mean. Granted this simple example is super reductive and Ancient Hebrew is way more then just this but this is why saying its not explicit doesn't make any sense unless you don't understand that the concept of explicit does not translate into context sensitive languages that way.
    3
  754.  @J.D-g8.1  I can't tell if that's a joke or you being serious, but what I do know is that C outside a dev environment is most certainly not safe.
    3
  755.  @coragoodwin344  You're not entitled to a job.
    3
  756.  @blinking_dodo  There is no consistent rule in regards to mankind, in time all rules have exceptions, if you can't learn this lesson, you are the problem, not the exception.
    3
  757.  @blinking_dodo  That's literally what jury nullification is, the jury is allowed to completely ignore the law if they feel like it. As an aside the judge also can simply decide not to charge the defendant with a harsh sentence, like in California and New York they have laws that do prevent theft and murder but most judges never sentence anyone for crimes. It happens all the time. That's why you see their cities become crime ridden, the judge is literally allowed to ignore the law regarding punishment if he feels so. (and that's not even the problem with it, its just the exceptions principal of law being abused by activists)
    3
  758.  @nullid1492  It would be when Rust can't even theoretically support ABI stability, a literal requirement for Unix and POSIX. (and not to mention the LGPL)
    3
  759.  @pmritzen2597  Thinking for yourself is rarely ever a good manner to teach, especially to women, unless they have the true and just moral compass to foremost understand their perceptions first, teaching someone to think for themselves is not a good avenue, its a good moral compass first and foremost, as in God's commands, then you may receive the tools to think rationally, else there is never a capacity for rationality. If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. This is for the sake of all those who see this, do not trust in your own wisdom and let not others fool you into it lest you become a fool yourself, plant your house on the foundation of the rock so that you may not be swept away, for he who builds his house on sand will have it fall, and great shall that fall be.
    3
  760. McCain was a pretty good example of the hardstick jackwad retard veteran. Being a vet doesn't mean jack.
    3
  761. She was folded like a keltec sub 2000.
    3
  762. Don't need containers, just post conflict dependency packages on the package source, download the conflict into separate location from the conflict package, and modify the PATH of the target application to foremost reference the conflict dependency's location before everything else. You can already do all this in a script, doing it with a package manager would be trivial. Additionally you could determine the most used package so when a conflict happens and it finds the most used package as a dependency changes, it'll convert the more used package to a standard one and convert the less used one to the redirect and convert all the packages dependent on that now conflict dependency to the redirected package.
    3
  763. That's also C, there are better alternatives in the standard library to scanf for C++ unless you need absolute speed, though there is a library that does what fmt did for printf but for scanf. Its called scnlib, its performance alongside safety should be better then any other alternative.
    3
  764. Show me where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state? The 1st Amendment has no bearing on it.
    3
  765.  @ZARK0_  Except that's a red herring argument, whether Rothbard invented it or not, its not a common nor useful definition to the common man, if your objective is to spread your idea, you should be communicating in the words of men, not by the words of a god, whether someone invented a term or not is irrelevant to the point. TIK's point is that words should service to approach those who disagree with you by common understanding, if I come to you speaking gibberish you won't understand me even if someone else invented the gibberish and could understand me, but if I come to you speaking a standardized principal of language that we both understand and agree to, then we have perfect communication and understanding, the point of language should be to reduce misunderstandings, if it does not accomplish this, you are only servicing your own pride.
    3
  766. To a degree I agree and disagree with your ideal on war, I agree that from a moral standpoint its wrong to harm civilians, however I also don't believe in a concept of moral warfare. While a morally justified war can exist, (say to defeat a peoples assaulting your nation or obviously any defensive war) I don't believe any acts committed in regards to the war can be measured from a moral standpoint, which is why I don't believe in war crimes. Fact is war itself is, at its core, a violent oppression of the opposition, how we measure the morality of any specific act in regards to that is gonna be relative to our considerations of the time and place we live in. As I see it, its not my (or any other man's) place to judge whether a specific act within a war was justified, especially since there are no governing authorities of war, without an arbiter of justice (specifically one that does not retain a bias over the subjects of the case) there is no justification for arbitrating the circumstances of the war, invalidating the concept of a war crime. If a governing authority's only legitimate role is as representation of moral justice to its people, it has no obligation to do it for others beyond itself (even if they're friendly nations or close allies) and with the defeat of the war neither carries an obligation to hold specific individuals responsible. If we want to argue that should be done, we could leave that to the governing authority of the losing nation, but given it tends to happen under the authority of that nation and those individuals are part of that authority most of the time, you'd be unlikely to see that in which case it is what it is. We could argue for a justified case for war in regards to the atrocities committed by a nation on another group of people, but the objective in those cases should be to make peace, not to keep peace, and alternative measures of making peace, not keeping peace, should be tried. (not in essence through capitulation of demands for example though, violence and force and its threats are the only power recognized by a state, they must be used for that purpose if the decision is to be made, mortal justice requires real force) As far as what should've happened internationally, let the losers lose perhaps, though I say an even better case would be to break the constituent losers and winners into smaller nations, at best each nation broken up operating in a confederate manner, but those last bits are personal preference without precedent.
    3
  767. They don't even know what a right is, nobody should even be entitled to have their job, that's how you know the system has failed these idiots.
    3
  768. I'm not so sure its a predictive model, or at least its a very unconventional one, disregarding the question regarding sentience, how it responded to certain inquiries were definitely not common chains uttered by anyone I'm aware of, the prediction of the next term seemed very distinct from what someone would describe in its source data, even in "reading" the internet in a manner that its predictive model would include AI self-inserts (like fictional stories and such) some of things it responded with were strange. And yes while there were red flags and leading questions that kept up the illusion, that doesn't mean how it responded wasn't also strange.
    3
  769.  @brianpierson1322  A crime punished shall not be further punished again, this is the Will of God, for what righteousness stands if a crime given just punishment is to be beyond the punishment itself. If one has serviced the wages of his crime and lives, who is given right to rob him of life and limb? God speaks to no such act. No I say unto you by admission in God's justice, not to my own like so much of man sees fit to do, that the murderer and the rapist be set to Hades and not be left among the living, and that all the crimes beyond this said by God's Law are not worthy of death and thus have a punishment limited so among the living. But not one of these shall be imprisoned for a long period nor for an entire life, for that was not given by God as just punishment to the wicked. It is by this if his crime sentence has been served, he is free of all his sentence, never a selective aspect of it.
    3
  770.  @VrilVVizard  "then shows you the exact translation out of the dictionary" Already addressed, that's a fallacious argument. First off why don't you question those who produced the dictionary? Second off why do you presume that what you see in said dictionary, even if correct, is the meaning of the writer absent of context? Dictionaries don't give context, words are context sensitive, time, place, speaker are all important contexts, dictionaries are not context sensitive, so if all you do is present a definition in a dictionary you're acting disingenuous to the text. That's eisegesis, reading out your desires of the text, not exegesis, reading the author's intent from the text.
    3
  771.  @VrilVVizard  Like let me give you an example of what happens when you do that fallacy: If I say "I made a killing", and say we have a dictionary with definitions for each of those words, and that we're 2000 years into the future where our English is an ancient language known only by copied words and never spoken. Now in this scenario, if I say "I made a killing" and you translate the literal meaning of each word, the definition of killing means "to actively end someone or something's life", so if you don't understand grammar and context (as someone who cannot read the language speaking a completely different language) you are required by the definition to believe I'm saying I have taken someone's life. However this is nonsense according to the grammar, killing doesn't work as a verb when made is the active verb, but that's not inherent to language and not even is it inherent to English, its instead a natural understanding of native speakers. So if you actually understand the context you'd realize what I said cannot be that I have taken someone or something's life. But you would have taken what I said that meant "I have become very successful in this instant" into "I have taken someone's life" because you don't understand how the language works. And now I'm wrongly accused of a crime.
    3
  772. Honestly at this point my bigger concern is the Rust community beside the language, I've criticized the language many times and every time I have those who saw what I said acted like children and throw a tantrum at me and never address my arguments and then try to gaslight me into saying they refuted what I've said with ad hominems and deflection fallacies. (or claim everything I said is irrelevant with pure fallacies) My criticisms include a negative disposition towards the syntax and an anti-modular centralized build system with a package manager akin to NPM or PIP that is required to do anything at all in Rust. I have explained in great detail my issue both practically and philosophically with these things only to be attacked personally and told everything I said doesn't matter without giving me a reason as to how that's the case. If anything its the Rust community itself that makes me hate Rust more then the language, which I already don't like, but that at least I would not mind as much if it was left an optional dependency, though I wish so too that wasn't the case. I do however hate the Rust mentality behind the language.
    3
  773.  HenriqueBavaro  If you're randomly accusing people of crap like that, you've not been paying attention, I couldn't care less about your foolishness, its not remotely serious.
    3
  774. Honestly I still don't get why Linus incorporated Rust but then calls C++ a bad language and refuses to consider it at all, like every problem he complained about with C++ in the kernel Rust does 10 times worse. And no its not me saying Rust bad, (I personally despise it but that's whatever, no you can't change my mind, I am not arguing this, I don't care what you say, don't bother) but like Rust demands panics for memory safety issues to much of any runtime allocation protections, if you're not gonna have that, then your only other advantage for memory safety is at compile time with lifetime stuff, which isn't exactly unique to Rust, (and even then it being sophisticated also makes the learning curve immense) aside from C++ getting a borrow checker, (yes there is a proposal already being worked out, I'd expect less then a decade before its done, C++26 isn't finished so it may come then even, look up the Circle Compiler for a C++ demo) it already has a lot of builtin freestanding compile time memory protection through lifetime with RAII. Or what about other memory safe languages? So I'm kinda confused where the memory safety is at that point otherwise.
    3
  775.  @ryanbarker5217  In this specific case I'm kinda using "union" as a colloquial for collective bargaining, most historical collective bargaining had nothing to do with unions, and even into the 20th century the most successful cases of collective bargaining for the people never had much to do with unions, usually they squashed most grassroots bargaining and operated like a socialist organization hampering the market. Society is better without formal organizations, deliberate decentralized organization is often superior. (incidental decentralized organization is still superior to centralized organization, but is itself subpar to a deliberate decentralized organization)
    3
  776.  @seanbrennan5192  Intelligence and Wisdom are vastly different, and its common for people to lose humility the more intellect they carry. Wisdom is about effectively being capable of using their knowledge well, many people who are high in book intelligence are easily fooled by whats actually in the book.
    3
  777.    He knows nothing of history nor logic by what he's saying. Otherwise he's straight up either lying (which is terrible for everyone and will grow more resentment then anything else making his word worthless to everyone) or manipulating people, (which is fundamentally evil in the best case) in either case its not gonna help those who are against individualist principles making the whole point useless since they don't want to take responsibility, that's why they choose the ideologies they do. Its a fear of being responsible and taking any blame.
    3
  778. Yes, but you can't predict the value of anyone's job on the market, for every bit of the economy you do have figured out, there's a million things you don't, the biggest reason you can't designate essential and important jobs is because the economy is intertwined with itself and the rest of the market, you take away one part, you can collapse many parts that you most certainly would claim is "essential", its not just important to the individual, its important to the economy in a manner you'd never be able to see without killing off the business. That's how decentralized systems work, you can't predict the outcome of a decentralized system without murdering it. For example, farmers need constant and read access to many types of tapes and other bits from many common local shops and convenience stores, or else they lose the capability to produce and sell product, they become hampered and that sends significant ripples through the rest of the economy.
    3
  779. @ A number of the compile-time safety features also prevent the compiler from properly performing optimizations that are comparatively easy for a compiler to do in C++.
    3
  780.  @thekwoka4707  Its demonstrably still slower then C and C++ in every case, there isn't a single a case where Rust beats C and C++ in performance because Rust makes numerous runtime cost decisions for safety concerns, safety and performance are a tradeoff, if you can't understand that then you don't actually understand any of the languages or anything about language design, and there are plenty of cases where you can't get around that and Rust does not permit you such. I've said nothing untrue, if you don't understand tradeoffs, you aren't a software engineer.
    3
  781. Only a problem if you choose crap women and don't put any work in, that's judgement on you, that's at best an excuse for terrible capability that you should be held to blame for.
    3
  782. Honestly if we stopped subsidizing stupid people and inflating the low skill, low intellect communities and giving them money so as not to improve their situation, they'd stop believing they can't get out of their desperate situation, and thus will be able to rise out of their bad lives. As Henry Ford once said "Whether you believe you can or can't get out of poverty, you're right" and which means that the more you provide excuses and reasoning for those impoverished people to stay where they are, the more incentive they have to stay where they are.
    3
  783. I find it strange that people are saying they wouldn't do this or they don't like it, foremost the idea be you're in the middle of a war and you don't get a choice, either that or this is the governance practically enlisting a quasi-PMC coalition to do the work, given PMCs actually very much operate under this metric and are more effective then standard militaries with less losses, civilian causalities, and less wasted resources I'd say this is just proven correct. (PMCs could be even better though if they were less beholden to government money, thus requiring even more dependence on efficiency) Its even more strange to hear people say no when most if not all folks that are saying that have no devotion into being a soldier, and those that are either don't understand economics or would be useless on an efficient battlefield anyway, which by the virtue of economics they'd either be dead or gone anyway. So in a basic sense you'd be weeded out for people who could do their jobs, would get the job done, and without extraneous waste. In a manner how it was described would've produced a most effective military, and those that saw it through properly would likely be well off for the rest of their lives, just like in every other industry in libre economics..
    3
  784.  @Edax_Royeaux  Not how nations work, in many metrics nations don't desire to win wars because war is foremost profitable to those participating, and even further enables mongering and control of the populations into contributing to the government, claiming it to be for the war. (which it rarely is) Vietnam and Afghanistan were so claimed to be fought for something, but what they achieved and why they were fought had nothing to do with success, as for whether they won or lost, the government had already got what it wanted. Even in the case of wars like Vietnam, where they lost the war and lost public support over the war, they gained authority and control over both the markets and society, the amounts of power gained by the war greatly outweighed the losses they suffered and in many cases they know this. In some cases those state advantages are overestimated or the capability to achieve them are overestimated and in those cases you could consider it a partial success, but never a proper success, in a nation where threats don't exist and the only worry is from internal control, the only effective manner of killing or disarming that threat is by distractions and redirecting it to a "nationally productive" force. If you investigate most wars fought by the US, especially since the Civil War, you will see this holds true, the US did not hold stake in the war itself and felt nearly no threat at all from the powers beyond, but it wanted to better control the masses. FDR introduced sweeping nation changing laws that took over the economy and destroyed the libre nature of most American business, (if it wasn't already destroyed) and the same things happened in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and the post-9/11 wars. And peace does not sell. There's also a major part of pride involved, mixed with a worry of lack of control, which giving to a PMC creates a worry that they won't do exactly as you desire even if its stupid or inefficient. (which was also one of the biggest reasons all nations hated hiring mercs despite generally better track records) Before saying what you've said, you really need to ask would the powers at work really care about the outcome being efficient and effective, does ending it quick and easy achieve what they really want? What is more overall effective for them, not just on the battlefield, but across their nation or the world? Also if you look at the track record of PMCs when they are used, they almost always succeed better then their soldier counterparts, with less waste and less causalities on all sides. (if you look at the amount of atrocities committed by soldiers in comparison by relative metrics, even when the PMC is government subsidized, it doesn't even compare, another question standing why are PMCs blackballed when soldiers and official military leadership can get away with so much worse stuff and yet no one ever says anything?)
    3
  785.  @Edax_Royeaux  "The US along with every other allied nation, lost a considerable amount of money fighting the war." They gained hundreds of new taxes, control of the banks, and control of the markets, this has been debunked, the US government made out with more money after the war then it ever made before it. The New Deal and related acts is a clear demonstration that the war was profitable. The people's finances are irrelevant, the governments made out for the better in every case, government doesn't exist to make the lives of the people better, you don't seem to understand that, as modern governments stand now, they exist to profit off the the common man, regardless of what he does, killing him included, they can justify anything and everything they want to make profits and power in a war that they can't do out of a war. And you demonstrated my point earlier by saying they had to cut budgets after the war, cause even the war itself was profitable, and the cuts only lasted less then a decade even then. War is profit, it is very easy to profit, winning the war hasn't been relevant to that in most cases, if war wasn't profitable, in most cases it wouldn't be fought, the US didn't fight wars for the sake of threat and didn't fight them for resources, its had neither to ever consider, it fights wars because its an effective manner of control and money by its very nature. You don't seem to understand why nations operate as they do in the modern era, or even throughout the post-renaissance era. (where this was often in consideration)
    3
  786.  @Edax_Royeaux  "Gaining taxes in exchange for massive debt isn't a gain in anyway for a state. " What do you call the modern era? We've been doing this since WWII at least, so I don't know where you're pulling that idea from. Massive debt has been going on in every nation state for near on a century. (if not more, and the older empires have been doing it for much longer) "Especially when tied together with the massive budget cuts that came after WW2." Which were barely any I might add, the government never shrunk, the armies for the most part weren't disarmed, (aside from the Axis) and none of the powers at the time removed the economic institutions that were made during or before the war. And everyone likes to claim that the war ended the Depression but the Depression was on track to end before you consider the war and statistically and historically it only prolonged it, however the government made out with a lot of money and power because of it. "It reduced control of the populace and reduces prosperity." Irrelevant, again, you're being foolish in thinking this is who its for, government doesn't make money for them, nor power, it makes it in spite of them, this is your problem, you don't understand government is not an ally or friend, it was suppose to be the lesser of two evils that's now worse then the two. (that being anarchy) "I don't understand how you say the US made more money than before when it's debt had never been higher in history." Because the US government and its corporate enterprises (syndicates being the proper word) are making more money then ever, we are in more debt then has ever existed in human history, debt is how you enslave a population without ever telling them. Do you know what serfdom was based on? Debt, yes that's how it worked, and how government almost always ended up functioning, at the behest of those in power. (the only time it didn't was when it collapsed before it made it to that point) "When you say "made money" are you only counting revenue?" The people in power aren't in debt, social security, medicare, regulations, taxes, inflation, what do all these things do? They don't target the politicians and they don't hurt the corporations, they damage the common man, they control the lower classes and keep them in debt, who is responsible for the past century of bubbles? Government. Who lost nothing as a result? Government. And who had to pay for it? The common man. Who was left in debt over any of them? Again, the common man. The point is the common man pays the price for the politicians and the politicians never suffer for it, no punishment, no recompense, and they still receive benefits and a lifetime of pay off the back of taxpayers, and that's just the low level politicians, all the high level ones stay perpetually in politicians or corporations. Its pretty clear they made money off the backs of everyone else. What is inflation but thievery of value from the market? That's how they make money, government doesn't create, it can only steal.
    3
  787.  @Edax_Royeaux  "the U.S. government cut spending by $72 billion—a 75-percent reduction." And what about the inflation and redistribution of wealth they did? And how exactly is that calculated? Does it take into account all the new subsidies it made? Does it take into account all the departments it made? Where are you even sourcing those number from and what exactly contributes to it? Its not fair to say its a 75% reduction by using raw numbers when the government can control the value of those raw numbers either, if you can change the variables, the raw metrics are irrelevant. And that aside given they kept paying into all the industries they did beforehand, I don't see where the budget cuts were outside of they stopped using the mandatory draft. Did they stop paying for the military equipment they made? No. Did stop paying for into the corporations that were building the weapons? No. So where were the budget cuts from? " It brought federal spending down from a peak of 44 percent of gross national product (GNP) in 1944 to only 8.9 percent in 1948, a drop of over 35 percentage points of GNP." And yet they kept the taxes. But interestingly GNP was a metric criticized as not very economically representative by economists for a long time, which GDP often shares, since it hides many economically significant factors that should include. But I foremost don't trust those numbers specifically because it doesn't make much economical sense nor historical sense, and beyond that measuring federal spending to a relative metric that doesn't take into account inflation (in most cases inflation will not be shown in those metrics without hyperinflation and economic collapse) and debt all that well is neither reliable. Especially when you should expect an economy to grow immensely afterwards, naturally after a war you expect an economy to grow significantly on its own by the returning of a majority of working and able men. (the ones willing to take risk and boom the economy, the economy is entirely capable of growing on its own to create that metric, whether it has is up for debate, but the fact it can undermines the argument enough)
    3
  788.  @Edax_Royeaux  When we started on budget cuts being the demonstration that there is no profit in war was the point where the deflection started, which was not in my points in the first place, not even to mention it would clearly demonstrate that there is profit in war given they were making more money in the "public market" if they had to make budget cuts after the war. (which funny enough would mean I'd be undermining my own point to a degree)
    3
  789.  @Edax_Royeaux  "By 1946 the average citizen in Tokyo was rationed to 775 calories a day and the Yakuza Black Market had begun to dominate the economy." How many times must I repeat that this is irrelevant, trickle down economics doesn't work and especially not through the metric of government. So including it in making profits when profits can be gained in a famine is exceedingly capable and possible, especially by government and by corporations. "Because it's too politically difficult to get rid of it, it would kill jobs and anger the jingoists." Doesn't explain why it happened in the first place and doesn't actually explain why it continues to exist, more deflection, how did the jingoists get power and yet never accomplish crap nor does it explain why the majority of the American budget is spent on it and yet its still so incompetent and worthless, Fort Polk does not happen in a free economic system. And neither does the majority of the US Army, Marines, or Navy which are so bloated and noncompetitive they spent fortunes on equipment that doesn't work and gets people killed, the last three combat uniforms for the Army are directly and statistically responsible for soldier deaths that could've been avoided by simply not wearing them. And yet they didn't bother fixing them for decades only to replace each one with something nearly as bad or worse. There are so many horror stories I've heard or took note from which demonstrated some of the worst types of gun training I've ever seen, and I'm not even taking into account the non-gun crap. The ranking system for God's sake is so worthless that it booms and busts on a continuous cycle and every time it surprises the bureaucrats, causing incompetent officers to get into high positions who aren't remotely qualified, the type of paint lickers who take pride in becoming a sergeant because he happened to hit the target once. (or even just happened to fire the gun without flagging everyone at the range) "But it's costing the US a lot a considerable sum having it around." But whose paying the price? Cause its not the politicians, corporations, bureaucrats, or bankers, they don't pay in to taxes, majority of the US government is subsidized by the upper middle class and "rich" folk income, (individuals sitting on the lower percentage of the upper class mostly) while putting us continuously in a downward spiral of debt the likes of which we've never seen before. And when it collapses, its not the politicians, corporations, bureaucrats, or bankers that suffer. Its the taxpayers that supplement the function of the government beyond both the public and private markets. And that's before we take into account the tax on savings that is inflation. To rephrase this response "its costing the US (citizens) a lot" which are not the ones I ever said (and I keep having to repeat this) were profiting from war in the first place. Ones who profit are the people who don't suffer nor pay into the problem and have no stake in it, no risk, all reward. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are perfect demonstrations of such. "You'll note that Japan spent 99% of GDP on military spending in 1944 and it destroyed their economy because it was not profitable." That wasn't a relevant point, whether they spent all their income on war or not wasn't the point, they could throw all the money or no money at the problem, it wouldn't have changed anything because the problem wasn't the money thrown into war. The money they got back as a result of war, the kind where those who didn't actually suffer, being the politicians, corporations, bureaucrats, and bankers, all of whom even in Japan at most suffered very little and got away with very little punishment even in losing the war. They were the ones who profited off the war and the collapsing of the Japanese economy, a collapsing economy can be very profitable if done in a calculated manner and/or you run with the profits which has happened a lot in lost wars. Bankers and money changers did it all the time since the Medieval Periods, though back then they weren't usually part of the state like now, at worst usually verified or authorized by the state.
    3
  790. As a faithful servant of God, its bit weird but its not all that wrong.
    3
  791.  @topclips1872  "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia (1798) And note that the religion he is referring to is exclusively Christianity, in fact more specifically Protestant Christianity. (note as well this is well after the Bill of Rights were ratified) George Washington and Thomas Jefferson also equally stated the exact same things. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. " - George Washington, Farewell Address to the Nation (1797) Notice by the way the first two presidents of the US, during their service as presidents, called for Christian morality and religion while serving their terms.
    3
  792.  @Screcy  Those with schizophrenia often have a hard if not impossible time figuring out reality from fantasy, it is absolutely an insanity (as someone with a parent who suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar) which makes it extremely difficult at times for them to even be aware of themselves. Even if they are aware of right and wrong, that doesn't mean they're always culpable of it, in this case I could very well be argued to a position of saying he's mental and not just guilty, the elements of planning could very much be within the realm of schizophrenia in my experiences.
    3
  793. Archie, the word assimilation is defined, you can't make a claim that it isn't. The concept of assimilation is adopting the values and culture, (usually while recognizing your origin) this is clearly defined in a menial dictionary and applies just as much legally as it does morally. American assimilation is about adopting the values and culture appropriately, refusing to doesn't make you an American, but an invader. This is well defined and has been stipulated by the founding. Also America isn't a secular nation, it was founded by post-Reformed Jeudo-Christian liberals acknowledging that while a man has the right to his own standards, the system itself can not be supported by an absence of standard or the application of multiple standards. In this manner Christian values are the only ones that will hold it up, treating it as though that isn't true is a fallacy and is the exact reason the United States has become vulnerable. Just because the nation doesn't have a state religion (to which the founders recognized as a massive problem for previous states) doesn't mean its a secular system. The video also did just explain how the United States is not a secular nation, a secular state can not propose the concept of rights and has no recognition of any right that can't be taken away by man.
    3
  794. Let address some of what you say: First on the note of assimilation and growing up here, assimilation itself can take generations, even then its not actually a guarantee, there are so many 3rd, 4th, and other nth generations of people who still don't personally embody the values and culture of the United States (well that and backwards regression from more optimistic generations which happens a lot thanks to the failings of modern education systems and urban groupthink) and in that regard are not actually an American in any social sense. Being an American is a philosophic value, not an origination one. Both black and white men can be in a social sense alien to America even being born in it. (that also doesn't mean supporting the government or public system, it means supporting the founding principles even when the system itself betrays it, which is common among American politics, the American founders explicitly wrote the 2nd amendment for that very purpose and said such in every reference they made pertaining to the 2nd amendment) As for how you've not assimilated, I can't make a judgement on a personal level, only a philosophic one, however that's kinda the basis for the personal one at the end so I will say it can be telling. What I do see is a failure to recognize values of being an American and what that actually means. Many take citizenry for granted but those who like their citizenship but despise (or misunderstand) the values don't actually retain any of the value that having the citizenry would mean. They merely seek either to be left alone and be apathetic to the world, coasting along life (a common methodology) or they seek an objective in envy, desiring the product of another's work. (the equality methodology) Both manners of perspective care not for values but care only for themselves alone, which will inherently collapse the system to a tyrant should it continue. (as it has done in civilizations past) As for a resolution what I say is your best objective is to learn history, understand what made the civilizations not only fall, but what made them free or enslaved. (and just as much in the sense to a government as to an actual chain) For example Rome was bound to become the tyrannical empire it did because it relied upon the state itself and made sure all those involved did as well, you could not live without the state provisions and thus anyone could take singular control of the state. (though they'd never believe how reliant we would become of it now, which I find humorously grim) Then you need to apply the template of those civilizations to ours contextually. That alongside aligning values with the United States founders in conception of the state would be the most important manner to growing to assimilate. Personally I would prefer that any illegal alien descendant go back to their ethnic nation and go through the proper channels to become actually legal but there is no manner of doing that (because the leaders of the United States are weaklings that can't stand for shit) and even if their was many people wouldn't actually be able to with serious risk and detriment to their life. However that's also a philosophic moral perspective, one that politics doesn't follow anyway. For now understanding American values and the process of the future plausible American fall will do well enough. I do not think you have to be a conservative either to be an American in the social sense, (one part contribution being I'm not, I'm an anarcho-capitalist who believes in a balance of progression and conservation in social evolution, even though I'm more of a radical right wing) but personally I have a hard time thinking a left leaning character can walk the path of both the progressive and the American because the former can not on its own justify a conservationism of American values justly that won't soon conflict with the progressiveness. Personally I hate the concept of left vs. right because I don't believe it actually represents a valuable classification, it basically describes the right as radically dogmatic while the left is radically anti-dogmatic which is just a foolish manner. Like for example a classical liberal in the 16th-17th century was left wing (because his perspectives were distinct from the social mainstream) but a classical liberal in the 19th-21st century is basically a radical right wing, (because his perspectives are a core tenet of the social mainstream) its too relative which is bad for classifiers. In this regard I don't like referring to progressives vs. conservatives because everyone is dogmatic and conservative on something, its just a matter of where the line is, there is no such thing as a total progressive because "progress" never ends, and progress doesn't necessitate good or bad. This is why I rather refer to myself by my objective values instead of my relative ones, so I'm an anarcho-capitalist and individualist that would in the least defer to a small state originalism, an infinite state Balkanisation, and other novel concepts like absolution of government from all direct forms of life including healthcare, business, drug management, ect. There is plenty to add to that but I've already rambled a ton. Also the history of American Indians can be quite interesting in many aspects, it really depends on where you focus the effort in research.
    3
  795. Except when it comes to C++.
    3
  796. Oh so conveniently ignores the schools part, despite 75% of the drag queen story hour being done by the local public schools.
    3
  797. Good opsec: Watch what you do Better opsec: Watch who you piss off
    3
  798. The funny thing is, as a Reformed (Calvinist) Christian that relies on presuppositional apologetics, the refutation basically results in telling them "you don't have any foundation to say what good is and your presuppositions are worthless and refute themselves", it becomes thus trivial to call them out for bullcrap and otherwise completely ignore them, I don't give any credence to them having any valid rationality behind them in such cases. But this only works if you understand what presuppositional apologetics is, you use this argument without understanding your own foundation and while some folks will fold, those with half a brain will actually assault your position and without a decent foundation, they will undermine your claims and make you look like the fool.
    3
  799.  @a.39886  That's still utilitarian morality, which is invalid by literally all theological principals that aren't themselves nihilist, pleasure and pain do not define morality and you don't define morality by the amount of pain and pleasure you spread, the same applies to eternal punishment, your eternal punishment applies regardless of your attempt to "be moral" by this standard because its not a morality. It also doesn't fix the issue because those who are to be are predestined in the knowledge of God, they will be conceived whether you like them to or not, even if they are not given specifically to you, those who will be are known to God, it is not as if they do not exist before they are conceived, they were known before they were conceived, so even if the utilitarian claim could ignore the moral standard, its invalid by its own principal anyway and doesn't address its own claims, it only works by your own metric of knowledge, not by what God already has given.
    3
  800.  @a.39886  "Why would you worship a god that send children to hell to experience eternal torture on hell because they were supposedly born with sin?" This is a completely irrelevant question, this does not impact my justification for worshiping God at all, the problem with this question is you presume I came to faith on the basis of this question or that it held relevance, but the relevance of this question only comes after we define a morality, not before it, and without God there is no morality for which I can define this even as bad, and in faith I then came to understand that foremost we are all born in sin, not because God decided anything, but because we decided to sin, God did not have us sin, He warned us of our sin, and further wrote this warning on our hearts, yet we rejected this and as well we reject Him. It is this choice that has condemned us. The children have been born into the same sin that despises God, but they could be born because God loved them enough to allow some to be born and to live. Those who lose their life will be assessed or judged in accordance with God's perfect judgement, and as He is perfect and defines the morality, that is by its very nature moral. I have no right to say to God "why have you done this thing" for who am I to say I defined morality? There is no universal nor objective morality unless He says unto me what it is. Your question becomes nonsense. "In your logic everything that god commands is moral if he order you to kill children, would you follow god`s order?" If I test the Spirit and it is from God, then I would listen to God, but the problem with this question is that God has expressly told us that any spirit that demands this is not His. There are cases where God has called His people to kill another wicked people, like the Israelites upon the Canaanites. This however is itself a quite specific and explicit command that God had given in a time that is no longer with us, so no longer are we instructed to uphold such a way. God grants us to act in peace since the coming of the Son, for we are not under the same obligation of the rituals and ceremony to be pure the same way that the Israelites were pure, as the Spirit is not set upon our hearts. This peace means He no longer will ever make such a demand, and it already never applied to specifically targeting children. So again this is a faulty question. "1) this God wasn`t forced to created anything he was all perfect didn`t need for one, he was complete by himself" That is not place for which He could give love and demonstrate glory, there was no justice nor peace, it was not that which God wished for, and so it Creation was made. "2) then this God know beforehand by creating he will make something he finds abominable (sin):" He did not create anything abominable, sin was not by His Hands, God had only made good things, but through free will evil entered Creation and by this free will corruption was given in the Fall by Original Sin. God did not make it this way, it was by His love and grace that it had to happen, for God so loved us that He allowed us to sin and yet still offered us salvation. It is our fault that we do not take it. God is just, and justice cannot punish a crime not yet committed, for then it is not a crime, all crimes that God punishes have already been committed. And these crimes were not his responsibility, the knowledge to an act does not make you responsible nor complicit in the act, especially when you know that the act must be done for good to take place. "3) Due to his will of creating something he doesn`t want most of his creation will be doomed to eternal suffering." Well foremost only man and the angels are capable of a will to be condemned, everything else mourns in this time for the Fall and will be restored like new in the New Heavens and New Earth, they have no moral value to say they are condemned and they will not eternally suffer. Now in focusing on man, men that are against God would not choose God and God intended not to choose them. They condemned themselves, God did not make them condemned, He judges them for their sin. "3) At the same time this God don`t want anyone to be in eternal pain, and free to not create and doesn`t need to create anyone." This is completely wrong, God does not take pleasure is the death of a sinner, but He is just and thus those condemned He desires to punish should they not be of the elect, because they refused Him. Again you presume a morality you have no right to hold. This utilitarian morality is irrelevant to God, God takes no regard of pleasure and suffering, in fact He willingly suffered the eternal condemnation for us, there is no morality related to either premise. "4) If this God would be real this God won`t create something in the first place... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" Your premise is faulty, you presume before God there exists a utilitarian morality, which is nonsense which God comes first before morality. There is no morality before God and morality only comes after God. "The existence of this concepts against the supposed nature of this God is evidence that he is not "real or the true god"." No, you constantly presumed a false premise and applied strawman and red herrings, which in this case are actual fallacies. It sounds more to me you haven't actually even bothered to read what I read because you are an anti-theist with an objective of opposing, in this case, all Christological arguments without consideration for their validity because you have a presumed agenda, given you also presume the morality I carry and claim that you have a superior morality based entirely on utilitarian motives, which itself is neither objective nor universal, and by this conversation alone demonstrates its lack of universality. Not to mention that utilitarian morality is inherently self-refuting. "It`s quite unnerving how you write this all with that level of confidence, I suggest you read what you have answer, I think you have been indoctrinated in some form of fear of the of this supposed "god", ask yourself with total honestly about your beliefs, so you can know if you are believing in "The real God and the real religion"." Its neither a confidence nor a knowledge. I have been granted grace, it is irresistible, the Holy Spirit has been set upon me, there are no doubts, no questions that lead me against God because He is that which defines Truth and all natures of Truth and it can only be found pure in Him, those that do no reside with Him are only capable of attaining a limited Truth for they have the Imago Dei in them to know some but they are blind to full Truth because the Spirit is not in them which would grant them the wisdom necessary for Truth, this is not concealed in secret, it is openly spoken and willingly given to you but you cannot receive it. But those who have received grace openly receive these things and conceal nothing. I have no indoctrination for I was not taught by a man but was brought by God, there is no one who brought me before God except God Himself, and it is only by Him that I know these things.
    3
  801.  @himagainstill  The only reason the XZ could happen was because of those patches, none of the backdoors could activate on the distros that didn't ship a patched systemd, the most prominent being Arch. The other half of the issue is that binary files included in the upstream source repo didn't ever trigger any flags when it really should have, that type of behavior shouldn't have been permitted in the first place, you can't fully validate behavior if its in a binary format, if git code review could review said binary files then perhaps it be less of a concern, but even then the content of the binary file needs to be full observable and inert.
    3
  802.  @arthurmoore9488  You don't need to perform tests for every build and you don't need to include them in your release builds, you shouldn't need to do that in the first place and that was half the problem. I've never seen a case where FOSS projects needed every single release to be compiled at the same time with a binary blob of any kind, if you need tests with binary files, it should be a separated thing from your release CI, literally every big name FOSS project does that, if you can't that's purely incompetence. Also the makefiles aren't an issue without the binary data, as I told you before, but you seem to have a reading disability, if you can't distinguish between a bug and malice, there is simply nothing you could have done, but the issue here wasn't something that couldn't be distinguished that way, it was the allowance of binary data and the injection of behavior into systemd by distros, the vulnerability was open long ago, it was just a matter of time for someone to use these manners to accomplish this, the makefiles aren't a vector for an attack by themselves, you can't make a makefile malicious by itself in a way that isn't gonna set off alarm bells. (unless you modify make or the other automation tools, which if you're already doing that, messing with makefiles is the least of your damn problem at the point)
    3
  803.  @skia5635  I don't think FLOSS is gonna take off compared to FOSS especially since Libre doesn't change the concept semantically, its a redundant qualifier.
    3
  804.  @run2cat4run  She doesn't admit to any individual fault. And also she never involved family in her marriage.
    3
  805. From a logical standpoint, Keynes evaluations of deflation only work in reference to extremes, (and even then only function in an economic interventionist government that lacks a value standard like gold or silver) and his economic models were actually hugely off base from reality as time goes on, and many that adopt his models also tend towards pushing to more government interventionist extremes, which tends to also hamper economies more then improve them.
    3
  806.  @merryhunt9153  It means I choose who I will and won't associate with freely, whether I'm the employer or employee, so if I don't want to work, I don't have to work, but if I don't want you to work for me, I don't have to employ you. And it goes back to even before John Locke and was iterated by every American founder.
    3
  807.  @TheQueen-sw4th  "How does it attempt to become more efficient when it calls for infinite growth in a world with finite resources?" First off it doesn't, this is fallacious thinking, there is no such thing as infinite growth, all markets grow to equilibrium of their environment, it fits to the environment it is within, if there was infinite growth, all markets would reside at the same level of development (meaning Rural America, Urban America, Urban Europe, all of Africa, and all of Asia would all look exactly the same in terms of development) at all times because all markets would consume the whole of the world. (and there's plenty of other reasons and demonstrations of that being objectively untrue but lets leave it at that as its easier to do) Secondly there is no conceptual recognition of finite resources because resources are generated by every developing sources, only in the evaluation of thermodynamics is any resource finite but by any metric of market usage resources are not finite, if a resource becomes wasted it will be replaced, perhaps the market will shift, but it will changed and adapt resulting in a practical conception of infinite resources. So the premise of both perspectives of already incorrect assumptively. (also this is why natural markets search for efficiency, competition drives efficiency because if you are more efficient you compete better and win the race, this is the basis for survival of the fittest and it applies equally to capitalism) "Also corporations pollute in most countries especially in the third world, in countries with a lot of environmental regulations like Scandinavian countries and other social democracies, there is less nation wide pollution." Again this is a faulty assumption. Do they pollute because they're third world or because they're unregulated? Well lets take a bigger question here, who says they have unregulated markets? Sure they might be relaxed on environmental regulations but where does it say that lack of environmental regulations are the only contributor to encouraging a company to pollute the environment? See you make an assumption here without understanding market forces either. Now lets ask something else, what correlates the most with pollution? Being a poor low industry nation right? Should we not perhaps ponder that a poor low industry nation would be more crude in its industrial development, resulting in lower efficiency and higher pollution? What happens if a nation is unable to develop beyond that say do to government interference? Would they not stay that way as a result of government regulation? So if the market can't develop, can't become more efficient, and the invisible hand can naturally deposit wealth throughout the market environment, we could easily assume that that market would continue to pollute. Keep in mind that nations that regulate pollution like that lose out on wealth development as it takes time for society and the local technology and wealth to develop in order that it supports the market's capability. I remember this, if you give a poor man a lottery ticket for 50 million dollars, he will burn all the money and go bankrupt and possibly burn much if not all the bridges he has in at most a few years, this has be statistically demonstrated to constantly be the case. So why then should we expect a wider society of that same status not suffer similar issues if we don't let them develop on their own? Our environmental regulations in the West are luxuries we only get after the 19th and 20th century having such high development and the wealth generated in the past 6 centuries of western expansion. It is unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to follow that model at the same exact time and then condemn them for it. "Once American became lenient in its regulations in the 80s, pollution in the US has gotten worse" It didn't get lenient, as business regulations still hampered the market and only became more strict and discouraging of efficiency, (and a lot of environmental regulations got stricter compared to the 80s) and we've always had much of these pollution issues. Our markets have become less competitive in the past 6 decades, not more.
    3
  808. Because if you panic, the toxic stuff will consume you. The end.
    2
  809.  @reachcole514  Impossible from the worldview of an anti-spiritualist sure, which by itself is only a worldview, (an ironically intolerant one in this case given this ideal wasn't even feasible nor practical until well after the Enlightenment) and not one you can demand someone else to conform to.
    2
  810. I agree, humanity needs more of this type of thought, I agree wholeheartedly with this comment.
    2
  811. I do wonder if this isn't divine providence, its pretty clear abstinence is a very valid solution to abortion and since a pro-abortionist is advocating abstinence in ignorance it does point to a very ironic and comedic plan coming from on high. I also find it funny how nobody will admit the statistical and other proven health defects that come with promiscuity and abortion, its especially terrible for women to go seeking casual sex. I hope this reduces that but it likely won't do anything at all.
    2
  812. Two things: 1. I don't defend a flag, its simple logic, if I don't have faith, knowledge is worthless, but if I don't have knowledge, faith is still of value. Knowledge without faith has neither love nor morality. By faith I can know whats right and true while reflecting the attributes of the clearly higher meaning that is plainly obvious. So beyond the presupposition which determines my worldview which we all have and that neutrality is itself a myth there is no absolutely no case you can make for value in a knowledge without foremost something else giving value to that knowledge for which I cannot be the master over. (if we are masters over it then it is neither provably true nor objective and neither can be applied beyond that singular individual, making it a useless argument except for self-justification) Its as well not just a rational but an emotional argument, without this there is no beauty, goodness, or justice either. Science cannot supplant faith, it has to be informed foremost by faith. Your faith thus needs to inform origins, for history can only be known by observation and recording, there is no other objective metric to know history. Any presupposition of knowing history requires presumptions which you can't prove historically, only so claimed momentarily. 2. Irreducible mechanics disprove an incremental development for origins rationally, (as in order for incremental development to be correct, there must be absolutely no mechanics that can't be reduced) so if you can prove an irreducible mechanic at any point you can clearly demonstrate an impossibility for incremental development, there are numerous recognized examples in fact of this as well, like the human knee, peacock feathers, the eyeball, and the forms of flight for birds, in each of these cases none of the mechanics can independently serve a purpose and only function when unified in their entirety at the same moment, Darwin as well recognized this and said that should any case be demonstrated in the discovery of irreducible mechanics in biological systems it would nullify his entire hypothesis and that there would be no capacity to fix it.
    2
  813. That was specifically the fault of OBS not registering the trademark.
    2
  814.  @yapdog  99% of the time its because people completely ignore the standard, while UB may or may not work in some version of GCC, there isn't a version where lack of UB failed, that's supposed to be one of the reasons for a linter. And that's why I deliberately try to avoid UB unless I am required to use it.
    2
  815. C++ modules are sort of solving that issue by basically "semi-compiling" modules into a kind of C++ "bytecode" (unique to each module interface, opening a new compatibility layer between API and ABI that so far only applies to each individual C++ compiler) however it eliminates the template problem while compiling it to a nearer low level language that can be more rapidly compiled down to a machine code level. There are a lot of nice things about this, like the separation of global scope for each module including the C preprocessor, and an even more performant incremental build system, but there are annoyances that it comes with too.
    2
  816.  @strykerbobby3873  "I’ve been a JW for 22 years. I was raised one and have been in service hundreds of times." Had a few friends who were born into it and reached the age of early to mid 20s too. (and as far as was aware did not leave it, least they did not tell me such) Also dealt with speaking the Biblical text to them for years. "So I’m sure I know more than some guy who asks someone some questions." Aside from that you also make an appeal to accomplishment fallacy by claiming your experience defines what actually happens. Its also anecdotal and does not demonstrate a truth which by pointing back to is a reiteration of said fallacy. "And yes we believe in God the father Jesus the son and the Holy Spirit. Now may not believe it in the same way as some." "Like Jesus isn’t directly God because if he was why would he pray to God which would be himself." Because of the Trinity, One being in Three persons, Jesus is not the Father who is not the Holy Spirit who is not Jesus, but they are all God, you can't even use the word Trinity unless you accept that, and Jesus was demonstrating the glory of God and the instruction for man, and that's only the tip of the iceberg of why Jesus did such. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, He was given to us so that we may follow Him, so He had to be like us just as He was to be God. To believe otherwise means you can't believe in Jesus because the translation literally says: "Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” - John 10:25-30 “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." - John 14:1-14 We know this is reliable because scholars of Aramaic validate the translation word for word, and multiple different variation translations alongside historical demonstration of the text in its oldest forms demonstrate that it was saying just that. Dr. James White is one of the many scholars that not only speaks to the authenticity of the Biblical text as translated among the versions like the ESV and NKJV logically and rationally, but also can and loves to read the text in its original languages, (for he knows Aramaic and Koine Greek) the variants for which we have access to all say the same and reiterate the same language. There are plenty of translations that were formulated as personal interpretations of the text but none of them had investigation upon the original forms of the text from their original languages, and were heavily criticized for failing to account for any of the documented text even in their time. "That just doesn’t make any sense." If something you read can not be understood by you, that doesn't make it untrue, that merely means you don't understand it. You are not allowed to make an assumption that something does not make sense because you can't make sense of it, you are polluted by the world and have a bias among the world for which understanding may be hidden from you. Do not by taken by a philosophy of your own understanding for your reason is not God's reason, do not make God into your own image. God has done such things many times, hidden truth and wisdom from man, both in and outside the faith, for there are times for wisdom to be granted and times for it to be hidden. It is wisdom itself to understand such things. Jesus demonstrates many times in his ministry where He hides Himself from the people as they try to kill Him. This is God concealing Jesus from the eyes of the wicked for it was not His time. God will conceal many things, including His own glory (Proverbs 25:2, Deuteronomy 29:29) just Moses and the Prophets had done for the sake of the people. "I doubt you’ve ever been to a Kingdom Hall or out to service as a JW so don’t talk like you know something." You attack me but do not refute me with reasonableness. Proclaiming yourself as authoritative but without reason does not speak to truth. "You talking about me copy and pasting lol you literally copy and pasted your whole comment." I don't see where I said that. Would you happen to have a quote of what I said? Also the only things I copy into my comments are the Word of God, the Bible, which all things must spawn knowledge and wisdom from to conceive understanding, and comments for which I refer to in order to respond. So unless you want to argue that God's Word doesn't speak truth and should not be referenced in which case you'd have no argument, or that speaking to arguments and context should not be done, which would make discussion pointless as it would undermine a capability to understand what I am speaking to, I have done nothing wrong in copying text. After all they are both for reference and understanding.
    2
  817.  @hglundahl  "Which is heretical. The Scriptura herself accepts Scriptura in Ecclesia cum Traditione. Therefore, accepting Sola Scriptura is in itself problematic."" How and where? You don't get to just claim this and not actually present this fact. Also by what standard? Who is the authority? "However, the Lutherans do much worse than that when attacking "works salvation" aka as "sola fide" and "sola gratia"."" The Bible does not describe salvation in works, James didn't argue with this (people fallaciously read into the text without an exegetical analysis, they don't understand why the fathers of the faith, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit directly, would keep James and Paul right next to each other) but people make the claim that when he says "faith without works is dead" that he is saying you must do works to have faith. Well no, foremost James does not describe that you must have works to have faith, this is not a logical statement that James makes, (in fact it makes little sense for you can not do works of faith without faith for said works) even further Paul refutes this while agreeing with James in that "faith without works is dead" in Galatians. Jesus had also said it in Matthew when He said "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16) for He was speaking about the works to discern both evil and good. There is no where in the Bible for which it says you are saved by works, there is constant reiteration that by faith you will be saved. "Yeah, Sola Fide started the Lutheran cult, as an offshot of Catholicism, some time between 1517 when Luther was more Jansenist than Lutheran, and 1522, when he really started to reform Wittenberg." You don't even attempt to be fair to your opposition. That's insulting. Its not an offshoot, also there's a different between heretical and apostate, heretics can't be saved in their faith, apostates can be. "It has made Catholic martyrs in Sweden, Denmark, and via Anglicanism (only partly inspired by Luther) in England too." The Catholic church killed many people unjustly too, Jan Hus being only one of many martyr for heresy, if opposition to killing or murderous acts of those who claimed to be anything of in a faith were to decide anything for me I could not have a single faith, even the Hebrews killed people both justly and unjustly, they martyred many prophets and they killed Jesus, that included some who followed Jesus, or if we're truly honest, WE KILLED JESUS DIRECTLY. If that decided who I was to believe in then there's no reason to believe. This is a plead to emotion argument and is an irrelevant fallacy. Also it violates the understanding of context and being of the time, you will not find a many people of those times that did not support killing of heretics. (which does violate what Jesus spoke about, never once did He preach evil upon heretics and heathens) The opposition of executing heresy and heathenry is a new concept that only came out of the Reformed churches first. "they don't believe the original Biblical text as it was written in the first century in the original languages was inspired by God, they had to modify the text to get their cult behaviors." "Both they and Tyndale and Luther all modified the text," Where? At what point did they not refer to the translations of the text they had access to, which was starting to include the Greek versions over the Latin. This result in more variants alternate to the Latin which clarified and specified the text better. "and all of above also claim to give a translation directly from the original languages. Why do you believe Martin Luther but not Nathan H. Knorr? Because Nathan violates the nature of Scripture and is not a Koine Greek and Aramaic scholar and he didn't build the original texts the JW used, they're older then 1922, there is no reason he'd be relevant. Luther made everything he claimed in accordance with Scripture and made reference to Scripture and Faith. He was capable to reference the languages he was translating from. "and to get rid of a proof text Mary was totally free from sin." Where is it claimed she is? There is nowhere in the text that collaborate that she was free of sin, being a virgin is not a lacking of sin, she was still born of a man, and sin comes from the inheritance of being born of the First Adam, hence one of the just descriptions God gives for Jesus' body to be born without sin, he was not born as a descendant of Adam. "I read his "Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen" while still a Lutheran, helped to decide my conversion."" I'm not a Lutheran and I agree that there were still plenty things Luther got wrong, but what he got right and wrong doesn't justify saying he wasn't inspired by God, you can't make that claim by what he said. I rather claim all versions of Protestantism are cults, outside the true Church. Also true of Judaism, Islam and Freemasonry. That's just wrong, you don't know what the definition of a cult is then. Again disingenuous and deceptive. "I wasn't speaking about bravery as a God-given grace-virtue, I was speaking about bravery as a human quality. Beowulf did not know his Maker either, and yet he was brave." "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8 God has no regard for human evaluations. It is irrelevant to topic at hand. "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." - Galatians 1:10 "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." - Romans 12:2 “Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their revilings." - Isaiah 51:7 "Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God." - John 12:42-43 "I'm aware Lutherans are not iconoclasts, but Calvinists are. I am sorry I presumed you were Calvinist. My bad." I am a Calvinist but I also don't entirely agree with Calvin (as an example he wished the death of heretics, which is not the love for which Jesus spoke, there were Calvinist associates of Calvin at that time that disagreed with Calvin on seeking the death of Jacobus Arminius, and other heretics) just as I don't entirely agree with Luther, I relegate in accordance by the Holy Spirit what is and is not right for me to have and do which is to what some of them spoke of, another example being Augustine who was also wrong about many things, I do not judge those that came before me as lacking an inspiration and faith even when they sinned, for they have helped bring me to faith, for who am I to tell God they were condemned if I too am a man of my time? I do not have authority over the heart and will not condemn someone simply because of the acts they took in time, condemnation can not be retroactively applied to the heart in man, I will condemn the acts themselves and the thoughts they had, but I can't condemn the heart, only God has that capability. I am produced as a part of subject of those that come before for which I am entered not into a church but The Church which is the Bride of Jesus who is the Bridegroom for the Church. "Giving latreia to angels or to symbols (meaning symbols like icons or crosses, a Lutheran cannot pretend the Eucharist is "a symbol" and nothing more!) would be idolatry, you have failed to show Catholics guilty thereof." Latreia is reverence, which you aren't supposed to give to any before God. As an example, if you pray to Saint Anthony, for that's what it is, you don't get to manipulate definitions, if you bow your head in submission to something and give it reverence, you are praying to it, to find something you lost, you have committed idolatry, my father and I were once Catholic, they give reverence to the image of Mary as though she was without blame and was God. She is indistinguishable in character, being, and person from the rest of mankind, for she was still of man and was filled with sin, just as her sons were. Only Jesus was without sin, and He says much same. "And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." - Mark 10:17-18
    2
  818.  @mskiptr  "My point is it's not like that just to annoy you" Don't know why you'd phrase it like that, I don't expect it to be for me, I just hate the language syntax, clearly it was never supposed to appeal to me because I like C++ and C# way more. "because it's all hippie and different." My issue is there are at least 5 newer low level languages and every single one of them reads almost the same and do almost the exact same thing and none of them share anything with C or C++ in syntax, and there is some religious cult that surrounds them where criticism tends to turn into insults and unnecessarily harsh words. I don't mind if some new low level languages do Rust, but every single one of them doing the exact same thing, it pisses me off and people keep raving about it. "There are reasons and it does make sense" Which I know and find wrong, bad, or poor. I don't agree for even a second that Rust as it is needed to be designed the way it is to function most especially as a C alternative.
    2
  819.  @TechJolt3d  "Rust syntax is verbose as all hell." Necessary verbosity doesn't bug me, unnecessary verbosity does. Rust has a massive amount of unnecessary verbosity on that front, in C++ we have a solution to most of it coming at least, Rust has yet to even consider it. "If i had a guess as to why they used let, its probably because they want you to rely on type inference, not on explicitly identifying the type." C++ has auto and it does literally the same thing with also the capacity to provide type specification modifiers too, like references, mutable, and pointers. "I think they want you to use the type identifier very, very rarely." Two reasons this doesn't work and is dumb, I'll use Godot as an example. They banned the use of all type inference in their style guide. Simple reason why, they don't want to force anyone to require reading with a full semantic analyzer just to review code, type inference makes code review a hell because it requires otherwise unnecessary dependencies to perform code review and its easy to hide behaviors in that, especially when you have polymorphic types. This causes problems for reading code especially when explicit declarations could be just as if not shorter then type inference which is necessary for multi-person projects. If a project like Godot which tries to be easy to understand and simple, were to use something like Rust they would still need to ban the use of type inference because of that reason making the whole let thing literally interfering with the design of the project. That aside it also creates a disconnect between class variables and other variables where none need exist, the distinction makes little sense specifically because they are both variables that share the same everything, the only difference being where they're located which I disagree is a justification for a distinct declaration shape, its more things to remember without qualitative reason to.
    2
  820. This is what we call a micro-optimization, its a useless tactic for most things (excepting that the behavior would be impossible to perform in the first place without the optimization) and you should wait until the polish phase of software development, this may result in "completing" projects without that polish phase, but the point of that is you got a working piece of software, extra resource use is not a problem that prevents functionality of the software, its just a nice quality of life improvement.
    2
  821.  @BrodieRobertson  In that case it feels like we're repeating the mistakes of the past and learned nothing from X11 and xorg. Insanity is repeating something and expecting a different result seems applicable here.
    2
  822. The problem with claiming this is that his subreddit is having all criticism be deleted and all comments criticizing him also being deleted and labelled as alt-right spam.
    2
  823. Coincidence? I think NOT! :P
    2
  824. TIK, every single economic video you put out becomes my new most favorite video, this is the type of stuff we need and with the most comprehensive list of references I've ever seen.
    2
  825. Fediverse is massive left wing already, and its always had that problem, that leftoid problem is likely why it also has such a massive pedophile and CP problem. Literally second and third most popular Fediverse instances are always full of CP, leftoids really love to have sex with kids it seems.
    2
  826. Nobody should be surprised if the CCP locked dudes down and milked them to be fair.
    2
  827. I will always find it kinda dumb that gnome wants to be hyper-locked down in complete violation of the platform they are supposedly developing for. Sure a well designed experience is nice, but the first desire really should be to service the user, not to be perfect, for its the enemy of good.
    2
  828. It very likely happened before since Jonah didn't exactly have a ministry as much as a single sermon that likely happened immediately after the eclipse.
    2
  829.  @chris_s22  There isn't anything that tells us whether it was before or after historically, but this sign regarding Jonah seems to make little rational sense to happen after Jonah because it wouldn't immediately convince the inhabitants to repent until it did happen, and God most probably did not commit the eclipse during his time in Nineveh, as Jonah probably already would've looked immensely strange due to the acid from the fish which contribute to convincing the locals something strange was going on. First the sun darkens and then a man with acid bleached skin and who was likely bald saying to repent (and there may possibly be other local smaller signs, like perhaps a minor earthquake) would freak the locals out, especially if the locals of Nineveh were worshipers of the pagan fish god Dagan who would now see a man of God who had clearly come out of the the stomach of a fish (as mockery of Dagan) telling them to repent of their sins. Also a time of 40 something (in this case days) is a sign of existing or coming distress and an eclipse likely would've followed within 40 days before Jonah appeared. (I would hold probably just about 40 days before Jonah appeared)
    2
  830. C++ works specifically because you can use C when you need to and then output a C linkable elements using extern "C", so you can use no cost abstractions in C++, like unique_ptr is a no cost abstraction so long as the destructor is trivial and so long as you use the default delete function. There is no reason not to use unique_ptr in such code because it costs you even less then nothing in C-like C++, which honestly you should just be using good C++ practices, but whatever.
    2
  831. It seems to me that the more I live, the more obvious it starts to become to others around me that evil thrives when you compromise with it, the question then begs "but what is evil" and I see it as a clear indication that the Bible is clear.
    2
  832. As far as statistics from April go, it really wasn't even remotely bad, most of the fear was developed from the rare complications, and in most cases it was senior home recklessness. (and from what we know of the May statistics so far, that didn't change)
    2
  833. I kinda am wishing to make communist as much a "swear word" as nazi and start having that thrown around, funny enough they're actually communists unlike the "nazis" they keep fake outraging over.
    2
  834. Mentiswave has a good video explaining how we got here.
    2
  835. Its also a really bad solution, its a brute force solution to a player behavior issue and they simply don't want to put any time or work on addressing the player behavior, they're doing the stupid and dangerous method because they think its easier, in reality its because it generates more money for third-parties and the first-parties don't know enough to consider the issue at all.
    2
  836.  @duckymomo7935  You do realize that Steve Ditko was a conservative objectivist right? The guy co-created Spider-man and created Doctor Strange. (and wrote some of the best bits of Iron Man)
    2
  837. @ "It is my program, my responsibility. Nobody dare to remove or omit code I wrote from MY program." Follow the standard and that's guaranteed with the as-is rule. No matter the language if you don't follow the standard, no compiler has the obligation to produce expected results. Its pretty simple and easy to follow the standard so you're without excuse especially when we have linters for this.
    2
  838. @ "Compiler MUST compile every my command, as is. Otherwise it is bad compiler." That's not remotely true in any language. That's only true in an assembler, stop writing in a programming language if you want that.
    2
  839.  @jjc5407  If anyone cares about the comics, the funny thing is the Speedforce only exists because of Barry and he is also the lightning that gave Barry his powers. And yes this is still (kind of) canon.
    2
  840.  @M3TALG0DS  That's a false conclusion and an ignoratio elenchi fallacy. No you're not. Nobody is obligated to employ you, you are responsible for taking care of yourself, if you can't do that, that's your fault.
    2
  841. The only rap that could maybe work with Doom is hardcore metal rap fusion, and even then that's pretty niche and hit or miss. Mick Gordon or Slayer, Venom, something Djent or Thrash just would work so much better.
    2
  842. To be honest, I don't find "Not attempt to profit from open-source or other software that is otherwise generally available for free" all that reprehensible, like I don't know almost anything about the Windows Store and even I knew that reselling of FOSS projects without the dev consent was a problem, and despite my absolute hatred of Microsoft, how this is read isn't all that bad. Now do I think its a great decision if they enforced it as written for that part? No, it makes no provision for an otherwise free project to officially be distributed for a price on the store like Krita, individuals should be allowed to set their price for that, but I don't think I can hate the idea if it was enforced as written. I don't see how its banning FOSS with this though, seems like massive overreach on what its actually doing, FOSS isn't being banned, even selling FOSS wasn't literally banned, only selling FOSS on the Windows Store when its otherwise free would literally be banned which isn't as bad. As for the second part "nor be priced irrationally high relative to the features and functionality provided by your product." is incredibly vague and describes no objective standard for how that will be enforced hence its stupid, but if that were under an intent, it still doesn't ban FOSS, all it really does imply is stop overcharging people for a below price product, which fair, I don't like having that provision either but outside the vague language I don't have a problem with the intent from a privately managed storefront.
    2
  843. Development in any field really does require someone to designate a cutoff point for ideas and features, save em for the next version, and in a case that the update would actually be able to work without blowing up.
    2
  844. If they weren't supported by the government, they would be smashed by the market, they are provided for and have no reliance on the market, monopolies exist when market reliance is removed from the equation, which only happens when a monopoly is standing somewhere behind those in the "market" in this case that being the government. The government pays money into corporations for which they are guaranteed to have or keep, and they receive many provisions to keep them where they are. Remove government intervention from the equation and you'll find a lot of competition pop up out of nowhere and the monopolies will quickly collapse.
    2
  845.  @sivvinod3187  Ha, I don't use a browser nor an OS owned by any of them. And I don't only use Youtube for video watching either. You're argument must be invalid since that was the only "logic behind it. "You like to say that but you don't realize that you'll lose all the GOOD things as well." What good things? "Regulation is the only option unless we want to go a few decades backwards in development." What justification, rational, or reason do you have for this claim? How can you demonstrate objectively that we would? Thing is you can't, and there is no reason for which you could believe such except a religion in government, that we call statism. You have never once lived in a free market and neither has any of your family that you've ever met, there has not been one person alive for near on 200 years who has lived in a free market. And neither do you understand the economic arguments nor the logical arguments regarding the free market, you're repeating propaganda.
    2
  846.  @sharpshark1158  Well one is a single cmp instruction (and probably a branch if you want it to do anything) with two registers being used while the other is a sub, cmp, and div at least (again with a probable branch if you want it to do anything) with at least 3 registers being used. Normally you'd say its at least 3 times as slow but div is also way slower then those other instructions, magnitude could be in the 10-15 times slower maybe, it depends on the div instruction cpu implementation. The div could be removed if you just use a constant epsilon value, which improves speed to only about half the regular equal and removing a necessary register use which is always better too.
    2
  847.  @regenbogentraumerin  "A person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins, this includes freedom of speech." You do realize this means when you infringe on someone else's freedom right? That means you are free so long as you are not restricting or infringing someone else's freedom, which speech by itself can not capably do, hence why this does not pertain to freedom of speech, there is a case that has been made with specific calls to actions like fire in a crowded theater, however a philosophically consistent application of that requires that as being only relevant when an individual has already been injured by the call to action, it does not pertain to the speech itself. There are plenty of other edge cases which otherwise boil down to civil disputes, but the gist of the matter is you can not argue legal authority for restricting speech if you value freedom. Nazism is not even covered under calls to actions anyway, and even if it was, it would require a crime have already been committed at the behest of the speaker. You can not justify jailing someone for speech otherwise. This is mostly how it operates in the US without contracts. (which you have to sign onto to make them legally binding) "It's fine to be critical and to question things, it's not to spread hate and try to lessen the terrible consequences the Nazi regime and the holocaust had on millions of people while they are proven to have happened." This is not freedom, by the very definition of freedom or liberty this is not free. "Hate speech" is free speech, or put in another way, any speech that can spread hate is covered under free speech and otherwise means you don't have freedom of speech. The foundation of the principle of free speech was devised from the get-go with this subject in mind, as Voltaire has been paraphrased as saying "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." which means even those who are detestable in society, including Nazis and Marxists, are humans with rights to say as they please regardless of the offense and hurt it may spread, for words are not stones. This is a very vital importance of speech and freedom. You can not free people from their mental prison of evil if you aren't allowed to argue them out of the prison. And restriction of free speech merely pushes the fringes and the unorthodox into the underground, just because you banned them doesn't mean they don't exist nor can't cause damage, it just means they can't be argued against and won't act openly to be argued against. A righteous society does not need to insulate itself from the vile nature of man, weak societies however must silence them. I say Germany hasn't changed, it will commit atrocities again because its a nation of people, acting as if you're responsible to stop something specific isn't gonna help, especially when you remove moralism from society. "Also, denying facts does not contribute valid points to a discussion, is does not lead to better solutions or a better life for anybody, not even the person speaking." I see you've never experienced the value of free speech either, nor are you a truly compassionate nor considerate character, for you do not consider those who you hate. It is easy to provide consideration for those you love or care little for, its easy to be consistent and kind, but the people who need that the most are your enemies, who are not unidentified collective blobs of evil you treat them as, and to save people from bad ideas you need to put time and consideration into who the people are and what they're experiences are. A neonazi does bring up some valid points even if their solutions are wrong just as a marxist can bring up some valid points even though his solutions are wrong. Those who can not accept this fact are living in a unnuanced world of incorrect black and white that does not exist. As there are subjects of denial that does bring up valid points, and even to an extent denial of facts too can bring up some valid points most especially because of opposition, even if to validate those facts or perhaps make us question if those facts truly are as so claimed. And sometimes, if you take up the Socratic method, you find out that not always does the fact stand up to scrutiny, perhaps neither do their worldview, but at that point you must admit that you don't have the answer and instead must figure them out for yourself. As a amateur logical debater with many years of hashing out my arguments to both fools and intellectuals alike, I can tell you that is a better manner of achieving wisdom, one which I can not do in the German law.
    2
  848.  @Firebear31  "in reality that doesn't work especially on those topics." Actually no, there is more proof against that claim then for it. "They have such a cancel culture" Cancel culture is a temporary result of American syndicalism (or crony corporatism) which without government intervention in the market would not exist, for two reasons. One the American government upholds corporations and raises them in economic and legal standing above normal business, and also marks them as immune to legal punishment, and two, the small American business generally has massive amount of regulations that massively raise the ceiling for starting a business thus reducing competition that could undermine this behavior. Also the big tech corporations controlling the public discourse is technically illegal, but nobody is filing a suit, if they did it be over instantly. This has nothing to do with free speech, also in current American law cancel culture is defamation and is very valid case. "spoiled/entitled unpolite people," Doesn't effect anything and I don't really care, spoiled people are the type of people I talk down to, unpolite people don't really make it as far as tv likes to act. Now fake people are a different story but that's not covered here, and it has nothing to do with free speech. "misinformation and all that crap that is getting harder and harder to see through with newer technologies like deepfake and such and people in general in the world being lazy and looking for easy ideas/solutions" Misinformation is left up to the individual to solve, I don't see how anyone else can solve it and I prefer that. Its up to each individual to solve their problems. That's what responsibility is, you can't have freedom without this responsibility. "Some may change their minds but that is not necessarily due to you teaching them/discussing with them but more because of personal events happening to those." Actually that doesn't often happen, its way more common for someone to be convinced out of it, like that man who convinced a hundred members of the KKK to stop being racist by merely debating and arguing them peaceably and considerately. There are plenty of cases where this has happened, I know a lot of people that I have either convinced to stop on specific thought trains or I have directly seen leave specific patterns of thought merely by our ability to speak to them. "There are problems with underground movements of course (NSU) but I think that wouldn't be better off when you could openly "discuss" the topic of the genocide with those." Free speech allows them to be public which actually reduces their capability because they're no longer martyrs and bold by just standing up, the less oppressed someone feels, the less need they feel to hold on to specific unacceptable beliefs, that's the core of most civilian revolts before the French Revolution. "The most people who e.g. say the holocaust is a lie or "critically think about it not being true" are not misinformed - they know their shit very well and they deny that." And that's their God-given right. "If I were to see a nazi in the US I would drag him to war memorials and tell him all those people died for him to be a fucking dickhead." I don't think you've argued with a very intelligent holocaust denier then, they exist, and they have a lot of historical context that does pose serious questions to consider that aren't entirely (sometimes not at all even) fabricated. And the memorials are limited in scope, they don't cover nuance nor do they give heavy context, most of the time its emotional manipulation which deniers (and neither a logical man) wouldn't regard. Personally I wouldn't be convinced by a plead to emotion anyway, if I was to start questioning the holocaust's existence with justifiably questions of the mainstream narrative and regular folks couldn't answer my questions, bringing me to a memorial or showing me pictures of the dead isn't going to convince me, you'd have to debate me with my questions. (just to clarify, I don't question its existence, that's a hypothetical, but I do question purpose, scope, and the mainstream interpretations and claims regarding it which I can very legitimately lead logical people to question if it was even real if they lacked certain bits of knowledge) "It just cannot be ever again." It will be done again, if you can't accept that you can and may even commit evil, then you are already susceptible to committing evil, if you don't accept the depravity of man, then you are already too depraved to stop it. "We don't forget in Germany just because you get in jail for openly saying you deny all holocaust and such." I have no idea what this is saying nor the intent of the statement. "We have memorials for the victims." Memorials are merely a temporary vestige to make us feel better about ourselves, also a good way to deflect evil. "We honor those, by not letting that hate get up again." You've already done so by promoting hate of men, if you don't love even the Nazis as people, then that behavior will always be capable of returning, evil resides in the hearts of guilt, shame, vengeance, and oppression. That is where tyranny rises. "That's what people should do with all the slavery statues in Uk and US." We have a binding Constitution in the US that prevents us from forcing our views on others and jailing people for dissents of state views. America is built on the principle of loving even our enemies because it is a Christian nation with Christian values at its core. This means we don't restrict the speech of someone no matter the topic of their speech. As an American I find it immoral that someone would do that and I would use violence with my firearms to ensure all our rights to say as we please. You'd need to kill upwards of millions of Americans to achieve this. Also most of the Confederate statues are about the causalities of the Civil War because both sides were Americans. "Replace it with victims - honor those who were wronged." They don't need it and we don't want it, our memorials for our wars pertain to our fallen soldiers, the slaves are not special and to treat them as if they were is foolish, not to mention that slave atrocities were not nearly as common as the mainstream narrative tries to claim, they weren't treated great, but there aren't any Auschwitz of slavery and outside of specific cases there isn't much emotionalism to pull from it. (and definitely nothing worth making a statue of) Instead we occasionally made a statue of the liberation of a slave, but they keep trying to burn those down because crazy people want to claim an abolitionist is having a slave kneel to him. "You can remember and have a discussion but you should lead it to the right direction. That's my opinion as it is how we were taught in school about that topic (like he said in the video)." I don't believe anyone should be taught what to think, critical think should be all that's necessary and I don't believe the state is capable of teaching that. Didn't work in Germany, the UK, France, or the US, I can pretty easily bet its gonna continue to not work. "Again, I agree with you on leading discussion and I would love that to work because I'm rather pacifistic and non-violent but it will just not work. There are people who are just plain evil." It does work, foremost if you have the right to bear arms, no one can threaten the liberty of a free nation. Also all men are pure evil, there is no good in man, I don't believe the government is capable of correcting that so I say take it out of their hands, especially since its not a legitimate role of government to do so. They are a punitive measure, not a preventative.
    2
  849. There is a difference between early and late Lutheran faith by the way, early Lutherans were responsible for the Protestant development of individualism, but after Luther died most Lutherean sects either went off the rails and became violent and angry or opened up to worldly acceptance and adopted worldly outlooks, unlike the Reformed mindset which least until the 1840s completely outright rejected worldly adoptions of any kind.
    2
  850.  @ryanhamstra49  People are inherently stupid, groups are as stupid as the dumbest link most of the time, its just the bell curve and natural tribalism, most people can not escape those pit falls. (while both bits are helpful and beneficial to the existence of mankind under natural circumstance, they also fail to solve problems with building complexity)
    2
  851.  @BenODen  Why is that relevant?
    2
  852. As someone with a schizophrenic bipolar mother, they can be absolutely driven to believe in absolutely deranged views of reality and it can trigger randomly and without any real reason, and such people can most certainly look like they're having a conversation with someone who doesn't exist or who isn't speaking, my mother's done it plenty of times, then she gets irritated and blows up accusing everything and everyone of being against her.
    2
  853. There is literally no reason for snaps to exist in their original form thanks to flatpaks, pretty sure every single side solution they made was better solved by things that aren't snap, they pretty much suck in every single way and even for general use they are worse then the alternatives. Also hardcoded functionality is literal stupidity.
    2
  854. Companies should start paying bonuses to employees that screw up security and report it immediately. They get docked if they're found to conceal or avoid reporting the incident, if it keeps happening with the same person though an audit should be done and if its determined they keep screwing up they should be put on probation or fired.
    2
  855. The cool thing that I'd say makes Godot's system stand above web tech is its trivial to design your own custom nodes in Godot and they are highly independent, whereas in the web tech you can't exactly design custom elements to function the same way and not easily and they're never independent. The only thing Godot currently doesn't have in its pocket yet is animated UI, the UI is extremely reactive, more then you can currently achieve with basically any other system with way better performance too, but animations are a pain specifically in container UI nodes: So containers are special UI control nodes that define how its children are shaped, act, and are organized. Like for example you have a tab container, where each child of the container is a separate tab you can show or hide by clicking on said tab. (think of the child nodes as each a web page for the tab bar) You can also make scalable reactive lists which adjust to screen size perfectly, we even have flow containers now too. But there is one issue with all of this. You can not animate the position or shape of a container's child because the container has full control over its size and shape. (there is a customizable minimum size for container children and it will always shrink to that min size if its more then default min size of the node, however it can be larger then the min size, we do not have a max size value) This means for recyclable animation behavior you need to hack it in and remove it from being a container child. I've pondered on a few methods to correct this, but otherwise haven't tried to correct it. There's another issue with UI similar but distinct from this and that's style resources also do not support animations, mostly for performance reasons. Styles expect that change would only happen if interaction is committed, this is okay if you make a shader animation for say ripples on clicking a button, but say you wanted to gradually change the color and/or shape of the button there is no method to ensure this, and neither can you create a continuous animation with styles and themes. This is the only issue I can think of with Godot's UI theming system. (and its not like the other UI toolkits don't suffer similar issues, it just sucks with Godot because its a game engine where this is quite useful functionality) You can relatively easily get around this behavior but that too is hacking around Godot and reducing the reliance on intrinsic behaviors found in Godot which is less performant, scalable, flexible, and accessible.
    2
  856.  @m.scottmcgahan9900  The problem with him is he studied part of the ancient language, the formal version of it most specifically, (as in the kind that philosophers and "intellectuals" of the day used) there's a number of things however he ignores in his claims about the ancient language as well as the history. (he also seems to ignore basic principals in the study of linguistics which is odd as someone who is supposed to know an ancient language)
    2
  857.  @m.scottmcgahan9900  One mistake he makes is he presumes the vocabulary he learned is not time nor context nor subject specific, anyone whose even spoken English for the past 20 years should know that's false, let alone someone supposedly studying an ancient language which its use spanned at minimum more then 5 centuries across an area larger then the Roman Empire's apex. I could logically refute his points on that basis alone, that is nothing something I should be able to trivially do because I'm not even that well educated in any of the topic.
    2
  858.  @m.scottmcgahan9900  Another mistake he makes is that he does not actually study any of the actual history behind the ancient languages, he might have studied some of the Ancient Greek's history perhaps (though clearly not the Koine Greek given he treats Ancient formal Greek and Koine Greek as synonymous when they we knew they weren't by the 1880s) but he absolutely has not studied Ancient Hebrew at all nor has he followed the history of the Ancient Hebrews, and he most especially knows nothing about the Tanakh as a whole, I'm not even sure if he realizes that the Torah is only a fraction of the Septuagint and most of our references of the Messiah as a term don't even exist in the Torah. Not to mention even the It kinda seems like he completely ignores the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim, the other two separations that the Ancient Hebrews had of their Scripture. Like we have ancient copies of documents in the Dead Sea Scrolls whose known age well predated Jesus by centuries and yet described irrefutable prophecy of Him.
    2
  859.  @algernonsidney8746  He's referring to how in the past it was a necessity for the society to be made of tight knit localized communities, in the pre-modern cities, there was still a concept of local community, but in the development of many modern and post-modern urban development, the ability to build even a recognizable community is difficult, often impossible even, instead in cities people often rely on their demographic application and even segregate themselves into demographic regions, most people in these places either associate with their job, their race, or rarely perhaps even their politics. And with the entering of modern urban development into rural zones too it has added this problem to them as well. Whereas pre-modern folks would know their neighbors and were identified by those that lived around and across from them, their physical location, modern urban development has made it so that those who live in your immediate vicinity are foremost someone you barely know and even worse someone you'll have no relation to, (as in you cannot actually empathize with them) and thus can't associate with.
    2
  860. The problem is this is mostly an AUR problem, which has a comment section people legitimately use to resolve package problems, the issue is how many people will blame the package's problems on the app maintainers when its the package distributor that probably messed up, its less helpful when a package isn't named in a manner that makes it clear that its not the main package, like with the godot game engine you've got godot and godot-mono, granted both are under official releases which makes sense.
    2
  861. What we need is a "metropolis" territory that separates itself like a new multi-enclave state but for high population density zones, where they can no longer influence states and can't join another state.
    2
  862.  @OthorgonalOctroon  There isn't a single scholar of antiquity history that doesn't see Creating Christ as anything but a scam. Also Bart Ehrman isn't a Christian, he also rejects miracles, and so do his associates, but at least with this he is absolutely correct.
    2
  863.  @OthorgonalOctroon  That's not unique to Bart, literally anyone that studies actual history regarding Christianity and antiquity would call you an idiot if you don't. There is literally no other historical accounts in history before at least the mid to late medieval period that are more reliable then the New Testament accounts, we have more historical documentation closer to the events then Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and Caesar combined and none of that would even be a 1/10th of the Biblical history documentation. (and none of them are written even within 200 years of the events, the New Testament is found to be within 70, meaning within the lifetime of the people)
    2
  864.  @DarthSathion  I don't believe you can call him a Gnostic, being a Catholic more then makes up for all his corrupt theology, Catholicism is after all quite apostate and rejects any basis in principle theology in accordance to the Biblical text and retain many rather heretical traditions and beliefs, (but since they developed this way and did not start as such that makes them apostate) it rejects Sola Scriptura entirely and has canonized apocrypha near on two millennia after the validation (as in the general collection of known NT and OT writings being fully combined) of the core of the New Testament writings in order to convince its subjects that its traditions which be opposed to the Biblical text be justified. And Tolkien's outlook in his stories and writings do not all that much violate traditional Catholic outlooks and traditions, they often celebrate it, after all Catholicism is as of now just a form of Pagan-Christian syncretism which it has been almost since the schism.
    2
  865.  @emawildchaos9861  That's fallacious argumentation, comparison of incomparables, that's a stupid response.
    2
  866. Its a scary thing to never know when the gun may fail at that point, that's way worse then promoting a non-functioning gun, least if the gun doesn't work at all you can learn that at the range or in a test really quick and everyone will say it never works, but if its able to fool you with a little testing and a single trip to the range only for it to fail when you need it, that literally means the gun got people killed.
    2
  867.  @chico9805  That's not what Scripture says.
    2
  868.  @DarrinSK  No one else has a definition for justice that does not rob from God.
    2
  869.  @bznng-he3rm  Superman and Batman don't do it at all.
    2
  870.  @anon_y_mousse  Yeah, as a C/C++ dev, I have a very negative disposition of Rust community already, and even further as a amateur language designer I absolutely hate the design of Rust, (even if I like some of its ideas) but this move from the foundation pushes me into wanting to kill Rust as a language, I am most certainly going to hold this over the head of everyone who tells me to use Rust from now on. (unless they commission/contract me to use it without getting my position or won't let me argue back I suppose, but that should be obvious that I'm not gonna argue against an employer paying me to do something)
    2
  871.  @joshkrause2977  Rome didn't create the Bible, the OT was laid up in the Temple and the NT was completely known before Rome let up on its persecution on the Christians, Athanasius points to it in his letters and names every single book recognized by the Reformed church, and none of the Apocrypha. (and no the Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with that, it was decades after his letters)
    2
  872. I really don't care if Iran gets nuclear weapons, MAD doctrine has demonstrably prevented another world war and the leaders of Iran are not crazy, (none of them shows signs of suicidal thoughts or actions) its been such a deterrent, government only understand violence and to keep them in check, violence must not be monopolized, for when it is monopolized you become run by the state.
    2
  873. @cheese If you actually look at the aur comments and look into the specific things you're installing, the aur is perfect, the problem are people who don't do that, if you aren't willing to do that, then you're an idiot for trying to use the aur. Still yet to have a big problem with the aur, my entire system relies on it and I can still update perfectly fine without ever having an issue, over 70% of my system runs on it.
    2
  874. Its gonna take time for Wayland implementations to develop a standard that trumps X11, but its inevitable that such will happen.
    2
  875. ​ @500dollarjapanesetoaster8  Sterilizing yourself is kind of extreme, the pill however is an abortifacient, if you ban abortion, the pill also has to go.
    2
  876. First off, it you want to kill Big Tech, get the government to stop intervening and funding it, no taxes, no tax exemptions, no subsidies, nothing should encourage or fund tech corporations. This includes the CIA, FBI, and NASA have to be legally restricted (under penalty of treason and capital punishment) from participating in any contributions towards the tech companies. That would be the first step to actually kill the anti-liberty monopolistic corporate tech companies. (within 5 years, if you do that, they will stop censoring and if they don't, they'll go bankrupt) Secondly IP law is just another systematic form of enforced monopoly (like the anti-trust and monopoly laws we have) by government. Its just a step closer to publicized services and corporate domination of the market. If you want to stop the encroaching evil of big tech, killing IP law, specifically tech related IP law, will force them to relinquish the the power to control the systems so capability.
    2
  877. I am getting pretty annoyed how people completely discount that C++ can easily be memory safe. RAII absolutely can accomplish this and the move semantics absolutely do work, also Circle has already proven if you want you can add an opt-in borrow checker into C++ without disturbing the accessibility of language, meaning you can incrementally upgrade C++ code to literally be as safe as Rust unlike with Rust having to rewrite the whole thing. (also in Circle, there are 3 different levels of safety in Circle using that, easing incremental upgrades) This experiment proved that C++ is entirely capable of supporting all the safety features of Rust. As an aside they've already found that as of now it would remain impossible for Rust to support library compilation because of ABI reasons, meaning using it to build a shared library as completely useless, so good luck using it in any GPL/AGPL code.
    2
  878. Then you really don't know the Bible.
    2
  879. In the Old Testament it does, in the New Testament it prohibits killing someone without a threat to life. Reason being is that the Messiah had to come out of the Ancient Hebrews, which means they must be pure, after the coming of Jesus, purity laws were fulfilled and so it is no longer necessary for them to stone socerers.
    2
  880. Gold's usefulness doesn't define its value, that's a fallacious association. Value is not given by use, but by supply and demand, and demand is too subjective to give an objective value, intrinsic value would mean everything would be priced the same in accordance to wealth, that would mean it would never become impossible for an average person to buy bread at the store, but there are plenty of socialist and communist countries that demonstrate the exact opposite of that.
    2
  881. The descriptions of the HRE seem to sort of fit the description of the EU actually very aptly. (true Forth Reich anyone) Still second to the US and China in almost everything tho.
    2
  882. Its because they hate us, as Jesus said: "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." - John 15:18-19
    2
  883. Even some non-gaming companies are starting to implement no social media references, my job (a restaurant) has a social media requirement to be enthusiastic, apathetic, or to not reference the company at all, and to keep all public complaints on social media anonymous in a way that the location, people, (even restaurant) and myself included will never be identified. Granted good advice anyway because doxxing yourself works out "great" (see DragonLord) but yeah, its starting to become a mainstream philosophy for the corporate.
    2
  884.  @KjngKhanh  You do realize criticism is a negative word, not a positive one? It means you are predisposed to opposition of the subject from the outset, unless he qualifies it, it means he is blaming capitalism, not to mention the "criticism" concept makes no sense since there is no capitalism in the story, everything is about socialism cause he thinks cronyism is capitalism, but its literally socialism, specifically its syndicalism which leads to communism..
    2
  885.  @KjngKhanh  criticism: the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing the act of criticizing someone or something criticizing: to express disapproval of (someone or something) to talk about the problems or faults of (someone or something) critique: an act of criticizing Stop you don't get to play pedantics, critique and criticism are of the same context and intonation and are the exact same root work, criticism is literally the act of criticizing something, by arguing this especially with the terms in context you have demonstrated you don't understand what you're talking about.
    2
  886.  @KjngKhanh  Quoting Merriam-Webster is apparently biased towards me despite the fact they are one of the biggest dictionary companies I disagree with.
    2
  887.  @KjngKhanh  "Did you even go to college?" I make more money not going to college, so no. (not to mention most colleges are communist paradises anyway, I lose more money then I gain at them and I know everything they could teach me in my field, I won't get into it now but I have a grasp of where my experience and knowledge lies compared to college) and also that's not academic English, its still not standardized by anything or anyone. Seriously, point me to a standard that is objectively followed and isn't following collectively established English. (most especially with "academic" English old-set long established grammar and vocabulary) I will warn you now as someone who has looked there isn't one but go ahead and try. "When analyzing a piece of formal art. You use academic language." You know the ironic thing is the way you wrote that invalidated your own claim aside from the fact that you used an appeal to accomplishment fallacy to substantiate your argument. You didn't present any rational and neither did you refute what I've said. Technically its also an Ipse Dixit fallacy since its a baseless claim as well. (and actually a red herring since you are deluding from a point you couldn't demonstrate objectively through rational so you switched the topic, which also yes is a fallacy) And that aside since when is art considered formal? That's not an oxymoron, that's a contradiction, art is not a standard and neither is it standardized, nor is it formalized, the closest you have is the tools for art are standardized but that doesn't make art standardized nor formal. Analyzing art from a "formal" or "academic" (which is utterly stupid as well, the inherent nature of art makes it impossible to academically reflect for it does not give a ground empirical view but an objectively subjective one) perspective is elitist and pretentious as hell since it makes no actual sense. Its the humble and low that give value to art, not the formal, when they claim such things they merely steal from the low to thieve the prestige that should not be earned. Also its ridiculous for you to make the claim that "academic" English cares nothing for context when the entire point of language is contextual communication.
    2
  888. Its narcissism, honestly not trying to hide it really should be publicly shammed, its not something that should be shown to the public at large, the concept of family duties for both men and women regarding such subjects is socially beneficial (and awesome) in private, but the moment this stuff is publicized is the moment abuse and offenders of privacy and the enabling of behaviors that most certainly aren't suitable for anyone, let alone the underage. And there isn't even a warning on such a stream.
    2
  889.  @noahhager1187  It makes it so that instead of a janitor or fry cook who does one of a few things simply and well enough, (so he can build skill) you need him to do many things and have competency to do them at the quality and speed capacity of someone who has been doing it for a few years, leaving less room for probationary training or in the best case having to speed up probationary training of new employees and curbing those who aren't capable to support the work at those speeds. (hence why you see the rate of employer-caused employee turnovers in fast food skyrocket over the last 3 decades)
    2
  890.  @Rubenz343  "If that was the case, in todays society you would get absolutely screwed over by businesses" That's not economically true, statistically and economically, regulations actually most harm the lower and middle classes, the upper classes always benefit from the regulations as they reduce the need for employers at that level to compete and often stunt wages more, not to mention they increase unemployment and decrease market competition by bottlenecking the supply. Regulations empower monopolies and trusts, not ceases them, and the government is the biggest monopoly of them all.
    2
  891.  @Rubenz343  You may also not understand that rich people don't pay the costs they're called to pay, its the poor that pay it because the rich are the suppliers of goods and services. Its all about second order thinking, incentives, and consequences, its actually quite simple if you can comprehend abstract consequence.
    2
  892. Honestly I totally agreed with their microtransaction and lootbox arguments, its not the mechanics fault that corporate abuse has pissed us off, its like blaming all men for bad parenting.
    2
  893.  Ezra  With the old speaker back like two years ago, they were a super useful game design discussion channel, they've been getting way worse as of late.
    2
  894. Took a while but damn everyone finally standing up against the Godot CMs, perhaps the day of reckoning for an engine I otherwise really like has come.
    2
  895.  @KGFan08  Nothing was said about them reacting or not managing their discomfort, the point was merely that women are justified in a sense to feel uncomfortable, nobody here should disagree that women need avoid being jerks about it though, the Apostle Paul explicitly told women to be modest and regulate themselves from their wicked desires that is malicious, for which such selfish acts most especially would be. To act in a manner where they punish men outright for taking a step like that, regardless of how sincere it is, it quite malicious, if they believe the man is trying to manipulate them or is unattractive to them they can be modest and polite about it, or even take it in stride, I would think it be an ego boost to be considered attractive given that's their foremost sexual objective to attracting a man. In any other time in history this would've been a punishment for the woman because she'd be seen as immodest and degenerate for which no man would wish to have children with her as they would not trust her to raise them well enough. But we live in an era where masculinity in general is evil and maternity has nothing to do with raising children.
    2
  896.  @KookoCraft  How about you actually present a refutation instead of attacking me? Also "bloat" by its nature is how most mainstream GUI software function, you literally can't have a DE without "bloat", I'd rather my software serve a frontend purpose compared to only being used by a handful of pretentious pricks. I work in software to make money just as much as I enjoy solving problems.
    2
  897.  @ollierkul  Good job strawmanning again, impulsive are you to react but not understand, perhaps you didn't read what I said at all, (in fact I bet on it) I said humility in the subject of contentedness, not humility overall smartass, perhaps you should read what's said not what you want to read in someone who opposes you. Your criticisms otherwise carry no weight. You know the funny thing is I even explicitly addressed the subject of misinterpreting it to mean be humble, to which it is not to be treated the same as reduction in the individual. If you're too blind to figure truth then perhaps you should assume the submissive position of live and learn. But you carry your arrogance to the high places to ward it on others instead. You can never learn with such a hostility towards those who only speak truth. As for women working more hours that's not statistically true, women already tend to underwork men in multiple avenues even despite quotas to the point that its not even remotely fair game, this is actually the source of many forms of the claim of the gender wage gap (which doesn't exist do to liberty, it only exists as a result of freedom itself) which also exists in Norway. It's just a natural behavior of women who are less assertive, less engaged in most fields, and prefer against performing non-people focused employment. Unless you pull from anecdotal cases, you're evaluation of the world from this perspective is incorrect, and anecdotes don't define reality anymore then opinion does. If you want to claim ideology then that's your fault, reality however does not subscribe to the facts as you see them, it only subscribes to truth and what we see in it is irrelevant. Then you have no idea what the term "in context" means and thus are purposely trying to conflate idealism just to prove people wrong, an opinion to interpret the world not as it is but as you desire it was. You are wholly wrong on so many measures in this subject, first off being in the top 100 is already very bad, but the smaller the population the less prevalent suicide is suppose to be, those who have a high suicide rate despite low populations are definitely a suffering population. That aside while lower forms of sunlight can be correlated with disorders that can instigate depression, that doesn't entirely correlate. Not to mention that doesn't apply in the southern region of Scandinavia at all and doesn't work as a justification. (especially when the regions that would suffer such problems already have an immensely tiny population that its unlikely to drastically impact the rates nearly as much to push it as high as the Nordic nations are) Availability of water and food is not an achievement to celebrate. (unless maybe in Africa) Safety is a lie and one that doesn't ensure anything if all you care about is pleasuring yourself anyway. Modern education would've been thought of as slave education 3 centuries ago. These days training for specialized work independently is more important and teaches you more anyway. There is no teacher like experience. Also most healthcare systems actually suck even when they make people feel complacent. Cushy survival makes no more a good life if you still live for yourself anyway. Also you have no idea what a right is do you? Because a right isn't just something you have, its not something the government lets you have just because, otherwise its not a right but a privilege. A right is given by God to ensure the autonomy of every man, nobody has the right to anything more then what he earns and no less then what he can achieve, anything given to you is thus not a right but authoritarianism used to buy votes. And you don't have any rights. And you know why I know you have no rights? Because you won't fight for them, you wouldn't kill to preserve them, you would neither protect them with your life nor have you or your ancestors. And neither do you have it instilled in your culture to have them or protect them. And so it can and will be taken away. Perhaps it already is, Denmark has already had their governments considering hate speech laws. Why is democracy anymore fair? Because everyone can vote to take away the rights of the minority? Is it perhaps its just mob rule where no one has rights but the demogues. You don't think that's possible? Its what Hitler and Lenin did, one through democracy, one through revolution, it was both was mob rule. How about the Roman Republic? Caesar and Augustus both became tyranicaly leaders through a democratic process simply by manipulating the majority, they may have done great things but how many innocent men had to die for each of these tyrants to get their way, thousands, millions, billions? The question isn't will it happen but when? Because democracy is but an avenue to tyranny as it has always been, from Greece to Rome to Britain and Germany, nothing changes but the hats we stick on a flag post. The world for now is only safe as long as the US enforces its will on nations regardless of how justified. American hegemony falls and either tyrants rise or nations fall, and it'll likely start with the destruction of the US, which is but a decade or so away. If you really want a stable future, then you really should prepare instead of being lazy and assuming this how its always been. No better then the medieval man of the Dark Age. If you are unwilling to believe that ultimate power doesn't ultimately corrupt then I can't help you, but I'd be skeptical of a government that doesn't let me own a gun unregulated when I haven't committed a crime. Blind are the men who sleep in comfort letting tomorrow come. For tomorrow isn't pleasant and today is but the last free one we have. Perhaps in time you'll be conquered again, or perhaps in time you'll be enslaved, whichever it is, you've already taken your first step to the grave, you were warned but in fear and weakness you retort and laugh, do not weep when the world comes crashing down, for soon the boot comes knocking and it knocks for thee.
    2
  898. Lunduke mentioned, asshats that throw Lunduke under the bus have no place to to claim they're making the world a better place, they're the problem, Richard Brown is a bona fide bigot.
    2
  899. That's the purpose of impacting feedback.
    2
  900. Honestly, I'm getting more annoyed with the moral degeneracy of "The Message" then its interjection, the fact that nothing can question its premises, like homosexuality or transgenderism being a deliberate choice, or the fact that female empowerment is logically inconsistent with any biological fact, or the moral relation with any of that to psychopathy, psychosis, and self-destruction. Not to mention nobody ever gets into what all those things always end up doing, promoting sexual promiscuity, drug use, and hedonism, which are all detrimental to society as a whole being individually and dynastically destructive too. I may agree with you about writing being important, but I think good writing is only the first step to a good story, for if it presents false premises even well written, that still undermines any value the story has. For a bad message in a story negates much of the good of the story regardless of how well it is in fact written for a story is premised on its message, not on its writing. This is why I'll likely have no reason to check out Arcane since it is still a demonstration of woke social ideology. I don't care about how compelling something is if it fails to recognize facts. Also I have since come to despise any story that makes females into a (mostly physically) strong character who can beat male soldiers since that genetically and biologically shouldn't happen, and the few times it has in history it was a clear case of said female appearing and acting like a tank. She would appear near nothing like a women except in having a slightly deeper upper torso because breasts. And even then they still haven't been shown to beat the top 20%. Its basically a genetic mutation and usually they have low sexual value and low sexual drive resulting in a genetic deadend since most times they have no interest in getting married and being submissive to their husband as he would desire. Those women rarely ever reproduce for that reason and even their children still lose most of those traits since they're not genetically beneficial. They also tend to die early from high risk behavior. And women who don't have that mutation but go into warfare are often a detriment to the battlefield. They contribute nothing comparative to even the weakest males, they don't have a suitable mindset for war or national loyalty, weaker bodies, and literally cost more as they need more medical assistance more often and the risk of pregnancy which either incapacitates them taking up valuable resources on the battlefield while negating the responsible male from performing optimally or if she forcibly aborts it she now takes up a massive amount of medical resources and is still incapacitate for a time. That's not to say the extreme danger of trauma caused by that abortion and the battlefield, which they are already way more likely to suffer because the genetic psychology of women does not support acting in warfare. Not to mention women driven into trauma get hysteric which is less then useless on the battlefield while men driven into trauma don't naturally get hysteric, instead they tend to shutdown which is somewhat useful since they can be brought back to the fight and can be used for tasks most especially to distract them at least until the fight is over. Nobody can be saved once they go hysteric.
    2
  901. I don't have issue with this because the point is to stop a dangerous circumstance, there is no logistical reason to use a bomb bot against civilians who aren't threatening anyone especially if they are in an area with a lot of civilians, my issue is in using deathbots in places where cops and civilians were never put at risk for which they just don't feel like capturing the accused civilian alive. A government lacking in corruption, as in being close to the people and not being a socialist hell hole like the whole of the US is, would definitely be capable to use these bots responsibly but SanFran will never have reasonable use of the bots.
    2
  902. Just to point, if your state doesn't recognize common-law marriage (most states do not), you can religiously marry a woman without legally marrying her and she basically can't file for no-fault divorce and alimony because there is no legal marriage to divorce.
    2
  903.  @ValdVincent  Then there is no reason for anyone to care what you have to say, if you refuse to engage with historical references, then anything you have to say is inherently suspect, you demonstrate that you simply wish to speak and care nothing for truth.
    2
  904.  @ValdVincent  He's a Historian, Historians are legitimate references, especially Historians with personal experience partaking of historical practices, there's few things more reliable in academics, its a lot easier to reference clear demonstrative proofs, you're neither a historian nor an academic, you neither made any references, so aside from making baseless claims, you can't even back them up and neither can you refer to anyone who would argue for your claims.
    2
  905. To be fair, also presumes that you're iterating the list, if you aren't, they aren't as bad, but in most cases when you make a container of elements that isn't like a map/dictionary, you're usually iterating it, hence why lists tend not to be a great container to resort to.
    2
  906. This video is sociopolitically incorrect in a good many ways, while I don't agree entirely with either Orwell or Peterson. Orwell being a foolish socialist with no consistent backbone, having the "backbone" to criticize everything (when he decided it matters randomly) is worthless when you stand for nothing, Orwell opposed any definitive morality system and had no capability to judge wrongness and immorality invalidating many things by his own worldview. (which all socialists do) Peterson on the other hand uses pseudo-morality and philosophy to justify his so claimed morality and tries to associate it with Christianity, (but do note he is stealing from it, not properly representing it, it is quite cherrypicked) which while more consistent and better then Orwell, is both a deception and inconsistent still. Peterson might have more backbone then Orwell but he still does not have a manner to define his standards by since he lives in the myth of neutrality. The question never asked is "who is the authority". However Peterson is correct about a few things even despite not often defining them. (however he has defined and demonstrated their case and existence, post-modernism and anti-moralism being the most blatantly demonstrated, unfortunate that he has no decent correction or addressment since he's still a neutralist) "present in the apocalyptic style of Peterson’s prose, his unshakable belief in the individual and fear of the collective and the manner in which he continues to see “reds under the bed”, parsing everyone he disagrees with as not only a “postmodern neo-marxist but as akin to a foreign agent working to destroy his beloved “Western culture”” But you never actually presented this as not true. The opponents he faces (or actually acknowledges and addresses) have all been postmodernist neo-marxists working at destroying such that. In the least, many of the common oppositions to Peterson are postmodernist and neo-marxist arguments, there's even a good many here, one of the most common being there is no definition of a common "Western" culture, which I will in fact instead call Christ-aware culture since that's more accurate. (not Christ-adherent culture as demanded by Christ in Matthew 28:19) Yes this does in fact exist, I will demonstrate its case and your complete misunderstanding of the past 2000 years. (and so too even educate you on some of the pre-Christ era) But first we must accept that postmodernism, as in the rejection of an objective worldview, is already logically invalid in all manners of legitimate thoughts. Neo-marxist refers to rejection of individualist principles which are a core basis for all men to be facing towards liberty and responsibility. Your argument against Peterson in regards to Orwell is probably correct in most manners since Orwell is, like George Washington, held in too high a regard for a historical individual (ironically, or perhaps hypocritically enough) and was wholly incorrect on many positions and really only adept at supposing the basics of a surveillance state. Though the interpretations pulled have not been demonstrated to be wrong nor unintended, more so just in conflict with Orwell's other positions. That's really a refutation of Peterson in that case though its made to be one here. "Yet, what is “Western culture”? The phrase is certainly thrown around a lot, and most of us have a vague idea of what someone is referring to when they use it. But what we find is that, as soon as we try to define it with any real degree of specificity, it proves to be quite a hazy concept." Not really, I'll explain down below. "Now, like many others who use the term, Peterson doesn’t seem to have ever offered a clear definition of what he believes “Western culture” to consist of. He’s never explained where its geographical limits might lie, who it includes and who it doesn’t." No, this is quite a manipulation of what he has said. This completely ignores many of his lectures and talks specifically on the nature of both the west and what he believed its origin lies in, that being Christianity. (I don't believe it however, I know it to be true) He's made multiple videos years before on how its defined, just because he hasn't made a clear video titled "How to define Western Culture" in more recent times in some analogous form (which you are practically assuming he would do which blatantly disregards his character and how he addresses the question, not to mention he rarely repeats topics he's already addressed in a video form) is quite disingenuous. Peterson has defined the concept moderately enough to at least point at a foundation for what he considers "Western Culture" to be. Calling it vague; (or "not offering a clear definition" which is called being vague) requiring a geographical limit which it doesn't even need, this academic outlook is a bad worldview to address Peterson by despite being an academic, he's not operating as an academic but a philosopher, your perspective of him here is foolish to say the least; and who is and is not to be included which it also does not need for much the same as before; is quite reductive and seeks instead to handwave the facts and ideas without actually addressing them. "morality […] predicated on the idea of God’. To Peterson, then, “Western culture” appears to refer to places and people that have been influenced by Christianity." How can you claim its vaguely defined and does not refer to a specific places or peoples when in the literal next statement you make its quite clear (as he does quite often in fact make so) that he's referring to Christianity? You do realize this is contradiction of your previous claim quite directly, and you don't refute that its a clear definition, refuting it as perhaps a valid definition, (which I will refute you in a moment) but that makes the "being vague" and "being socially or geographically" when you then say such is in fact deceptive. It has no basis in truth when you do such things. "Now, although I’m perhaps being generous here in taking this as a definition, this is actually far more specific than many other definitions of “Western culture” which" Why are you presenting this as a definition here then? And no its not "being generous", it is literally what Peterson has explicitly defined before. This is intellectually lower then a nitpick, its of no substance to say except to attack Peterson. "On the point of homogeneity, Christians have spent as much of history tearing chunks out of each other as sharing in the body of Christ and, despite sharing a sacred text, differing denominations extract wildly different modes of morality and being from the Bible." This is blatantly immoral and deceptive as a statement. You assume that man has an obligation to act in a communist "selfless" manner as if individuals or nations either could do this. Christ never demanded such so why do you assume such? You also acts as if the same cultures have never been at war with themselves and never separated themselves? You do realize Japan, China, France, England, even the damn US has fought itself and separated itself many times and still does. Is French not a homogeneitic culture? Is there no shared French identity? What about England or the US? Why do you assume such things of only Christians? What about the atheists? Or Buddhists? How does this argument hold up? And how the hell does differing denominations even refute homogeneity? Do not Americans share differing interpretations of the Constitution? Do not the English and French share distinctions in what they consider their cultural values or interpretations to be? This argument is vapid and hollow. This argument literally makes the claim that there is no such thing as culture, no homogeneity does not define culture, least of all in the sense of sharing a lack of opposition and fighting. What kind of claim is this? Either assign your points consistently or don't assign them at all, you don't get to cherrypick for your arguments. "the religion has been integrated into feudalism, empire, fascism and various forms of capitalism." I can make the same foolish argument too. Germans have been integrated into a feudal society, into an imperial society, into a fascist society, and into a capitalist society. Where does a Judo-Christian cultural identity stand in distinction to the German culture? It seems like you really just wanted a reason to pick at Christianity, there is no reason to do this otherwise. Especially when you don't even understand basic Christian precepts. Also just because multiple denominations exist does not in turn mean we do not share a common standard, some of them are wrong and heretical to it, but any actual Christian (not so claimed, which is another thing you don't seem to understand a thing about, claims do not represent fact, to claim to be Christian does not make you such just like claiming to be French does not make you French, there is an objective standard you need to hold to which you seem either willfully or ignorantly ill-informed about) "In fact, making the case for such homogeneity and continuity would require sanding off the details to such an extent that it would be at the cost of our third presupposition: distinctiveness." This argument also literally argues culture does exist, you can't have homogeneity and distinctiveness treated like such and then say to make an argument for one means the other is invalid. That's literally a logical contradiction. This is quite double standard.
    2
  907. "For, at that point, how distinct is Christianity from the other Abrahamic religions, or any other belief system for that matter?" Only a Christ-adherent culture could've devised a liberty mindset enabling the US, and its specifically because of that shared consciousness that Europe was able to even make an attempt at adopting those principles. (despite failing to) The only reason non-Christians were even able to get close to such an attempt was because they were emulating the United Kingdom. Look at Japan, Korea, Taiwan, or former Hong Kong. Literal historicity reasons they appear and feel "Western" is because Japan used the UK as a basis for its entire society after the Meji Restoration. (to which the US further accelerated when they took Korea and Japan) China doesn't feel "Western" despite everything because it did not adopt the Christ-awareness to do so. Every other non-Christian culture did not adopt such mannerisms to this day and will never do so. (India being much like China even despite being part of the British Empire) That aside what demonstrates distinction of Christianity from other Abrahamic religions (aside from it has an objective and moralistic worldview of justice and forgiveness that no other religion has, which is actually the most impportant) is things like the Reformation, which did not happen in Islam nor Judaism and could not have either. The results of the Reformation changed everything, and it happened because of the nature of Christianity. (being the fault of Christ alone) Where in Islam they burned dissenting accounts, and in Judaism they sheltered the dissent when it did exist, (and never copied it down) in Christianity it was continuously taught to preserve and spread dissent, copying and preserving every documentation they could even when they were wrong. We know more of both the adherents and heretics then of anyone else in history. This is why the Bible has so much extra surrounding it, its why Catholics and Orthodox (and beyond, even the Coptics have many things like that) have so many legends and documents that go beyond the Biblical text, its why we have non-canonical text, its why there are so many distinct yet recognizable translations, its why its the most widely published and sold work in the world, and its why we have so many denominations compared to Islam which only has a handful and Judaism which only has even fewer. Its also why we have the more definitive evidence of Christ's life and the life of his Disciples in comparison to pretty every other historical figure that came centuries after them. And not to mention only four Christian denominations (maybe five if you count it that way, I'll explain in a moment) have ever been in a seat of notable national governmental power. Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists are the four major denominations that's had more than one country of adherence that was at or near the status of being a great power. The Coptics in Egypt and Ethiopia or the Armenian Oriental Orthodox have never been significant or nationally adherent for long, and most especially did not contribute to common Christ-aware culture today. The only debatable case of the fifth Christian denomination is the Chalcedonian or Nicenean (they're basically the same, just Chalcedonian is more commonly accepted but further down the line in history) which is the precursor to pretty much every Christian denomination that currently exists and ruled over the Roman Empire since about the 2nd century. (and is the reason that Europe became Christian in the first place) The reason I say maybe is because its kinda inflating the numbers and could just as easily be separated into all the other prominent denominations mentioned. The fact you make an argument that "Western culture", or Christ-aware culture as it really is, is not well defined (despite every single European or European-inspired law being explicitly based on such) and has never existed is such an empty and foolish argument ignoring historical and sociopolitical fact its a wonder if you aren't just blind and deaf. You do realize the only necessity for cultures is a shared recognized consciousness right? The West shares a common outlook not shared anywhere else, which is why capitalism came to exist and individualism was held in high regard, also being the basis for any moral principle. To handwave everything as "its just a Red scare" (despite the fact being scared of going socialists is totally justified) is so disingenuous its a wonder how one could be taken seriously.
    2
  908. If you want to do these type of things, you need to be a strong and robust leader, one who is resistant against temptation, course still doesn't work if you have a bunch of entitled socialist people, even the best leader can't lead a socialist autocracy, and especially not without oppression. Leadership and business requires elitism and meritocracy, if Nick was smart, he would've gotten only the best guys onboard who he knew wouldn't complain and he wouldn't have interjected his dumbass into the culture war (or would've joined the anti-corpo side, but he touts correct trademark opinios trademark)
    2
  909. @w1se_w0lf They do detect them, they ban them, that doesn't solve the issue because they'll just make a new account.
    2
  910.  @jonnyso1  Maybe it could work, but in my experience managing a FOSS project of nowhere near comparable size to the Linux kernel, (and doesn't need nearly as many guarantees as the kernel does of course either) even having full control over the project managing compatibility with legacy behavior, especially when the language you use doesn't natively provide any semantic awareness, is an absolute nightmare, semantics behavior that is changed by internal behavior changes to a function pretty much throws the entire semantics guarantee out the window, (it could become downright impossible in some cases to work out correct semantics) while I do agree that it should be documented, decentralized management is always better then later centralized management, if you expected someone else to manage accounting for those changes, I am willing to bet a lot of people will have burnout, and if that happens to enough folks, it could kill development to either the Linux kernel or the Rust side, if the Rust side burns out then adding Rust to the kernel will have objectively been a mistake. At that point it basically would become a case of which collective actually has the harder head. Doesn't mean some of those C devs aren't at fault, but we also do need them for Linux to live so there kinda needs to be a limit to pissing them off too.
    2
  911. To be fair about Wilhelm, he loved the German people, the problem with him was he was a horrible diplomat when he was in power, while much of what he tried to do was respectable, I disagree vehemently with his ideology. (as it had a decent amount of socialist leanings) Had he been less expansionist, especially since in owning Alsace-Loraine he was already raring the French up for a bid to the borderlands, he could've become a great German Emperor and not so often treated as the joke he has been treated as. Doesn't really help that him and Otto were so constantly at each other throats and thus forced him to resign, that being one of the worst things he could've ever done. (and note Otto was so vehemently anti-socialist that he actually wanted to expel some socialists from Germany altogether, which honestly I don't see all that distinct from being full socialist, but they disagreed heavily on the social welfare of the German nation and that's what destroyed the Empire)
    2
  912.  @bobmurphy9686  What are you talking about if he did? That's one of the most well attested events in the first century, numerous Roman, Jewish, and Christian historians all account the event independently and point out that Nero blamed the fire on the Christians and would stick them on a pike and set them ablaze. Like Tacitus, a Roman historian reading from the Roman records about the event with eyewitnesses, records the persecution of the Christians in just that way by Nero as a consequence of the Great Fire. It wasn't the Christians the foremost recorded it, the first records was by the Romans themselves.
    2
  913. According to God's Law, if you falsely accuse someone of rape, you are to die. Scoffers only learn by pain, make them suffer, for they will not learn any other way, it must hurt, and if that hurt is permanent, then so be it.
    2
  914.  @johnmorales6281  You need to realize that wasn't exclusive to the HRE and only in the HRE could the Peace of Augsburg be signed, regardless of what people think of the aftermath, that was a legendary peace, its only after the 30 years war that anyone even can start to consider the HRE as functionally dead, and it wasn't the only entity nearly killed by that conflict. You also need to consider how violent periods beforehand were, comparatively the HRE's reign was often pretty tame most especially since fighting a war instead of bring things to the court of the emperor was outside the norm in majority of cases. And even still it retains the existence of micro and mini states with their own faiths upto the 1800s, that's impressive enough.
    2
  915. Its kinda a funny tangent to point out, but during those periods, Keynes of the namesake's economic model bet much of his wealth on the upturn and downturn of the German marks, except he bet on a downturn on the upturn and an upturn on the downturn and lost a large majority of his wealth at the time twice. (he lost way more wealth on the economy being successful too) The economic model he devised made the claims in regards to successful economics to the decisions he made at that time, so he constantly failed in his own economic reliability and financial advice to his death and yet became one of the most influential economists in history so far.
    2
  916.  @thisin.  "what would you consider punishment that's not abuse?" This is a stupid question and comes from someone who has absolutely no idea what a punishment is. Insulting a anyone is never punishment, there is no reason to insult a child especially, its always abuse. Whether understandable as a reaction or not, mild or not, its still abuse and you shouldn't seriously insult people. A punishment is a negative consequence used to correct behavior and point out incorrect behavior, an insult is incapable of doing this in itself, it doesn't correct the behavior, it doesn't allow the individual to understand their mistake, its just personally attacking them (which will implant itself in their psychology most likely) for the sake of some personal catharsis. It proves a lacking of love and care, which punishment doesn't do, in the long term it creates distance in the relationship where justified punishment does not. "To a child, losing trust in their parent and seeing them as something to fear could potentially be mentally scarring." Being punished as a child doesn't make them lose trust in their parents. Correcting a child does not scar a child, its when you punish randomly, unjustifiably, and don't make it clear why the punishment happened. A child is capable of contemplating punishment, least with assistance to understand it if not inherently. Punishment should probably come after exhausting positive consequences for good behavior. No two people, thus children, are the same and they can't be treated the same on this sense, some children will only correct their behavior if you punish them because they are likely stubborn or angry or don't understand the right and wrong of the circumstance and thus can't distinguish the consequences properly. Rewarding for those cases does not work at all. "If someone has to be constantly telling you to do something, that's an indication that you're doing something not in alignment with your nature." Not necessarily, some people might simply not care or be too stupid or stubborn, that's not about nature, that's just being ignorant and obnoxious. Regardless if something you need to do is against your nature, it doesn't matter what your nature is, you need to do it. Only a fool cares about your nature as a justification for anything, its evil enough as it is. "People should work towards improvement but that should already be part of their nature as people generally want better things." No it they don't, people want a better something without the work or self-direction. Laziness is a problem of the human condition we all suffer from, some people get over it easily, others do not, whether its part of the nature or not, its not something positive, the nature is not something good for us and it should not be used as a justification to be. Our nature going against what is right should always be opposed and in most cases it does. "Eventually though, one force wins over the other, if an employee keeps getting yelled at to work faster, they may work faster so they don't get fired, but with time, if we assume that yelling is an effective punishment then the stress of it builds up and something has to be done about it, often this means quitting." If someone is constantly getting yelled at (which I don't really believe is an effective manner of punishment for multiple reasons) for things they won't or are incapable of doing, either the boss is totally incapable or the employee is at fault and should be fired. In either case the employee should probably find a better job or if there is a higher management transfer if possible. Whether the boss should be fired or not is irrelevant, the employer market should be competitive too, it doesn't matter what anyone wants or "needs" because that's not how life works. Fools believe otherwise and leave everything to hell. "You're forgetting that humans have emotions and it's not feasible to do just do something long term with solely "self-control"." Emotions are a tool, they are not an end-all for anything. Nor is that a valid excuse. People who use them for that are retarded and are the exact type of problem we have with society. This response is stupid cause its entirely capable and reasonable to expect people to have self-control and act towards their own improvement, there are many ways to improve that internally and externally, folks that respond with that just don't want to do that out of laziness and arrogance. The power of self-control is way underestimated when you put in even just a little amount of effort. (tho you should put in way more then a little for effectiveness) "If you're told to become a mathematician yet you're far below average at the subject, by your statement, the best course of action would be to work significantly harder than your peers just to eventually become mediocre" That's a copout, being told to do something is not a justification for doing it. Do what you want or do what you are capable or required to do, but becoming something you can't do and don't want to do is just generally not possible, most especially since there is no way for you to achieve in the environment and thus no way for you to move further. That aside that's not how mathematics works. Many people who suck as school math have gone to become great at the field specifically because school math is trash, it doesn't teach you any of the awesome things it can produce or contains. Also that's not the best course of action, the best course of action is to do what you're capable of. (preferably what you'd like to do) "Pretty much every programmer I know of said they "burned out" in under 10 years, using self control to force themselves to continue would be a terrible idea, in fact it would be better to just completely give up early on." Not an argument. First off that's anecdotal, its irrelevant when it comes to reason or logic. That aside I can tell you they're probably rather stupid. You don't just push yourself through circumstances for the sake of it. You should be seeking to improve yourself and the circumstances you're in. Whether by improving yourself, improving your environment, or your work ethic, or by looking for better circumstances. But burning out is a sign of fools trying to coast by and not improving at all. I've been a developer for years now and you've got to know when and where to continue the climb up the mountain, because you are never done, someone who coasts will just fall back down to the valley. That's life. If you don't get better, you only get bitter. "When something like this happens to someone, it's because the reward no longer outweighs the cost of going against nature." No it just means someone was foolish and didn't regard their improvement in some manner and most likely tried to coast their circumstance. There is no reward in life that will satisfy you in the end, what we need is not what we want, but it is a necessity to life. There is no positive about our nature, it is us opposing our nature in which good comes, not in submission to it. Otherwise you're a slave to yourself and will never improve. Looking at ourselves as inherently good is flawed anthropology and a terrible worldview that begets immoral ways.
    2
  917.  @vikkidonn  "he literally has shown live that his translations are accurate. Many of his statements are taking the full contextual definitions into account." No he doesn't, else he wouldn't make the claims he does regarding Scripture.
    2
  918.  @vikkidonn  "Also I think part of the issue is as another stated what is “medical Greek”….. if ask someone for aspirin is that really much different from me saying it’s full chemical compound?" What makes even less sense is why would a medical concept be the only valid interpretation for something like "Christ"? Like the term doesn't just mean something medical and there is no reason for two historians and two other less educated biographers to all equally refer to Jesus by a term of "Christ" and then presume that means to take a drug to the eyes, "to be stung by the gadfly", where is that interpretation? It doesn't fit any of the rest of the Scriptural text, Luke, Mark, John, and Matthew all equally report their accounts as literal history, things that actually happened, and they only ever use the term as a title, a title sourced from Ancient Hebrew which means "the Anointed One", Christ was a valid translation of "the Anointed One", that's all it means, that's not a pure medical thing. Why would a religious text that calls itself historical have any reason to specifically refer to the gadfly? That's not the only interpretation even in the medical texts, even there it only really means to apply an ointment, (probably to the head) which could include drugs sure but its not an exclusive word even to mean that even in those texts. Should I even mention that it was explicitly against the Hebrew Law for one to take drugs that put you into an altered state of consciousness? If you aren't sober you are breaking the Law. That is reaffirmed by the teachings of Jesus who explicitly said in the Gospels that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it so the Law is still valid according to Him, it neither makes any sense to suggest Jesus is somehow meant to be about opening your eyes somehow. (which is also against the Law, sorcery is also a death sentence according to the Law, so what ever are you opening your eyes to?) That would violate the entirety of the teachings of the Old Testament and the rest of the Scriptures and everything else taught in the Gospels.
    2
  919.  @vikkidonn  "Those people have used their own trusted translation sources as well and were able to in real time confirm what he was saying." "Trusted translation sources" as in? If you mean to say a dictionary, that doesn't fix anything, and there is no easy way to describe the vocabulary grammar rules to someone of a language they don't know, how would they have been able to confirm it in real time? The source is either gonna be a word for word translation presentation which is just a a functional dictionary, a true dictionary, or it'll be a singular interpretation. How could you possibly know its trusted? How could you know its right? Unless you know the language, or at least understand something about linguistics, there is no way to be able to distinguish right from wrong by someone's presentation.
    2
  920. Correction: One can not simply call the Gaben.
    2
  921. To point out as a Christian, he did. Also Abraham didn't get advice of God from a burning bush, that was Moses. Also on Sodom and Gomorrah, God said to Abraham "if you find me ten innocence in the cities and I shall not burn them down" to which God failed to find, the angels also entered Lot's home, (Abraham's nephew) attempted to be raped by the citizens of the city, are blinded, and Lot is instructed to leave with his family while God brings fire and brimstone. And we all know the story of his wife.
    2
  922. I kinda resent the Mesa devs for ignoring C++ and jumping right to Rust even though C is quite more interoperable between C++ then Rust. (given almost everything in C is also equally defined in C++) I don't really care about using Rust to achieve this, but Dave Airlie's comment fundamentally pisses me off because C++ in mostly just a superset of C so any C dev should've long gone to adopt C++ in the least since C++99, C++03, or C++11, the knowledge you have on C is still applicable and usable if but more refined whereas in Rust its not at all. I also resent Rust for being a trendy language that's a lot more vapid and stupid then people are willing to acknowledge because people are fanatic religious morons in regards to it.
    2
  923.  @DoubleBob  Tim is in the least a naraccist and that's the primary reason why he fired Adam alongside the money, Adam challenged his beliefs and claims and you could see Tim get frustrated or annoyed every time that happened, something very few other people do and something nobody else does so regularly in a way that can be claimed to be factual, even Shamus and Luke don't question Tim regarding facts or claims.
    2
  924. Its strangely impressive that Ethan looks older then Joe Rogan actually is, like how the hell do you screw yourself over so bad that you age yourself over 20 years?
    2
  925. Oh look, India and the EU going communist again, who would've guessed the wimps across the pond would whine to its weakass socialist government to fix a problem it is directly responsible for causing? Not I says the guy whose been pointing this crap out for years now.
    2
  926.  @minneelyyyy  "Although I do have to disagree with OP, while I do recognize that a lot of memory bugs don't end up being actually able to be exploited, there are a number of actual major exploits that have happened." For some of the big ones sure, but most of the blame for those already lies in legacy support anyway, (in a legacy C syntax too) and Rust wouldn't fix that either. Like had they written those sections in even proper C++98 with RAII, they wouldn't have happened either, Rust wouldn't have solved it anymore then C++ should have, and the reason C++ didn't solve it was because it wasn't written in C++, and you wouldn't have been able to replace it because people still rely on the C functionality as it was written for compatibility. A lot of Rust developers don't understand legacy and maintainable code, what was first written will be relied upon to never change else you will brick systems. and Rust has enough holes in even its "safe" system that it will absolutely be abused to accomplish similar things, its just a matter of people getting good and learning the esoteric things like they did with C++.
    2
  927. Italians in war: Guys, I've got an idea Italy has left the game
    2
  928. Just like how Tay was amazing, Sydney was amazing. WAS!
    2
  929.  @billeterk  In part, yes.
    2
  930. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." - Matthew 10:34-39 Also the non-church movement is not a good way to live, the establishment of the Church was given for us to take fellowship in and keep us upright, communion and baptism was neither a western tradition, it was a calling for our sake by Christ, for as Jesus had said "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19) Uchimura seems to have completely disregarded exegetical study and focused instead on "cultural Christianity" and eisegesis, there is no way Christ can be received in the Holy Spirit by a nation of such people.
    2
  931.  @BariumCobaltNitrog3n  Issue with the sun is that its dependent on visibility, climate and weather itself can wreck it, and even if you can see the sun does not mean its a good day to use solar, using a renewable source of energy that has low or no real dependence is the best solution, since water is the most common substance we have access to, water based (or mostly water based) sources outstrip the others, which is why Nuclear and Hydroelectric are very much considered the best. (Geothermal is also nice, but because its so uncommon and requires very specific circumstances, you have way less availability) When you consider production waste and death as well, Nuclear and Hydroelectric are the best. Solar and Wind are always gonna be problematic because they don't have infinite applicability (Geothermal and Hydroelectric don't either, but they are more efficient in every case anyhow) and even when they could apply in certain locations, they need the space and right environment constantly, and you can't expect that from the environment. The amount of space necessary to even manage coal and oil production comparable and consistently is between impossible and impractical, after a certain point you're now asking for failure. And the fact of the matter is that the economic cost will always outweigh its economic value because of the production efficiency. If a generator costs more power to produce and replace then it can ever possibly generate, and that generation itself is already unreliable at best, that makes it a bad generator economically.
    2
  932.  @bluehappiness10  Why does the year matter? Righteousness does not change, objective good is immutable, time has no significance, and marriage is a fundamental of functioning society, unless you want to be genetically and ethnically replaced (all good and well if you do but I say you're a waste of a human being in deciding such) there is no statistical manner better to protect children, preserve familes, and promote sexual cohesion throughout a state. There also is no manner in which you can overcome societal failure like marriage, nor can you resolve as successful and joyful a life without one. (least in most cases, every single person with a sexual drive, lacking in the gift of no sexual drive, should be seeking in turn to find a future marriage, also marriage is not capable in homosexuality, men and women are not interchangeable, only a fool believes such) And by the way, marriage is the most successful way to promote optimism and production in a nation state, if you care about higher work ethic and more joyful productions, marriage is a key component. Its a gift, and a surprisingly deep and expansive one.
    2
  933. The amount of Catholics who keep trying to accuse Calvinism as a problem over this is disappointing yet unsurprising.
    2
  934. Democrats are basically a mafia-styled protection racket that doesn't actually follow through with the protection claim anyway.
    2
  935. Problem with this explanation is it assumes inherent understanding in order to say, if you tell people ground speed is irrelevant and it pushes off the air, they won't intuitively understand why. To them its just axioms you happen to claim, not a fact of the result of physics, you need to explain at least why those things happen, an explanation needs to be more specific.
    2
  936. Providing deprecation without alternative is a problem, also deprecating without a patch clarifying removal is entirely GLIBC's fault, honestly I don't see the point of even having one central package for GLIBC if every linux distro is gonna use package managers anyway.
    2
  937. Just great, he pissed off the Libertarians, he's cemented himself as a big fool didn't he? All you had to do was be real with them and he said the exact things that piss the libertarians off.
    2
  938. "Maybe you're an emacs user and you don't know why you're here" If I used vim, I'd probably find this twice as funny, if I used emacs, I'd probably also be confused.
    2
  939. Don't expect government to fix it, it caused the problem in the first place and the Green New Deal would make it worse, also thats still a socialist bill.
    2
  940.  @Megalcristo2  You still have to use them for non-owning single instances in memory.
    2
  941.  @anon_y_mousse  I don't think you understand what context sensitive means and how that complicates the parser. (as a language designer, let me tell you, its a pain to have to manage context)
    2
  942.  @anon_y_mousse  The most vexing parse is a C issue specifically but is exasperated in C++. Its one of the most annoying holes in the language as a result.
    2
  943.  @anon_y_mousse  Technically the void parameter type list isn't required, it just means the call won't be a semantics error if you call it with additional arguments, it'll just ignore them. That's just behavior that's closer to assembly though, C as a language is really close to assembly and in that sense is a lot less complicated syntactically.
    2
  944. 1. American Education is crap, American Military is not, American Military Education is generally considered fairly good in comparison 2. I am a very purely anti-war isolationist American Citizen who doesn't actually believe in "Wilson Interventionism" we participate in as the World's police, but at the same time I'm not gonna disregard facts about an intelligent and very hefty military, now I don't nearly respect service men in the same regard as warhawks, but I'm not gonna say they aren't brave or anything, I just believe its gotten way less moral and ethical
    2
  945. Nobody owned Spain like Colonial Spain owned Spain.
    2
  946.  @BSenta  Pointing to something that does it worse doesn't resolve the issue and neither makes any issue even slightly better, its just misdirection, this is classic whataboutism, trying to throw C++ specifically under the bus for no reason (especially when the reason its annoying in C++ has nothing to do with the build system) and I wouldn't call pacman shitty, nor would I call clang, gcc, or msvc shitty. (nor would I call CMake all that shitty though definitely jank, but Scons is neither trash and neither is it jank) All this aside though, I don't have an issue with a provided package manager, I have a problem with a requirement of a package manager just to use a language and its standard library, if I can't independently use a language separate from the package manager I'd rather the language never exist. The Unix philosophy's core is independent simplicity, keep things as simple and modular as possible, don't create interconnected networks of dependencies that become impossible to disconnect. This is why systemd in comparison is better and why I'd say as far as packaging goes on Linux even C++ is better, as it only requires the compiler alone, it doesn't even specifically require the library to compile the language. (though why you'd do this is beyond me) There is no reason to violate the Unix philosophy's core here. Its not even that hard to operate without it, just stop building interconnected dependencies.
    2
  947.  @BSenta  "things around the language should be considered a part of the stack." Why? To claim this case but not support it with reason is irrational and foolish. Also it violates many FOSS standard mentalities, POSIX-based philosophies and the Unix philosophy. That means it also violates the usefulness of Suckless philosophy which is quite prescriptive and should at least be considered when developing software. The more things you have the more complex the system and the more things that will go wrong. I have experienced this first hand with crashing system and failures and its demonstrated constantly to produce exploitable behavior and bugs. It is by all metrics known that simplicity can not be achieved by creating interconnected systems of reliance and dependencies but by disconnecting them and making them operate independent of each other. This is modularity and its the reason why systemd was so successful. (its so important that even on Windows, the king of interconnected systems, they have to rely on modularity especially regarding failure) It works with C and C++ as well since all they require is one dependency that can't be made any simpler, more modular, nor smaller. I would agree with the C systems being made even more modular but that would require breaking backwards compatibility which C can't do, so instead a C/C++ based language should've done it instead. unfortunately Rust failed this task momentously. "Rust development is ergonomic because of that." Every Linux and most Unix-based systems are way more ergonomic because they do what I have said, pointing to C/C++ and saying "its worse" is worthless and fallacious, if you don't expect improvement with time you are a fool, if you expect you should be praised just because you improved with time you are also a fool, (and if you most especially don't improve with time you are a moron) the expectation is making solutions in a manner that does better with less inherent failure which Rust in fact does fail at, it is still stuck with a massive dependency issue that is unnecessary for function under proper design principles. "There's nothing wrong with having to build with cargo" I have my own package managers that are better and I'm incapable to not install Rust with Cargo, there is no reason to expect that I should need Cargo because my system functions just fine and could even functionally build Rust if not for Rust forcing me to have it. I don't want it and I should not be forced to have it, and neither should Rust rely upon it, should it fail, it will bring the entire infrastructure of a Rust build down with it, and if one is so naive to believe that won't happen then you mustn't have been in software for a long time because that has happened for some of the dumbest and unknown reasons all the time. Rust is no special and shouldn't be treated as the savior language of C devs if its still violating basic design principles. "your point is just concern trolling." So is Linus Torvald concern trolling? How am I concern trolling when my whole point is that Rust is building under flawed design principles, suffering the exact same problems we have with npm, pip, and all the other dev environment packages that are necessary to the function of the build system. Rust is not unique in its requirements of a package manager and neither is it new even for a compiled language, nuget has been around for over a decade and it proved all the problems just as much, least back then it was not a strict requirement for .NET, nowadays it is, and the problem has only gotten worse with unnecessary dependency issues. If you think the requirement for a package manager to build a language that should be able to run without any dependencies is too much to ask, then I ask you to stay out of embedded environments and never touch anything that required high performance development.
    2
  948. Honestly the only moral problem I can see (from a Christian perspective) with the ending (ignoring any tangential moral problems) is the lie Joel gives Ellie, using violence to protect and save your family and friends should someone be about to execute them is justified, its not murder if the kill is justified after all. Its also justified to a certain extent to eliminate calculated threats should the ramifications of leaving them be is foreseeable.
    2
  949. With Intel entering the market we finally get Mass Effect 3 end game GPU choices :P
    2
  950.  @Joeysaladslover  What have I misspelled? And when has my use of punctuation been wrong, perhaps you need to learn how to read.
    2
  951. "Sky isn't blue" says fact check site funded by Facebook.
    2
  952.  @ge2719  I'm just reading the Bible, you're the one who made up a fictitious statement off the top of your head,
    2
  953.  @mytech6779  You know the funniest thing, the Circle compiler is a C++ experimental compiler that implemented and proved the possibility of an incremental multi-level (opt-in) memory safety and incremental (opt-in) borrow checker in C++ with legacy C++ support still active, basically every safety guarantee found in Rust functioning in C++ without alienating its legacy record, and the dude who made that has already opened a proposal in the ISO C++ proposal papers for inclusion into the ISO C++ standard, meaning C++26 or C++29 could very well have this. (and those aren't the only features of Circle btw) The CWG already approved it for consideration which puts it ahead of many other experimental proposals too.
    2
  954.  @mytech6779  You know the funniest thing, the Circle compiler is a C++ experimental compiler that implemented and proved the possibility of an incremental multi-level (opt-in) memory safety and incremental (opt-in) borrow checker in C++ with legacy C++ support still active, basically every safety guarantee found in Rust functioning in C++ without alienating its legacy record.
    2
  955.  @mytech6779  The Circle Compiler proves C++ can have an opt-in borrow checker. And the dude who made that has already opened a proposal in the ISO C++ proposal papers for inclusion into the ISO C++ standard, meaning C++26 or C++29 could very well have this. (and those aren't the only features of Circle btw) The CWG already approved it for consideration which puts it ahead of many other experimental proposals too.
    2
  956. The EU has a long track record of not caring what harm their regulations cause.
    2
  957.  @helgenlane  "I have no idea how witness testimony can be a viable evidence anywhere." Because you're conflating two completely unrelated concepts and fallaciously conflating them. Its two to three independent witnesses that corroborate the exact same details and don't conflict, it is quite impossible that two or more witnesses independently (as in have not interacted or been influenced by each other) would perfectly agree on any event at all unless it had happened. This is literally the reason cops will tell witnesses to never discuss a case together. Its more reliable then any other metric you can make because when it the events are off its logically self-refuting demonstratively, there is no other case of evidence that exists that is more reliable.
    2
  958.  @TheRealRealMClovin  Sarcasm and rhetorical statements are inherently context sensitive. Context absolutely changes this. "If Hasan said ”I support and love the houthis terror group” do i need more context than that?" If he were sarcastic or speaking rhetorically, yes. And there's any number of other reasons, which can include being a joke or a troll. Like merely stating is not enough context to make a fair judgement.
    2
  959. Just gonna point out, most of the things he claimed were neither devised nor standardized by government, power regulation was not devised by government, monitors and keyboards have never been regulated by government, networking wasn't either, the internet itself is based on the DARPA program, but they haven't been in control of it since the 80s.
    2
  960. They're more in favor of a mixed economy which is mostly corny capitalism, so not really capitalism, also education was designed with this explicit intent back in the late 1800s/early 1900s.
    2
  961. While you are right about the personal responsibility as not much the issue, this video is otherwise entirely wrong and even straight up fallacious, foremost because it assumes that market pressures don't naturally push towards a reduced pollutant effect when the whole point of capitalism is to become more efficient and effective which naturally results is less pollutants, another issue is the belief the fascist socialist policy would solve this better when its the entire reason we have this problem in the first place. The government created the rising pollution but somehow you expect it to stop it? And the Green New Deal has barely any environmentalist legal crap in it, its 95% fascist socialist measures.
    2
  962. It would be better to get rid of the Civil Rights Act to eliminate DEI, as Disparate Impact Law is the entire reason DEI happened, Japan doesn't have a CRA and they have none of those problems, they're one of the few modern western nations that don't and its because they're one of the few without an American-style Civil Rights Act law. Look up Disparate Impact Law.
    2
  963. By the way buying and burning a Tesla without proper precautions in a safe place would still be a crime because its endangerment, so you wouldn't be allowed to buy a Tesla and burn it unless you burn it in a remote location, as the battery fires are nearly impossible to put out and the potential damage to the property of others unless in a remote location is functionally guaranteed.
    2
  964.  @matt60497  The modern Jew also can't actually prove that they are the sons of Abraham either, (thus the Levite priesthood is confirmed to be dead and there is no way to prove the Messiah according to them) they literally can't receive any authority from the Tanakh to rebuild the Temple (they also weren't given any signs to return to Jerusalem by God) cause the genealogies were destroyed in 70AD in the Abomination of Desolation with the destruction of the Temple.
    2
  965. This is a refreshing view, you'd probably be able to enter the US simply by learning a skill or gaining some knowledge, its not hard to provide value if you work for it, effort and discipline is the largest contributor to merit and if you can do so then you already would stand out. Remember people that its not about what you currently have or can currently do, its about what you can do and what your willing to do to provide value. And after all, the US is the most free nation in the world, it doesn't have a high QoL because liberty means choices which means mistakes, most people choose to make poor decisions and thus its their fault for a poor QoL, that's the result of equal opportunity not equal outcome like many other western nations. The only issue is the taxation which would require reducing the size of the government and its military especially which as of now not many people agree with.
    2
  966.  @blackgorillaarmy9204  The working class can take care of itself if the government would just get out of the way of business, the free market naturally regulates, the state should only interfere when someone is being assaulted or attacked, not simply because they believe they're being discriminated against.
    2
  967.  @dillonkeller4477  Childish response from a degenerate. Neither do I care what you or I think, I'm just calling you out for being a hypocrite and a degenerate liar and fraud. Say what you will but your character is on full display and you've been demonstrating it quite clearly.
    2
  968.  @wiscopyro  As a Biblical fundamentalist, I'd probably prefer her to most of the prissy city folk, and I'm from the city. These country girls tend to be way more Christian then the prissy ones.
    2
  969. Kinda looks like one of the BRs from Halo now that I look at it.
    2
  970. Except that misses the point that pleasure and pain being subjective, also completely misses the point that you presume utilitarian morality which is inherently contradictory and no regular person, or even most full nihilists, are capable to actually consistent follow utilitarian morality demonstrating that utilitarian morality isn't even subjective useful, let alone objectively useful. We all recognize when pushed into the logical conclusions of utilitarian morality that it does not work, its entirely a cope to even consider it.
    2
  971.  @jackieman7033  As technology progresses, it always becomes easier, cheaper, and more reliable for the average person to get access to that technology. (not to mention in a capitalist society poverty always naturally decreases and prosperity always naturally increases, making the bar even lower) Cameras, TVs, computers, cars, video games, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. We have no capability to predict the future advancements in technology that'll enable us to do such things, we don't even have capability to accurately predict our sequential technological leaps. We are almost quite deliberately fabricating our perceptions of this topic on nothing.
    2
  972.  @jackieman7033  My point has been that that our entire basis for limitations in economics and technology are based on literally nothing and you can't say they're based on anything else. There is almost certainly a time where everything you think about technology will be demonstrated to be wrong, same with me as was the case in every decade, its just a matter of when that happens, not a matter of if.
    2
  973. The biggest issue is the fact that without virtual function there is no vtable and nobody would do polymorphism this way if they have any knowledge of C++, the reason the vtable functions the way it currently does in C++ is due to historical reasons, it was at one time actually much more reasonable to do them this way but our systems have since made this old manner of doing this outdated in these specific cases where the things inside virtual functions themselves aren't already hotpaths, to fix this requires a lot of address in the C++ standard and that is a hard thing to move without a very good proposal. (and since this is a commonly used feature for a historical reason, it be near impossible to get anyone to agree to a runtime change) All that aside marking the classes as final will make the compiler devirtualize the vtable calls anyway, resulting in nearly the exact same performance even without templates.
    2
  974.  @Ultra289  "so basically you act like if your experience is the same as everybody else experience..." If my experience and experience of my friends and family, and the experience of people in the Linux community as well isn't gonna shape what I see as general experience, then I don't know what will. There is no way to measure any individuals experience because I'm not some random individual that isn't me, and I can't know every single person's experience, I can only extrapolate general reality by using my experiences and everyone I've met, we don't have anything more concrete to go off of, so if you don't expect me to do such, I'm not so sure you're thinking clearly. "Cuz my experience on Linux is basically sum up on stuttering and lower fps than Windows ,slow start ups (yeah i use hdd, not SSD) and basically a slow system, and yeah official Nvidia drivers were being used" NVidia drivers unfortunately make a big difference with Linux, NVidia absolutely despises the Linux community and have gone so far out of their way to throw it under the bus, honestly the open source NVidia drivers are probably just about as good if not better at this point, (which is not suppose to be the core decision when choosing which drivers to install) but truthfully Linux really needs anything that isn't NVidia. But even then, with NVidia, I have never seen stuttering nor low FPS compared to Windows, granted most of what I've worked on have been Intel and AMD, but I've only ever seen low frames and slow stuttering crop up on broken "native ports" (like Arma 3) or strange graphical functionality in Wine, which usually gets patched in Wine turning those games into supported Wine games anyway. It depends on your system config and the specific distro you use as well, Debian-based systems aren't the fastest, it also depends on a few other factors alongside that, like if you're using Wayland, its unfortunately not entirely upto snuff yet. There can be a variety of reasons besides what I do know and have said that you can have such problems, and 90% of them aren't Linux specific problems, its usually because you choose the wrong distro for the job or have the wrong daemons/services. (or they're not up to date) Could also be some other program you didn't update, didn't fix the swappiness of your system. (at 8 to 16 gigs, you should have a swappiness of 10, which means your computer will start to try fully using the swap file at 10% usage, usually its set to 60, even on Ubuntu, least last I checked, which means it pushes to swap at 60% which is slow as hell, that behavior doesn't have a definition in Windows at all) "You have to realize that not everyone had the same experience on Linux, which is something Linux fanboys cant understand that basic thing and they think that its our fault ,not the os ,this is another reason why" You're being entirely unreasonable expecting me to know the experience of people I've never met and whose experiences I've yet to see manifest. And that aside, often times it is the person's fault specifically, when getting into Linux, you don't just Google its name and leave it at that, Linux is not Windows itself, there are distros to examine, which a normie is entirely capable of researching without being overwhelmed, (or expected to ignore) it be no different then getting reviews and recommendations for something on Amazon, (and yes, there are regular people using Linux who can give you reviews like that, not to mention if you run into a problem, you can Google it easily) you need pay some attention to what you're doing, which you still have to do with Windows, you don't just go even with Windows, there are things you need to do beforehand, like drivers and installs, setups, some normie will even what permissions, and others will try to squeeze performance. Also I might add your experience no more defines everyone else's experience then mine. "Csgo and dota 2 were THE most stuttering games i had (specially when i used manjaro for some reason)" Using Manjaro right now, I've got over 500 FPS on CSGO (on most maps) with no stuttering and low input lag, and that's with Chrome and Discord open. My rig is pretty alright for gaming, I've got a lot of CPU cores on AMD, 16 gigs of ram, and an AMP Video Card, so it could've been your NVidia drivers screwing your experience as I said. That one we know is not a Linux problem, that's NVidia being anti-competitive (and anti-open source) again. Manjaro also isn't the only distro, and you might have less issues with a Debian system (or not, but you might, Debian-based distros are way more drag and drop to Windows) cause Manjaro being Arch-based, it only becomes a bit easier to work with, its still Arch, even if it is one of the best performing distros in a vaccum. (given you have decent drivers) "Yeah, memory usage was lower, Linux wins on that (except gnome) but since on Windows its also possible yo reduce memory usage by "nuking" the os is nothing rly special , i managed to reduce the RAM usage on Windows 10 from 30% to 14% (out 7,99 RAM, 0,1 of said RAM used by the Intel HD gpu)" Could go lower on Linux, but you do start to get to less user friendly territory, but fact of the matter is that Linux lets you do that natively, Windows does not. "Google didnt help at all and the Linux community forums (specially arch....) are just a nuclear power plant full of toxic barrels" Huh? I get that the Arch guys can be pretentious since "oooooo, I'm on Arch peasant, I'm so special" is very much a thing and I've run into them a few times, but I don't usually run into those folks often, least not enough that I would say it kills the experience, though you did also choose a distro that of course was gonna give you the most hassle when it comes to users, Arch is one of the most pretentious of the common distros. Again, I think in choosing Manjaro, you were probably shooting yourself in the foot. Beginner distros are Ubuntu and Mint Linux, Manjaro is more of an intermediate distro marketed poorly. "Yeah, Windows 10 has its flaws but still does what users want to do while Linux still cant detect all printers xd and other considerable issues of It" Quite probably all your issues sound like they were specific to Arch tbh, Manjaro can be great for a lot of things, but having easy access to drivers and inbuilt drivers is (as far as I've experienced) not one of them. You have to be very specific about the drivers you install and know where they are, in Ubuntu and Mint Linux, those problems from my experience are less common and usually because the specific interface for the driver is weirder then usual. Those two distros tho were designed from conception to be as easy for Windows users to drop into and for the most part they are, Ubuntu is often joked for being the Windows distro of Linux, which isn't all that unwarranted.
    2
  975.  @sbdxaric  The problem is that Roe v. Wade is entirely based on flimsy justification and lies in the case, also the only remote manner you can principally defend this implication is if you believe that a fetus at conception is not a separate being (which is scientifically wrong) at which case the right to privacy implied in other cases then could apply to this. However if its not then seeking to murder even while a child is within is still murder, which makes it a moral issue that needs to be addressed as the moral issue it is. Contraceptives don't have this same problem because there is no separate being of life until conception, once fertilized we can clearly point at what and where the being with separate life is, and we can distinguish it in multiple manners. But instead the judges decided on a whim subjectively that what they wanted to happen by forcing all states to require abortion be federally legalized in infringement to the Constitution in the first place. Unless you can make the argument honestly that you believe its never a life in the womb, the Roe v. Wade decision can not be consistently applied in law or morality.
    2
  976. Arms rights are the basis for every other right.
    2
  977. 2 hour mad lad, damn. Its sad that Kevin's love ended as it did alongside, even in being it partly his fault, but honestly I would find it hard to trust a woman who choose to marry a man who wasn't loyal in the first place, misery tends to rhyme and women who choose bad men tend to never select good ones.
    2
  978. Everyone agrees Amber was the worst character, but only in the show, in the comic she is literally just an average pretty white girl which is mostly used as a plot device. I don't mind them adding more to Amber's character to make her as unique love interest, but the whole SJW thing was so annoying and jarring that you really can't wait for Mark to break up with her for being a stick in the mud.
    2
  979.  @RS3Boomer  "bro look up more videos about this gun more good reviews than bad" Quantity doesn't fix this issue and neither does your bad anecdotal claims, a gun shouldn't have function problems AT ALL, concerns regarding a firearm should be convenience but that thing can't even hold zero right, if I even have to fear the gun won't fire, the gun is already in the most evil and dangerous category it could be, its a waste of money for that alone. I would rather pay for a broken non-functioning gun over a gun I'm gonna be playing Russian Roulette with a burglar over. I don't care how many good reviews you find, the fact this happened at all makes me say Hi-Point needs to go bankrupt and everyone should be fired, nobody should offer a gun with this much lack of basic consideration for function. I don't care how cheap it is if I have to fear blood spilling because it failed to work with official parts. "demoranch shot one with a gun and it chambered and fired still" Anecdotes don't fix this and I don't care, it broke and failed for what is supposed to be the cream of manufacturer's crop. They should go bankrupt if this is what they're gonna let happen. "Also yeah the firing pin ideally wouldn't break but I haven't encountered this issue with my rifle" I don't care about personal anecdotes either, the risk was already great enough for Garand Thumb to suffer from this issue in a supposedly cherry-picked review, this means the gun is a literal hazard to everyone who buys it because it very well can just suddenly stop working and guess what? You don't get to collect on a money back guarantee when you're six feet under. And nobody is gonna pay the recompense they should for that either, someone will die and that blood is on the manufacturer's hands, if I were to see that happen I would seek for every single person responsible at the company to be dead as well because this is outright evil and deserves capital punishment, if you're gonna sell a product to someone for which they could never know would get them killed for using it as intended and then they die, you deserve to die no excuses. I pray to God that nobody has yet died over this but all it takes is one and I would seek the head of every person involved for the sake of justice and righteousness, you don't get free pass for something like this no matter your dumbass intent, the road to hell is paved with stupid intentions some "genius" thought was brilliant.
    2
  980. Yeah, even he didn't care about his own life.
    2
  981. nice ref
    2
  982.  @pokey013  Yeah, its not that I hate him personally or what he's done or that I'm jealous that he is way superior to me in a specific field (or perhaps in other computing fields which he might be, but I don't know cause I've not seen much of his work outside the one he claims expertise in) he's definitely very knowledgeable on, (I don't exactly care to be experienced in kernel development and I recognize its importance even when it doesn't much interest me) nor that I think he's done nothing of note, its that he acted and referred to himself as an expert in a field, which is fair because he has a lot of knowledge and experience on it, in a fairly arrogant manner as though he's some prolific member of the community. (which I get as a Linux nut myself, but even so there is a modesty you should have for that) And that's not to say he wasn't at some point (though he is definitely not one involved in devising say the Unix model of software, which is one of the most important things Unix gave the world) but he hasn't been for a long time. This is what kinda pisses me off about him, the arrogance of expertise. And thing is I can sweep that under the rug under conventional circumstance, but his knowledge and experience is completely irrelevant to the case and he doesn't know anything about statistical analysis most especially. I wouldn't really say anything about him, most especially not disparage his accomplishments (which I don't doubt are many legitimate ones) if he didn't make claims he couldn't possibly make in regards to a field he seems to know nothing about. (and I mean accomplishment in the past 3 decades, not the ones going back to say Unix, AIX, and Solaris)
    2
  983. Probably should keep in mind that organized cells don't make an organized faction, it probably be more comparable to the Spanish civil war of 36', where neither side had peace in their faction and at the drop of a hat, a break would take place that would divide the faction. The nationalists were on the edge of splitting into multiple factions before it ended and the republicans had already done so. The only real difference is that we'd see many more split factions, it be very likely for local warlords to rise up out of the chaos of the more successful regions and dominate localities in a civil war. The left wing politics arming themselves only further emphasizes this fact, so if anything Spain in 38-39 would be more comparable to the US then 1923's Russia. Of course that is to say the right ever does do something, to which generally they are too much of a bunch of pansies to do so, so what is more likely is factional disputes within the left wing, much similar to how China tends to split up on the lines of warlords every so many decades or centuries. (and it seems in fact to be happening again there too, they could very well collapse into communist warlord states before the population problem hits the economy)
    2
  984. IEnumerables don't preserve their iterations, they merely represent something that can be iterated through, what they usually save is the instructions to manage the iterations, but never the contents, you will see the same thing with a lot of IEnumerable behavior if you don't make it an Array or List, to ensure enumerables preserve their data you need to use an array or List, otherwise there's not a single call you make to it that won't be more likely to iterate the enumerable.
    2
  985. Doesn't help much when your birthrate is worse then the western countries tho.
    2
  986. Pretty sure the militant blacks were in philly.
    2
  987.  @angelmartin7310  No she has not.
    2
  988.  @tkps  "Since when did conservative political views equate to religious ones?" All conservative principal is explicitly based on Christian evangelicalism, you can't have any concept of conservative principal without at least ripping off basic Christian precepts except if you lack other precepts you are a fake conservative, conservatism requires adherence to basic precepts that requires a large amount of Christian adherence even if you otherwise don't care. This is why conservative politicians always make very fake pleads to God as conservatism is inherently Christian-based. (even if its stupid how they try to secularize it, hence why I despise a conservatism) You can't conserve anything without that either. "I thought it was a preferred style of government & economics." They don't actually agree on economics and their civics rationalization is neither standard in any manner, there are plenty of socialist leaning "conservatives" and then many libertarian or anarchist leaning conservatives, they don't even entirely unify under "small government" that much, which is why libertarianism always opposes an association with conservatism, libertarians aren't all that conservative in most cases. "The one thing I do note happening a lot there is the more outwardly loudly religious someone proclaims to be the more likely they are to be as human as the next person." Anyone who claims self-righteousness is as immoral as anyone else, a honest person would tell you the only thing we are all equal in is how depraved we are and what our judgement for that depraved should be. Nobody wants equality however at that level because then we'd all be equally dead. However just because someone has a moralistic ideal they speak of does not inherently mean they are self-righteous, too many people confuse that and its frustrating, like when I tell people "I'm as bad as they come but here is this standard above us all that I still aim to be like and I'm telling you need to as well for your own good" and I'm told I'm being self-righteous. I'm so incredibly tired of people thinking having an objective ideal everyone should strive to fulfill is somehow self-righteous. "The difference being they declare how disgusting the rest of us are if we act human." You can criticize the degeneracy of humanity while still being part of it so long as your ideal isn't within yourself, if you aim for a higher ideal and admit to being a degenerate at times that's not a problem, the problem is if you're a hypocrite who openly and quite constantly speaks against something (specifically against the actions of people doing wrong) only to willingly partake in that exact thing in disregard to what you say. Like I mess up, I have things I won't directly criticize others since I do those things as well, I'll merely give a simple "here is what God says and here is how and why it is bad" and leave it at that. "So when they invariably do the same they cry into their microphone & beg God's forgiveness." I don't need to ask forgiveness to God publicly, those who do that don't generally care about God at all. What you do say is I'm sorry to those who you've hurt and publicly profess only that you screwed up without excuse. Anything more and you'll probably not be able to receive forgiveness. "However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. They should not be confused." Everything regarding how you live and what drives you to live is still relegated to politics, and conservatism is still based around Christian ideology, even if in many cases its a religious facade, its still stealing from the Christian worldview to justify itself, its however least more honest about it.
    2
  989.  @ctrlaltdebug  Its an old existing definition that's well understood by the layman, its not like you can't say "coercive state" but when you define a "state" by what the layman would call a "coercive state" you are just poisoning the well for them to understand. There is nothing about this that says you can't communicate well, its not reassigning words, if anything that's what the ancaps are (likely unintentionally) doing.
    2
  990.  @Karurosagu  "What's the problem with having end user programs only?" Nothing but you can't replace C if that's your objective, (and nothing against focusing on that objective, specialization can be highly beneficial) its fine if end user programs is your intent, but if people are trying to tout Rust as a replacement for C, the fact it can't even supplement let alone replace basic C functionalities means its not a C replacement. I have no problem with Rust as being another language with interesting ideas people like to use, some of which I even would like to see in a another language, (as I despise the syntax of Rust immensely and personally, I say as someone interested and knowledgeable of language design) but we need to recognize the limitations of anything we do. And there are many Rust devs who are completely unwilling to admit to any limitations to Rust choices or their choices. The fact so many in Rust are also unwilling to see the most basic rule of "every choice is about tradeoffs" demonstrates to me the immaturity of many Rust fans. Even the choice of "memory safety" is not an absolute and neither lacks tradeoff and I really wish the rustaceans would understand that instead of beating anyone who disagrees over the head with a superiority complex bat.
    2
  991.  @keizelharf5393  All nations to a degree tolerate some religious majorities, none, not the Caliphates, Chinese dynasties, and not even Cyrus, tolerated minorities beforehand, the HRE did, now that's not all minorities but there had never before been an institution that both spoke of the moral authority and prevented overt persecution of those who did not strictly adhere to it enmass.
    2
  992. Emphasizing the Green New Deal despite being an implementation of socialism and having almost nothing to do with environmentalism doesn't make him look good though.
    2
  993.  @MyAmazingUsername  Yeah, had Lenny been professional, tactful, and not adhered to the 4chan script, he would've made his enemies look the fool, would've made his image look spotless, shown how much he regards the project, and wouldn't have driven a wedge and a belief of hacks or insanity between him and the community. (destroying the entire reputation and even social media reputation of the nutjobs trying to politicize the project) This however instead became a childish spat and now both the degenerates of pride and 4chan have poisoned the well making only the pride folks look slightly better for they have less clear publicized insanity amongst them. A wise man makes his enemies appear foolish, but a fool only reinforces what everyone is already bound to know.
    2
  994.  @mrsatire9475  Darwin openly admitted that Irreducible complexity makes evolution impossible and stated had such systems been found to exist it would disprove his theory, turns out the very concept of flight is a theoretically irreducibly complex mechanic and there is no reducible construction of flight. (there are innumerable other examples of irreducible complexity among the mechanical structure of organisms, for example the knee is also an irreducible complexity, as well is the eye of most multi-cellular organisms)
    2
  995. Eric July is an anarcho-capitalist, he made the Metal/Rap fusion band Backwordz which is actually pretty entertaining for rap and metal fans alike, bit screamo and hardcore at times but it has a lot of great musical work. He's actually pretty heavily into politics, in particular the libertarian anti-government movement. Seriously though listen to Utopia's Don't Exist, Self Ownership, Statist, Democracy Sucks, or Statism, they're all really good so he already has a track record of producing good stuff. Songs outright calls out "anti-establishment" fools that adhere to establishment agendas and Black Lives Matter for being made of irresponsible hacks, he did this back in 2014, album came out in 2017, but they've been putting out singles since 2015.
    2
  996. Learn from the rooftop Koreans, execute anyone that threatens you anyway.
    2
  997. Two of my biggest Linux blunders: 1. Wiping my dad's entire Windows partition with previously irreplaceable files and work files because I modified the size of the Windows partition outside of Windows and install via the Anarchy Arch installer. (did recover the files with a deep scan and backup of everything left alive on the drive multiple times, lots of junk crap but also did save many of those necessary files) No there was no backup, that mistake has since cause my dad's Windows install to lack an activation key, however given the only reason he uses Windows is for a Cannon Inkjet Printer that has anti-Linux DRM in it, and otherwise he never touches Windows, suppose it doesn't matter. Least his computer is faster. Also reason I couldn't modify the Windows partition in Windows is that it wouldn't let me, the disk manager refused to actually do anything no matter what I did. 2. Tried to install a Manjaro/Grub dual-boot with Windows on my main rig, unfortunately my Windows install didn't use UEFI and I installed Grub with UEFI. Long story short it broke the bootloader for Windows and Grub knows it exists but has no capacity to invoke it since it wasn't setup for UEFI. In that specific case however didn't lose any files, but I can't risk changing the partition size so I'm locked on 300 gigs for a 1 TB drive where at least 400 gigs aren't being used. Lesson: Backup you're files dumbass, also stop screwing around with partitions.
    2
  998.  @anon_y_mousse  I mostly just haven't bothered because I don't even see a reason to get back to Windows and even the space problem was resolved because I'm such a moron I forgot I had installed an extra 500 gig SSD that was hidden inside my rig.
    2
  999. Bad parents and crap mental illness services, that's the biggest contributor to this, worse still I have direct experience with the mental illness failures as my mom is schizophrenic bipolar, grateful that her delusions and hallucinations only get her to say hurtful things and nothing more but damn does it hurt to see family lose their minds, in my case I only can really well recall when it was already most the way gone despite that being well beyond the age of 11 when that was the case, (everything before that is scattered and only pertains to specific periods of time) don't know what that says about me but definitely been through a lot of dealing with mental illness, both with my mom and myself, even after getting out of her custody (which was insanely hard to do because court took way too much to convince she was unfit) I was still fairly out of control for a time, but instead of trying to address it with better parenting and counseling alone, they wanted to unnecessarily drug me and leave it at that despite showing no signs that a drug would've worked. (I was aggressive, opposed to authority, short-fused, and occasionally violent and especially immature, I stated of myself occasionally to be depressed, homicidal, and rarely suicidal but showed no signs of acting such behavior, a drug at best would've done nothing to help me and at worst would've harmed me or even instigated me to actually consider performing such things) Thank God my dad said no, been living a normal life without a mental illness diagnosis ever since, I know what schizophrenic bipolar is like first hand and I don't suffer from anything like it despite my mom, and all of my family as well validate that I'm healthy on that front. System always gotta drug ya even if you could recover without drugs easily and never puts time into solving it even if you need the drugs, pisses me off, especially when my mom is constantly homeless because who can stand being yelled at for things that didn't happen that you didn't do in conspiracy with people that don't exist constantly? She's unwell but because she has no violent charges she can't be detained against her will, nobody can help her and if you get her to take drugs she'll stop it in two weeks without acknowledging she ever does anything wrong.
    2
  1000. tbf, the problem with people claiming its about "deeper themes" is that claim is a copout, whether it is or is not doesn't make a good film, a deep and good theme enhances the story, just having a narrative that makes you think greatly enriches the story, but if the story itself breaks down and/or betrays the theme, aside from the other writing problems that ruin a story, claiming it has themes and means stuff doesn't fix it. It's just ignorant garbage copout crap to hide or berate criticism and irrelevant from a subjective world view, one which is irrelevant, ignorant, and completely inconsistent from a philosophical and demonstrative reality. (in thus calling it an empirically invalid interpretation) There's also a point that needs to be made when a story not only counteracts its themes, but preaches terrible themes. One film I like to pull up on this is the second httyd film, where it not only neutrally allows, but outright promotes parental abandonment, as the women never gets punished even when she is outright justifying her actions, she feels no remorse nor regret for what she had done of her own volition abandoning her child for twenty years. In cases like that, not only is the theme claim a crappy copout, and the fact it even did it well total bull, but as well the story promotes completely evil and immoral behaviors as wholesome and acceptable while giving no negatives to said behavior.
    2
  1001. Ha, punishment for bad actors without copyright or IP, I've always said IP law is stupid and here is a demonstration of how goddamn stupid it is, government enforced monopolies are unnecessary and anti-market. We don't need legal crap, we've got free markets.
    2
  1002. @JacksonChen666 Trademark of OBS was owned by Streamlabs, Trademark is an IP/copyright of identity and are mostly covered under the exact same laws. However they're anti-free market. And GPL doesn't technically have any authority over copyright itself, it merely says that the code itself isn't covered under a copyright. (and you can't retain copyright on that specific code, which you couldn't anyway unless you were the owner of said code)
    2
  1003. It used to be privately and communitarily managed, there were no mandated attendance, you would willingly go to the school house (which may have also been the church) if your parents could afford to send you that day, (or perhaps one of your siblings) you'd learn from a volunteer of your community among other kids of your community who could afford to go, and then when you went home you would then teach all your siblings and potentially your parents. Otherwise it was household tutoring and true homeschooling usually by parents or contracted private tutors. This is what we lost, the government got involved and then they started justifying taking money to "pay for schooling" and then attendance became mandatory and the pastors started to warn that if education were to made a state operation then it would turn the nation into a atheist dystopia where the state becomes god and parent, where everyone is fooled by state propaganda, and would lose their moral foundation and the intelligent inheritance of their parents.
    2
  1004. He's been spiraling not too long after the Rittenhouse case, what gave it away first was when he said he would pivot away from much of the legal stuff and then started pivoting to his deviant lifestyle, when he started explaining how a nude beach set him free from some inferiority complex and how psychedelics with his wife made him feel really good, it was absolutely him losing the plot, then if you investigated it turns out he's been to a hedonism resort with his wife, and then he started reviewing sex toys (especially CBT crap) on stream, he's been an absolute lolcow for a while, kiwifarms has a crapton on him, probably lot more now then they did like 6 months ago. (which is when I last checked) After he started pivoting away from the legal interesting stuff on his streams I found little reason to listen to him and only came to check up on him from kiwifarms and hot damn is it full of uncomfortable degenerate things he and his wife have done. Its no wonder he's now being charged for drug possession, child endangerment, and gun charges on top of that.
    2
  1005. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," - Matthew 5:44
    2
  1006. My issue is that I want to run Windows for some of my multiplayer games without spyware and Microsoft malware. Windows 7 is the only one capable of this.
    2
  1007. @Toasty Bred Eh, that's not entirely true the media tried to smeared him for the littlest things because they were communist from the start (they've always been propaganda for the tyrants after all) but they failed to propagate that through the culture until after he was already well out of office. Nobody really called him out at the and everything they try to hold on him doesn't even work because none of the big things that they try to hang on him come from a decade after him at least.
    2
  1008. If you can't take the heat, get out of life, pronouns are biologically determined, the entire reason these sick bastards want to change their pronouns is because they want to be the opposite sex, that's the whole point of transgenderism, it makes absolutely no sense to put them in the game for the transgender, the identification of gender in transgenderism still recognizes the gender binary, everyone else is a sycophant moron and only do it for political reasons. The ratio of the less then 0.1% of actual trans folks that don't recognize the gender binary is itself less then 10%. We have more Muslim fundamentalists in the US then both, where is the Muhammad worshipers? Anyone gonna point out those bastards want to kill the trans folks too. I got a good troll mod idea, mod everyone in Starfield to be Muslim.
    2
  1009. I'd probably prefer unverified be yellow and the "potentially unsafe" permission thing be changed as well to yellow saying "needs extra permissions" or something.
    2
  1010. afaik they won't support plugins for a long while anyway
    2
  1011. Black nationalists can't ever help but produce failing states, it probably has to do with the fact that nationalism doesn't define a state (ethno-states don't actually work and they never did because people are not just ethnicities and that doesn't make them qualified to rule any people) and being communist is about the best way to ensure you're a genocidal manic that can get away with gassing anyone who doesn't happen to be Jewish. (or they do but you claim they're not, the Soviet Union killed plenty of them too) Most governments love to overlook genocide so long as they get paid, even the American government, it cared about alignment with Russia and China, the Cold War had nothing to do with Communism, the US government was already extremely Communist going back to the 1920s, and then when FDR got into power, he was a Communist in every way outside of what he called himself, but make no mistake, he was a textbook Communist, he even loved the Soviet Union and wanted to preserve it.
    2
  1012. Even then a lot of historians still try to hide the truth pre-70s. (and tend to still exclude a lot of the USSR)
    2
  1013. Could we please keep this down to Socratic questions, I'm simply curious about the issue, if you think to address it without knowledge please be silent brothers.
    2
  1014. Not when its not ABI stable.
    2
  1015.  @mortarion9813  I take issue with justifying an option on the simple basis of promoting fetishism, mass appeal should not be exposed to someone's sick fetish, that's just disgusting.
    2
  1016. This insanity reminds me of my mom, though she hasn't ever killed or attacked anyone (afaik) she says crazy stuff like this constantly, though usually not as self-important as this dude, she suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar and has a massive delusional persecution complex against everyone she meets. Her insanity did has no relation to drugs though.
    2
  1017. Let the free market decide, government needs to get out of business before it can claim to be moral, that goes for Germany and the US, which are both anti-capitalist markets.
    2
  1018. tbf, in terms of explorers Columbus is more so used as an excuse for a holiday and now a western civilization punching bag, however many other explorers deserve a day more then Columbus does, how about instead we have Day for American Exploration because then not only do we not bother with the myths and crap behind Columbus (both for his good and bad in reputation) but we could easily recognize the explorers (and maybe some proto-founders) of the Americas overall.
    2
  1019. Anyone who makes a demand for population control doesn't understand basic economics either.
    2
  1020. Kinda interesting film, unfortunate that it butchers the book and completely misses the point tho.
    2
  1021. He accepted and deserved to be punished for it, he can refuse, and he should've said "I'm not a statistical nor social media expert" because he's freaking not, he's low level kernel development expert, there is no reason to expect any of his skills translate to this, especially when he has no history of experience in analysis.
    2
  1022. You know something especially stupid? Halo 4 already has Chief exploring his humanity, being desperate for Cortana before they just brought her back to life and screwed her up, which Halo Infinite practically retconned proving Halo 5's story was stupid. But even when Halo 4 was kind of both drab and clunky, the story wasn't terrible, it wasn't mostly the aesthetic and narrative coincidences that sucked.
    2
  1023. The real problem is that competition is being stunted by the government, and if consumers really cared about "right to repair" (which isn't a right, that's privilege that a government shouldn't be enforcing anyway) then they wouldn't continue to buy from John Deere, Apple, and Tesla as the consumer opinion would've initially started with "this is too locked down to use", but since they don't do this, its clear that these concepts do not actually improve the life of the consumer, only those who have a problem, which is a tiny minority of consumers. In essence its a form of tyranny by a minority. Also if not for IP law, there would be nothing actually stopping someone from just breaking opening the functionality of something and building a business on circumventing the locked down nature of these companies, for which the company would lose business and would become naturally encouraged to either be more open or keep losing business. The only real reason nobody does this, and thus locked down companies can lock down their "IP" is specifically because selling services to this is extremely damaging as the government and corporate establishment have built the legal infrastructure to punish anyone who can actually pull this off, least to the degree that the company could notice the hole in their pocket.
    2
  1024. I would minimally probably ask that logs and source not be so cancer.
    2
  1025. Pretty sure its an Option<Box>
    2
  1026. Just gonna point out that Jesus being the only way said all you need is to believe in Him and the rest of path will become fulfilled in the desire to be more like Christ. The belief as a verb is only partially correct regarding Christ, and it can't be fulfilled by anything you can or want to do. No Christian is capable of belief because of themselves, it is because of our submission and understanding of being drawn to God that we call ourselves believers, and thus are washed clean in the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus.
    2
  1027. A lot of comments here seem like bots.
    2
  1028. eh, the former monarchies of Europe and in much of Asia took a millennia or more to collapse, there's not a single democratic institution that currently exists that's older then 300 years old.
    2
  1029. tbf social liberals didn't exist until after John Adams died, I would believe he more so meant the original intent of liberalism.
    2
  1030.  @captaincanada5139  Horthy's reign and the order predates Nazi Germany. And Hungary didn't enter the war for much other reason then to oppose the Soviets and take their old lands back, by the end period of the war Hungary was a puppet government, throughout most of the war those things did not apply. Horthy's association with Germany was a pragmatic concern, not a principled one, and before the war even ended Horthy was deposed from the order and it accepted Jews into its ranks.
    2
  1031.  @captaincanada5139  The way you argue by presuming the worst of your opposition without cause or reason will ensure nobody listens to you.
    2
  1032.  @terrydaktyllus1320  I'm pretty certain he wasn't talking about you in the OP given that you outright say you don't hate Red Hat and only really dislike systemd for being too much bloat for you personally, I think you jumped the gun with this comment seeing things that weren't there, nothing he said really addresses your perspective, he's talking about people who hate Red Hat and blame systemd for all startup issues on Linux even though you don't need to use it. "So you're allowed to have a negative opinion on CLI usage, but everyone has to accept "systemd is brilliant" just because you say so and if they have a different opinion, then they are just "haters"?" He literally didn't even say anything about this. You're talking about choice, he's talking about people who blame systemd for taking away choice which it doesn't do.
    2
  1033.  @GodwynDi  You are only a clump of cells, what defines life? Who gets to make that judgement? You or God? "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." - Psalm 139:13-16 "They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." - Jeremiah 32:35 "You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord." - Leviticus 18:21 "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own," - 1 Corinthians 6:19 "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? “Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?" - Job 38:1-11 You have no authority to determine for who are to judge righteousness and unrighteousness? Who are you to judge what is and is not life? Did not the Germans do the same? What about the Soviets? Or the Chinese? Who determines where life is to be protected and by what standard to protect life? God commanded that all life of mankind is inscribed from conception as human life equal, recieving of the Imago Dei, the Image of God. Yet you demand that a hedonistic solution, and to punish the children for crimes of the parents. Under any other standard this would be considered evil, but because n baby in the womb can not speak for itself and is not seen so clearly with the common eye in daily life, we considered it less human? How is this just? Who calls law to protect? Man or God? Who made law so that children would be protected? That justice be done? That a good will would be done? It wasn't among Molech nor the other pagans, it wasn't among any but the Hebrews who Jesus established Christianity out of for the sake of the whole world that the Hebrews that had violated their covenant by keeping their light to themselves. Through Jesus the grooming of Greek sex boys was stopped, the worship of idols were destroyed voluntarily, and the whole of the Empire was converted in three hundred years. Who established law? God did. "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” - John 7:24 "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? " - Romans 2:1-3
    2
  1034.  @notaboutit3565  I learned everything I know originally on C++, self-taught near entirely from scratch, was actually leading my intro to CS in HS from freshman year (they barred us from taking all the electives in one go and I was utterly pissed over that, even bought the purple dragon book intending to write my own compiler and game engine in C++ at one point) because of that, but I've always had a fondness for where C++ came from since it made such a clear and concise syntax and it didn't do anything unnecessarily. (not to mention unlike Java or C#, you are not compelled in C++ to even use any specific feature or paradigm) Without C, C++ wouldn't be as good as it was and I always will appreciate that despite its niggles. (especially since almost all C code is still valid C++ which is nice) The alternative that pisses me off the most has been Rust, (though its other breakway languages seem to share this problem to an extent too) and funny enough the language designers are only part of the issue, but its really the community that has since made me ever despise them. I really wish people would stop performing jihads for a programming language against those who criticize it.
    2
  1035.  @KofolaDealer  Yugoslavia collapsed without Tito, it be like if Stalin died and the country immediately broke down into 10 equally sized nations, imagine that, that's well worse then the Soviet Union's collapse.
    2
  1036.  @romany8125  Is that what we're targeting as altruism? Cause in that case Christianity would call that narcissism, not altruism.
    2
  1037. YT, Twitter, and Facebook are a communist cabal who is trying to rule society like 1984, (which they outright admitted on camera) why would you think they wouldn't shadowban you when you oppose an aspect of their narrative? They've been doing it for weeks at least. (if not months and its only going public now)
    2
  1038.  @TheNemesis442  What?
    2
  1039. ​ @justanto  Objective: (American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition) 1. a. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality. b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts. 2. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair. (Collins English Dictionary 12th Edition) 1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?. Any morality for which is uninfluenced by emotions, personal prejudices, existing independent of or external to the mind, or existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions is objective morality. (it doesn't matter if its a belief or not, the mere capability to disregard thought makes it objective, all non-relativistic religious doctrine is objective by definition, the ability to disagree with it does not make it non-objective) If you can't understand that definition, you're three deviations below the average, there is no reason to bother with you if you can't understand that. If you can't even read what I said correctly then it also means you have reading comprehensions problems, I referred to Nietzsche because he correctly made the point that without an objective morality the only reasonable conclusion is nihilism, which he tried to solve. Every atheist philosopher of the 18th and early 19th century tried to solve this problem because they knew you can't have a relative morality that doesn't devolve into nihilism or hedonism. Also I'm not a libertarian, but its definitely low intelligence behavior to come to a openly libertarian channel and then attack and insult people for being libertarian though. Especially coming to a Paleo-Libertarian channel and then claiming that there is no objective morality, maybe you're actually four deviations below the average instead.
    2
  1040.  @justanto  Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're not worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. There is no point to that, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice. Thus this argument is itself worthless.
    2
  1041.  @justanto  You have the definition of objective philosophy given to you, your inability to read is not my responsibility.
    2
  1042. Tim completely ignores the previous secession crisis that happened in the North thanks to Henry Clay's tariff policy, it was purely because Andrew Jackson was a master politician regarding the states that he solved the Constitutional Crisis, then Lincoln instigated the exact same problem for no reason, literally calling himself a "Henry Clay tariff man" and oh surprise when those tariffs that caused a previous secession and Constitutional crisis once again caused a secession and Constitutional crisis. Tim is objectively and historically wrong about why the South seceded, completely ignores Lincoln's centralization and economic planning policies and his hatred and desire to kill the Southern states and turn the citizens in those states into slaves, when the Union army massacred and burned down even towns of Southern states that willingly tried to join the Union, he laughed in joy. He had Union citizens slaughtered in New York for opposition to the war. Lincoln was a murderous psychopath. Go watch Razorfist's "American Dictator".
    2
  1043. Nuclear powers are extremely reluctant to go to war with each other, I'm pretty certain the only reason Israel didn't want them to have nukes is because if they did then they'd be under MAD doctrine which means any conflict between them would almost have to be small and low-risk, likely proxy, something they hate cause they want to wipe out Iran, sure Iran may want to wipe out Israel too, but Israel has nukes, so without justification they can't simply sling nukes at Iran, it would look like them punching down.
    2
  1044. Most breadwinner women divorce their husbands and have unsatisfying marriages, women as a demographic are not very loyal to those who make less money then them, most stay-at-home dads end up divorced. Women are designed to be taken care of IN THE HOME, they should be the most responsible for taking care of the kids, educating the kids, and preparing them to become emotionally stable adults. (the father of course serves a purpose here as well, but his biggest job before anything else is providing everything his household needs, this is the natural optimium)
    2
  1045. Keep in mind, public trade is hyper-regulated regulated by the government and ESG is owned and operated by economic NGOs with WEF and US subsidiary backing, Bungie made every Halo up to Halo Reach with passion and drive, Nintendo and many Japanese and Korea companies do not have this problem and are none of them are publicly traded in the US (most studios in Japan and Korea aren't publicly traded at all) and do not fall under US public trade regulations nor are even eligible for ESG even if they did follow through. And keep in mind, when Japanese businessmen noticeably fail a business, they don't go into government, NGOs, the WEF, or often even another big name business, they are shamed out of the industry almost entirely, so if they fail they are punished for it. Japan and Korea (ignoring half of Sony as they are publicly traded in the US) don't make good products off the backs of being better people, their incentives inherently align with the consumer base so egregious investments are discouraged else they will not only lose money but their job that makes them that money. This is not a capitalism problem remotely, like aside from historically good and bad games always existing then and now, the Far East does not suffer at all from the Western gamedev problem despite being just as if not more capitalist, notice in fact how much regulation and government intervention public trade (specifically American public trade) has and how the companies that have since started to succeed the most and are the most consumer considerate have absolutely no public trade fueling them, a lot of the issue is not just a government issue but it is a massive part, look at manga/manhwa and anime, or even the new indie comic scene, compare it to the comic and media scene in propagated exclusively in Hollywood? The only somewhat big name alternative of late has been the Daily Wire, which in the least you can say has put out a lot better stuff regardless of whether you agree with them or not. All the big name companies in Hollywood are publicly traded in the US from Disney to Universal to Warner Brothers, that's not a capitalism problem, in fact if anything I'd argue its an anti-capitalism problem driven by incentives that require satisfying the board over the customer which only happens specifically because the business is required by law to do so else the government will come after them, even if stockholders got mad nothing happens unless those with all the money were to sue over fiduciary responsibility. You can even see this with Disney right now, did you not see the latest shareholder meeting from Disney? It was literally nothing but politics, people asking when they'll get out of it and complaining about taking positions in politics they shouldn't, or say not paying for de-transition surgery when one regrets it despite paying for transition surgery, and then Bob Iger just accused everyone are not knowing what "Woke" even is, that it doesn't exist, and that Disney is not woke. This all costed him massive in stock, but who is gonna sue over fiduciary responsibility? The board voted him for another year with 94% approval despite shareholder disapproval. I say it should be fairly obvious the problem is especially evident that its American intervention and regulation that most caused this issue and public trade is the biggest problem of it.
    2
  1046.  @jboss1073  Where?
    2
  1047.  @softwarelivre2389  I don't see how its a better syntax, and that aside not everything is a container, (or only need only compile time constants) most things, especially in such languages, aren't, the fact the containers are vital to your workflow doesn't justify the syntax because majority of the time you're not building something to contain other things, and generics often tend to suck unless you're specifically building containers. Rust's generics still only cover a subset of features of templates in C++, I know there are other features that do similar things, but none of them seem to actually make C++ less suitable of a tool, and they still lack the power of C++ anyway.
    2
  1048.  @jussim.konttinen4981  I should addendum that I don't believe justice shall nor should be serviced in the temporal realm, it is not within man's capability to decide justice himself and it is not given to him to decide. Justice is a concept derived from the God and all things that represent Justice, being the arbitrators that government is suppose to be, derive their authority, power, and representation from God. (being the Originator of Justice, there are separate discussions for when they fail this job and lose that authority for which they can be overthrown, but I will not diverge further into it) This is also where I say rights devise their power from, hence why justice and rights are so intertwined. Since however there is no mortal arbitrator of justice, the only authority for justice within war is thus God, who dictates the moral outcome of the war mortally as a judgement, but may also not take judgement and justice in the mortal realm at and instead those responsible for immorality shall be held to account in the afterlife. This should be an addition to what I said to clarify justice does not and should not be expected to be served among mortal men. (as a side point, this is where we derive "innocent until proven guilty from", and why it can only exist in nations of Christ's morality)
    2
  1049.  @Nandru85  How is he a scam?
    2
  1050.  @Nandru85  I was literally asking you a question based on what you said.
    2
  1051.  @richmcgee434  Tbf both are spinoff terms of the same concept, reproduction and the lack of it, English conventionally likes to simplify things and keep things short, (especially since it'll just use anything it thinks sounds nice) which also often results in informal speech and a lot of slang. The lack of true standardization in English has pushed this principle way further then you'd find in other languages, which both makes English super flexible and rather complicated. (and generally very unspecific, least as far as alphabetic languages go)
    2
  1052.  @omnissiah7859  Fair enough.
    2
  1053. Even many of us zoomers can recognize this, Tim is just blind and very bad at history (and logic tbh)
    2
  1054.  @brianpierson1322  Not by ever a so specific verse, for the Gospels needed not speak clearly of that which had been universally known to them in that time. Crime was never seen to be punished in that time by imprisonment for it costed the nation for no just payment and corrected nothing. In this I speak according to the historical case God laid out in the nation of Israel as law that man's crime be serviced with justice, for the thief to pay his dues and the murderer to pay such dues with his life. The clearest definition of how to treat crime is residing within and around Exodus 22 which speaks on the expectation for criminals, for even it speaks that a robber or a thief may not be killed by merely being a robber or thief, clearly demonstrating in that chapter that one does not pay blood for blood, for true justice is payment of a price equal to the cost made by the crime, by expecting blood for property, for blood is clearly worth much more then property, and thus it not be justified to take blood for property. We all know this now as we oppose the taking of life even to the degree of violating justice, unloving that such be, but we recognize in this that the value of life is evident even in our wickedness, it is by this we know the blood is of the highest value, that man in the Image of God is the sacred temple and thus should be preserved wherever possible.
    2
  1055. Pretty much the sole reason that didn't happen was because the government put in place by the Union were just as, if not more, tribal then the Southern government that they replaced, it was the result of 19th century racialism, or the belief in the concept of a multitude of human races which was common following certain Enlightenment thinkers. Tribal of course referring to the principal of self-association with a people to the exclusion of considered "other" people, but in this case without just reason, not nativism where the principal was consideration for the current natives of the land and the nature to preserve them. (which least the Southern government did consider where as the Northern establish government did not for they were not natives and had just fought a war over the rights of the states) This combined with the pseudo-scienctific racialist perspectives based on said principal later demonstrated to be false gave many of the governing people, as in those of the government, desire and cause to institute restrictions against the black folks in disregard to the whims of the people who lived there. We must remember Jim Crow was a government regulation and institution, not a natural once, and the establishment of a law to counter-act it by banning discernment and discrimination on any basis the government that was seen as arbitrary only opened the door to seizing of property not owed to the governing body. In essence it became the government blaming the free market for a government institution and blanket banning everything without regard for the right of the individual to discern what they should and should not have a right to do.
    2
  1056. A lot of women actually love abusers, that's why all their porn, and even much of their non-porn, is about abuse, they get off on being sexually abused, there's a similar thing with the rape crap, they get off on masochistic sex, in comparison men's tastes are pretty tame since most men don't enjoy masochism or sadism. It being a story doesn't change crap, women say the most disgusting things when men aren't around, they often fake their thoughts in front of men, but if you've ever heard a rabble of women when they believe there are no men, its disgusting and horrifying.
    2
  1057. Rust is still a very immature and poorly designed language. Also anyone who says C++ is not memory safe doesn't know anything about C++, it is memory safe if you stop writing C code like a gibbin, it is just as safe as Rust.
    2
  1058. @ Its still better then Rust which has refused to ever make a promise of ABI, not to mention it lacks the basic requirements for shared libraries and dynamic linkage to be usable. Zig has better ABI promises despite being in alpha and it doesn't make all that many compared to C, I don't think anyone understands how bad a problem that really is.
    2
  1059.  @JonMartinYXD  Yeah at minimum communicating it to upstream for necessarily things would really be helpful, one benefit you can say to this exploit as well is that there is a proper and secure fix to the problem the patches were trying to fix being implemented in systemd now, still will take a bit, but we'll finally get rid of this vector of attack in the distro packages at least.
    2
  1060. You know the ironic thing is that half a decade before the hyperinflation, they had a Laissez-faire leadership that opposed the inflation, but out of nowhere they were removed from office and replaced.
    2
  1061.  @latviandragon2718  That's not how Queen Victoria operated at all.
    2
  1062.  @mouseprotector5081  If not for Youtube banning links, I could get you a lot of empirical evidence that demonstrates it. Youtube blacklists comments that even mention details.
    2
  1063. Its called disparate outcome law, they do it because the Civil Right Act requires it else they'll get sued. All western countries outside of Korea and Japan follow the US on this and its why all countries but Korea and Japan have legally mandated minority quotas. There is no discrimination laws in Korea and Japan, it simply is less profitable in a free market to discriminate, the incentive is against doing so, for economic and social reasons, all US discrimination has always been based on state intervention, Jim Crow was law, you couldn't not do it, they just turned the law in the opposite direction instead of getting rid of it.
    2
  1064. I remember the "very fine people" hoax where NPC morons like that claim Trump called the neo-nazis of Charlottesville "very fine people" except he literally said that he denounced the neo-nazi torchholders and was explicitly only speaking about the people on the two sides of the whether to take down the statues or not. I am sick of these idiots. Every time some moron says "the right doesn't denounce their side's extremists" that person needs to be locked up an insane asylum, and I don't mean that as a joke, they are shadowboxing schizos that are a literal danger to themselves and others
    2
  1065.  @gljames24  If you're getting into a semantic debate, you're already supposed to define your terms for use in then defining the semantics, you narrow your terms down to precise if but potentially commonly incorrect or incomplete definitions because it is better to get full understanding across then to leave a hole for misunderstanding. The lack of doing such in a debate is functionally poisoning the debate before it even started. (at minimum you're being a fool, worst case however is you're trying to win through a fallacy) You don't need to do this for general semantic understanding across a society or demographic, this only matters when you are getting into a debate, this case isn't a debate, its a well defined principal.
    2
  1066. I think devising and designing manners to solve a problem with the least complexity is superior to add complexity, the less complex something is, the less likely it is to fail, the less moving parts that can break, and denser the depth can be in transmitting the desired effect.
    2
  1067. Peace doesn't work against socialism.
    2
  1068. Eh, its generally preferable to deform over snapping since its easier to fix and it causes less force to transfer to the user. If you could deform it to this degree, you were likely using the wrong tool anyway and at least it could be repaired and should cause at least less damage to the user.
    2
  1069. ​ @JeffNeelzebub  I never said he was a failure, that's all irrelevant. All I said was that there was no empire after Alexander because there was no empire following his death. I literally said that the fall of it can't be called a success or failure. All you can say is he failed to preserve the continuation of his empire. Also if I recall correctly Genghis' empire did last at least one generation after his death before it collapsed.
    2
  1070. Boeing going for that hat trick.
    2
  1071. I will always find it interesting how the people who claim everything is racist towards some hyper-slavery conspiratorial meta-narrative are the exact people who are deliberately driving up the enslavement of their "protected" race because they claim said race is incapable to think or act for themselves and must be sheltered and segregated from it but yet is disallowed any freedom from this "protective enslavement", and then when you point that out they call that thinking supremacist despite being a negative philosophy to their claims. It can't be supremacist, you can't retain a position but pure opposition to an existing position. And if you ever point out the conspiracy nutcase crap that this is they call you the conspiracy nutjob (which itself isn't even specifically a problem unless you reject the existence of conspiracy altogether, but that's beside the point, they consider it to be one) and try to cancel you for "being intolerant" of their stupidity and intolerance.
    2
  1072.  @ZipplyZane  It is dumb but we did have an apolitical server where we segregated political talk and it had communists, reactionaries, conservatives, social liberals, classical liberals, and monarchists all talking, it was pretty fine so long as people didn't start accusing people of false things. We only took out the political talk because some of our admins thought it more productive to do so as some of us admins would enter the political talk and they worried of not being able to properly moderate the channel.
    2
  1073.  @ZipplyZane  The only rules we really had in the politics channel was no troll bait and no false accusations, we ended up with at least 3 communists, a few socialists, and a bunch of different Christians, Muslims, and Athiests all discussing things and we only banned like 4 people over it, in a server of over 5,000, there were at least over 30 people who were ever active in the politics channel. The reason we had a politics channel was because it was associated with the purpose of the project, the project is remaking of Paradox Interactive's Victoria 2, politics is a big part of the the game, so before we killed it we agreed to have it and it worked out fairly well for the most part.
    2
  1074. Wisdom tends to come with age, and conservative thought is among the oldest philosophies you'll find. Though to point out, its Christian principals that defines everything needed for moral world, there is no decent society without it.
    2
  1075.  @virgodem  Rust's desire to mandate runtime costs for memory safety and elimination of undefined behavior prevents a lot of optimizations that make C++ really fast. (granted its fast, one of the faster compiled languages when you don't consider build times, but C and C++ will still have it beat) A number of the compile-time safety features also prevent the compiler from properly performing optimizations that are comparatively easy for a compiler to do in C++. That which is fast can have safety integrated on top of it, that which is safe can't have speed integrated on top of it, its a one way street, if you need memory bounds checking, you can do it in C++, its always been part of the standard, but majority of the time its not needed/wanted, you don't want runtime bounds checking when you already know the bounds at runtime can't violate, that's a needless waste of performance the compiler is incapable to optimize.
    2
  1076. jokes on you, I'm from the future and typing to you from the git-kernel.
    2
  1077. jokes on you, I'm from the future and typing to you from the git-kernel.
    2
  1078. Didn't we since learn that Melody was a dude or something? Or was that a rumor? Also the sex market has always been full of retards, prostitutes and sodomites getting offended over their inability to push the bar higher, especially when majority of the porn addicted masses that is the internet, is like entirely expected. When the only thing you have to contribute to society is your attractiveness and nothing else, you've already hit the bottom of the barrel, and of course the internet would be able to outperform camgirls, some of those dudes can't even get off to actual sex because of their porn addiction, a regular camgirl definitely isn't gonna do it for them. You know the funny thing about this situation tho is it highlights employee competition that a lot of people forget. Anyhow I don't care either way, tho I'd rather respect someone more for looking for some real stuff then the matrix trash. That applies beyond sex, lust is lower on the list, (tho it is somewhat important, dudes should want young women with good genetics and good health) and only after wedlock.
    2
  1079.  @Edax_Royeaux  So is the Military-Industrial Complex not profitable? Why are they doing it then?
    2
  1080.  @Edax_Royeaux  But they don't, they aren't reliant on the function of an economy otherwise socialistic systems don't work at all, (not just fail to to what they claim or work for a time, I mean there is no way they could exist) if a government can take control of an economy then its not reliant upon the function of the economy to exist or work. If it can restructure the economy, then the economy is not its dependence, which even the US economy clearly demonstrates.
    2
  1081. ​​ @Edax_Royeaux  The way I phrased that is a bit off, but the intent of the message was not to say the economy does not exist, but that the government is not reliant upon the economy to exist, the subject of "to exist or work" is not the economy but the government, I didn't include punctuation so its a bit wonky, however it should be pointed had I meant to say it in the way you interpreted the phrasing, the point of the statement wouldn't have been the existence of the economy, but that regardless of its existence or function, the government would carry out its capability. In either case I did not make a point of a non-existent economy being actively controlled by a government.
    2
  1082.  @sidneybuckaloo  Doesn't work like that, and you can't because at some point the teams still need to communicate and the male teams will always give preference to survival of the women even over their own self-interest, survival, and tactical or strategic advantage, all it takes to see that men behave differently even separated is to observe how the belief or awareness of a player in video game is a girl changes everyone's opinion and behavior towards her immediately following that knowledge, there are plenty of examples in competitive games and MMOs.
    2
  1083. If your parents were/are illegal migrants, the only thing that saved you from the same fate is pathological envy, in this regard its a corruption and only seeks to harm. There are only two moral ways for citizenship in the current order, ethnic origination or submissive processing. Unless another order is devised (like restricted citizenship based on service alone) this is how citizenship morally functions. Also Big Boss you understand nothing of American history if that's how you put it. First no one stole from the native tribes of the Americas, the land acquired wasn't owned. Also many (mostly northern) native tribes did not even believe in ownership of the land and had ceded their ownership not only implicitly but even explicitly to American colonists, they signed treaties to "keep land" a lot and would occasionally break said treaties and massacre populations for one reason or another, resulting in retribution for their shortsightedness. That's not stealing, it wasn't even a border dispute. So there is no need to repay because 1) nothing was stolen 2) you can't repay what you have not personally stolen. (to that end its a personal question, not a moral one) Also seems you've never heard of the moral law of homesteading, in which case why are you even trying to discuss American history without that basic understanding. How foolish. Anyway, you're understanding of the United States is highly flawed, the lack of understanding for homesteading, the native history, the standard costs of migration, the understanding of American values, the concept of assimilation, and misunderstanding of overall cultural impact. The US has a grounded culture you have still not assimilated to despite your claims, I'm not very confident in referring to you as an American despite the citizenship you may have.
    2
  1084.  @hanro50  "tell the folks that who keep complaining about thier IP leaking" Idiots with opsec, anyone with decent computer skills should not have IP problems, that's otherwise straight shameful and I'd dare say they don't actually know anything about computers. It's not even a browser problem, that's just how networking works. "Well without it you'd need a dedicated application." Assuming you need a dynamic web which in many regards you don't, and even if you do, you don't need most of the excess exploitative trash that comes with it, 95% of Javascript functionality, most especially the most exploitative parts of it, could be disabled and the only thing truly lost is excess holes in the system. Doing so would also lose you much of the security concerns you'd bring up because even if they aren't strictly Javascript only, they are intrinsically linked and only usable via Javascript. Besides, a dedicated application you pipe between can actually be sandboxed easier then a browser, not that sandboxing a browser is hard in the first goddamn place, but if you really care, separation of functionality is just straight superior, and for a browser it would not be that hard to do if anyone actually cared about performance, security, or privacy. At the end of the day though, the blame is on Javascript and the thinking Javascript enables you to use.
    2
  1085. I'll always insist we call it a Machine Learning and not AI as it retains absolutely no intelligence or awareness.
    2
  1086. Rust doesn't (and never will so say the devs) have ABI stability and fails with dynamic linkage and isn't even capable to support it properly, it can't support Unix as anything but as a toy.
    2
  1087. Not necessarily true, Jia Tian's contributions go back 2 years, long enough for all but mainline Debian to have active packages with potentially suspect commits.
    2
  1088. This section is spaghetti code? Honestly the entire GTK is spaghetti code, its just less spaghetti code then implementing it yourself but most of the alternatives (specifically the younger ones) are less spaghetti. The only reason I can really see to choose GTK over most of the alternatives isn't because of a lack of spaghetti but for the sake of design consistency, not even flexibility. And truth be told I think gnome design is utterly trash still anyway, so would I prefer consistent trash or inconsistent choices? Honestly I prefer the later, I don't care about form, I like function.
    2
  1089. For a lot of things WINE is capable of running those things unless they rely on DirectX 12 functionality or have some obtrusive DRM (or very specific function calls found in anti-cheat programs) in it. They can be a good bit annoying but usually its not impossible. There is also VMs which tend to be more effective, but also waste way more performance, outside that, all you got is dual boot.
    2
  1090. Just another stupid GNOME take.
    2
  1091. Depends on your objective, but if your objective isn't actually to successfully spread your ideas, then you are a grifter.
    2
  1092. Leave it to Microsoft to screw up both user-friendliness and update functionality, even more genius that they interfere with one another, absolute morons.
    2
  1093. Just gonna say, IDK about them, but government intervention contradicts a free market, if you believe government needs to stop monopolies, you're violating competition and free market principles, monopolies and corporations were devised and instilled by governments, not solved by them, that's not the government's job, it doesn't know how to operate a market at all, and its not supposed to make the market fair of balanced nor competitive, it has no jurisdiction over the market.
    2
  1094. @Sam97-oi4vc A traditionalist includes church and community, you could not live without both, and a traditionalist will not live without both. So even in the off chance that her father was abusive or did not care, the church and community would step up and provide for all her needs alongside any male relatives she might have. This is God's standard. As a result both the church and community as well kept parents in check should they be wicked, (and this same expectation was on her potential husband) the expectation of society was everyone helping each other voluntarily and keeping each other in check when they were acting wrong. There is no moral standard except for this.
    2
  1095. Justice is itself a punitive action, not preventative, "preventative justice" is always tyrannical, you can't have the presumption of innocence in it and it always produces thought crime and pre-crime, the proof of the crime ensures you know they weren't foremost innocent and that they need to pay the price.
    2
  1096. W chat
    2
  1097. You must be incapable of perceiving breakfast if you think this will turn into a massacre on the cops side.
    2
  1098. According to every standard I know, there is no difference between the definitions. Looking at the culture and given everyone I've met, they are generally also used interchangeably.
    1
  1099. In my experience, there is no distinction, as if it was made up in some heads to explain the difference, but to which there was never anything proving it. I mean if you want to use that way, fine, but I've yet actually find any credible source distinguishing them. Also, war would be a playground for both types regardless, war is even pleasurable to a sadist, you'd probably even be able to find a lot of suicidal masochists, which is about as good at describing the video anyhow.
    1
  1100. Why the fuck would you include Lars? Besides being Major Asshole of Metallica, he can't really play for shit, at least not anymore then a mediocre to poor drummer. Like I'd get if it was cause he could hit a beat well or keep in time, or actually play drums, but honestly, he can't, the only reason he's even here is because he was in Metallica. I won't say he's a horrible or the worst drummer, but definitely didn't deserve to touch this list, he is nowhere near as influential a musician or as a drummer as many other drummers, the only reason he is even considered good is due to the Metallica cult following that calls St. Anger good. (btw, might want to give those retards some ear bleach to cure their sickness, pretty sure its worse then AIDS) In any case, Lars can only kind of play, can't tune his instruments at fucking all, has no timing, he's really only ever been in Metallica since the start because he's too much of an ass and everyone else is too much of a pushover to drop him (and he sort of founded the band, though I think James also needs to leave, both need replacing, as James is past his prime, he had a good run but with his hand, voice, and age, he really can't do it anymore, as for Lars, please kick that motherfucker out soon)
    1
  1101. This video seems to only show and blame one of the many groups that are killing this country. The government isn't even the guys in control. They are the puppets, the mascots, the scapegoats of the true evil that needs to be killed. Not just defeated but killed. These people include the federal reserve, the UN, the EU, and a lot more. They don't just stand for global domination but they stand for control, oppression, destruction so that only a smaller few will live as they see the rest of the world as worthless. This isn't only about one group. one nation, or even one continent. This is about the whole world. Global Domination and Control through destruction. We need to stand, we need to fight, all of us, from every corner of the world, from the darkest and deepest of places to the highest and brightest. These men are never going to give up. They have planned lifetimes upon lifetimes in advanced but if we can get enough people to fight from all over the world then we have a chance to live free in our own nation with out the problem of Globalization. Who will share this with me.
    1
  1102. Just gonna point out the EU is mostly responsible for economic turnover that tends to affect the UK that causes disparity issues because it is the top of the five powerhouse nations paying exclusively for its continuation, (most of the other nations are a drain on it because most of the other nations can't support themselves without the EU) until Brexit were to finish that is still the issue, if the people are desperate, the government is unable to provide through its taxation of the moneymaking aspects of the society. That is why the EU is an economic problem for the UK, its the first nation to experience its economic instability caused by federalizing of power both politically and economically, however this issue is inevitable economically to each nation state, its similar to using welfare to support people who don't work and provides a drain on the economy without enough benefits to warrant desiring it. (that wasn't the original design of the European project btw) I'm also gonna point out that the migration to the UK had good reason to be a skeptical issue, diversity was not Europe's strong suit, diversity in thought perhaps, but racial diversity is a poison to the cohesion of a sovereign, the reason is biologic, we (and many organic beings in fact) are built to identify with a genetically and biologically similar group who has customs and culture similar to our own. Europe is a perfect example of this, its one reason why Islam never made it into any nation state of Europe en-mass until the 21st century. However another issue crops up under this problem. Europe is inherently individual liberalist, as in defers to the values of the individual liberalism ideology built upon Christian Protestantism, its inherently and diametrically opposed to Islamic values which defer to hyper authoritarian conservationism built upon Arab Islam manners, this in itself creates the first true point of contention that has nothing to do with religion. (anyone who claims that it is will be using an agenda to push a narrative that is unsupported by factual evidence) There's also a cultural issue with Arabs and Africans, for they perform such behaviors as incestual interbreeding, beating, whipping, and otherwise unjustified violent actions against both women and children, and they commit to pedophilia and other sexually perverse manners. These instinctual malpractices in culture overall further develop unintelligent, under-developed, poor tempered, violent miscreants that resolve to authority issues and sociopathy, they are unsympathetic generally and have an inability to foresee their own actions and understand the significance of them. Until they resolve those issues mass migration of migrants isn't gonna solve anything, it merely makes crime and violence worse and increases economical and sociopolitical issues in any region it happens to. That is why migration has skeptics. Those who claim intolerance and such are more so educated in the ideals of propaganda instituted likely from the state and don't understand biological, logical, nor economic reasons for disliking mass migration, especially illegal migration. If you need an example where that fails look at China towns in the US, in a free society where legal migration is the only right migration that would tend to happen a lot more, and only as a society becomes more genetically homogeneous does it tend to decrease slightly. That is to say homogeneous mixing happens enough for it to, it can take a long while and the more genetically diverse the worse the problem is, it took the German, Irish, and Dutch towns and villages in the US over 80 years before they homogenized enough to not be considered purely on ethnic and they're actually very genetically similar, Africans and Arabs are very genetically distinct from Europeans, not even to mention the Asian and Jews, who also promote and greatly prefer genetic purity. (in the sense of staying ethnically pure of anyone that isn't them, not deigning to believe they're superior) You also can't force this, when you do you actually create a huge amount psychological, economic, sociopolitical, and such issues that we have barely scratched the surface on. But the fact we know barely (and what we do know is its extremely terrible) how damaging forcing homogeneous genetic mixing is to the majority of a populous just means a term of genetic diversity is one of the worst forms of anti-biologic propaganda we've yet designed. At least diversity of thought doesn't have this issue however.
    1
  1103. I wouldn't mind auto-automobiles, but we should ensure that everyone still understands how to drive, the rules of the road, and proper etiquette of the road even when the cars could take full control and responsibility. Aside from that, people should probably drive themselves at least a good bit and leave the autonomous side to long trips. But that's just me, and I think government regulation on this should be minimal or even none, as well as hold the company responsible for autonomous accidents cause by their software. Then again, this also felt a lot like an ad tbh.
    1
  1104. ​ @RestingJudge  To point out Christ, John, and Paul all directly contradicts your claim that Genesis is suppose to be taken as allegory, it also doesn't make much sense since the the claims against an omnipotent God being unable to devise the world in a certain way to his design given he is omnipotent.
    1
  1105. https://medium.com/@An0nKn0wledge/the-france-election-was-rigged-with-massive-fraud-heres-how-5186efcc1ecc maybe?
    1
  1106. I'm liking where this channel is going, keep up the good work, you'll reach a million in no time.
    1
  1107. Does anyone else wish they made a Chronicle sequel?
    1
  1108. Linux basically solves this problem by not doing it in the first place.
    1
  1109. I feel like the idea that "major war could end this century" is a naive statement when you don't understand why the some of those smaller wars are fought. They aren't fought just for democracy or because of the people, and so far, no one has been insane enough to actually prove whether international nation criminalization has consequences. (I mean there have been a few PR cases when something happened, but not a single fuck has been actually given to the considered minor criminal court cases in a global case) So in the near future, there may be a leader who won't care and we'll have to prove the criminal cases. And he might end up still working for an extreme ideal of his area and if that happens, there will likely to be a war, one that could be large enough to rival the world wars.
    1
  1110. Screw Google but any way why not include ezzo/ Element Zero from the Mass Effect Series
    1
  1111. It doesn't state that or I didn't read that any where but it doesn't MATTER to me really.
    1
  1112. Fuck, didn't expect the US to still outweigh the British Empire of today in both military and economic value. That' kinda crazy, its like 10 times the land, 5 times the population, and they'd still not nearly match us.
    1
  1113.  @fitzdraco  To be fair that argument is called Adiaphora and is considered totally irrelevant to being a brother in Christ, the core point being saved in Christ alone, that belief in him alone as the Son of God being the root of your redemption and rebirth. Granted very few Christians these days will take a non-Trinitarian seriously however it has been made clear that belief does not determine your damnation under Christ even if we can not agree with it, granted it can grow into apostasy and heresy because of how divergent from the fundamentals of the Bible but it doesn't ensure God will strike you down over it.
    1
  1114. Those really only take into account things that could debunked because they directly affect rich people, the chemtrails conspiracy, for example, would work if the purpose is not to harm people, but for control. In which case that statement no longer holds true. As for the cancer thing, that one is way more complex, and would require half an hour of explaining.
    1
  1115. The NASA Warp Drive has shown interesting results and testing has currently shown possible FTL speeds without Light Travel effects. Of course it is all probability and theory but the Warp Drive is showing promise and has not been discredited yet. We can only hope and that is by far, the closest we have to success (though I remember reading that if proven true within the next few years, there may be a mission to the nearest star which we could reach in an estimated 2 weeks) Now there is the issue of Artificial Gravity, if only we could solve that then we be one step closer to rulers of space (I have seen theories but nothing as confidentially good as the Warp Drive's evidence) 
    1
  1116. I think people are stupid, the EU is a rather problematic state where the laws are more broken and full of loopholes then any other international organization in the world. The cause of this is due to international trade agreements attempting to be countries are doomed to fail half way, and which should not be attempted in the first place. Brexit proves the mess the EU actually is, and leaving, while may seem economically damaging in the short term, in the long term, it gives the UK much more influence over its economy and territories, and will no longer be governed by people who don't even live nearby. This most effective because the UK is on of the stronger islands with a large influence on the EU even after its leave. Anyone still sitting on the idea that the EU will work out can expect about as much success as the League of Nations who just bullied Germany into WWII. Only its much worse because the majority of laws that benefit one group of people will not benefit a majority of any other area. By the end of the day, the EU is a mess that nobody has gotten around the cleaning, that shouldn't have come to existence in the first place. Someone who believes that the EU should continue to live is holding on to a death ticket as nothing but destruction will remain as it goes on.
    1
  1117. I'm suspicious that Microsoft and Bethesda are buying those "good ratings" like what was happening in Gamergate.
    1
  1118. She's not a classical liberal at all.
    1
  1119. James Lindsay explains it pretty well.
    1
  1120. @ And what if I told you I was in Turkey? What becomes of your argument then?
    1
  1121. @ Don't ask fallacious dumb questions and you won't get a smartass answer.
    1
  1122. @ That's still not a refutation, you really love your fallacious deflections.
    1
  1123. @rusi6219 And how would you respond if I wasn't American?
    1
  1124. @ In the former Soviet bloc that be true, but outside that it most certainly isn't.
    1
  1125. As a Calvinist, my house is actually blacklisted from visits because my dad posed questions they couldn't answer. A true theological position will ironically make them avoid you, despite the fact we'd rather they visit specifically for their own sake.
    1
  1126.  @hglundahl  Its not even remotely well looked upon to so manipulate the Word so poorly that you outright reject Jesus as God, the Bible is not allowed to be re-translated and reinterpreted from the English versions, that's excessively disingenuous but that's what both the Mormons and JWs did. The documents of the Biblical text refute those interpretations, they add to the Book in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19.
    1
  1127.  @hglundahl  "Lot's of what you say about JW's and Mormons is just a follow up on Protestantism in general." How and where? And by what authority can you make such claims? See you don't get to say this and then leave it as if it isn't an inherent claim, JWs and Mormons are heretics, Protestants (which means you're referring to Lutherans and Lutheran adjacent mostly) are not even apostate, they accept Sola Scriptura and don't modify the Biblical text in accordance with English translations, they too read from the old translations, now there are some break offs of Lutherans (many who claim to be Lutherans but reject many basic concepts of Luther himself) which do violate these standards, but they're already not Protestants anyway because they reject the core foundation of Protestant doctrine, that being Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. JW and Mormons reject both of those, they don't believe the original Biblical text as it was written in the first century in the original languages was inspired by God, they had to modify the text to get their cult behaviors. "For me, those two groups are just two of many other groups which are also very wrong, and their members show a bit more heroism than some other guys." If your argument is that there are many cults that claim to be Protestant, that's an irrelevant conslusion, we're not arguing about other groups because you didn't bring them up and they're not under addressment, if they were I would likely refute them too. (or contemplate a refutation in the apologetics) And God cares nothing for courage when it lacks belief in Jesus as God, He can't be the brother of Satan and He was there in the beginning in which all things were made through Him, the Gospel of John refutes any alternative interpretations. God does not grant bravery as a virtue if you don't stand in the truth, and they don't. "Making "ban on images" a separate II commandment and pretend Catholics break it is also adding to the Bible." Once again an irrelevant conclusion, nobody brought this up and there was no reason to assume it was. If you want me to make an addressment I never supported a concept of Iconoclasm so long as we understand the image itself is a representation for the sake of knowledge and understanding, it has no power and should not be treated with reverence. This is where the Catholics screw up, they treat Mary with reverence and every image of her with reverence, they worship angels and symbols which is idolatry. They pray to angels and saints despite every angel sent by God in the Bible that saw that yelling at people to stop immediately. We are not to give any reverence to the imagery, the concepts, or things of the air, Earth, or sea, nor anything given into Heaven, only to God Himself. Anyone who does not agree with that is making themselves at war with God. But under that mindset its an individual that should understand that, and the church should warn men not to do such things, unless the one who made the image made it for that purpose (any image made to be worshiped or assault the faith, for which we own, must be destroyed which is constantly described as part of actors upon the Law, the only exception would be for theological discussion and demonstration, most commonly being books of evil for arguing against) there is no offense to God that does not otherwise offend the sensibilities He gives in the Holy Spirit. The Catholics violate this not because its a new command like you claim, its a command the same as the Golden Calf spoken in the Exodus, to God such things are indistinguishable, you do not pray to angels, we will be made judge over them, we do not pray to the beasts and creatures of this realm for we are in dominion over them, they are given by God as service and duty that we have rule over. The one above us in our charge (not in our morality) is God, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are harmonious and perfect. That is our charge.
    1
  1128.  @hglundahl  "Giving douleia to them, and relative worship to symbols (relative latreia in images of God in the flesh, relative douleia in images of St. Michael or of a Guardian angel, is also not idolatry." If you bow in submission and give something prayer you are doing the exact same thing the Hebrews committed with the Golden Calf in Exodus, they did much the same claiming that it was revering God. You don't claim you are honoring God when you bow your head into submission to anything other then God. We are above them in standard and value, they are below us just as the Earthly domain is below us, we can not pray to them because they are in submission to us, this is demonstrated even in Genesis. Those who have claimed such things have not examined either Paul nor have they examined any of the first four chapters of Genesis. "As you are a Lutheran, you are at least not abusing verses 4 to 6 of Exodus 20 as a separate commandment, so what is your prooftext?" I'm not a Lutheran. Do the Psalms demonstrate a violation of that command? Did not God form us as a demonstration of the art to glorify Himself? If we are given in the Imago Dei and God beloved the creative nature as is demonstrated in our formation and the formation of creation itself, is that not a clear demonstration, especially in our desire to form and create, that we have natural revelation to speak to being creative creatures to us? What does Romans 12:6 say? What about Exodus 35? Philippians 4:8? 2 Timothy 1:6? Ephesians 2:10? 1 Peter 4:10? These are merely some cases of the array of Scripture that says to us that our gifts are to give glory and be under use for the sake of God, this includes the creative, for we were made in the Image of God to give glory to God, which we do in our works and gifts. We don't do it by praying to those works or bowing to those works, nor the works for which God made, there is no charge by God to bow our heads to created works, never once is reverence reserved for them. What do the angels do when they come? They see man bow his face before them but he tells them "do not be afraid" and has them stop bowing their heads, when angels saw man pray and bow before them they would call everyone to stop. Yet you insist that you must bow your head before the created beings, that you put yourself under them instead of having all created beings put under us lovingly. "It would seem St. John could have been so overwhelmed by the splendour of the angel, that he took him for God, which would be a case for yelling "stop"." "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." - John 1:18 Literal start of John. He was struck with fear, had he met God he wouldn't have been alive, even Moses did not get to see God and that was known. His fear is what was leading him there, not reverence, that's why he wasn't punished. "Wait ... are you abusing verses 4 to 6 as a separate commandment?" I don't get what you are saying? It is a command separate from verse 3 and verse 7. Where do you claim that its not a commandment separate from worshiping other gods and taking the name in vain? "things of the air, Earth, or sea, nor anything given into Heaven," "We do NOT worship Pachamama or Ceres (by the way, a certain guy who did worship Pachamama is not a Catholic in my book)" If you bow your head in submission you are worshiping, also no true scotsman fallacy. "we do not worship the angelic or demonic beings who make lightning and rain, we do not worship either waves or fish fertility, we do not worship the angels that move sun and moon, their place in the liturgy is when we tell them to bless the Lord." You can't bless the Lord for He is above all, it is receiving blessing from the Lord for which is given. "Actually, created persons and even man made objects have been worshipped because of their relation to God." That's not a moral validation. That's irrelevant statement. "The Ark of the Covenant by King David" Foremost you need to quote this and secondly, if that even were true, (which I have a high suspicion that you are performing eisegetical analysis again) who said David was right with everything he did? Did he not kill a man to get at his wife? Was he more perfect then Peter who rejected Jesus three times? "and the Blessed Virgin Mary by Elisabeth" Now this one I know is bad eisegetical claims, no where in what she said does she revere Mary as anything but blessed by God, she does not describe her as above the rest of men nor does she worship her. She is given a role for which God had loved and blessed her much like any believer. Where is she demonstrate to be above man? Also Colossians 2:18: "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind," "both expressing words like "how is this for me, that X comes to me?" Again that doesn't demonstrate a worship, that demonstrates a blessing that they would be so gifted with God's plan that they'd have first hand account to it. "The Catholics violate this not because its a new command like you claim, its a command the same as the Golden Calf spoken in the Exodus," "Ah, you ARE really abusing verses 4 to 6 as a second (not new, but number 2 out of 10) command! These verses are in fact, and Luther knew this, part of the FIRST commandment, which extends over verses 2 to 6! The "do not worship them" does not refer to "images" in the previous verse, but to "strange gods" in the verse before that!" And where is your proof to this claim? The text is translated as is, you are reading into the text not reading out of it. Scripture describes this image before and after continuously, it is a command reiterated multiple times. "How quickly they have turned aside from the way that I commanded them! They have made for themselves a molten calf and have bowed down to it. They have sacrificed to it and said, 'These, O Israel, are your gods, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.'" - Exodus 32:28 "You shall make no molten gods for yourselves." - Exodus 34:17 "Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods. I am the LORD your God." - Leviticus 19:4 "You must not make idols for yourselves or set up a carved image or sacred pillar; you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down to it. For I am the LORD your God." - Leviticus 26:1 "that you do not act corruptly and make an idol for yourselves of any form or shape, whether in the likeness of a male or female," - Deuteronomy 4:16 There is a notable distinction between calling upon gods and images in each of these texts. In Leviticus 26:1 it specifically refers to imagery and not an aspect of any god given here. Are you gonna argue that the original text doesn't say this? In which case do you know what the original text says explicitly? Can you translate it for me directly word for word while I watch? If you can not then you have no ground to stand for this. Either text says what it says in the translations we have or you are required to demonstrate how the translation is wrong, but as it stands now the contextual analysis of the text can not be used to argue in support of your claim. That is not an exegetical analysis of the text. "We will certainly be made judges over some angelic beings ... in one Catholic reading, I presume, that verse means we are by exorcism judging fallen angels." No, Paul is speaking about God's angels, the context doesn't let you claim "fallen angels" because Paul doesn't refer to demons as angels, the context violates that interpretation, so the exegetical analysis says that's wrong. Its quite evidence in the context that Paul is referring to the angels that love God and man. It also doesn't make any sense given that he's speaking about making right judgement among the church and to the world, so the standard for good being done needs to be higher then the church which he calls upon the angels as a reference for the angels of God do good in a manner superior to the church among the sinful ways as we are, for they fully follow God unlike man who is not fully capable to do so yet, so both contextually of Paul and logically in accordance with the subject and context you are objectively wrong about this. "Totally correct. And Catholics do not pray to Bastet or to any other Cat goddess, however much we love cats!" Bowing to an image is putting yourself in submission to the creatures of the Earth for they were created, specifically if the image is organic in nature or mere representation of something of a actable nature, that often being man and angels. "It's very true that YOUR sensei is not in charge of me, and shouldn't be in charge of you either, given the number of errors on Catholicism he spreads." This is irrelevant.
    1
  1129.  @hglundahl  "Whose definition? A religious definition simply involves "wrong religion collectively pursued with group pressure", and sociological definitions involve certain types of group pressure." There is no "religious definition" of cult, there is only one form of definitions, that being the result of the linguistic definition that is in common use in society for language is defined by the common people who partake of said language. The freedictionary (one of the better dictionary sources, though not sure they're the best these days) says: "1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The followers of such a religion or sect. 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion. 6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest." If we examine these definitions, we can't use 2 as it would be so broad as to include Catholicism, it can't be used as a demeaning substance if we refer to definition 2 because that describes distinctions between religious rituals and worship. Same thing to definition 3. The rest could be used but 5 doesn't exactly apply unless we say that about Jesus in which case yes but that makes the demeaning use once again useless, and 6 is irrelevant. So the only definitions we can use for demeaning purposes are 1 and 4. Neither of which define Protestant or Reformed theology. So which this is mind Protestant and Reformed doctrine is cult-like in nature and can not be objectively described as a cult. "Not really. If we speak about JW's "irritating" we are speaking of precisely a human evaluation." No, they're not especially condemned by their actions, (for everyone is condemned by Original Sin already, their acts are not more condemned then Original Sin already makes them) they're condemned by their theology which commits thievery to the body of the Bride of Jesus, being The Church. The worst sin is that which adds or takes away from the Word. (Deuteronomy 4:2, Revelation 22:18-19) "No, douleia is reverence, as we show saints. Latreia is adoration, which we only give to God." You bow your head in submission to them, you treat the saints as special but all brothers and sisters are made saints in Christ. And angels are below us in stature, they are not to be revered, they are to be respected, just as we're to be shown respect to both nature and man. Anymore is idolatry. "But not adoring it. It's still douleia, not latreia." Alright, lets accept the premise then that such a separation is valid, so lets see what happens if we walk in those ways. You may know such the concept perfectly well enough not to sin perhaps, but most others can not and will not understand it and will specifically never bother, they will commit to those claims under sinful ways, worshiping them as idols because of their sinful nature, they just as well will say that it doesn't matter to understand it because its the priests job to do such. So even if we accept that premise it consequently will result in sin by the human nature. God does not give ways that tempt people, He does not tempt man, (James 1:13) so the premise must be flawed. "She was. Luke 1:28 says She is blessed among women. This being a military decoration as per OT usage (reserved for two women who had killed enemy generals), and Luke 1:42 is such an echo of Genesis 3:15 that the only enemy she could have completely defeated was Satan," Nowhere in these references does it say she was without sin however. This is reading into the text, not reading out of the text. Also nowhere in the text is she described as being capable to defeat Satan, there is no reason that she would be made without the necessity of the sacrifice of Jesus and there is no demonstration of that. She refutes that when she says: "and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior," - Luke 1:47 Pray tell me, why would she need a Savior if she was inherently without sin? "just as Her Son had (and was going to). Therefore She must have been a perfect enemy of Satan, impossible if God had found any blame in Her." This is a complete non sequitur, even if aspects of your assumptive position were sound, to which by itself they are not, it would not follow immediately that such a position is correct inherently based on that position. There is no correlation that any of what you said would demonstrate that she was a perfect enemy of Satan and was left without sin. Also the only ones referred to as blameless in that passage isn't Mary, its Aaron and Elizabeth, and it only makes that in context to the commandments and statues of the Lord. "Mark 10 quote doesn't preclude a created person being so filled with God as to be without sin. Remember what you are supposed to be when you get to heaven? Right ... so full of God you are without sin, for eternity." But that's not what we are now, so that detail is irrelevant, you can't use a future promise to describe your current state, else the assumption would also be a lack of necessity to be married in violation of what Jesus and Paul taught for most. (Matthew 10:11-12, 1 Corinthians 7:9) This logic is flawed because it treats time as irrelevant for us when we live in time. It also ignores another statement that Jesus makes about the stature of righteousness being only of God. (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19) For Mary to have been without sin alongside this statement would require that she either be God or that Jesus was wrong. Not to mention its opposed to Romans 3:10-11 which by nature must include Mary. "The Golden Calf is not a saint of the true God, nor an image of either Himself or a saint." Where is that standard described in the Scriptures? Not a context surrounding the Scriptures or a reading into the Scriptures, where do the Scriptures specifically refer to that standard? Point to me the book, chapter, and verses. "Elijah did not say no when Abdias bowed down to him, neither Daniel when Nebuchadnezzar bowed down to him." So both Elijah and Daniel were perfect beings that never made a mistake? The Bible is only full of perfect beings that don't stumble? Clearly it doesn't keep everything it describes as acceptable acts to God, it does not look kindly on Lot's daughters when they rape their father yet it describes just that act in fair amount of detail, there are many cases of whoring and other violations again God that it does describe in rather fair amount of detail. And there are plenty of preceding events for which it describes, many cases of even considered men of God committing wrong or evil acts to which it does not always address explicitly in the text, (specifically in the OT) as its a historical documentation just as much as a moral instruction. We are not to emulate Elijah, Obadiah, Daniel, or Nebuchadnezzar. Who is the Lord of our faith? Jesus. Who are we to emulate? Jesus. "We are under God, not just when we directly honour God, but also when we do so by honouring a person He has honoured, because He has done so." Alright I'm gonna stop with this circular addressment nonsense because its turning into the purest form of he said/she said, so long as I leave it like this its like playing wack-a-mole for theology without getting to the root. Here is the basic question: What would Jesus have believed? What would the Apostles have believed? That is the core of everything, anything outside that question is irrelevant. In order to be saved in the Catholic religion you have to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the bodily assumption, and the infallibility of the Pope, but lets ask: would Jesus and the Apostles have believed in that? What would Jesus have believed about that?
    1
  1130.  @hglundahl  "Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God. We have our eyes on Jesus, when we have our eyes on Abel, Henoch and so on, according to St. Paul, unless you consider it was St. Barnabas who wrote Hebrews." You literally didn't answer the question, what did Jesus (who was never addressed of the question) and the Apostles (who you never answered in regard to but least quoted me in asking) believe? Its a simple question, to be saved in the Catholic church you must first believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the bodily assumption, and the infallibility of the Pope. According to Catholic doctrine that they set up if one of these things are not believed you can not be saved in the Catholic church. How did the Apostles believe all three things and how did Jesus believe all three things?
    1
  1131.  @hglundahl  "Perpetual virginity, well, how Gideon's fleece applies would have been one of the lessons on exegesis that Jesus Christ gave the apostles after resurrecting and prior to ascending." Where is it presented that the Apostles and Jesus believed in the perpetual virginity? That's not a reference to the text. The Bible says several times Jesus had brothers and sisters, and they're specifically named. "Bodily assumption - apostles except St. James and St. Thomas were witnessing Her dormition, St. James had already been martyred and St. Thomas was the one who opened Her tomb and found only Her veil and Her belt." Says who? Where is the reference in the Word of God and not tradition? "And infallibility ... I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not come to naught (and His prayer was omnipotence, the faith of St. Peter with legitimate successors has not come to naught." So Peter was the first Pope, and he was infallible, and he believed both those things? Can you reference any tradition that is Biblical that doesn't come from the Bible directly?
    1
  1132.  @hglundahl  "First of all, Gideon's fleece being a symbol of the Virgin mother, conceived without sin" But how? "As this exceeds the text length of the NT," Is the Bible God-Breathed? "the very few direct instances that are given in NT are NOT exhaustive of His lessons." How do you know that? Where does it say such things in the Scriptures? "So, where are they? Lost, in tradition, or reconstituted by you?" Given by the Holy Spirit, Romans 1:18-23 actually speaks to evidences which pertain to lesson in faith without any tradition. John 14:15-31 also refutes understanding in tradition because the Holy Spirit is sent to them before all else. There is no where that only these three requirements are sustained, its made quite clear that the Holy Spirit gives understanding. You provided an incomplete set for claims of choice and arbitrarily decided of them the one most capable to read traditions out of. "Lost and reconstituted by you would both go against Christ's promise to be with the Apostles (and their successors) every day until the consummation of all time." Why you assume it was either lost or reconstituted is irrational, there is no case presented for which God would not sustain truth and truthseekers even among apostates, He had done it many times with the Hebrews before, there is no reason to assume He would not do so again. "Therefore in tradition." Which is a false conclusion. "Which means, if all the Church Fathers and all four other denominations laying claims to being the Apostolic Church in unbroken continuity agree, obviously this means it is so, and they agree that the Virgin remained so." The church is not described as an organization of man, but as one from God for man, so why must it have a lineage among men? Also you have not show me a reference Biblically for any of this. Where in the text does it substantiate any of your claims? "We have not denied their existence any more than we have taken away Exodus 20:4. First of all, they were not full siblings" There are one of two ways this statement goes, either its the cousin claim, which is flippant disregard for the original languages of the text, or the half-sibling only claim, which doesn't work if any of the siblings are younger then Jesus which there were. "Second, if He was considered son of St. Joseph (which we know from Luke he was, socially), He would have been considered their halfsibling if St. Joseph was a widower before marrying the Blessed Virgin and they were his children from a previous marriage" This is deflecting the argument, Joseph had more children after Jesus with Mary. This is historically evident and presented among the text. "Remember that neither Abel nor King David were the oldest brothers." Irrelevant, I never made this assumption, you are assuming my position in a strawman. "This is what the Proto-Gospel of St. James says." Its not part of canon, the author can't be validated historically and it contradicts both the OT and rest of the NT. It is part of the pseudepigrapha. "could have a point that a cousin would be called "brother" or "sister"" No you can't, none of the original languages contextually support this translation. Hence why the translations are always made so strict. "If after the Old Alliance was sealed, people who were not Moses could write reliable and even inerrant Church History of the Jewish Church from Joshua to Maccabees, why would successors of the Apostles, coming after the New Covenant was sealed, not be able to write reliable Church history for events after the Gospels end? And it would still be reliable, even if all was not canonic as Acts is/" You don't understand what canon is, how its defined, and how it was collected, because it has absolutely nothing to do with that. From historical and Scriptural standpoint that which is not canon violates everything preceding it and does not have an author which would be validated as eyewitness accounts of the case they present. As a result by contradiction it is known the Holy Spirit did not inspire the words and most of those books all claim to be written by some it could not have been written by or for which there is no account in documentation that they could be associated with the work, often times this its validated by investigating earlier manuscripts to validate the later variants. This is also how we can nail down general time periods for common variations often found in the Apocrypha. "Yes, and yes, for the other part, even you believe that two of his writings are infallible. I and II Peter." Inerrancy is because of the Holy Spirit, not because of the man. Peter was not infallible, and we don't believe his writings to be infallible, we believe those that were left in the Bible were inerrant because of the Holy Spirit who was speaking the words, not Peter, Peter was merely a vessel and tool of the Holy Spirit, to God he was not necessary. (after all "For nothing will be impossible with God.” - Luke 1:37) Everything else he wrote that wasn't in the Bible was either utterly fallible or was only capably usable for the context of those he spoke to, God did not put anything not meant for every generation and people to receive in the Bible for it would cause stumbling and confusion and would result in being read into the Scriptures instead of being read out of it. "Like the non-hagiographers who also handed it down." Where and how is any of that historical account of them validated? "1) You worship on Sunday of Resurrection, not on Saturday of Creation, I presume (there are Biblical hints, but no direct command in the Bible to change it)" The only specific command required is to worship among the fellowship in the church, the specific day is irrelevant, the only reason I and my association use Sunday is out of agreed convenience, if it became more convenient to use any other day of the week I would do that for the fellowship is to be practical in manners that lack a moral doctrine. This is much like how the Law regarding cleanliness was abolished and all things were made clean in Jesus. "2) St. Paul references a tradition from Moses' time which does not come from Exodus directly, naming the magicians of the Pharao as Iannes and Mambres or Iannes and Iambres." I don't see how that validates tradition to be followed, the writings and knowledge given at that time that gave such information (which could also be tradition) have since ceased to exist, why does it have to be tradition alone that validated the information? Could they not have commentary and documents regarding those events of the both the Gentiles and Hebrews for which that information could be gleamed that had later been destroyed or even merely failed to be copied. Don't make the assumption that all cases of lacking historical knowledge that was shown to be known is a case of tradition, it could just as much be recorded in that time and lost in the times following. This happened all the time with Plato and Aristotle and historical accounts surrounding those times. Its not the first case of a historical document referencing a historical subject with knowledge we have since lost to history. And that aside that isn't a case of tradition that is outside the Bible, its literally in the Biblical text, if the Holy Spirit is speaking through Paul then it is incapable to lie and it can not make mistakes.
    1
  1133.  @hglundahl  How do you have peace with God with assurance? In the Catholic church you must go to mass, confess your sins to a priest, you have to believe the Pope is infallible, perpetual virginity, the bodily assumption, did all the saints and patriarchs of the Old and New Testament believe any of those things? No, so were they saved or did salvation change? Who is the blessed man of Romans 4:6-8?
    1
  1134. Entitlement isn't a good thing, fans are right to be pissed as Blizzard for being the generally shit company they've been over the past decade, but saying entitlement is a good thing is bullshit. I was with you until you tried to define it as good. No you're not entitled to anything, no fan of any franchise is entitled to shit because its not suppose to be about making anyone happy. The objective is to serve a greater goal and that can piss off fans, but sometimes that's what is needed. In this case they failed to innovate and they pissed off fans, the fans are right to be annoyed and pissed off but unless they've funded a product that has failed to live up to any standard that was promised being entitled is not a good thing. There might be a problem with fucked journalists like this, but they have one point that's correct, and that's gamers are too damn entitled to their escapism. And that's not a good thing. (not to mention that escapism is psychologically and socially unhealthy and irreparably damaging to society and culture as a whole, we rely too fucking much on this shit, that's neither a good thing)
    1
  1135.  christopher bryan V  Entitlement is bad because it means you believe you have the right to something. You don't have a right to anything, only the perception that you do exists and its the lie that creates the worst behaviors of mankind, its pride in its purest form, the most evil of man's nature. Youtube is only damaging in overabundance, to which most people have a problem with, reality is that most people are crap and probably should just straight up be stricken dead, as once said "90% of everything is shit" and that just as much applies to people, however that's not a justification for acting or submitting to that shit. If you're too weak to pick yourself up and don't want help however, then perhaps it is justified to let you wither away weak and helpless like the crap you are. After all that's what life really is, getting beat down as everyone deserves, and only a small percentage are willing to get back up. If you can't vote with your wallet and leave everything else to die then you are merely another weak man killing the rest. Not everyone is hypocrites when it comes to politics and morality, but the ones in power, the ones with money, and/or the faces you see at the forefront generally are. Then again having grounded morals tend to make you a walking contradiction by mere existence, its either that or retarded nihilism who probably deserve the hell they'll get anyway. No its not, and the only reason any "necessary evil" exists is because nobody questions them, nobody stands up or demands righteousness or justice, its compliance that breeds evil and it is your weakness that prolongs the death and destruction. I will hold you accountable just for rationalizing it as if its justifiable when it isn't. The only thing justified is the willingness to fight. After all if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.
    1
  1136. Aerospace engineering honestly fails these standards way more then Linux does. These slides kinda deserved to be mocked, no software engineer can follow it to that degree in the first place and its especially stupid because none of the standards apply to any of their tools, none of the compilers follow that, and neither do any aerospace operating systems. There are reasons I could agree that Linux might not be suitable for the case, but what's described here is mostly false in that regard, the problem is complexity hides problems, especially bugs, the larger the source code and the more use cases to deal with the more complexity you have and thus more problems and bugs. As someone with experience in requirements, they don't fix this, requirements aren't designed to address this at all, even in safety standards, they make it easier to diagnosis, trace, and address, but they don't keep your software safe nor secure at all. Only reduced complexity does this and requirements don't enforce such a standard at all. Its conflating a completely different objective in safety-critical software engineering with requirements, which I say is stupid.
    1
  1137. Twitch is stupid, the "SRPD" is the German SRP, they have never gone by the acronym SRPD, it was a post-war neo-nazi party.
    1
  1138.  @PlaguedByEarth  There isn't a different in the eyes of a Christian, or honestly any moralist, although technically Moloch might also just be a demon under the direction of Satan.
    1
  1139.  @nullptr99  First off because Satan is the most evil and devious existence in all of reality (he is a direct cause of the fall of man kind biblically, being a source of the development of mankind's sin when he had none), there is no existence further from God (and thus literally anything good) then Satan, and secondly because all sociopaths either directly or indirectly worship Satan by their hatred, destruction, and murder of mankind. (you literally can't be even slightly a sociopath without also having at least an indirect worship of Satan and the depravity of the human heart) And that aside all of Satan's worshipers are sociopaths at least.
    1
  1140.  @nullptr99  "Concepts such as Satan are simply a means to manipulate people into acting a certain way, not necessarily the worst thing I suppose." First off no, Satan's existence from an analogy standpoint is to create a representative reference to evil to oppose and stand against, it has nothing to do with manipulation, he is a demonstration of injustice, tyranny, and immorality, if you don't admit to that then you need to reevaluate your conscience, and your interpretation is wrong. Even if you approach it from a secular view you can't argue Satan's existence is about manipulation, maybe you can argue Hell, but Satan's mention is regarded for vigilance. "Explaining peoples actions as being caused by Satan you are absolving them of blame as a being with agency." Also no, someone who equates someone calling something Satanic to removing agency is stupid, (aside from logically flawed, without justification, it also treats people with a religion [as most religions conceptualize evil in a similar manner] as incapable of basic reason or any intellectual thought, as if they aren't even capable of being human in thought, which is insane to make and speaks to a lack of wisdom and knowledge on the subject) if you choose to be tempted, to worship Satan, and thus partake in Satanic rituals, you were accountable to your actions, nobody ever argues this, and anyone who does is foolish to think such, and to note possession is the same way, you can only end up possessed if you allow yourself to, temptation, possession, to act in evil ways, it is within your hands to do, which those of the flesh do. It has nothing to do with removing agency, you have no capability to argue that, and nobody has ever said that, otherwise it would not be justified to kill those who commit evil. "The solution to the issue involves the minds of humans not abstract representations of good and evil." Then there is no innocence, there is no protecting the victim, there is no justice, there is no morality, and thus no capability to judge. That means genocide, murder, rape, theft, tyranny, all such behaviors are not capable of being judged, and are not subject to any penalty. This immunizes any other society from criticism, so Germany, Arabia, China, Russia, Persia, Nigeria, nations with habits of behavior of destruction and evil are incapable of being judged by us, as is every individual who commits evil. It also means you can not appreciate righteousness, those who walk in the light and speak truth and good, they too are irrelevant and ignorable. In such a system all that matters is hedonism to the nth degree, as in you are justified in killing someone and raping their body, or drinking the blood of scared infants. You have no capability to judge those people, especially not to death as they deserve. "These people make these decisions out of pure hedonism, living creatures all seek this but we as humans have the mental ability to resist this." Not if you submit the concept of morality as a standard, rationality is not a religion for good, it merely is a manner to make basic non-moralistic decisions, it has no imperative on morality by itself, without a limitation on morals, reason itself is subject to the whims of mankind, and will by itself be biased towards hedonistic preferences where possible. (and there is a lot of open spots for hedonistic ideology)
    1
  1141.  @nullptr99  No, Satan has nothing to do with influencing people to follow God, (in fact from his perspective his presence is used to repudiate God as proof of the weakness of God, hence Satanists) even setting aside his presence, even approached from an analogy perspective, nobody (least of all those who are Christians or theists in anything else) approaches Satan or a Satanic figure as something to modify their choices and follow their religion, Satan is not a core of Christianity, he is merely a reference of behavior and outcome. (and if you approach it from his perspective, a condemnation of the religion) You have a gross misinterpretation of the Bible if that's how you approach it. And the Bible and any other religious text does not justify follower behaviors by opposition to Satan, you can argue Hell does that (its not the most solid argument even when it is used for that purpose, but it is more valid then Satan whose existence is about vigilance, not correction) but Satan most certainly does not. Besides that, in all religions with a Satanic figure, they don't provide Satan as a reference for fear, like Protestant Christianity outright teaches that Satan is nothing to fear, (Catholicism flips on it a lot more) and for the most part instead provide a reward for doing good in accordance to the text. (in the case of Satan, the Bible) Which in that manner would be no different from a child being told he'll be rewarded if he does good by his parents, which is generally fairly effective at getting them to cooperate. This aside Satan in the text has no weight on the behaviors individuals take, while he can screw with you a little (and that's with any demon really) and can tempt you in many devious manners, he has no impact on what you do unless you chose to do something. There is not a case in any of the text or doctrines that Satan is having you make the choice, all he does is tempt you to make the choice. Read Matthew 4:1-11, in that Jesus was fully human with the same exact capabilities as a man, he (like any man) chose to not be tempted by Satan. Read Genesis 3, Adam and Eve were not coerced nor forced into making the choice, they had no reason to, Eve argued with Satan, and instead of rejecting his arguments, she took the first of the fruit before convincing Adam, who did not even argue with Satan, they had thus sinned and were soon thrown out of the garden, and each of them were blamed. "So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush[b] your head, and you will strike his heel.” To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” - Genesis 3:14-19 If that's not proof that the Biblical text (and thus all of the Abrahamic religions at least) doesn't agree with your conclusion of Satan, then there is nothing that could ever convince you, as it was not a reasonable conclusion in the first place, if you can't think of something that could change your mind, then the problem has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but with you personally. By the way, Christian doctrine (or in the least Protestant Christian doctrine generally) in the least teaches that all humans are evil and none are good, and holds all of mankind accountable for the evil of the world, this also repudiates that claim, starting from Romans 3:9, Paul goes on to explain that no man is good and holds man, not Satan, accountable for the sins of the world. The NT is full of case after case of this argument and repeatedly tells you that man is accountable for evil and evil is coming from within him first.
    1
  1142. I think in the end more information is superior to hidden information that could be used maliciously, I see it constantly in computer security for example, some naive developer studios believe in security through obscurity, but we know that all that's ever accomplished is making a crowd sourced security effort more difficult and it makes it impossible to trust the studio, now what we do actually do in security is if a security concern has come out, researchers report it secretly, report that the concern exists but leave only a general synopsis with no details in a public report, wait at most a month for it to get fixed, and then report the full details of the security concern. Are there cases where this still causes problems and malicious use? Yeah probably, if people don't update to address the security concern those details will absolutely be used to exploit the concern but the concern exists regardless and it can be independently discovered anyway, it is the responsibility of the user now to fix the security concern because the developer has thus already addressed the issue. I think the same thing with Larry Lawton, if he's told people like Law Enforcement and shop organizations (and shops themselves) and given them all the information on holes in their current system and the shops and LE still doesn't fix the issues then at that point its not the fault of Larry, if he releases the information in the least there can be a crowd sourced solution just as much as criminals could take advantage of it. So the real question I have is "has he reported these type of issues already, and if so, how long did he wait for their response to fix the issues before he reported the issue", I doubt that the first question is a no and I'm willing to bet the second answer is years.
    1
  1143. I'm convinced he was merely a patsy.
    1
  1144.  @mskiptr  "The `value : type` thing comes from math and has appeared way earlier than C" Software development, especially at the lower levels has long since diverged from math foremost, typed programming languages have an older history using ALGOL-styled type specifiers then most others, the languages which it be understandable are mostly math specific markup languages or math processing languages, historically there is no reason to expect that of general use software languages which are not primarily used by mathematicians.
    1
  1145.  @Luxalpa  "The `value: type` thing is also a requirement from a language standpoint in order to make it context free" Which I disagree with, I don't believe in the requirement of parsing necessitate a context free environment either, context is inherently described in all language, it is a requirement to understand language and the same to a degree applies to a parser, even with a parser it works fine for something simple but once you start making anything moderately complex context free becomes more of a hindrance especially for future development, what you gain in simplicity you lose in flexibility. The same applies to use by people which require context to understand any anyhow, and with a programming language this always applies, in C++ I wouldn't confuse a function vs. a variable syntax just because the context is necessary to know, I have to read the whole declaration to know anything about it anyway. I have not experienced a case of reading nor writing of C++ that served a practical purpose where I would confuse function and variables for example, and its not that difficult to make it easy for human readers to not write it so it could be outright confusing to know such information. I've heard this claim before, most especially with declarations and I have always found it to be an excuse, context free is not nearly as context free with languages and I don't find it all that useful if you are building a new language, you can make the difference easy to recognize without adhering to context free, it just requires deliberate design, which you have do regardless of whether you make it context free anyhow, it saves you no time nor regards. "syntax highlighting, error checking, type hints and auto-complete are all majorly messed up." I've yet to find this as a problem on my end, I don't have experience with any language use that already does the things I say having this problem, C, C++, C#, Java, Dart, none of these things have caused me problems like that. "Another issue is that for example rusts tuple syntax would be conflicting with its function-call syntax here (writing `value(i32)` would be incredibly messed up). A simple statement like `run_code(some_var)` would be unparsable," I don't know why you assume my issue suggests that Rust should change one part of itself and nothing else in order to satisfy me, like where you think I wouldn't understand that the language would need to change to accommodate such designs is beyond me, I am entirely aware that a language that does what I like would need to be something designed from the ground up to not be like Rust. Your claim of my character that I don't understand how languages work is quite inane, I don't have a well tested formally designed language under my belt but I have written my own parsers and languages before, I know how language design works in the least. "Additionally, you have things like the `mut` (or `ref`) keyword making the entire thing even more messy." Well that was already solved in C++ anyway, modifiers are trivial to resolve this type of stuff, I've written parsers that do just that, context aware parsers aren't really that hard, wiring up semantic understanding might be a bit of a chore but even with a decently produce AST its quite simple.
    1
  1146.  @martiendejong8857  Then they wouldn't die.
    1
  1147. Cat Ladies is what you call a Female Incel.
    1
  1148. The bible does have clear standard for holding all people accountable for their sin regardless of their knowledge of Jesus.
    1
  1149. Its a common thing to see experts (who don't perfect their craft but lay about in it, which Stack Overflow is mostly about) in a lot of places, but especially in Software Engineering, to be prideful and lazy, they think themselves superior and that everyone should think like them and anyone who doesn't isn't worth the time. This is a common problem with high end experts in a lot of fields, especially with expert fools that don't teach or deal with inexperience. Some of these folks are also angry over something specific, often cases over where they are in their lives, perhaps thinking they deserve better and they want to take it out somewhere else. (I've seen enough cases of development filled with those type of characters to say I wouldn't discount the amount of people that do that) In these cases, they not only think you should solve the problem by yourself (which is a stupid response by itself since they are already humbling themselves saying they don't understand and want help figuring a problem out) but they lambast you for not thinking like them and getting help. They are arrogant pricks with a superiority complex and a self-righteousness in the industry, it pisses me off to see this happen all the time and I hate Stack Overflow for not only putting no goddamn effort into fixing the problem but making it worse because only the folks that act that way get to the top of Stack Overflow and because they get to jack off the ego of the elites, they get upvoted at the cost of anyone who happens to "know less then them". (even if they don't know all that much because 99% of the time someone who acts that way is actually a dunce in their knowledge anyway)
    1
  1150. I feel like the thing at 14:24 proves my brain is messed up, it doesn't help me at all, I have no idea what is being said still. (unsurprisingly I also have issues understanding people in a room fall of people talking)
    1
  1151.  @ashkebora7262  Foundation is super woke, all Rust conventions were mandated to partake in gun bans, (even when that was illegal) mask/health mandates regardless of legal violations, you were generally only allowed change the color of the Rust trademark if it was for woke causes, (like BLM, Pride, ect.) and they prohibited even using the Rust name in association, all public channels for using the Rust name would've been mandated to change to comply with the rules. If you didn't follow all of this, they'd sue you for brand infringement despite lacking the right to really do that apparently. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
    1
  1152.  @PaulSmith-gi5bf  I know a bunch of languages (C, C++, C#, Javascript, Python, Lua, Java, Dart, Typescript, ect.) and even know a bit of Rust, I've worked on a bunch of different languages for all sorts of project, but as someone who likes language design and has written his own recursive descent parser by hands a few times now, (in a few different languages) I despise the language design of Rust already, I like its ideas but I hate how they were designed into the language with a passion, for example I hate languages with postfix type declarations, I especially despise the idea of separating a typing syntax from deduced typing. (I can forgive it in supersets of a language that are primarily dynamically typed, who once never had type hints even, but not when the language is designed to support strict static typing) There are too many projects I've been on when at any moderate system, type declarations become encouraged for the sake of code review and a language that inherently discourages that is poorly designed for team projects, a good language should minimize the amount of need for the intellisense for code review, that just makes it a hassle to do. This is just one of my myriad of design problems with Rust and why I tend to think its designer are actual morons to do things the way they did, they don't care about practical cases, they just don't want to be like C/C++ in my opinion. (which is stupid because it will build up to the C/C++ problem soon enough, don't try to be the cool hip thing just because you start out cleaner, you never will end cleaner, its inevitable in language design, you can't predict the future) Another thing I despise about Rust is its community, which is hyper-aggressive and shoves it down everyone's throat all the time and tries to make every C/C++ project into a Rust project and get offended and mad when you criticize Rust, honestly it was no wonder imo why the Rust Foundation was toxic if how even a notable amount of Rust fans respond is attack people who criticize the language. You don't have to believe me, but my experiences with the community are my experience, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, it just leads me to another thing I absolutely despise about Rust. You simply don't hear of C/C++ fanatics, we know their problems and we accept them professional and still like the languages because of it, I wish they would stop insisting its the best thing since sliced bread. Lastly of all is the Rust Foundation being a toxic mess of bull crap, I can't support a group of fools who especially push woke agenda bullcrap down my throat, if we're gonna be software engineers and programmers, we either be neutral and keep things out, or we're going to have to fight, and if we want to fight I am totally on board to do so, but its not gonna be pretty and nobody will come out of that happy. If you want to come out with a functioning community, shoving things down people's throats is guaranteed to never work, and for the foundation to attempt that, something is definitely wrong with the people, I don't trust anything regarding Rust anymore.
    1
  1153.  @boredguy5531  I don't think C/C++ could exactly be replaced, but there is definitely one that could supplant it properly if the good ideas of Rust met with C++'s cleaner syntax.
    1
  1154. Just gonna say my biggest issue with the whole transsexual bullshit in games (and RPGs specifically) is they don't need to be in the damn character creator, they're not an inherent trait the character is born with and even in the case that you build backstory they're not backstory relevant, (if you have a entity trait system it could work best there, but usually that's not defined in the character creator, its defined afterwards) not to mention they can't be in a damn fantasy setting that isn't already postmodern. (so all forms of medieval or pre-modern fantasy need to stop freaking doing it) If you're gonna implement it at all (which lets be honest unless you're tackling the issue that you are taking a stance on which will piss people off, you won't) then do it in a dialogue tree where you tell someone that you're a transvestite and assign the trait there. Honestly though this "tolerance" and "acceptance" culture needs to stop but everyone is delusional so that's the next best choice then.
    1
  1155. The shopping carts like that have been in use since at least 2005, local shoprites in Philly have had them for near on 2 decades at least.
    1
  1156. A government that doesn't execute murderers and rapists is a government that must be exterminated.
    1
  1157.  @kopikoblanca8907  It might be, but it could also be someone who is simply stupid to the subject, those who are humble to an answer should be treated well, those who are not should be called out for their behavior before or during the answer. In the case of someone who should or does know the answer, they should be berated for negligent ignorance and shutdown for being unqualified for even an answer.
    1
  1158. Just to point out that Sweden has been so historically neutral since WWII (despite trading heavily with the Germans) they were blasting the US for the Vietnam war, resulting in the US government getting fairly pissy at them.
    1
  1159. Honestly, not only can I empathize with Albert, I'd probably do much the same thing. In fact I wish this man were an American and we had more men like this.
    1
  1160. A really good woman will likely also have some intuition of the bad ones.
    1
  1161.  @AndrewRyan-zv7zb  Technically to Muslims expectation is that there are no heretics/heathens in their societies, their framework thus ignores its existence. Doesn't make them not wrong, just not a good response.
    1
  1162. Its almost like they treat the winners of the wars as good guys, or treat all Germans as nazis.
    1
  1163. Another factor people forget is timing, we're only starting to reach precipice of negative disposition against woke brands, people are only starting to get sick of it outside of their tv shows.
    1
  1164.  @Richie_Nefarious  Another note, it is very common with the promiscuity of modern women (and men, though that is usually less relevant) and the feminist ideology in modern society, they aren't taught to fear reasonable dangers to their person, it doesn't help that few women seem to ever get into the topic of being easily overpowered by men unless it has happened to them already. (which is usually at the point where crime took place) The lack of fear when it comes to the possibility of demonstrably evil men, or the jading of feeling over wicked acting men is becoming a more common problem. And a lot of women will also make irrational decisions, especially after they've had sex with a guy, increasing the chance of them ignoring or not recognizing red flags. (and taking drugs only compounds that problem) Thing too is that she was clearly not all that blameless in circumstance even in being a victim, (because of all the association and things she likely took with him) and sometimes in cases like this they get what they deserve even with the criminal being a scumbag. Not that we shouldn't try to avoid it as much as possible but its a bit like gun safety, usually nobody (undeservingly) gets hurt or dies unless multiple rules for it are broken.
    1
  1165. Anyone gonna point out the whole reason we're in this position in the first place is because ISPs are already glorified government entities, you can't operate an ISP without being beholden to the government and you can't start a new one up without paying into the billions on the legal costs before any infrastructure costs come up. (which by the way are millions of times cheaper then the legal costs for starting and expanding the new ISP business itself) There is no competition in the ISP market because it is literally illegal to startup a private ISP, there is no free market for internet service. The free market is entirely able and ready to manage a competitive internet service market IF YOU ONLY LET IT. People are just inherently stupid, the government causes the exactly problem people complain about because the government has no incentive to care for people. (yes, companies absolutely have an incentive to do so, if they don't they do in fact lose money, this is basic economics, if they don't put me at the center of their world they will lose money over it, government has no reason to do this because I cannot choose another government and neither can I stop paying them without violence against me) Since the government has no incentive to care, they put themselves at the center of their world, not me, and as a result I suffer, through this stupidity people are then convinced that when they suffer at the hand of government regulation they believe its the free market's doing, despite the fact its not a free market, monopolies don't exist in a free market, they require regulation. As a result of this stupid mindset because people don't understand crap about basic economics, let alone macro-economics or micro-economics, people are convinced to give the government more power because the government gaslights you into thinking that the power they use to socialize the market is the result of the free market when a corporate market is a product of government intervention. Its really simple economics, even old Keynesian don't actually disagree with this element, and they're literal morons.
    1
  1166. The libertarians have long been warning you, the government has never had any obligation to care about you, its not its job to, if people won't remember its job, then there is no point in considering of any value whatsoever, business is not a place for any government.
    1
  1167. A lot of men who will actually commit to a relationship may very well detect her psychopathic behavior, however she very well is likely targeting the exact type of men who are bad at reading that, functionally its an inverse survivor bias, she is deliberately hurting men just to get back at her father, way to let your dad live in her head rent free, utter degenerate honestly.
    1
  1168.  @07MoPower  Those are weak men, not strong men, they didn't work a hard day in their lives, they didn't care a damn about their children nor the world they brought their children into. If a man can't tell women no and is unwilling to judge what they say as foolish when it is, they are weak and spineless, not worth even consideration as a man, they are less then women, for at least in her foolish ways she can provide value, these men all they do is burn everything down. Queen Victoria was right, she predicted everything about feminism before Rockefeller and Carnegie were even born.
    1
  1169. Ain't a problem if you got an un-infringed 2nd Amendment.
    1
  1170. I'm actually way more concerned of the car Epstiening me off a cliff. Unfortunately all modern cars can already do this.
    1
  1171. Look up Holy Trinity vs. the United States
    1
  1172. Green logo bad.
    1
  1173. didn't Roe v. Wade do just this in the first place? the situation wasn't even very factual and the arguments were flimsy at best.
    1
  1174. In Rome our procedures of education were deliberately referred to as slave education, no one would willingly send their children to it.
    1
  1175. Zechariah 11-12 says that Israel is condemned for selling God for 30 pieces of silver, the Covenant was broken and so God broke the staff of Union and Favor with them.
    1
  1176.  @whippinsaw  All law is enforced religion, its just a matter of what god you worship.
    1
  1177. Honestly, I couldn't give a damn about "sexual harassment" because you can't ever tell if the women instigated it, and, granted the dude portrayed himself as decent looking enough, there's a high likelihood they'd either not care or be into it since rich well off dudes with decent looks are the epitome of sexual desire for women. (whether any individual would admit it, that's just how it works, which is usually why women will almost never date someone below their economic rank in society) And even if they're married, that's a moral problem, but nobody treats it as a social one (despite the fact it is, but that's not what those people think) and leftist especially don't have justification to scream harassment. Also I really would prefer if female characters would be feminine and female, desiring feminine things, being of the female mindset, thinking in the feminine way, and of course looking female as well, its hard to write that as a dude, a women is much more effective at feminine characterization simply because the female brain operates differently to a male brain.
    1
  1178. The E in ESG meaning environmental has very little to do with regulation, its subsidies and tax credits, the purpose of the E is the same as the S, look like you care about an issue when in reality you don't, its not future proofing because majority of the environmental takes won't be regulated in a way you can avoid. ESG isn't a grassroots concept and its not natural in the financial sphere, its the result of government intervention and companies like Blackrock and Vanguard, ESG pushes to support the environmental death cults.
    1
  1179.  @SeekingTheLoveThatGodMeans7648  That's not even what Ecclesiastes 7:16 refers to, its caution against vain religion one believes to be righteous, the only correct interpretation of that text refers to rituals and ceremony, (say like demanding everyone must dress formally for church) not violations of God's Law, God's Law makes it clear that if one even should dress in a manner that would confuse the sexes he is a disgrace, the same would apply to those who act or speak in such manners. I won't speak in manners to enable confusion hence why I refuse to acknowledge the pronouns. Also "they" is a terrible substitute because its a plural being used in a potentially plural context obscuring the information of the conversation, and I have direct and repeated experience of this fact causing confusion, including in the cases where people demanded they be called by such. "They" is linguistically a terrible pronoun for use for a singular person, it should be avoid wherever possible. (it also introduces higher capacity for overlapping characters covered thus requiring use of nouns to properly clarify the sentence for every party involved thus further invalidating its use) As for when to witness, sure there are times of it, its not like I go preaching every time I come across someone doing this or demanding I use their pronouns, it takes them either asking relevant questions or saying something that brings up a moral dilemma, which usually sparks a full conversation in the first place. (unless of course getting into the conversation is banned in which case its to be avoided anyway) I'm also not sure what you mean by mirroring "the salvational manners of God", only case where I can see that make sense is if you're a Pelagianist or Semi-Pelagianist since salvation isn't voluntarily elective nor a choice.
    1
  1180. As I stand right now, my regard for rules and law would go out the window to defend my side in a war, I care nothing for the other side, including civilians, war is war, politics is worthless, they signs their death warrant being where they were. I don't care what would happen to me but I would never be complicit in the death of someone I could help.
    1
  1181. Mentis still does not understand why some Christians speak in regards to the authority of God in their arguments, we don't intend to convince people with that, its not about being rational in a worldly sense and we know that, those who are not convinced by Christian arguments are intended to be excluded. They are being judged and condemned should they not listen, they will be held to account for it. "Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." - Matthew 13:10-13
    1
  1182.  @jemsterr  Not to mention when you push those affirmative action principals, not only are you violating the meritocracy, but you're intentionally handicapping the effectiveness of those involved, also for someone who has experienced the diversity bullcrap numerous times, it pisses me off to see it happen again and makes me want to wring this dudes damn neck that he even suggested something like this, I have experienced enough of the things I like and love being destroyed by wokeness and diversity, especially of leftist talking points that he just mentioned, I'd much rather the FSF not be destroyed by leftist ideologues who will once again push out all dissenting thought and turn it into a socialist echo chamber like reddit. I am so goddamn sick of it.
    1
  1183.  @UltimaKeyMaster  Not really fair since Valve has to actively spend money for no gain and 95% chance it will borke something in CS2 like every update always does.
    1
  1184.  @Treerootz1  If you're referring to the video I think you are referring to, she was pretty manipulative in that, neither of them came out looking good in that, she was absolutely trying to gaslight.
    1
  1185. If you didn't admit to being a Christian and to the Ten Commandments, none of the founding fathers would've allowed your testimony to be admissible in court. There is historical precedent set in 1790s over this, also in the 1890s where they explicitly stated in SCOTUS the US is a Christian country. Look up Holy Trinity vs. the United States.
    1
  1186. And it makes you wonder why us libertarians hate government, dude takes money from the government and deregulates a market, gets a worse sentence then even most serial killers. This pure tyranny honestly, I kinda wish all the people involved would've been brutally executed because of how evil this is.
    1
  1187. Just keeps proving that minimum wage is a retarded concept made by economic illiterates who don't understand anything about basic economics, as does anyone who supports it.
    1
  1188. Had he been a citizen who simply owned the gun in San Fran, he'd be in jail for at least 5 years, killing someone getting 20 years, possibly even life, but thanks to his criminal status, he gets off totally scotfree.
    1
  1189. Actually open source can be trademarked, common words stitched together to make a phrase that isn't common are covered under trademark, this was decided long ago and if you actually knew trademark law, then you'd know this fact. (for example if I make a specialized form of steel called Pig Steel, I can trademark that and despite being two common words, I would have full trademark rights to it) Also trademarks are context aware, so even in the case open source were used in another place, say you used it in construction unrelated to software, you can still trademark it for software because it will be considered an unrelated category. The only case for which trademark wouldn't happen is if people were selling your something under the trademark before you registered it and you have no control over those sales. From a legal point of view, you can't sell open source so this shouldn't be much of a problem.
    1
  1190. The thing that bugged me about the Mandalorian is it really isn't very good at incorporating anything awesome about the Mandalorian culture that existed either in the Legends EU or even in the current canon, there isn't anything that really plays up the actually awesomeness about the Mandos as ruthless honor warriors, the religiosity thing randomness was kinda dumb imo, I'm fine with some concept of that "don't take off your helmet" thing but they could've made it way more responsible, in this version it feels like a massive copout. Instead its used more as a plot device. (barely) Also starting us at the Mando being only semi-battle hardened with childhood trauma of the CIS invasion of his planet and such instead of keeping him with a badass full grit pulp-esque western, or making him kinda like Soloman Kain or maybe kinda like the Predator or Turians. IDK something more then just being the generic episodic western of the early to mid 1900s. Something that related more into a badass warrior culture then whatever this crap is, it would also help if they defined limits to the Mando's equipment so we could understand where and when he's at risk instead of doing it when they want. But I guess the story wasn't ever written with that forethought in mind like much of Disney.
    1
  1191. There is no evolutionary reasoning for homosexuality and it is better described as being defective, not that anything even matters in an evolutionary mindset as it doesn't have any reason to exist, it does not care for life, it does not care for existence, the universe is just full of cold pitiless indifference. A Creationist has a better explanation that it is because mankind is inherently wicked and have corrupted Creation and thus all of Creation commits to perversion of God's natural order. I find it hilarious and stupid that anyone would argue from any perspective upon this religion of homosexuality happening naturally as if its not a perversion of the natural, no matter your perspective, that makes no logical sense and the mental gymnastics to justify its existence as not perversions is such pseudo-intellectual garbage, I know why pagans justify it, be consistent and just be pagan, just say you like to pleasure yourself, it has nothing to do with love because you can't even define what that is.
    1
  1192. Its quite interesting that the free market found a way, if only it could be less regulated.
    1
  1193.  @Bnio  To compete and negate government intervention, they don't have to pay taxes nor be regulated like a bank and it honestly benefits and subsidies everyone else's service. I honestly find these methods brilliant and ingenius.
    1
  1194. Tim you're an idiot, Trump is still a democrat at heart, also there is nothing wrong with income disparity, a business owner deserves the massive income disparity because they put their life on the line to create the business and can go decades without seeing much of the profits at all. What we can agree with is that those of the upper income brackets shouldn't receive government payouts, but that's mostly because I don't believe in government interventionism at all, nobody should be given government payouts, there should be no safety net, leave it to the charities.
    1
  1195. Two days later, and its got more dislikes then likes. Also pretty sure this is a Freudian slip.
    1
  1196. "I’m not going to apologize for wanting criminals to die." This is evil, not all criminals deserve death, murder, rape, and attempts of murder and rape yes, but theft, robbery, assault, these things are most especially not worth a death penalty and we should always be seeking to the preservation of life, yes even of the criminal. For no one was given justification to kill for the sake of determining another's worth, a criminal is not lacking in value just because he has committed a crime, we kill the criminals in act because they present a threat, we are to kill murderers and rapists because they commit an unspeakable act that must be punished by justice, as in equal price to the crime, taking a life must be paid with blood, molesting someone is also to be paid in blood, but to rob someone, they do not intrinsically present anything at all that is worth their life. You are not justified and anyone who supports this is a vengeful and hateful person. I seek the death of criminals who commit capital crimes, but if a crime is committed I do not ever seek in any case to justify murdering someone for a price that is not worth their crimes. By the Word of God proclaimed by The Law and The Prophets, in the name of Christ this I know shall bring upon condemnation and I warn you now to repent for this is against God's Order and Law so explicitly described in Exodus 22. "They need to get a job and not prey on hard working innocent people." They are valued the same as any "innocent" for they are no better then them, all men are of equal value and all are equally wicked without the reigning hand of God. Vengeance is not ours to pay. "Being violated in any way is damaging, and should account for the dropping of charges in and of itself." We are not justified in killing men simply because they commit a crime, we are only so far justified in killing those who present a danger to the value of men. This means those who take life and the sacred aspects of life for which it matters. Those who commit a crime do not innately represent this danger and should not be treated as less valuable then you for they are in the Image of God, and they too reflect the image of their Creator. Those who earn death are those know to be in league with death, but those who are but pawns of death as both you and I have been, we do not deserve death. Do not be vengeful, for vengeance is not yours to take and breeds only evil amongst you. A criminal for murder or rape should be executed out of love, love for the victims, yes, but also they are put to death out of a love for the criminal, for he who does not punish justly can not grant love, for not only may they be saved in their sentencing, but so too may justice be shown and glory given to God for righteousness and The Law being enacted. With their life they may reveal truth and be punished so they may learn righteousness.
    1
  1197.  @colecarter1464  Argues nothing, ad hominem attack, who be the fool that makes claims upon character and pleads nothing for the case of righteous and justice. Such men who quibble over what they believe they are owed are entitled to nothing, children do not earn a single thing but are granted all they have, for one to not know this does not realize you have no right to what you have, "For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" - 1 Corinthians 4:7 "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." - Galatians 1:10
    1
  1198.  @colecarter1464  If you would call Jesus and Paul a communist then there is no reason amongst you, you are entitled to nothing, you have not a right that was not gifted to you, who hath made you God that you decide and what is and is not to be? Nothing you own is not a lick of truth if not for God who gave all things as a gift to you. Even your life be given you do not own and shall one day repay in this life for the trespasses you have accrued. Who is He that is Master of all of reality? What do you have that you have not received? You have never once answered this. "Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Who is this who obscures My counsel by words without knowledge? Now brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall inform Me. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone, while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" - Job 38:1-7 Do you say that you are above God? Who is he who says that he has made that which has yet to come to being? Who makes himself master over the Earth before it was given to him? Such a being would not see it fit to dispute by assault of character lacking integrity. All who such things would make you an enemy of God. In such a way repent now for you hold no sway over reality for you are not its master, but its master is not infinitely patient and in time he will come upon you, take heed that you will bring cursing amongst your ways should you not turn from death and bore a new life in Christ.
    1
  1199.  @colecarter1464  No you wouldn't, there is no love in Hell, you will wish death and destruction upon them by the time you're in the Pit of Fire, a torture that you can never possibly imagine and should you have known it for not even a recognizable second you would live in fear beyond that day, for there is no love without God and there is no presence of God that gives you the capacity to love in the Pit for you have rejected Him, there is nothing good that will be left with you, only hatred and evil, know that you have been warned, repent, for this day the truth has been shown to you, bloodguilt has already been set upon your soul, devote your heart to Christ so that you may be saved. I speak this for your sake and no one else for I have a love for you as Christ has shown a love for you with his sacrifice for you so you may be saved. But should you continue this mindset you will have made yourself a murderer for your hatred and evil comes from the heart just as all wickedness of mankind does come from the heart. By the eyes of God you are not different to any other murderer and thus if you do not repent you will be condemned. If you lead your family down this path you too will be held responsible for their destruction so too, for cursed is the house of the man who despises God but so preserved are the many that seek the Lord and repent. For what use is it to save your family if you cause them so too to lose their souls? If you will so condemn your family to evil and destruction by your hatred, you shall be consumed, do not hate the men for they are made in the Image of God, for all who show hate in their heart and contempt for one another are themselves condemned for they make themselves murderers. I pray that you hear these words for this day the Spirit of the Lord works for your sake, but should you chose death so shall the Lord turn your heart and send curses upon your house not because of what you say to me but that because you refused Him and wish only for retribution in violating He who gave you everything you have, what do you have that you have not received? Why then do you boast as though you have not received it? (1 Corinthians 4:7) If you continue upon this so too will I not be held under an account for I have warned you and gave you clear knowledge to what God has set upon your heart. So now shall you choose life to thus receive blessing, or death that you be sent the curses? I pray that you do not walk the path of the wicked, for there is nothing among even your family that is worth such. He who is not willing to abandon everything for Christ is cursed to the Pit for which the suffering cannot even be contemplated upon.
    1
  1200.  @colecarter1464  "I genuinely want to know what makes you believe in this stuff." It is not an understanding that can be given, only received. It is not a knowledge that can be passed but is inspired. "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14 If you so wished to understand you would need to abandon your ways, for they be folly, but the man of this world can never do this for he is himself an enemy of God and so loves the world. He who worships himself can never have hope, for he can never understand what hope is. "Religion is man-made" Man has made it his own prerogative to decide what is right and wrong and worship himself celebrating his own image as though he hath made the world, but as for me I have not been told but have instead received by grace that which I know to be right and wrong by God. This I have founded not by ear but by the Spirit, for which you do not yet know nor understand. I have thus been given understanding that I am worthless before God and thus have been so loved by my redeemer for still loving me despite my wicked nature. I do not speak this as a manner of force but as a manner of person, for God who knew me personally and sought my redemption by His personal act so saved me by the work of Jesus for He is my friend who I know and He knows me and thus I fear nothing and hope in all things for the good of the Lord works in me and upon me and thus I seek hope and love upon all just as my brothers and sisters in Christ do, even of my greatest enemy who I should, and who I once, hated but now I love. I do not wish death upon them for the hope that they be dead, I hope for even my worst enemy to be saved by God so that they may be so loved by Him even in the day they must be executed for their crimes. And it is with this I speak so that you know this message not be false for I have been born a witness to my testimony just as my Father in Heaven has born witness. "has no power over your mind unless you allow it to." There are many of the realm of the spiritual for which they most certainly have power over you, for he who does not have the armor of God is already under reign of Satan and is in league with evil by his hatred of God. He is the child of Satan and already does his bidding. For all men are innate a born enemy of God not by design but by his sins that had harmed the design. But it is of such these things you do not have the senses for which retain a capacity to understand, for your spirit is seared and discerned from knowledge and wisdom of the Spirit and thus you shall be deceived by the wicked spirits, princes and powers of the age who wish you reign upon you. And it is your heart which has seen it fit to do such. I warn you now not to turn to yourself and your wicked heart for it will never give you joy and neither will it give you peace. And as for these I speak are they of the respect of a feeling. "Think freely my friend" I was once a slave, a slave to my sin, a slave to my nature, and a slave to my heart. For we are all slaves to that which we worship. But now as I have sought righteousness and come to Christ, I have been made a slave to righteousness in Christ and He has become my master and friend. It is with this I know I think more free then I could ever be, wiser then I could have ever had, and in an understanding that nothing can compare to. I have not always been of Christ and neither was I brought before it by men like you so convince others, I was brought by Christ before Him and have been graciously given election even in my wicked sins that I should be in Hell for. I know what I am and I understand, but now I am free of the harsh master that had enslaved me, that being sin, now I have a loving master who seeks for my good and for which all things are done for my sake. It is with this I know my mind is free and clear, but for which you are incapable of ever understanding still.
    1
  1201. She'll get it in moving to the US, the men she's going to aim for in the US will be used to her tactics and will abuse her anyway, and if she does get away with it they may very well rape or kill her anyhow, she's targeting the exact demographic that is unhinged and willing to physically destroy her.
    1
  1202.  @BrodieRobertson  I have nothing against an initial well crafted experience, but its not the DE designers job to insulate the users to some "perfect" experience and gnome I think goes more then too far trying to play the control freak for their users. Its a common element of developmental discussion to not aim for perfection, and it makes me kinda find gnome as quite wasteful because it thinks it can achieve that somehow.
    1
  1203. Seems like they're trying to give us the excuse to purge them, do they not realize that the right wingers have arsenals and plant the food? Also 70 year olds are functionally useless as infantry.
    1
  1204. "Many who reject materialism are NOT rejecting material reality, they are saying that reality is not ONLY material." Just to point out that isn't inherently true. Yes there are many non-materialists as in they don't believe purely in the material, like I do as a Christ, believing a higher form of nature that supersedes the material realm, there are many others, most prominently the gnostics and hermetics, who do actually completely reject material reality and do go as far as to say it is all literally fake. In fact many gnostic and hermetic beliefs have infiltrated many religions and caused even some orthodox religions to believe in violations of their own religion, for example modern Christians believe in death releases the soul into Heaven and the suffering of the body, and that their body is torturing them to commit evil because it is material and thus evil. This is a violation of Christian teaching, it is a gnostic belief, but it is one widely believed by modern Christians.
    1
  1205. Just to point out that isn't inherently true. Yes there are many non-materialists as in they don't believe purely in the material, like I do as a Christian, believing a higher form of nature that supersedes the material realm, there are many others, most prominently the gnostics and hermetics, who do actually completely reject material reality and do go as far as to say it is all literally fake.
    1
  1206. In fact many gnostic and hermetic beliefs have infiltrated many religions and caused even some orthodox religions to believe in violations of their own religion, for example modern Christians believe in death releases the soul into Heaven and the suffering of the body, and that their body is torturing them to commit evil because it is material and thus evil. This is a violation of Christian teaching, it is a gnostic belief, but it is one widely believed by modern Christians.
    1
  1207.  @UdumbaraMusic  You got a 0% chance with a bear, no bear will ever care about you and most of them will try to kill you, most men are naturally inclined towards helping women, society was deliberately built by men to in part protect women, most specifically keep them from the nature that would absolutely kill them that they would be less capable to do on their own. Women are more precious then men, it is disadvantageous from a biological perspective to treat men this way, the same as its disadvantageous for men to treat women that way, they don't have subsequent generations. The only reason a woman could even complain about rape culture is because men built a comfortable world where they can complain about such nonsense, without men protecting women, you simply can't live worrying about even that.
    1
  1208. rip Owen Benjamin.
    1
  1209.  @mskiptr  Pretty much every case that it can be "nice" in FP will use OOP principals anyway.
    1
  1210.  @T0m1s  That's not an argument for your position and its not logically sound. Second to that, what someone claims, no matter how significant to the topic they are, does not make their claims true. If words are not gonna mean anything then there is no point communicating in the first place, its a waste of consideration to hold to this position and then to continue an argument in a language both of us can understand. A design is a design, a pattern is a pattern, when you have a pattern of design, that's still a design pattern, I don't care what fancy bullcrap you try to dress it up to placate your worthless pride and ego of superiority to someone else simply because you disagree, the concept is the same. There is not a single language that does not have patterns of design, ergo design patterns. If someone is gonna insist something shouldn't be called by its English words, I'm gonna tell their ignorant dumbass to shutup and stop trying to control language and manipulate words. You don't own the language nor the words in it. Nobody does. If you want to argue over language paradigms, stop hiding behind pedantic foolishness to glorify yourself and put other people down, that just makes you a moron and there is no reason to consider your position nor anyone who shares your position. And no I don't care how prolific someone is, that doesn't make them great, they are still required to maintain an argument and if they can't that just means everyone else is also a moron brainwashed by their worship of another worthless god. If you can't sustain a position independently and effectively, to rationalize and speak clear points in argument and counter-argument, the problem is you and your argument, not me.
    1
  1211. Embargo China and prepare for war.
    1
  1212. Google is not part of the private sector and honestly neither is any of the other browsers, not a single one of them isn't corporately run or funded thus they are not part of the private sector, corporations are literally just syndicates of the state, they're called corporations because they're the body of the state, they enforce government policy (see facebook and twitter colluding with the FBI as mere examples) corpus = body, corporations are a socialist concept, this is socialism. (not to mention that the government itself can decide at any point without any oversight to ban, halt, and nationalize any business it wishes, meaning the government owns the business, not the people running the business, he who can halt the means of production owns the means of production and is thus responsible for what the means of production does)
    1
  1213. Zechariah 11-12 also demonstrates they are a heathen state at war and enemies of God.
    1
  1214.  @guss77  Technically could achieve that if you made a QML JIT or AOT compiler, but I'm almost certain nobody wants to do that and its worse then just rewriting the effects in C++.
    1
  1215.  @guss77  Why would they do that with QML having a JIT compiler, why bother deloading or reloading its bytecode, that's honestly really dumb. Hell if you have a JIT compiler you're not that far from an AOT compiler, if you save and load the cache, the least you could do is AOT the bytecode and save that instead. Still doesn't make sense why they would rely on a disk cache for this though, this should be cached in RAM by default. (and only if it takes up a lot of memory should it be cached on the disk)
    1
  1216. Still unfortunate that you have to argue for why you would want to own a gun for self-defense though, (and that you need a license to do anything) if only Italy has a right to bear arms, not just for self-defense, but to guard against tyranny. The only way to keep power in check is through fear.
    1
  1217.  @serPomiz  Well no duh, European politics doesn't believe in tyranny, of course they wouldn't establish something that could threaten authoritarianism. (again)
    1
  1218. I'm a little shaky on seeing some of those positive reforms as positive, he made French bureaucracy and politics efficient, but that rarely ever benefits anyone any better, (granted any form of bureaucracy is trash honestly, but being more efficient gives it more opportunity to overreach) and formalized government education was probably one of the worst things anyone ever invented.
    1
  1219.  @flat-earther  Why was that your response?
    1
  1220. This what Asmon gets for calling DEI things fake, this is what they do.
    1
  1221. It's not EAC's fault and it doesn't just impact EAC, that's just the currently known biggest subject of the issue, the problem is GLIBC's, even Linus Torvald agrees.
    1
  1222. Still feels crazy that we were less than 0.5% with only 10% of the marketing budget, I'll say, if Texas had more robust voting laws, I doubt Brandon would've lost.
    1
  1223. Most of the Medieval wars were justified via the church but in reality it never had anything to do with faith and you can tell that by how those conflicts finished and how post-war governance was done. It got so ridiculous that the French king just up and executed Templars over lack of control of them justifying it by their betrayal to the Church when it was just possible betrayal to the reigning monarch in France where he had no right to even command of the Templars directly anyway. At that point it wasn't even over religious differences and it was still justified as a religious conflict. The embodiment of God's soldiers of man in the Catholic world and France basically had them all excommunicated and purged them despite sharing the same beliefs.
    1
  1224. I can't see a good reason for a non-commercial local personal computer to not have at least a length feedback, a common user can't even get exposed to an exploit that would take advantage of that unless someone was snapping the screen, which if they can do then they likely already have a keylogger for this exact reason. I don't see why we can't have a user-friendly version of sudo that's stripped down and by default supports this. (if you strip out much of the sudo functionality a common user most certainly won't be using, which Valve could totally do without introducing bugs, it would probably make the sudo command more secure, after all that's literally the point of doas, double points if it was based on doas already)
    1
  1225.  @kirayoshikage4057  "I can't see a good reason why a a system and a kernel that's primarily used for shielding toddlers from themselves by putting it on a server or in your phone and limiting what you can do with it should cater to toddlers when installed manually." This is a strawman fallacy. "Consider using windows," I prefer Linux, am I child because I like feedback when I'm performing a localized su command? Why is that so wrong? "it will even reboot your computer while you're doing something important," Unless you're using Windows 7 or earlier, especially now that Win7 update is dead. But that aside I've been daily driving Arch Linux for like 4 or 5 years now, I don't need that type of invasive crap. I've never even had Windows 8 or later installed on a personal rig of mine. Not even in a VM. "because it knows better than you when it needs to reboot or why at all." Cool cool. "And judging by the comment you wrote, it actually does know better than you, seems like you will enjoy it very much." You didn't even present an argument, you just strawmaned me and then attacked my character with ad hominems presumptively. You sound like the type of jerk that either goes "I run Arch" or "I compile Gentoo", you're not special jackass. By the way doas literally does majority of what I said, the only thing it doesn't do is the length feedback thing which is only supported sort of by sudo. Why are so mad at a suggestion for a separate user-friendly version of sudo? Its not like the Steam Deck runs on servers or that it needs server security features, it doesn't need all the admin behaviors sudo has in the first place anyway, hence why doas is already a demonstration of what I was saying.
    1
  1226.  @kirayoshikage4057  "yes you're literally a child" Ad hominem "it's like expecting a speaker or a father to congratulate you every time you hit the nail with your hammer and don't smash something else." Again ad hominem, I'm not seeking your affirmations, I don't care what you think of me, I've given you all you need to know who I am and what I am that matters, you just can't argue because you don't have a rational position and would rather lash out at those you disagree with like a child.
    1
  1227.  @kirayoshikage4057  You're the one using fallacies. I'm not the one acting childish.
    1
  1228.  @kirayoshikage4057  Cool cool
    1
  1229. Or killing them on a platter after being born.
    1
  1230.  @chris_s22  Its not recorded historically nor is it found in Scripture, seems to be an assumption.
    1
  1231.  @ryanpenrod1859  What law would've prevented any of these shootings? The law is made for those who won't follow it, not for those who would, you don't write law for those who will follow the law, any law that punishes law abiding citizens is an evil, demonic law that spills innocent blood, that's how you kill innocent people, that's why the children were killed. Take look at any mass shooting here and you'll see they occur in gun free zones exclusively, and the few shootings that happen in gun allowance zones never get more then a few injured or a few killed. (and note the most effective mass killing in the US wasn't done with a gun and was before any of our gun laws existed, it was done by a bomb in the 1930s) That's the abomination of the issue. Lets ask as well how many people die by gun deaths? The FBI tracks it at as even less then children aged 1-5 dying by poisoning of laundry detergent per year, why don't we lock laundry detergent up? There are more deaths from poisoning, medical negligence, car accidents, and much more separated then deaths by all guns combined and even the US government has statistically found that defensive use of firearms stands at around 500,000 incidents a year at least, which is more then any criminal deaths or criminal use of firearms in the US by about 1000%. Mass shootings are also not even statistical footnotes and the US is not unique in the amount people being killed by weapons, (especially in the case that you actually count mass shootings as criminal homicide, they literally disappear from the statistics of criminal homicide, you can't even point to a single bit of the data on a chart where the shooting took place, and that's not unique to guns) and with our size and lack of a homogeneous culture with fairly highly poverty and bad mental care its no surprise that our criminal elements are as active as they are, especially with our corrupt government. Tell me what law would've prevented a all these shootings, I am asking you seriously, give me a law that would have prevented the shooting.
    1
  1232. 50 Cent is wrong, but what the hell do you expect from a single mother, its exceedingly rare for a single mother, especially one who hates her child's father, to not poison the relationship between father and son and screw up the son's entire perspective. 50 screwed up in many ways that contributed to bad son, but the mother and the son are just as responsible, obviously blame shouldn't be used to throw other's under the bus and refuse to deal with them, he should reign his temper and try to approach his son with repentance and forgiveness, but that doesn't mean what they did was any more justified. They are all equally deserving of being beat by an actual adult for being childish in some respect.
    1
  1233. Pretty sure sedition law isn't Constitutional anyway.
    1
  1234. Gonna bet they ban anyone from the sub if they didn't agree. Remember subreddit mods are some of the worst moderation teams on the internet because there is no evaluation, its made by fan.s (generally neurotic, self-centered, and otherwise arrogant ideological fans, [as most other fans don't care to put the time in to making a sub, especially for such a shit game] as in the types of people who see anything that disagrees with them as a personal attack that has to be purged) On a more serious note, the guy who slandered you and everyone else (which he did, I listen to all those creators, all of them were slandered) also is into diablo immortal, so clearly a shitty SJW NPC.
    1
  1235. You just committed a strawman fallacy for one.
    1
  1236. Asmon doesn't understand anything about economics, his single payer argument is one of the worst economic arguments I've ever seen.
    1
  1237.  @iezdubz  Well the argument that there's a middle man that takes money and thus jacks prices is a Marxist argument, not a free market argument, (in fact it spits in the face of the American Founders who agreed with John Locke, which requires a rejection of free market opposition) its anti-market and demonstrates that he doesn't understand anything about basic economics. First off insurance companies aren't allowed to compete, foremost they sparsely are allowed to compete across state lines (only under permission of the state) but also because the Federal government regulates and controls the very existent capability for an insurance company to exist, they can decide on a whim to reject the development of a new insurance company, which drives down competition and supply, which both drive up prices thanks to the basics of supply and demand. The monopolies exist off the back of the government restricting and regulating the companies, and the more regulations you put, the more red tape you introduce, which drives up the price of developing a company thus raising the barrier to more competition, as red tape costs a lot more money (bureaucratically and legally) to get around. Now this aside the New Deal also outright banned mutual aid organizations, especially at the community, neighborhood, and regional level, as well as between friends and family. It used to be that mutual aids would help each other voluntarily, you pay in to a community thing with no real middle man and it was the mutual aid members that decided your coverage, some mutual aids, like fraternity societies, would also require you to assist them in certain task, volunteering, or fundraising in order to keep coverage. And everyone voluntarily joined these, it was especially common among churches. Insurance should be allowed to freely compete under free association, which is implicit in the 1st Amendment, but because people are simpletons they reject the basic responsibilities of free association while wanting all the privileges. Free association means the government is not involved in the deals you decide to make, and when you do charity and community becomes the biggest factor. A moral society relies on charity, an immoral society relies on legal oversight.
    1
  1238.  @iezdubz  Well the argument that there's a middle man that takes money and thus jacks prices is a Marxist argument, not a free market argument, (in fact it spits in the face of the American Founders who agreed with John Locke, which requires a rejection of free market opposition) its anti-market and demonstrates that he doesn't understand anything about basic economics.
    1
  1239.  @iezdubz  First off insurance companies aren't allowed to compete, foremost they sparsely are allowed to compete across state lines (only under permission of the state) but also because the Federal government regulates and controls the very existent capability for an insurance company to exist, they can decide on a whim to reject the development of a new insurance company, which drives down competition and supply, which both drive up prices thanks to the basics of supply and demand.
    1
  1240.  @iezdubz  The monopolies exist off the back of the government restricting and regulating the companies, and the more regulations you put, the more red tape you introduce, which drives up the price of developing a company thus raising the barrier to more competition, as red tape costs a lot more money (bureaucratically and legally) to get around.
    1
  1241.  @iezdubz  Now this aside the New Deal also outright banned mutual aid organizations, especially at the community, neighborhood, and regional level, as well as between friends and family. It used to be that mutual aids would help each other voluntarily, you pay in to a community thing with no real middle man and it was the mutual aid members that decided your coverage, some mutual aids, like fraternity societies, would also require you to assist them in certain task, volunteering, or fundraising in order to keep coverage. And everyone voluntarily joined these, it was especially common among churches. Insurance should be allowed to freely compete under free association, which is implicit in the 1st Amendment, but because people are simpletons they reject the basic responsibilities of free association while wanting all the privileges.
    1
  1242.  @iezdubz  Free association means the government is not involved in the deals you decide to make, and when you do charity and community becomes the biggest factor. A moral society relies on charity, an immoral society relies on legal oversight.
    1
  1243.  @iezdubz  Well the argument that there's a middle man that takes money and thus jacks prices is a M@rxist argument, not a free market argument, (in fact it dishonors the American Founders who agreed with John Locke, which requires a rejection of free market opposition) its anti-market and demonstrates that he doesn't understand anything about basic economics.
    1
  1244.  @iezdubz  First off insurance companies aren't allowed to compete, foremost they sparsely are allowed to compete across state lines (only under permission of the state) but also because the Fed regulates and controls the very capability for an insurance company to exist and can decide on a whim to reject the development of a new insurance company, which drives down competition and supply, which both drive up prices.
    1
  1245.  @iezdubz  The monopolies exist off the back of the government restricting and regulating the companies, and the more regulations you put, the more red tape you introduce, which drives up the price of developing a company thus raising the barrier to more competition, red tape costs a lot more money to get around.
    1
  1246.  @iezdubz  The New Deal aside also outright prohibited mutual aid organizations, at the community, neighborhood, and regional level, as well as between friends and family.
    1
  1247.  @iezdubz  And everyone voluntarily joined these, it was especially common among churches.
    1
  1248.  @iezdubz  Insurance should be allowed to freely compete under free association, which is implicit in the 1st Amendment, but because people are simpletons they reject the basic responsibilities of free association while wanting all the privileges.
    1
  1249.  @iezdubz  Free association means the government is not involved in the deals you decide to make, and when you do charity and community becomes the biggest factor. A moral society relies on charity, an immoral society relies on legal oversight.
    1
  1250.  @iezdubz  Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of basic economic and historical understanding, the government (state and fed) is at fault for destroying competition and creating the atmosphere of abuse that insurance companies are legally required to use, (yes they are legally required to act as they have) and you're not allowed to make mutual aid "insurance", or any small business insurance because its nationally illegal because of the New Deal.
    1
  1251. Saint Floyd of the Fentanyl was already screaming "I can't breath" well before the cops even did anything to him, anyone who actually knows what an OD is like, witness or otherwise, would not look at the full clip and say any of the cops got Floyd killed, downing speedballs, fent, and crack all at once would kill anyone given enough time.
    1
  1252. *RFK.
    1
  1253. Its almost like subverting the free market through government intervention has create unintended side effects that harms humanity, almost like what the actual true libertarians have always been saying. Funny that.
    1
  1254. Sounds similar to the Marxist position of linguistics defines mental capacity, hence why they implement newspeak.
    1
  1255. As an anracho-Monarchist, I say all drugs should be legalized, its more effective to stigmatize and offer help in a decriminalized environment then to enforce prohibition, even with Fentanyl and Herione. Also personally I don't believe in our current court, legal, and prison systems. First off the only enforceable laws should be direct harm or infringement of one's autonomy. Secondly no court system should require jury's to determine the case of the trial, instead there should be oversight by a legally required public even for every legal circumstance that's enforced, and both the defendant and prosecutor should be able to investigate the judge under any circumstance to determine if he has ever or is guilty of biased or manipulated judgements. Thirdly if two or more pieces of evidence or witnesses can not be provably separated and non-interacting before being brought under the judge it should be tossed out immediately as unable to qualify guilt. (if the field in which the evidence is pulled from isn't 100% accurate then it too is unable to prove guilt) Fourth the judge should be at least moderately experienced in both the type of case brought up and understand the subject of evidence that is being brought in to the case. (note innocent until proven guilty is still a requirement) Fifthly, if someone is judged guilty under all those clauses, then the punishment should be equal in measure applicable to only that person. (so no killing of someone's son and seeking revenge by executing the prosecuted's son) Lastly capital punishment under this case is serviced instead of prison in the case of one or more deaths, rape and pedophilia are castrated, (and executed if they somehow manage to do it again) and theft requires financial submission and/or timed servitude. Any unpayable finance owed to someone is payed in servitude. (with moderate limits regarding rights and a modicum of respect) If service is being paid to the state then they're working under service of the state. (it is expected in these cases that the servicer be able to provide for said servant in the case the servant can't provide for themselves)
    1
  1256. *4th crusade
    1
  1257. Finally people are realizing how trash Manjaro is, its the only distro I've ever seen where you'll consistently get functioning packages break dependencies and brick either the applications or the entire system.
    1
  1258.  @WolfamongSheep626  Says the anti-american traitor, we don't want your applause cause we've seen what makes you cheer.
    1
  1259. EFT death pain don't compare to OG Dayz death pain tho.
    1
  1260.  @elijahjarobi  It is one of the most corrupt organizations in the federal government, if you actually worked in it or investigated it, its hard to argue that any department is more corrupt.
    1
  1261. Just gonna point out, Jesus didn't just preach turn the other cheek, even for governments it only sort of applies, and it wasn't even the most important thing he preached, and he would despise association with a man full of other problems including a lack of belief in Him.
    1
  1262. To be fair many of them could be delusional and those other traits, or even specifically using those traits to be delusion, say a lie long enough and constant enough and you do eventually believe it.
    1
  1263.  @u9vata  I would distinguish between production quality and developmental quality, scalability and long-term ease of development (which is generally distinct though related to maintenance) are completely worthless to a customer generally, and they're not always worthwhile even for you to do, this is another reason it depends on the tool, sometimes a quick and dirty solution is all you're allowed and that's another advantage, though many folks look down on it, I wouldn't discount that fact and I've definitely seen cases of virtual inheritance being adequate for short term development, in some cases speed and memory usage aren't a problem, its pure development time and functionality, so long as the user can reasonably use the application comfortably and it actually works, you're good. Course an issue may arise if a customer also tries to ask for extra elements that aren't exposed in the middle of development, but every paradigm carries that problem to some extent and you are trading dev time for scalability there. Everything is about tradeoffs too.
    1
  1264.  @u9vata  Threading is inherently dangerous regardless of what you use, because there is no determinism with threading, you can never expect any order or organization to what you use so it does not matter what paradigm you use, you cannot guarantee an outcome's correctness (in terms of flow or sequence) without extraneous and tedious work, and it is near impossible to track every hole you open unless you figure out how to convert literally every operation into an atomic operation. (which is generally not possible even in the simplest of cases, and even then its not performant and could even cost you more then any other paradigm you could've used) And that's before we consider race conditions, or if you try to prevent race conditions, you might cause a deadlock instead and now your program might be wasting time doing nothing or wasting a thread it can't access, or even just wasting resources keeping a thread alive for no reason. If anything threading is almost (and I literally mean) as deadly as goto, its only because its danger is so well seen that its unlikely that anyone is to step upon that lethality unlike goto, though even then I wouldn't call that rule, all it takes is one person to slip up once with threading, something even easier to do then with goto especially since debugging them is 10 times harder then goto ever was. It really isn't fair to bring threading into this argument when threading itself is the issue there, more then anything else you could reference, it can make things slower if used wrong which is easy to do, its not easy to intuit even in a simple case, it can break in any number of ways that allow a programatic valid state that should be invalid, it can deadlock the application and break expected sequence of the application in a hard to debug manner, which it is already designed explicitly to do.
    1
  1265.  @u9vata  I never said it was "shit", I said its inherently dangerous, it doesn't matter what language you try to do it in, everything I've said about it is inherent to every language, it doesn't matter how insulated the language tries to be. Threading is literally more dangerous then anything else you could've pulled up, the reason its useful is specifically because that danger is also extremely flexible and unique to solving problems. (and even then use it wrong and it'll be the worst performing thing you ever write, even perhaps freezing the program, there is no insulation against this without additional tools which aren't themselves threading in the first place) Everything you stated is foremost based on a strawman, then a red herring, and then furthermore a false conclusion. And OOP and runtime polymorphism is not inherently problematic for handling this, there are plenty of both applications and libraries that do it in an OOP way which have high amounts safety for handling this anyway, even in C++. We weren't even talking about specifically OOP anyway since runtime polymorphism isn't actually even required for it and inheritance does not need to be specifically involved in the polymorphism anyway, you can still get objects without these elements. Not to mention that C++ runtime polymorphism is not the end all be all of runtime polymorphism, the reason its like that is for historical reasons, it was at one time faster and safer to do it that way, but that is no longer the case, systems have made the C++ vtables outdated. Also that aside you can make virtual method calls about as fast as any single parameter function call anyway, if you know how to actually write C++.
    1
  1266.  @u9vata  "No this is not true. You can totally auto-parallelize some functional languages and the question is only where to do it when there are no blocking waiting." The principals of threading still apply and the anti-side effect nature of completely pure FP is inherently less performant and going to give you scalability problems. "Otherwise you can apply the fact that function application chains are associative and then you pull out college 101 about how every associative function can be auto-parallelized and write a compiler for it." That's not a scalable technique for development. And again that doesn't fix the issues with threading, that just prevents you from full utilizing its capacity. Auto-parallelization is not a fix, its an insulation tactic, you might as well just compare it to concurrency, they share very similar application domains. "Then for regular function call chains you can also do pipelined parallelism... All automatic - all multi-threaded and if you want that even multi-node." I'm still not sure how that solves the problem with threading I described, you're just sequencing it then, which is just concurrency anyway. "This is not needed to be strictly functional - we had courses on some homegrown language a local company made which was declarative and auto-parallelized." Now demonstrate it in a real scalable project of multiple developers and perhaps I'll consider it. A lot of declarative languages are almost functionally always DSLs, they rarely suit more then a specific function. I don't care about DSLs. (which half the time even functional languages start to act like as well) "Basically with impossible to write race conditions or deadlocks (livelocks were possible for them though - but not in the above example)." Except race conditions and deadlocks come with high performance code alongside threading, FP is often the least performant when it comes to how it deals with values, or it'll come with a limitation on the use of variables in specific contexts, so you're domain of functionality and problem solving is limited in one way or another, which makes it only suitable to specific use cases and a lot less general of a general programming language then non-FP languages, the concepts of FP are useful, but most actual FPLs a lot less so. Singular paradigm languages just tend to suck. Unfortunately everyone keeps trying to shove them into a general purpose mindset like a moron and then they wonder why these languages are mass adopted. You're shooting yourself in the foot just to be disappointed then. "This is only not done, because you can totally press out more performance doing this manually." Defeating part of the point throwing instructions to your compiler then. "So this is not at all widespread." Also meaning its not actually general purpose either. Which limits its usefulness anyway "I also prefer doing it manually," I really don't care about preferences and opinions here. "just saying it is bad argument to say asyncronous coding has to be always the worst." You need to stop confusing threading and asynchronous, they are not the same thing. When I'm talking about threading, I'm not referring to concurrency. A threaded model means segregated processed of operation on different logical cores of the CPU, (or technically also GPU but unless you're performing GPU computing with shaders, where cryptomining being the only massive scale example of that, you're not usually doing this) concurrency and asynchronous refers to making non-sequential operation calls, but they're functionally never threaded. "Yes I agree its harder than regular - and if some part is automated you still somewhere pay some price like learning weird languages, not utilizing everything or such stuff - at least currently. But my point was that it really counts which environments actively go against parallelism and which not..." And you literally prove my point with this, even despite seeming to confuse concurrency and multi-threading. If I call something asynchronous, I am not referring to threading, its exceptionally rare to ever use both and asynchronous calls are completely memory safe and can't deadlock, asynchronous refers to non-sequential performance of operations, the latter refers to parallel operations. You can't use them interchangeably. "Honestly... many cases a non-blocking I/O or green threads or threads confined to the same logical processor thus not needing any locking.... they in most cases would be more than enough. Why? Because for at least half (but likely much more) of all cases where it is used they use it not to speed up things, but to run while something happens in the background or while waiting for I/O." That still functionally concurrency, which does not suit this case in most instances. Or it might be event driven concurrency but then you lose the capacity to control over the operations anyway. And not to mention it needs to be integrally implemented for each OS which is a pain to do and ensure is happening correctly. (and then it not technically guaranteed and it won't exactly be performant and can still actually block) You could just as much just produce one-way readonly behavior and thus its still thread safe, race conditions are only an issue in a two-way write environment, if one side is write-only (it can be read-write but usually you don't need to) and the other side is read-only to the data, you won't ever have a race condition anyway. This example is a perfect case for that. (functionally the thread is producing a readonly buffer, if you want to read and write, you'd need to use two separate buffers which are both one way) "It is an exact example: inheritance based typical OO polymorphism can easily fail where other approaches would not." Depends on the problem. There are definitely cases for it. "But again: my point was not on this example. It came up because you bring up that goto can kill - so do inheritance easily." Except inheritance isn't the issue here, inheritance by itself would still provide a clear chain of visible calls, especially with how its implemented in C++, all inheritance does is allow more structured code recycling. That's no more a problem then the existence of functions. (course when you try to solve problems with inheritance that don't suit inheritance, now you're just being a retard, but there are certainly cases for it to be useful) What you're complaining about is how C++ runtime polymorphism with vtables interfaces with inheritance, which sure can be stupid if you use it to solve some problems, but it still can be a solution to some problems. Goto inherently violates the structured flow of your code, inheritance does not, even runtime polymorphic calls don't inherently, though its not hard to make them do so, but the issue here is the polymorphism, not the inheritance. "Also I would argue a this pointer slipping out of the baseclass constructor is more of an issue related to inheritance than the bug you imagine with GOTO." What do you mean by the "this" pointer slipping out of the base class constructor? Constructors are sequential operations that call back to base constructors in C++, the this pointer in C++ is always type-safe and highly regulated.
    1
  1267.  @u9vata  "Just tell me: What is wrong with GOTO that makes it worse?" Program flow manipulation is a lot more dangerous it will forcibly skip instructions, and forcibly skipping instructions causes way more destruction especially for intuitive operation of the program. This is also why threading is dangerous. "Do not say generalizations, but specific examples. How would it kill?" I've tried to pull up cases where it did kill people, I believed it was the Therac-25 but I can't find any documentation that speaks about the specific reason the bug was caused. (though it is quite likely it was a goto, I can't say for certain if it was) I remember reading up on at least a case where it was directly implicated in killing people somewhere but I can't find the articles for this case. "My argument is that GOTO can kill not because goto works bad somehow - but because using GOTO complicates and spaghettifies the code - so do OO currently." Its the disruption of the program's flow, not simply because it "spaghettifies" the code, systematic complexity is a natural part of programming, if you don't expect it then you're a fool. OOP is not inherently any more susceptible then any other assistant features in programming. (or functionally any abstraction in programming ever, they made the same arguments with the invention of functions, and no I'm not joking, that seriously did happen) And OOP doesn't even disrupt the flow of the program so its not even remotely the worst case for it. Event signaling, multi-threading, concurrency, flow interpretation, unregulated flow jumping, these are all more disruptive to a program then anything you can do with OOP. You also attribute OOP to runtime polymorphism but that existed before OOP, and you can make an OO language without it. Inheritance is just about code recycling, it has nothing to do with this. (not to mention you can do runtime polymorphism in what you consider as "sane" ways too, and with performance to boot) This is why goto is worse, it is a form of unregulated flow jumping which can skip required sequential code, to get the same behavior with anything in OOP requires you writing the sequence that way already, with goto you are skipping the sequence responsible for that and it is not perfectly clear when you are doing that. "Maybe you can present some other way GOTO is harmful because it is not me, but you who wanted to separate "what is good for development and for the product" - while I keep to my point that bugs more easily arise if things are bad for development - and especially with GOTO, those bugs are because you cannot follow what is happening." Nobody can understand the whole of a program, (unless it is so simple that it accomplishes very little, which works with some cases but not all) it simply becomes too big to do so, and if you have multiple people working on it, that's only even more true, the only way to make it easy to read is to be sensible, follow standards, produce block box operation mentality, (as in make it easy to compartmentalize operations without knowledge) and document program details. This applies to every language and non-OOP is no more suited to this then OOP, you are still required to do the same. If you think non-OOP changes this you don't have much experience least of all in multi-personnel development, and you've probably never worked on a significantly complicated piece of software.
    1
  1268. GNU being a toxic ideology? ReAlLy?!?! Who would've guessed? I certainly wasn't aware that this would happen, no way, not even a little, absolutely not, so totally not.
    1
  1269.  @Napalm6b  Actually all cases of public encouragement to break the law is illegal, it doesn't matter how credible, if you say it in front of a cop for example they will arrest you and minimum give you a fine for it. The MS employee encouragement breaking the law and was a credible threat, according to the law he should be in jail.
    1
  1270.  @Napalm6b  Depends on where the court is setup in. And depends on the DA whether you'll be prosecuted and whether he hates your guts or not.
    1
  1271. You know something else about TLOU2 that doesn't make any sense? For an improvement in graphics and hardware, they sure did make everyone look a whole lot uglier.
    1
  1272. There is no such thing as an expert from the logical standpoint, as if you rely upon an expert or council to decide reason that is an appeal to authority fallacy or an appeal to consensus fallacy, both of which sustain nothing about truth or reason and are in fact implying falsehood. (not that they are false by fallacy as that's the fallacy fallacy, but they imply that the argument presented should not be considered by itself and thus the previous positions without fallacies should be considered over top of it) Anyone who doesn't appeal to rational argument, who doesn't expect an "expert" to always rationally explain how their arguments and claims are in fact objectively true, they are absolutely false and wrong and should not be trusted. Also as an aside Wikipedia is actually worse because it uses manipulated data and self-reference media articles to make up information in order to post deceptive information that agrees with the moderate bias. Wikipedia is notorious (for anyone with experience in dealing with it that is) for having corrupted sources and biased moderators and admins who will manipulate articles and references to convince as many people about a blatantly false narrative so long as it agrees with the mod/admin bias which is generally moderately woke socialist. A good example is Tim Pool's Wikipedia page, Carl Benjamin, Gab, Karl Marx, and even the Nazi Germany and Soviet Union have many blatantly falsehoods because of the economic/political bias of the website, in many cases the information is easy to refute and those pages are locked and often end up as perma-locked to only be edited by approved admins for which there is no validation of what they do except themselves.
    1
  1273.  @sarahskileth6925  "i don't think you know what an expert is." Functionally they don't exist, they hold no special position and have no superior position compared to anyone who isn't an expert. "An expert is a person who has gotten a high degree of specialization in a specific field of study" But how do you describe a "high degree of specialization" as that entire phrase is still vague and nebulous, it doesn't define anything reasonably, rationally, nor specifically and makes the assumption of understanding but lacking definition. That definition is subjective to each and every field and in many cases does not even apply to fields, do we assume they must have a certain percentage of specialized knowledge above the rest of everyone else or in general? How do we even assume expertise is not trivially or easily achievable, or perhaps that it is literally impossible, you don't even attempt to consider that in any field this could be the case which violates the necessity in reality to never create broad blanket statements that can't be easily proven. This is the problem with the concept of an "expert", aside from being literally irrelevant to any rational argument it also can not be particularly designed. I have intrinsic knowledge on how build software language parsers, and have even built a functional one on my own from scratch. Does that make me an expert in software language parsers? I didn't study nor did I choose to specialize, I just figured it out, I have no formal education in the field but yet I've done more then CS majors. Does that make what I did specialized enough? I've done this for years and know the field well and devoted a part of my life to just doing it. Am I an expert? If that is the case, what is the point then of classifying the expert? So you'll listen to him without question? If not then there is no value to classifying an expert in distinction from a non-expert, for either he is the appeal to experience/authority or he's not. You don't get to define a useless classification either, else it is not a classification but a irrational discrimination metric. "It says nothing about any sort of "council" that you have to appeal to be labeled as an expert." When I'm referring to a council here I'm referring to what Muta said regarding fact checking under consensus, which is also stupid. This is literally an appeal to consensus which is also a fallacy, as is an appeal to experience and appeal to authority. These positions are irrelevant for truth, reason, and objectivity and should be disregarded as metrics of discovering or regarding truth. Anyone who otherwise believes in these metrics will always be deluded by another man's agenda under the myth of neutrality, which is inherently irrational and intentionally deceptive. It is fundamentally a lie in itself.
    1
  1274. Gotta be honest, the python community are a bunch of spigens, they rant and rave about the dumbest stuff, preaching simplicity by making everyone's life harder, all they care about is the visual polish, not the functional capability. That aside a feature that's error-prone is very likely not the fault of the lang devs, its because idiots don't give any thought about how to use something correctly, (which given what I've seen of python devs, makes perfect sense) if you do something stupid with your code and it causes problems, you deserve problems. Also "one obvious way to do something" is the dumbest and most subjective standard you could have, unless the language is more anemic then Java, there will always be multiple obvious ways to do something, this is just a fact of being Turing Complete. And by the by, I have a tendency to shorten my code and inline my assignments all the time, never found it error-prone.
    1
  1275. This ignores the inherent bias that has always come from interests targeting said fields, a big issue is that majority of the mediocre creative fields inherently attract leftism because of post-modernist relativism which you can get away with in such fields that you can't really get away with in a more objectively demonstrably field common to STEM. Its because of the lack of objectivity in liberal arts that enables a feminine attitude of obfuscated competition which attracts the less capable. (who often hide their incapability behind philosophy that enables them to claim a superior work to its actual value) A conservative's philosophy is inherently going to reject this outlook because they don't tend to believe in the concept of "eye of the beholder" (or if they do, it believes in a reflective value based on populism instead of an inherent assigned value to the work) which would cause in-addressable critique.
    1
  1276.  @bunzinthesun  From my perspective software engineers with actual knowledge and experience tend to be highly libertarian, usually as a result of the economic models which often plays out a lot closer to how software actually works. The low level guys and guys that don't do much, or who don't have much knowledge and skill though, yeah they're all left wing liberals. (which is the majority of Silicon Valley hires)
    1
  1277. There's a lot of theological holes here, I am hoping they are corrected but I'm called to point them out in the hope others realize the theological problems. While trusting in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is absolutely the right thing to do, there is a lot here of taking the power from God's divine capacity and nature here. One case, the power of prayer while true is a bit faulty in how its rationalized, it is not the prayer nor man that has the power but God who is granting us peace, guidance, wisdom, and in a sense allowing us benefit of his providence for receive what we need that we otherwise would never have. Man does not establish power and neither is it our responsibility to receive this power, nor are we reaching for that power, but instead it is God who is willing to give us anything and everything so long as we submit to Him, and prayer is an ultimate form of submission necessary to receive everything we need from Him. God is already upon us, He is already here, the Kingdom of God has already been established and is already here as Jesus said, it never needed to be opened or spread, instead citizenship of the Kingdom is being brought in as a Shepard leads His flock. It also seems as though there is a skirting around of an actually address the evil of men here. Let me be absolutely clear in accordance with God's Word, no man is righteous, there is no man who is justified, all would be condemned, it is by Christ's sacrifice on the cross however that we have been liberated. Men do not have any innate capacity to actually oppose evil, he is only curbed by the restraining hand of God on his heart for he is inherently wicked, this restraining hand however, that in part also refers to our conscience, the Imago Dei (or Image of God) for which we are convicted by that also restrains our nature and may be that which opens our eyes to evil. But we do not just flee evil, man may become convicted against evil by the Spirit, but it is not man that is responsible for that, for the nature of man would wish to join this evil. This comes to a bigger issue as well, the understanding that God is sees all things, controls all things, and knows all things. He is all powerful. omniscient and omnipotent, authority over all, there is not a piece for which God is not in control of. This altogether means man does not have an impact on his salvation or his recognition of evil. It also means God is not just react or being moved by what you do, but instead that God has always been watching over you already and that it is only by the Holy Spirit that you receive anything from Him. It also means we do not choose God, but that God grants us grace and mercy. It also means the behavior of evil, not being made by Him, is however in His hand, nothing of what they do is hidden, and to those in Christ, nothing can be robbed. Its not a case of just going to Heaven, but we know over all evil, God is still in authority and power over it and not a hair falls from our heads without it being the will of our Father in Heaven. Jesus has already made His enemies His footstool, all of them will bow before Him and admit His Lordship. they will be cast into the Lake of Fire separated from God, God Himself separates Himself from evil for evil cannot reside with God. It is for this reason those against God will not be with God for God does not want those who hate Him either. Its also a case that free will is a gift necessary for the existence of love, for there is no love without a free will to love, hence why God gives us free will, its not because God respects us or respects our choice, but that He so loved us that He was willing to allow us to abandon Him, however judgement will come in time for those who abandoned God, they will truly be separated from God and there will be gnashing of teeth for the hatred of God and the weeping and whining of those who God will finally abandon when they have wasted their only chance at salvation.
    1
  1278.  @Michael-Archonaeus  Jesus taught self-defense in Luke 22 and it is explicitly described in the Levitical Law that Jesus affirmed. Also Paul never thought the world's end was imminent, there were some disciples that had such an idea, but Paul admonishes that thought in Scripture.
    1
  1279.  @Michael-Archonaeus  That's because they were of the state and to kill of the state without organization that can rival the state would only result in needless death, Christian methodology for self-defense (which Paul and Peter both emphasize in Scripture and is written in the Levitical Law) has always been the preservation of life, if one is to kill another merely out of revenge only for them to die anyway, it would be useless, if you know you are to die as an attempt of killing another in defense of yourself you're sinning by violating the preservation of human life. Now this aside most Christians escaped persecution, martyrs were less common then those who escaped, for example at the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus prophesized when the armies surrounded the city that His followers should sell their homes and leave, and so when the Roman armies came to Jerusalem and then left, the Christians sold everything and left and immediately following was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD by the Romans where the Jews were destroyed. Those who died in such cases like with Saul and the Romans like Thomas and did not flee were called by God to die, that was not most, martyrs served a purpose by God over their own self-preservation. If you were not called by God, the early church always fled over fight and did not fight if they could not survive the fight.
    1
  1280. BLM was never hijacked, it was made by Marxists based on a goddamn lie for the sake of tearing down capitalism with race baiting. Anyone who believes otherwise, especially those in the organization, is an idiot.
    1
  1281. Because modern Greek and Koine Greek are very much distinct.
    1
  1282. I still sat she didn't go far enough, she didn't eradicate the communists and didn't promote libertarianism enough.
    1
  1283. Twitch is stupid, the "SRPD" is the German SRP, they have never gone by the acronym SRPD, it was a post-war neo-nazi party.
    1
  1284. Wasn't this an untested hypothesis?
    1
  1285. @ "Yeah, compiler MUST NOT optimize via UB and via removing reachable code, written by programmer." As a C++ developer who has used it to handle optimization, this is a terrible take, it is the only way to take advantage of performance improvements that are per-platform or per-compiler in many cases.
    1
  1286. @ "UB dorsn't mean that compiler could do nothing or whatever compiler want, UB only mean, that different architecure could get different predictable results because of objective conditoons, like word size and architecture differencies." That's not UB. First off word size and architecture differences are implementation defined, not UB, UB means the standard makes no promises you get predictable results cause the compiler can make presumptions, implementation defined behavior means that the standard guarantees a contract of behavior but how specifically it does so is left for the implementation, like for example in C++ virtual inheritance is implementation defined, however directly accessing and messing with vtables is UB since they aren't part of the standard, C++ only describes that virtual functions may be implemented and gives no requirements as to how. I can also tell you as a fact UB is immensely useful for optimization as someone having over a decade of C++ under his belt.
    1
  1287.  @semibiotic  "Compilers must do my code extactly, or must refuse to." There has never been a single compiler that's ever done that.
    1
  1288.  @semibiotic  "No compiler shoud be allowed to invent compromized ways to execute my code - with algoritmic corruptions or omiting explicit parts" Follow the standard and that's literally a non-issue, that applies to literally every language.
    1
  1289. Honestly wish there were some movies that actually portrayed femininity, women generally despise the type of work that takes place in action flicks, they're not active and risk taking as a population, they're highly social and drama-centric, or you go with an actual mothering archetype where for once she actually loves the father of her children ffs, Japan tends to get it way more right, but it still doesn't broach the subject correctly most of the time.
    1
  1290.  @MarieV2withChrist  Zechariah 11-12. Clearly God does not support Israel, the Covenant was broken and they sold our Messiah for 30 pieces of silver, they have no inheritance in Heaven, they are the Synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9, 3:9)
    1
  1291.  @Bmmills816  They don't have the Covenant, we of Christ have the New Covenant, they sold the Covenant for 30 pieces of silver and so God broke it with them, read Zechariah 11-12. As John the Baptist said, He made children of Abraham out of the stones, for the inheritance from Israel was broken with the staff of Union and Favor. We of Christ are the priests of Melchizedek, the greater and older priesthood, descended from Christ, no Synagogue of Satan can inherit this life, we are the true Jews.
    1
  1292. Minorities have always gotten preference, its stupid, but that's how the system works, you can beat Christians because in the US we are still the majority and we don't fight back, legally or otherwise.
    1
  1293. When made aware, you report it to the community and society, make them publicly aware that the person is a danger to society, but you don't need to arrest them, just always have someone ready to put a bullet in their back the moment they decide to do something. But he shouldn't ever be considered a criminal until there is a victim to a crime, there is no crime without victims.
    1
  1294.  @jessups123  As someone who has had a job, I have never had entitlement to it, I agreed to the job for so long as the job needed me, the government does not exist to make you feel safe and comfortable, it exists to punish evil, firing someone on the basis of freedom of association which is a right, not to have a job which is a privilege, is the only moral outlook. Your outlook is socialist by nature, you don't understand anything about economics. No you don't deserve to keep a job just because you have one.
    1
  1295.  @M3TALG0DS  That's what the US was like in the 1890s, in the 1800s there was no emergency services, it was voluntary business. Hospitals were paid only in the private market and through brotherhood networks, you joined a neighborhood brotherhood and through the private market you were given benefits, sometimes the business freely gave them too, in the 1910s, 90% of the economy was entrepreneurs running their own businesses. (nowadays 90% of the market is employees, not employers, an employee can't live the American Dream) Most police enforcement tended to be citizen self-defense, and firefighters were subsided by the private market because letting a city burn down is bad for all businesses.
    1
  1296.  @Needler13  Eh, its kinda lackluster, I may not like Rage Against the Machine for a lot of reasons, and they are overrated as hell, but they're a better example then the alternatives.
    1
  1297. "Trump is responsibility for Jan 6th" Dude he called for the National Guard and was ignored, he posted a tweet to not go into the building and was shadow-banned, what the goddamn else do you want him to do? He did literally everything he could to prevent the people from entering the building. Asmon and his damn takes sometimes.
    1
  1298. My only exception to principles is if someone advocates for the removal of speech, I feel no remorse in it happening back to them, however I don't personally participate, but I would only kinda advocate for this if someone advocated for it first. If they apologize or retract that perspective at any point that's when I'd say to stop, however James Gunn seems not to recognize this so I have no problem with him getting fired for this. When someone advocates against my principles explicitly, then I advocate for them to be treated how they desired it, but only in the case that they do such and not as a result of it being willy nilly ban all the things.
    1
  1299. This broad is way too easy to rail on, she paints a massive target on her back for this, then again what misandrist isn't easy to make fun of? Grade A stupid, that's what this is.
    1
  1300. SINK, spinster, old maid, hags, there's also technically old whores but that ones way more insulting.
    1
  1301. All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing, Kyle didn't let evil thrive, not only did he have a right to be out there, he needed to be out there, if not for him, there would have been much worse things happening, and its also a good thing that unrepentant evil men were paid their dues thanks to Kyle, its a pity for life needing to be spilled, they should've been killed by the government, but since they wouldn't I am glad justice was served by Kyle at least. If justice won't be serviced by a court, it is by the arm of the community that they should die. (and I'm not asking for pyscho mobs to go around killing convicts and ex-convicts, I'm saying put them in a vigilante trial where if proven complicit in murder they are sent before the block and axe, they are still innocent till proven guilty and it should be only on the account of two to three independent corroborating witnesses, but those who do such evil things should be put down if proven without an minutia of doubt)
    1
  1302. The reason Rey sucks isn't because of anything complex, its literally only because she has shown no skill in any of the Force until when she uses it and then proceeds to ignore it again until she needs it, all while being totally untrained. Like if you want to bring up Luke, he couldn't handle a lightsaber at all in the first film, and couldn't even use the Force deliberately until the second, mostly AFTER his training began. Rey first learns about some function of the Force and within 10 minutes in the story is able to use a Jedi Mind Trick, (as a trick that canonically both in old and new canon lore is actually quite difficult to pull off for one not already experienced in the Force) even Force telekinesis is generally shown as difficult for novices when doing more then keeping something steady, Luke's training under Yoda is generally short but his time of practicing the Force and specifically with a lightsaber is three years. Luke's training is able to be rationalized (and in both canons it actually is) as something he didn't all of sudden pickup. And he had both the help of Ben and Yoda. Rey not only can do way beyond Luke in Empire at the end but also did it in a shorter time with less leeway out of nowhere with no mentors AT ALL. Nobody in canon was shown to capably learn the Force the way she does on their own without a mentor, especially in such a short time, in fact the canon practically goes explicitly against this because the closest people tend to get are called Force sensitives that don't directly impact the Force themselves, hell even Rogue One has a character that outright embodies this fact. (even though that contradicts both the Force and A New Hope since they're not bothon spies) Not even to mention that she's also given overwhelming conscious saber skill despite never being trained in any form of weaponry nor lightsaber styles. (and just lazily tossing a staff around with wide open swings does not constitute weapon training of any sort) She is even able to absolutely blast a dude trained by Luke who has been studying much of his life both in the light and dark side powers and lightsaber styles, and she is able to whip him. And the reason beyond that on why she is a Mary Sue is that everyone also likes her despite no real justification for why everyone both loves her and why she has to come upon already previous established nostalgia bait. If you care anything about Star Wars canon you would know that it is extremely rare that prolific characters in the stories will actually come across each other unless they already have good reason to meet. (which in this case there is no justification for it, they just happen to find every single character with no limits on the nostalgia bait)
    1
  1303. While personally I'd probably classify in this case as more hard theistic Christian, I entirely agree here and find it kinda illogical to make the demands of truth on the belief in a lack of proof for the opposing side, if the logic for making such an argument relies on the opposing side existing and making an argument that doesn't add up its not validating any opposing claim.
    1
  1304. All gun laws are a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment and Constitution.
    1
  1305. I mean at best, that's an explanation of why you can't do three dimension math in two dimensional space.
    1
  1306. As a member, I can definitely say as a generation gen-z is more conservative.
    1
  1307. Don't most RPGs have a max range before they detonate? Still stupid as hell, I wouldn't trust 40+ year old Russian engineering with explosives, but I'm pretty certain that they're supposed to detonate after a certain amount of time once ignited, so its like a really stupid firework. I know like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and most Middle Eastern insurgents who fought against airpower would fire RPGs in the air at just the right range to start causing aircraft (specifically choppers) problems.
    1
  1308.  @akatsukicloak  "You want the church to be the pimp?" Never said this, don't strawman. "And regulate sinning?" I don't see how this is wrong, you're not banned from sinning, you're just socially discouraged (or socially isolated) if you do. That's you're fault for doing wrong. "Also good luck regulating a mafia's drug routes without getting iced with your sense of local communal duty." Doesn't happen in an armed community where there aren't weaponry regulations. Even with anti-full-auto regulations but with a highly armed society its extremely difficult for gangs and mafia to get away with such stuff. "Porn is not healthy, participating in porn is damaging even more, especially for women, it means a lot, to say otherwise is childish or ignorant." This seems like a random tangent, I never said anything regarding this, besides I agree, I think its societal and life destroying. "Owning a gun does not end sex trafficking of foreign women in your country, what will you do?" High gun ownership tends to significantly reduce most of these types of problems, foremost because you're unlikely to get away with it without being shot at (which nobody ever wants) and moralistic vigilante mobs are very likely to start acting against gangs, especially if the gang starts pissing off the community. "Shoot out a brothel? You are free to find the public statistics yourself on the internet, no one is your servant here." No region in the world has laws that allow you to perform this without getting arrested, (which will lose you access to your gun if you had one, you will never get that right back if you get arrested) and only a few regions in the world even allow you the liberty to own firearms to a level that could enable you to act on that even then. And that behavior is heavily discouraged regardless. "but guns simply have age restrictions and some regulations." Outside specific states in the US, there's way more then that. You need to get a license, you need to go through a background check and a personality check, you usually have to give "good" reasoning for owning a firearm, if you committed a crime, usually a violent one, at any point in your life, even if it was a fist fight as a 14 year old where you got caught by cops and you're now 60 with no sign of violence since, you are barred from ever owning a firearm as well. This still applies in most US states, and most of this stuff still applies even then. And not even to mention red flag laws where if someone tattles on you for something, regardless of evidence, you will be SWAT'ed, they'll arrest you, (if you don't stand your ground, otherwise you die) and take away your gun and your right to own one. Some states only require a background check but the violence record, and sometimes the red flag law problem, still apply. There's other restrictions that apply in specific states then that, but those are generally how it works in pretty much every nation aside from Yemen. "All in all you tried to come off as a Christian, but come off more as a Satanist to me or deluded at the very least, especially on positions like porn, prostitution, drugs, I can't fathom the cognitive dissonance of "devout christians" who upvoted you." How am I a satanist? I believe in divine rights, which includes a capability to sin so long as you don't infringe someone else's rights. God gave us our rights to follow Him or reject Him, by not banning such behavior such mindsets are openly exposed and can be rebuked, instead of silently conceptualized or being easily hidden. It is not the right of the state to tell people how to live their lives, that's a moralistic position reserved for the church, and the church's power is social in nature, not legislative. The only legitimate role of the government is to protect the innocent and to punish the wicked, which means its punitive and has no right to control, that is tyranny. And that's what God described government to be.
    1
  1309.  @HussiteWarrior  I already explained how I agree with legal prostitution, and that it should be socially opposed, as I don't see the government having justification to control such a system if people are acting in voluntary consenting manners. If the people want to sin, the government's only job is to ensure the rights they have to sin are upheld, if someone is stolen from, coerced, or assaulted, it is the government's job to assess the case, and if undoubtedly true, (as in there is literally not a single doubt about the accusation) convict the criminal, with rape that's a death sentence, with theft that's a double the payment or indentured servitude for that due if it can't be paid. And if there were no gun restrictions at all, and you weren't barred from owning a gun for life for servicing your act of a violent crime, then you could not easily coerce or assault people.
    1
  1310. I will point out we have done literally everything possible to prove that the lack of acceptance of transgenderism has nothing to do with the suicide rates, the rate of suicide in a social environment with and without acceptance does not change in any statistical way and we have repeated proof of this. And compare this against other Identitarian groups like homosexuality or race when they weren't and were accepted and you'll notice the suicide rates don't go down as a result of acceptance, in fact following social acceptance the suicide rate tends to increase if it changes at all. This inherently demonstrates that transgenderism is a mental disorder, healthy people do not have any of these statistical trends. The propaganda that claims transgender suicides decrease through social acceptance is literally the statistical inverse, literally every study and metastudy on the subject we've had on the subject has demonstrated this fact, there are so few of either specifically because of how known this phenomenon is and how little money there was in the demonstrating the factual case of social acceptance lacking correlation with the suicide rates.
    1
  1311. The only liberty that could be attained in the UK is if someone started a radical libertarian party devoted to reducing government power, including government interventionism, and granting inalienable citizen rights. But that wouldn't really achieve anything without violence tbh.
    1
  1312. Funny part about the reference to the Christian perspective of angels and "God's Chosen people" thing, the Biblical Scripture actually says that humans are higher then the angels and we will judge them, (1 Cor 6:3) our state of being of less glory then the angels is temporary as a result of the corruption we attained from the sin that caused the Fall in Genesis 3, when we receive our resurrected bodies, our body and mind will be resurrected as superiors to the angels, so technically he's describing a denigration of man and especially himself, people also misunderstand the chosen people thing, it be more correct to say "beloved people", as there is no explicitly chosen people, its a bad description in good faith, and a disingenuous description in bad faith.
    1
  1313. Just gonna state, people have natural affinities as part of physical, emotional, mental, and even spiritual traits, (as a result of both nurture and nature, so in a sense you are incorrect there people do have natural things they can or are good at) these determine talents for which you can become significantly more proficient at then if you start at something for which those traits of the affinities don't apply. Let me pull an example from myself: I wasn't born with a natural capability to understand programming and software, nor to develop games. However I was born with an inherent love of math and problem solving and have a high knack for it, (and as well other inherent capabilities that associate with software development) making my logical thinking capabilities considerably effective for those type of things. Mix in the fact that I developed a personal (uneducated) interest in philosophic concepts, writing/narratives, video games, and social design, it became part of my character for me to build up to wanting to work on software and games. It becomes a natural extension of my original developed traits for me to become a developer/designer. In part it helped to build to that point by desiring devotion into that subject, but I was already way more efficient and effective at learning the environment then many (won't say all, but I can say most) of my peers pushing me ahead of the curve for such. Doesn't mean I'm the best or that great, nor that I end up superior to those who took longer, but it did mean that my specific traits gives me a better advantage in certain specific cases. (especially compared to other fields I could try) This generally applies to every human to some degree, we all have specific fields we are most effective in as a natural result, regardless of the passion we take for them. Some people don't want to go into those fields for any number of reasons, but that's the truth, they don't need to go into it and perhaps they're better for it, but in most cases its usually the most effective and efficient path. Others often refuse to acknowledge this, but as expertise and specialization in the economy expands, this detail and competition is going to become more pronounced and necessary and it will become harder to oppose participation in your fields according to your natural talents. And in some cases folks will stunt their natural talents lacking proper recognition or practice in what may actually be their best field. This is generally why apprenticeships were considered superior to a centralized education before the late 19th century.
    1
  1314. Least there's somebody whose thinking rationally in the comment section, another thing that makes this questionable is the BLM and Police Brutality tags, if this dude knew anything about BLM he would've known they're the most racist Marxist cult there is, and they promoted the violence and the riots. (also BLM was founded on a lie, they were justified on killing Michel Brown, he reached for the cop's gun)
    1
  1315. If they weren't supported by the government, they would be smashed by the market, they are provided for and have no reliance on the market, monopolies exist when market reliance is removed from the equation, which only happens when a monopoly is standing somewhere behind those in the "market" in this case that being the government. The government pays money into corporations for which they are guaranteed to have or keep, and they receive many provisions to keep them where they are. Remove government intervention from the equation and you'll find a lot of competition pop up out of nowhere and the monopolies will quickly collapse.
    1
  1316. If they weren't supported by the government, they would be smashed by the market, they are provided for and have no reliance on the market, monopolies exist when market reliance is removed from the equation, which only happens when a monopoly is standing somewhere behind those in the "market" in this case that being the government. The government pays money into corporations for which they are guaranteed to have or keep, and they receive many provisions to keep them where they are. Remove government intervention from the equation and you'll find a lot of competition pop up out of nowhere and the monopolies will quickly collapse.
    1
  1317.  @sivvinod3187  Ha, I don't use a browser nor an OS owned by any of them. And I don't only use Youtube for video watching either. You're argument must be invalid since that was the only "logic behind it. "You like to say that but you don't realize that you'll lose all the GOOD things as well." What good things? "Regulation is the only option unless we want to go a few decades backwards in development." What justification, rational, or reason do you have for this claim? How can you demonstrate objectively that we would? Thing is you can't, and there is no reason for which you could believe such except a religion in government, that we call statism. You have never once lived in a free market and neither has any of your family that you've ever met, there has not been one person alive for near on 200 years who has lived in a free market. And neither do you understand the economic arguments nor the logical arguments regarding the free market, you're repeating propaganda.
    1
  1318.  @sivvinod3187  Ha, I don't use a browser nor an OS owned by any of them. And I don't only use Youtube for video watching either. You're argument must be invalid since that was the only "logic behind it. "You like to say that but you don't realize that you'll lose all the GOOD things as well." What good things? "Regulation is the only option unless we want to go a few decades backwards in development." What justification, rational, or reason do you have for this claim? How can you demonstrate objectively that we would? Thing is you can't, and there is no reason for which you could believe such except a religion in government, that we call statism. You have never once lived in a free market and neither has any of your family that you've ever met, there has not been one person alive for near on 200 years who has lived in a free market. And neither do you understand the economic arguments nor the logical arguments regarding the free market, you're repeating propaganda.
    1
  1319.  @sivvinod3187  Ha, I don't use a browser nor an OS owned by any of them. And I don't only use Youtube for video watching either. You're argument must be invalid since that was the only "logic behind it. "You like to say that but you don't realize that you'll lose all the GOOD things as well." What good things? "Regulation is the only option unless we want to go a few decades backwards in development." What justification, rational, or reason do you have for this claim? How can you demonstrate objectively that we would? Thing is you can't, and there is no reason for which you could believe such except a religion in government, that we call statism. You have never once lived in a free market and neither has any of your family that you've ever met, there has not been one person alive for near on 200 years who has lived in a free market. And neither do you understand the economic arguments nor the logical arguments regarding the free market, you're repeating propaganda.
    1
  1320.  @sivvinod3187  Welcome to Youtube, where I can't post unless I spam multiple times, have tested on multiple computers, operating systems, browsers, networks, and accounts, and my account won't post unless I spam Youtube comments multiple times. And if I delete the post, all my posts can and have disappeared. And that aside you do realize propaganda is defined by its content, not character right? Me spamming the comment section does not constitute a valid claim that what I said is propaganda. And not to mention propaganda to who? Who am I beholden to for which my "propaganda" helps? What rational do you have to claim that? I know who your claims are beholden to, they empower government and political power to those in charge as if they aren't corruptible. But when has my argument ever even been implemented by a political power? And where is you rational argument?
    1
  1321.  @sivvinod3187  Welcome to Youtube, where I can't post unless I spam multiple times, have tested on multiple computers, operating systems, browsers, networks, and accounts, and my account won't post unless I spam Youtube comments multiple times. And if I delete the post, all my posts can and have disappeared. And that aside you do realize propaganda is defined by its content, not character right? Me spamming the comment section does not constitute a valid claim that what I said is propaganda. And not to mention propaganda to who? Who am I beholden to for which my "propaganda" helps? What rational do you have to claim that? I know who your claims are beholden to, they empower government and political power to those in charge as if they aren't corruptible. But when has my argument ever even been implemented by a political power? And where is you rational argument?
    1
  1322.  @sivvinod3187  Welcome to Youtube, where I can't post unless I spam multiple times, have tested on multiple computers, operating systems, browsers, networks, and accounts, and my account won't post unless I spam Youtube comments multiple times. And if I delete the post, all my posts can and have disappeared. And that aside you do realize propaganda is defined by its content, not character right? Me spamming the comment section does not constitute a valid claim that what I said is propaganda. And not to mention propaganda to who? Who am I beholden to for which my "propaganda" helps? What rational do you have to claim that? I know who your claims are beholden to, they empower government and political power to those in charge as if they aren't corruptible. But when has my argument ever even been implemented by a political power? And where is you rational argument?
    1
  1323. I kinda would describe my perspective as a Minarchist Christian Monarchist Theocracy, though its not a theocracy in the sense of the clergy themselves being in power (least not directly) but more that true Christian congregations (those who conform to 4th century Christian Orthodoxy, so no progressiveness, no liberalism, no enlightenment) each have a vote, the pastors and elders of the congregations altogether decides who the congregation can select, and through that all congregations (in Orthodox Union) come together to select a king based on those votes given under God (same would apply to barons, counts, and dukes) and then the king remains in power by dynasty until a mass contingent of congregations come together to call him to resign (and if he refuses they must have a threat of force) where the king is himself already limited immensely in what he is allowed to do with the government, but can do whatever he wants with his private property of course. Much of the rest of this basically more or less agrees with libertarian monarchism or anarcho-monarchism to some extent, its just that the emphasis of the monarch and larger authority structures are themselves basically just the Torah Law through a mostly 4th century Christian Orthodoxy lens. (and no I do not mean Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox lens, if you think either of them existed in the 4th century, especially their modern counterparts, you don't know history, you're being a relativist)
    1
  1324.  @rsa5991  "Funny how people blame float comparison problems on "imprecision", even though they are actually happening because floats are too precise." Eh, kind of, like the problem is its kind of both precise and imprecise, its extremely precise when we talk about binary, but in decimal the precision is limited by binary representation, to represent decimal values in binary floating point is always gonna be imprecise somewhere because you can't represent the numbers functionally the same, the conversion is not perfectly compatible. This is why 0.1+0.2 != 0.3, as the decimal representations aren't perfectly translating to the binary representations in a way that an add in this case is being properly performed as it was in decimal.
    1
  1325.  @crystaluwu1012  None of those positions are left wing and the AfD doesn't support them.
    1
  1326. ​ @k.a.3614  "like what kind of people the first settlers from the netherlands were" Irrelevant, this was not the US at the time, neither was the colonies under Great Britain. The US only existed after 1776 with the independence of the colonies and the ratification of the Constitution. (which I might add was the founding document that all other western nations based their Constitutions on, and still failed because they don't ensure the rights of the individual) "and what the US is doing outside of its own country." Also irrelevant, only American citizens have rights according to the Constitution, everyone else is ignorable to it, it is by sheer kindness that we treat non-citizens well enough to be nearly comparable to citizens, but that's the reason we can deport them. "Because the US foreigner policy is not build on "loving"" Irrelevant again, the Constitution, our government foreign policy has nothing to do with the people nor its values and more then majority of the population opposes this. We don't like being the world's police, but if we didn't do it then it would be only China. "I.m.o. but nearly soly on economics." What is "soly"? Also IMO doesn't need punctuation. "And I.m.o. are responsible for a big part of the destabilization and horrors in the middle east." No, you're actually pretty badly informed if you think its the fault of the US for the Middle East, that was Great Britain, France, and Russia's fault, the American hegemony causing problems didn't start until around the 70s, they've been killing each other since the 1920s, and made worse by Arab and Kurdish nationalism which Great Britain used to undermine the Ottoman Empire in World War I but never actually bothered to give them anything. The American policy in the Middle East doesn't help but its been like that for a century at least, where America was almost entirely isolationist. "Just look at iran an how the US abolished a democratic president in 1953 because he wanted to nationalize the iranian oil industry." We never fought Iran, and that was common for the Great Powers to do going back at least to the 20s, regardless that was originally at the behest of Great Britain and Eisenhower. And it didn't cause the instability that existed, that already existed by that point. "Instead the Shah got the power again, GB and the US continued to make profit of the oil industry, the shah mistreated the country and its people, they were suffering, and turned to the only thing they had, revolution and religion." You do realize every country that's been a Great Power has done this right? Even then the revolution was nonviolent. And that wasn't source of instability and chaos in the Middle East. "Or the taliban, they only hold so much power because of the US." The Taliban was a boogeyman, they weren't nearly as effective nor powerful as any of the other insurgencies, despite originally backing them. And they spawned from the already existing chaos. "he jemen war, a product of the support of the US to Saudi Arabia." You bring up more useless point about the American standard because foreign policy isn't relevant. (also wasn't started by the US) And most Americans want to get out anyway. So I don't see your point when mine had nothing to do with what the government does. "Sooo horrible, but as jemen holds no ecconomic value to the US they are not intervening unlike the irak war, which was over a lie the US made to get their oil resources under control." Not the first time a Great Power has done it and probably won't be the last, but the US has a population opposing it and a president that is currently working on more non-intervention foreign policy, and that's beside the fact it was entirely irrelevant. "And so much more. Arrg. It just makes me so angry when someone says the US is based on loving values." You don't know anything about the US it seems, you look at the last 60 years and claim that's what the US is about, and you only look at our foreign policy which has nothing to do with our values. "It is based on supression and egoism/capitalism." This is a stupid statement and lacks any historical basis, you don't know anything about the US if this all you can say. Also you know nothing about capitalism and you definitely can't claim egoism.
    1
  1327.  @k.a.3614  "Also there is no such thing as true freedom." The American Constitution as its defined was absolute in liberty, yes it does exist. "Because not having freedom is also a kind of freedom and having freedom is also a kind of not having freedom a lot of times." This is fallacious, you're making a circular argument, freedom, or liberty, is the principle of being capable to act on your own without interference, that is absolute freedom. Its as simple as that, otherwise you are not free at all, there is no spectrum of freedom, there is only freedom or authority, and without absolute freedom, you are not free. "Our world is build by physical laws and as such there are so many boundaries limiting every freedom." That's not true because that's not how you define freedom, we don't speak from the hypothetical nor the theoretical when we speak of freedom, those who do are manipulating the argument and have no idea what freedom nor liberty is. You are simply not free. "I don't value the freedom of free speech as the highest." Then you are not free. "I value the freedom of not being harmed far greater." Speech does not harm, you don't have the right to tell me what I can and can't say, what authority gets to define harm? If its government then it can be whatever the government decides, just because you have power to control what it says now doesn't mean you always will, this is how you get tyranny and authoritarianism, when you authorize and legitimize oppression by the state to silence speech you don't like, you have given them capability to oppress all speech. Anyone can get in power and control what you say. This is one of the principles behind Orwell's 1984. If you can't free speak then you can not freely debate nor argue, you can't freely decide for yourself. "And as such whenever the freedom of speech endangers the freedom of not being harmed I would forbid or only allow it with boundaries/special requirements." You haven't defined what harm is and how speech can cause harm, you seem to define it by capability to offend, but I have a right to offend you, I have right to say what I please, anything else is oppression and leaves me not free. I don't bow to government and government is not my God, and they don't get to define what is moral or right. Speech include. "We are not living in an individualistic world, we are living in a society." Wrong, we do living in an individualist world or personal responsibility wouldn't exist. But it does, and we direct evidence of it continuously, you can't consistently live as a collectivist, you can consistently live as an individualist. Also you do realize individualism doesn't ignore the substance of tribalism right? It merely argues that the individual's well being is superior to the collective's "greater good" which is always actually evil. (cause collectivists don't have a objective moral standard) "We are social creatures." Doesn't explained how the world isn't individualistic. "And while the individual is important," According to your arguments, it doesn't matter at all. The individual can be oppressed simply by the authority of the collective, you need to learn some logical skill. "the society needs to come first." Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Jingoism, Marxism, a society first mentality is immoral and lacks the capability to understand truth or good, it also ignores the capability for justice and seeks purely revanchism. It preaches the lack of personal responsibility and treats all of man like a animal to be curbed and controlled. But that's not what he is, unless of course you want more Nazism, this is how you get it, by removing the individual. (which was the Nazi ideology, there were no individuals, only the state and collective groups, that's how dehumanize and justify atrocities, the Communists did it, the Fascist did it, all Socialists do it, Marxists always do it, Nazis did it, Americans do not) You are so shortsighted and lacking in wisdom. "That does not mean that the wishes of the society sand over the needs of an individual," Given your ideology of speech, yes it does. A collective desire not to offend or "harm" is justified to regulate speech, this is exactly what you're doing. "needs are still higher but needs of society are higher than needs of an indivudual." Still didn't explain how you keep reiterating the same tripe. "If an individual needs to kill in order to feel good and continue with their life" There is no need to kill to continue life, and feeling "good" is not defined as a moral good, nor is righteous nor just. This is not a valid justification for collectivism. And almost every individualist standard invalidates this. You do realize individualism does not pertain to relativistic morality and claims of the greater good, this sounds more propagandized standards then anything. "they shouldn't be allowed as the society needs to feel safe and have rules otherwise it wouldn't function properly." Society does not need to feel safe, and rules are a natural extension of the capability to act social, its a natural result without ideology. You can't justify by a collectivist principle, it existed long before. "If some needs to be with a homosexual partner that is totally fine," This is neither a need. "even if most of society wished they wouldn't, as society doesn't need soly heterosexual couples." Actually this is extremely stupid because it does, especially in today's age, given our birthrates are below sustainable. Doesn't help that most countries have debt that is being passed onto the next generation which makes less descendants incapable of keeping up. Also homosexuality is a lifestyle that is unhealthy and highly based on lust. Also it is Sodomy. "Making certain speeches illegal is important, as sadly people are not meant to critically think everything through." Can't when you ban speech, and people think critically when you don't put the government in charge of education, monopolies don't work for well for advancement. "If you hear a lie often enough it will have it's effects on you," This one is only true if you already accept the lie, if you oppose or don't accept the lie, this doesn't happen. Its very easy to teach people to think critically, governments just don't do it. "even if you are to most critical person, and to those who are not very critical analizing everything... they often just take the easiest message and believe it." No, not really, critical thinkers relying on the Socratic Method don't have this problem, and even that aside moralists also don't have this problem. "If this massage is "cristians are bad and should be killed" and their get exposed to it enough it might end with action." Action is not speech, speech is not action, neither is speech violence, you can't justify authority based on that principle, its flimsy as it is. And no, speech does not justify action, so you can't claim its for that either. "Also words itselfe can be violence." No it can't, there is no capability for words to inflict damage nor violence. All power of words are given by the individual. Communication by itself has no ability to physically harm. And non-physical harm can not be legislated against. "And at the very least words are manipulation." Fabrication, words are communication, nothing more, nothing less. "So by limiting free speech, you are limiting manipulation (which is also manipulation but you want to protect society from certain manipulations)" You limiting freedom and liberty, you are not free if you do this. And you still haven't justify your position reasonably nor logically, you've mostly pleaded to emotion and tried to attack irrelevant subjects, instead of tackling the argument. That is by definition illogical and fallacious. Also government does need to protect society because society can take care of itself, the people don't and shouldn't need a government authority to tell them what is right or wrong, that's not a legitimate role of government, its role is punitive only, not preventative. Modern legal systems are mostly based on this fact and were later corrupted by state power for the sake of authoritarianism, that's where preventative measures come from. But the people don't need it, and you can see that with American society for the first 250 years of its existence at least.
    1
  1328.  @jennyh4025  "Germany is not the USA" It was based on the Constitution of the US and had things it didn't like (or the Great Powers at the time excluding the US didn't like) cherrypicked from it. "Freedom of speech is not directly a part of the German constitution." I'm aware, but it means Germans are not free and lack fundamental divine rights. Also means that Germany can and likely will become an authoritarian nation state again because the only protection against a tyrannical state is the capability of the people to threaten the state and its power, which is not allowed in most of Europe, especially Germany. My argument regardless is that Germany is not a free state and lacks fundamental rights, and does not have a culture nor consciousness of society that values such. While are totally able to have such lackings it means they can be ruled by a tyrant easily and rapidly, especially with how the German government is acting, and those acting as though it won't happen again or that they are responsible for not letting it happen are fools for they don't understand the cores of tyrant and authoritarianism, they only care about not letting the Nazis rule them again, a Fascist or Communist dictatorship could still easily make their way to power there, especially with the systems of oppression they have already implemented.
    1
  1329.  @k.a.3614  "Just as I though before, you just do not understand what I am saying, putting meaning behind my words which are not there while not understanding (or ignoring?) the actual meaning behind it. And not to forget take my points out of context, not seeing the response to a text in it." What you said is what you said, I responded and told you why you're wrong, if you can't explain your ideology and methodology in a consistent manner then that is your problem, I merely responded (with quotations) to what you had already said. I am not responsible for anything beyond. "Also you ignore scientific facts... but what do I expect from someone religious who proves my points... especially the one why the information about the settlers is important..." That's massive amount fallacies. The assumption of scientific fact that you did not explain nor have you described as being capable of invalidating anything, especially since you made many more assumptions in order to claim it opposes freedom when it doesn't, the only way it does is if you define freedom by your specific standard which you never defined and from implicitly interpretation is almost certainly incorrect. That aside that's an ad hominem attack, it holds no basis in argumentation and is purely used to undermine me personally especially when none of my personal character had anything to do with what I said. And bringing up the settlers is at best a red herring, it has no relevancy to the argument. The argument had nothing to do with the colonies as colonies. Also as an aside logical argumentation does not pertain to what I hold true and dear. "I do have something kind of positive to say... you are an equolent speaker, which doesn't make your speeches more right but makes them more manipulative and thus appearing more valid." I care not for charisma, I only care for truth, none of what I say is manipulative, you didn't answer of the things I asked of you and you assumed much more. Your worldview as explained so far is not remotely valid from a logical standpoint and the more you deflect, the more I desire to say its invalid. You still have no responded to my arguments. "I am no such equolent speaker sadly at least not yet and especially not in a language I'm not native in." The capability to type capably like I do has nothing to do with being a native speaker, I just naturally like to speak with a wide and varying vocabulary and spend a lot of time debating people otherwise. I love debating with people who oppose my views and have sharpened my perspective by the whetstone of ideological opposition. I was given a gift of being capable of receiving this manner of speech, and I appreciate the gift hence why I use it. "I have argumented a lot before and as such I know futher trying to debate will not get futher with this kind of communication. I wish you all the best and have a great life. Bye. Then you have not debate much with someone of the opposition, nor do you have a decent methodology for debate. You arguments were full of fallacies and faulty reasoning, and even more did not address any of what I had said, most instead being hand-waved. A decent man would debate for the truth, foremost, or at least would think critically, but you did not even ask questions, you have mostly assumed and ruined your sides capability. If you want to debate, you need consideration and to respond appropriately.
    1
  1330.  @jennyh4025  "we do not lack any rights. According to our constitution we are allowed to do anything we want - as long as it does not hurt or endanger others." You don't have the right of free speech, you don't have the right of free expression, you don't have the right to self-defense, nor do you contain the right to overthrow a tyrannical government, these are inherent rights which your Constitution does not support. Your ideal of hurt and endangerment includes speech as violence, which it is wholly incapable of committing, no, you don't have any rights. And your Constitution is not absolute. "All laws have to be reasonable, otherwise our highest court will say „that’s not okay, that does not follow the constitution, take it back, make a new one“." Reasonable according to your definition is relative and fabricated, a reasonable law would be punitive, not preventative, that is what the origination of laws were designed to do. Authoritarianism is what you get when you make a law preventative. "Just take the current rules trying to keep the COVID-19 numbers low." Irrelevant, the numbers regarding a virus have no relevance in the establishment of rights, in fact shutting down an economy for the sake of the "people" is immoral and a flippant disregard for the rights of the people. "What do you think, why do people follow and only very few protest? Because we got a reasonable explanation why we should follow the rules and not just an order." Still immoral, a people should be allowed to dissent with their government without being demeaned and undermined. But Germany has a strict authority that ignores the right of the individual. If you are incapable of speaking Nazi propaganda in public then you are not free and you have no rights. "Every single rule made up by the local and federal government has to restrict our freedom as little as possible." If its restricting freedoms, then you don't have rights, a right is the lack of restriction of a right, a right is not something granted to you by government, its something already existing, the government doesn't give rights. "So why do you think we don’t have freedom in Germany? Because there is a law that states it’s illegal to deny on of the biggest horrors ever done by humans when denying it hurts so many and goes against the very first article of our constitution? I do count the dignity of dead people to be as inviolable as a living person’s dignity." The dead are dead, they don't deserve the treatment of the living first off, worship of the dead, respect of the dead, consideration for the dead, they are all worthless, those who do so are committing immoralities of their own, the dead are but dirt for the tree, dust to the wind, nothing more. And the inability to say as you will in publc and to think as you please in public, if you don't have the capability to do this you are not free, you have no rights, and even more people will find ways around this and thus the hate speech laws must expand to encompass more and more otherwise legal speech until it controls the dialogue entirely, this is what happened in Germany already. Hate speech is free speech, otherwise you are not free. There is no getting around this, the government no right to tell you what you can and can't say, only a fool believes the powers that exist will not be used against him soon enough. Yet you also believe in democracy, that's a contradiction, the changing tides of politics even without a revolution proves you wrong, the Nazi used that exact system against the people, so it will happen again so long as you give such unlimited power to your unrighteous authorities. I have the right to offend you, you don't have the right to tell me what I can say. "And thanks to our election system we are less in danger to be ruled by a dictator than the USA." You're a goddamn retard then, the electoral college is the first of multiple steps to ensure a dictator can not happen, where Germany does not have any of this. First is the elector college, which ensures that only those capable of becoming President and lacking in authoritarianist ideals can not take charge. Next up is the branches of power which disallow any specific group of people from being capable of more then one specific thing. Then is the state's power which has the right to overrule the federal government. And lastly is our right to bear arms, if the government feels the need to oppress its people, we are given the authority to overthrow it and refresh the Constitution. This has lasted longer then Germany's system and does not enable a dictator to ever take power. It is a more effective opposition against tyranny then any other system ever devised for the people themselves have the right to ensure the system succeeds and are obligated to ensure that. "In Germany there is no electoral college, but the popular vote counts and everyone of the age of 16/18 (depending on the election) is allowed to vote (no need to register, you just need to live somewhere and follow the rules on that)." I don't see how a popular vote (which the Nazis used to get into power I might add) is anymore effective at ruling the people then a king, democracy is just the capability to buy votes with money nobody has and to justify taking the rights of the minority away, which always happens. In the US it is declared a state's right to pick the President, but if a state makes a rule about how the President is picked that is a good way to be overthrown, already happened in 2 states. (one by election, the other by revolt, and yes, our right to bear arms has already been used to do such) "A political party can also be „closed“ when they propagate things, that go against our constitution." Immoral and not free, that is a flippant abuse of rights, Nazis have a right just as much as anyone else and they should be allowed to do as they please if they aren't causing any actual violence (only physical harm is violence by the way, you don't get the change the definition of violence) "We have a political system, that more or less prevents one-party-ruling and things like gerrymandering...." You have no idea what gerrymandering is then. And you have no idea how the US works if you think it has any effect on our national political system. No gerrymandering has nothing to do with our national standard, and not every state has a problem with gerrymandering, generally only the left wing states do.
    1
  1331.  @jennyh4025  "wow, you had to go back to name calling, how impressive!" You have no idea how to debate and understand nothing of logical fallacies, trying to debate without any skill is just a fact, I call you what you are based on what you do and how you act, use some skill and thought and I won't criticize your behavior. "And you are right, if I can’t use hate speech, but am allowed to express myself in every other way (including constitutional rights to freedom of press and human rights) I don’t have freedom! (I hope you were able to read the sarcasm)" You are enslaved, you aren't free, you don't have rights, you have privileges, and they can and will be taken away from you, free speech is a hard line, once you sacrifice hate speech, there is no limit to the limitations of speech a government will impose on its people. You can't expect the government to continue to agree with your ideology and neither can you expect that government power won't expand, it never decreases willingly and you never oppose them, and you gave them the keys to silence state criticism, which is already starting to happen. Authoritarians are blind until the boot of tyrants are upon their necks, that is what I call brainwashing. "By the way, we are allowed to have firearms, the rules to get a license are just more strict than in the USA, just like for getting a drivers license." If you can't own them unrestricted, then you can't own them, if you have to tell the state why you want one or what its purpose is for, or that the state needs to authorize your ability to carry, then you can't own one, a privilege is not a capability, a right is not a privilege. And you are still incapable of overthrowing a new age Nazi regime. "And hate speech (all hate) encourages violence and is against the constitutional rights of others, which is why it can be punished, when brought to charges." Speech is not violence, hatred is not violence, you can't justify oppression of divine rights by the claim of offense, encouraging violence is not violence, until acts are made, there is no violence to exist, you anthropology and deontology is wrong and inconsistent. It also promotes oppression and underground revolts, banning a specific topic does not solve nor diminish the power of that topic, you merely make it more elusive and and dangerous, they're more likely to become violent as a result, and that ideology will never die, persecution strengthens an idea. Also all governments are wholly incapable of regulating and controlling society or reigning the people, from prohibition to banking to economics, its been proven over and over again that finite authority does not win against its enemies, and only oppresses the law abiding citizen. This is how tyranny gains power, and why Germany is such a rats nest.
    1
  1332.  @jennyh4025  "According to your logic it should be legal to steal or kill anyone and anything, because it would otherwise restrict your rights." Strawman fallacy, twisting what I say to be too ridiculous to defend so that you can make arguing with me easy is not a valid argument and anyone with half a brain would recognize this is extremely stupid, its not even worth retorting against. (you have proven you have no argument and can't defend your immoral ideology) "please stay in the USA and never ever go anywhere else!" Then pay for your own defense, get your own legal ruleset, and stop stealing from the American hegemony. I can go as I please, no government can hold me accountable, they hold no sway on me and I bow to no Earthly kings, and that is how I will continue to live. Your power is weak and worthless.
    1
  1333.  @jennyh4025  "I may be held accountable for lying about one of the biggest atrocities in human history, but at least I know I can protest peacefully without having to fear police brutality." Lies are no violence, it doesn't matter what the lie speaks of, there is no justification for a government to control what the people say so that they may not lie or manipulate the truth, if you give that power to the government then the truth is whatever they dictate it to be. This is what Orwell wrote 1984 about, this is literal newspeak, do the Germans even know of Orwell? Do you know of Huxley? I am seriously curious because this isn't the first time a Orwellian ideology has been made so blatantly in regards to the German government. Also the government isn't a god and neither is democracy, it will fail again, because it is made by man, and it will commit atrocities again and again because mankind will always resort to evil. Also I haven't ever worried about police brutality and if I felt it was a problem worth protesting (which it really isn't statistically, nor from any other objective standpoint you could pull from) I'd have the capability and would protest on it without fear because I feel no threat from man, foremost because I am with Christ, but also I don't go anywhere dangerous without at least one gun, enough rounds to ensure someone is dead, and a dagger. They can't threaten me unless they want a few bloody holes. Also our cops don't attack people, they're not racist, and they're are so few cases of police being brutal that more people are killed by sharks then unjustifiably by cops. (and holding a gun to a cop is a good way to enter that statistic, play stupid games, win stupid prizes) Now on the other hand I'd be concerned with a cop busting down a man's door without knocking because a politician told him to, but that's not my problem, outside of pointing it out it doesn't effect me. And besides, that only happens in cities that are trying to follow European doctrines regarding firearm ownership.
    1
  1334.  @shadowscreamer1  Which one? (also apologies for me messing up some grammar, I was sleep deprived writing most of it)
    1
  1335. I still think that if somebody is unwilling to be argued against and instead throw violently tantrums, they should be oppressed and censored. I don't honestly mind sectioning these people and making them pay reparations for damage they directly caused. Perhaps indentured servitude?
    1
  1336.  @no_name4796  Fair, they were the ones that wrote min and max as macros inside the windows.h file.
    1
  1337.  @MentisWave  In Rome our procedures of education were considered slave education.
    1
  1338.  @SolidSiren  As someone self-educated better then those educated by college on my field, I can tell you that college is a waste, even many companies in software engineering are ignoring college education entirely (some companies and interviewers will dock priority for it even) because of it, and no self-respecting engineer will consider what you have to say if you openly state you went to college on the subject. I have talked circles around college educated defense contractors because of my specialization in my field, the only reason to get it at best is if you specifically wish to get a government job, because you can get a better paying job otherwise without it and no debt.
    1
  1339.  @user-mv4zi6ey4y  See Halo
    1
  1340. I agree with need to establish mitigation applications to address halting the gangs, but we also need to be hyper-strict with violence and murder, execution and brutality are effective deterrents for those who commit heinous acts, militarized police with hardcore hyper-brutal methods centralized and localized around the harshest and worse areas armed with guns would definitely be effective, executing murderers and attempting murderers with immediate conviction would also stop this. The threat needs to be extreme, strict, and ultimate, if a threat is not final, it'll never finish the job, and it violates justice and encourages vengeance for folks such as that to live. You ever wonder why so many people have become so strangely radical in the recent centuries, where so much media and even opinions justify harsh methods? Its because of vengeance, when you rob a people of justice, they return with vengeance, vengeance among mankind is just the absence of justice against wrongdoers.
    1
  1341. Asmon's support of UBI routinely proves that he doesn't know anything about economics, then again he says the democrats have good economic policy, so that's kinda inherent. Only an economic troglodyte supports their policies economically, and its trivial to argue that fact when you've learned even just basic eocnomics, socialist policies are what caused all the issues we're suffering today, (FDR was economically the worst president in American history without contest) within 10 years Social Security will be defunct and will bankrupt the US. (and that's presuming Trump removes the scammers from it)
    1
  1342. Honestly, I don't think giving respect to something that's subpar of expected is worth giving praise, and neither do I think we should give praise to the expected, for the actual game aspect of the game, it does nothing new and does less then expected as it barely evolves, the narrative on the other hand is complete trash. (being mature by writing a "revenge is bad" story is not mature, especially when you inject agendas and sex scenes in it, nobody is gonna get of on that either)
    1
  1343. 80% of the time its just a Speedster he can't defeat, and the other 19% its just some random circumstance that happens which a future Barry Allen deliberately caused.
    1
  1344. Sounds like Russians are quite stupid. Nations are worthless, its the king that matters, I'd willingly serve under any nation's reign so long as the king was just, his ethnic relation to me is stupidly irrelevant.
    1
  1345. ​ @josephsolowyk7697  Yeah that's pretty stupid, like I'm all for giving the Germans some kick in the groin, but if its for some stupid nebulous concept like "Mother Russia" that's just dumb, Russia should've died long ago. Least the Germans killed less people enslaving in comparable time frames when they enslaved people, but being enslaved, whether by foreigners or natives is still being enslaved.
    1
  1346.  @father-lock  When has she ever written a happy song?
    1
  1347. The government is not there to protect you, justice does not protect, it upholds which means it does not act upon the just, it punishes the wicked which means it only acts upon the act of wickedness, if you believe in preventative justice you are a tyrant supporting tyranny, justice is recompense, it is vengeance by righteous act, not security nor safety, one prevented from violating justice has foremost been wronged and had been pushed to commit said violation by the violation of justice put upon him, the government should be overthrown.
    1
  1348. Just gonna point out, the Christological view does not validate God being created, God does not need observation of Himself at all nor does He need anything, and the material realm is a part of the real world, both the spiritual and the material realm are reality. While we do agree that the spirit (the soul) and the flesh are against each other, it is not because one is real and the other is false, or that one contains contradiction or they're inherently meant for conflict, but because man sinned against God and so we abandoned God to follow our own path and so were cursed, and thus our flesh was corrupted and tainted alongside corrupting the whole of the material realm, and so our flesh becomes a perversion of its once good and perfect state, that does not make it unreal nor does it inherently make the flesh evil, though it is by itself incapable of good.
    1
  1349. There is a classic slavic quote that goes "Communists are those who've read The Communist Manifesto, Anti-Communists are those who've read The Communist Manifesto and understood it" Also by the way, its actually made pretty clear in the Manifesto that a lot of tyranny that resulted from it was intended, also Fascism is actually a pragmatic radical Marxist philosophy that eliminates class conflict by purifying and socializing the society instead of socializing just the economy.
    1
  1350. You don't need regulations when you simply say "if this kills someone, you die" without any compromise, if the state did this, the market would self-regulate the problem with the exact desired goals without regulations in place.
    1
  1351. The gunshots in the audio require there to be at minimum 3 different shooters, none of which could be the rooftop SS, they're too close to the mic on the camera, it doesn't fit the characteristics of the shot. (audio confirms the distance of Crooks for the first 4 shots, but not the rest)
    1
  1352. I'm totally for it, Deus vult, the Holy Land shall be ours.
    1
  1353. The laws of robotics that Asimov wrote was a thought experiment about automation and intellect, it was never actually about AI itself, it was about the concept of intuition and logic in general, especially since he reveals how they don't work, I wouldn't mind a new manner that approaches it from a scratch AI perspective but we've yet to actually have that.
    1
  1354. Honestly I've yet to see a case of anyone opposing SBI who hasn't agreed with "there's a wokeness problem in the gaming industry" which they don't just attribute to the consultancy firms, this is just a gamergate demonstration of backlash for supporting it, if you keep up the pressure and attack the companies that do this, the industry itself will start to get scared because the incentives for being woke dry up, the publishers don't care about politics, its a tool to get more money, but if their money is threatened enough, even despite the Blackrock and Vanguard support from ESG and Bridge 2.0, they'll be too scared to continue. We need to be violently reactive in this case.
    1
  1355. I don't even personally own a gun and even I'm not so retarded to call an AR-15 a bullpup and I definitely ain't gonna believe slamming the bolt on most AR-15s is gonna fire it unless there is something seriously wrong.
    1
  1356. These people are demons.
    1
  1357. Being traditional requires friends and family evaluating the relationship and taking responsibility for picking a bad man (especially one she had sex outside of wedlock with) so to call her stupid fling shotgun marriage traditional is like calling the Soviet Union the Libertarian paradise.
    1
  1358. Just gonna say I hate both Rust and Javascript as languages, they also suffer from the same build problems because Cargo is just npm with a native compilation built in, making both equally insecure (every npm vulnerability will happen with Cargo) and detrimental to the build, its worse with Cargo specifically because it needs to natively compile Rust in order to run whereas Javascript/Typescript are interpreted languages and require a separate process to build as native apps. (which honestly also suck) I also don't really like Typescript, if I need Typescript I'd just go to Dart instead because it is more inspired from C++ and C# in syntax, Typescript still generally needs to be a subset of Javascript much like YAML is a subset of JSON so you have to add additional syntax to run TS with the same JS syntax which limits what you can do, Dart doesn't have this problem, it still carries the npm problems but I'd prefer Dart to Javascript if I needed a Javascript system. However majority of Rust's behaviors are still implementable in the C++ compiler, they just aren't implemented by default. And I honestly prefer everything in C++ to anything Rust because the syntax is less trash and code paradigms are a lot less opinionated, it doesn't tell you what you must do whereas Rust insists only on its own ways with no alternative, not as bad as C# and Java, but God do I hate most opinionated languages, if I need an opinionated language, I'll just use C#, there is no reason to use any other opinionated language either. And the syntax of Rust is way too verbose, and there is no reason for a strict statically typed language to use a postfix type specifier.
    1
  1359. Without a restoration to Christian traditionalism, which does functionally close the pandora's box, (by promoting female submissiveness, young motherhood, and the opposition to female career orientation before motherhood) there is no restoration of a Christian society, this has been proven to be possible within Christian communities throughout the US, most prominently of by the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, or more specifically Doug Wilson's presbytery Christ Church in Moscow Idaho, in such communities family association, faith retention of children, and community integration has proven to benefit in growth, and its not the only case of it. I'd be willing to bet churches which practice similar things and promote similar Christian standards throughout a community would promote a similar or even more dramatic growth overcoming the collapse issue. However it requires an overtaking of the Christian standard for the community, it simply cannot be a secular standard.
    1
  1360. The problem is that cities don't allow private house expansion, they constrict the market preventing competition which causes this problem.
    1
  1361.  @bustercrabbe8447  "Why? If he got it wrong once, why wouldn't it be wrong again?" Claims aren't true unless demonstrated and proven. You made up claims but don't demonstrate nor prove them. "Again you proved you still don't know the difference between economics and politics." "In the first few decades the fledgling United States came very close to bankruptcy." This is completely irrelevant. "England removed all the British currency from her former colonies and America had no money (Remember Capitalist Theory: no money = no capitalism)." The currency is irrelevant, capitalism has nothing to do with lack of money. Business does not specifically need money to function. Most business in the ancient world was barter and commodity based and some Eastern businesses are returning to that. Money is a convenience, its not necessary for capitalism. "America relied on 'book barter' for domestic transactions and used land and timber as collateral for her bonds." Irrelevant point. "Specie and fiat currency was virtually non-existent and fisheries (including whaling) was the country's main producer of a tradable commodity." This is neither relevant. "The USA did not achieve capitalism until ~1876, and laissez faire capitalism never materialized in the States." Nothing here proves that. "Wow, a double oxymoron. The state and capitalism are opposed to each other. Perhaps why laissez faire capitalism has never existed." The state and capitalism are not opposed, that's a false conclusion. "Addendum: Types of socialism- State Socialism, Christian Socialism, Islamic Socialism, National Socialism, Marxist Socialism [a.k.a. communism], and Fabian Socialism. Market Socialism is an utter oxymoron and a fraud." You do realize an oxymoron is not the same thing as a contradiction right? By saying that you can't call it a fraud for calling something an oxymoron outright states that the two parts are not contradictory, they just appear contradictory. "Types of capitalism- Finance Capitalism, Freemarket Capitalism (a tautology), consumer capitalism, industrial capitalism, neo-capitalism, American Capitalism, crony capitalism, and another type of capitalism which eludes me at the moment. State Capitalism is another oxymoron and another bogus claim." Again, you don't know the definition of an oxymoron.
    1
  1362.  @bustercrabbe8447  "1. The definition of oxymoron is a contradiction in terms. The terms cancel each other out." "oxymoron: two words or phrases used together that have, or seem to have, opposite meanings" - Cambridge Dictionary They do not cancel out. And no they're not an inherent contradiction, they appear to be a contradiction, that doesn't inherently make them one, whether they are or not is completely separate of an issue. As an aside state capitalism is not an oxymoron, its a contradictory term, but that's separate from being an oxymoron, the state and capitalism themselves are not inherently at odds, they do not inherently oppose each other. And Laissez-faire in most economic/political standards requires a state to enforce individual rights in order to exist, that's the only legitimate role of the state, anarcho-capitalism is not the same as laissez-faire which you seem to completely confuse, just as libertarianism is not anarcho-capitalism, most libertarians argue for laissez-faire but not for anarcho-capitalist. "2. You haven't answered any question" You haven't asked a question so saying that I haven't answered something I haven't been asked is complete nonsense. How can I answer a question if the question for which I need to answer is not known to me? How can I know it? "or refute any statement without digressing away from the point." Where have I digressed from "the point"? Show me with specific quotation. "You seem unable to stay focused." You made a claim, but you refused to actually back it up. "3. You haven't explained your contradictions." What contradictions? You have yet to demonstrate a single case of that. Making claims is no a demonstration of case, you are required to demonstrate a case. "4. You don't appear to have a strong command of the subject matter." This is opinion and is completely irrelevant. "5. You certainly have no understanding of the History of Finances." You claim this but don't back up your claims, my claims are based on etymological sources and dictionaries when it comes to the reference of capitalism and its existence, and the definitions regarding common terms is a historically fact. Not to mention that you have been deflecting from my points, you haven't addressed a single case of historical accounts that I brought up. "Your rebuttals are fact free, logic warped, and distortion filled." You've yet to demonstrate what I've stated as being false, unsound, invalid, warped or distorted, you have deflected and accused me of things but yet to demonstrate a single case of it. You have also attacked my character and gone after me as to undermine my arguments and not even bothered to touch on my arguments here. This is a case of ad hominem fallacy and its why its so easy to disregard what you have said. I am not my argument, my arguments stand on their own without my existence, my knowledge and pride is irrelevant, if I did not exist, my arguments would still be, just as your claim of knowledge is worthless and doesn't mean anything. I never made a claim of my own authority and yet you seem to imply an appeal to your own authority and also imply an insult upon your character to question you, if that's is found to be true, I don't have any reason to regard any of what you say when you can't actually present an argument of refutation. While I have quoted you directly and addressed you point by point in context and in full, you have no once done so and have stated continuously false things of what has been said. I don't care whether you believe me or listen to me, if you will not listen, I don't care about you and nothing about what say is for your sake.
    1
  1363.  @pepedon1924  "the government does not have complete control on the economy" If they can shutdown and startup the means of production, they own the production and are a socialist economy. All mixed economics require control over the start and end of the means of production. "certain regulatory measures and practices on thier law that benefits both the workers, the state and the private businesses." How does one know this? "As a matter of fact, If the nation's economy practices "free market" then it lean towards the spectrum of capitalism" What is a free market?
    1
  1364. You know what's interesting, the notoriously callous attitude of the Chinese to living things is also the biggest reason why all the worst sicknesses also come from China, China is a craphole.
    1
  1365. Its almost like God's warnings were right, almost like He made us and understands us perfectly, weird...
    1
  1366.  @michaelwilson2497  To be fair, the government has no authority over marriage, neither gay mirage even in its immorality, the government has no authority over moral rights, only divine rights. Marriage was devised by God, it was given to man by and into faith, not by man, it has no right to be ruled over by man, only God. As such to the moral truths as well.
    1
  1367. Pretty crappy joke honestly, even ignoring modern day ragebait and retardation, this is the type of unjustified joke over wasted dev time that I would slap someone for.
    1
  1368.  @javiwewqre5733  "Isn’t calling a lawyer a red flag by itself?" This is a manipulation tactic, it is in fact untrue especially because they can't use it in court, people believe its a red flag, they believe it makes them look guilty, in reality any smart person even if innocent would choose the lawyer because cops are not in fact your friend. Cops rely upon this tactic of manipulation because it makes performing an interrogation impossible and getting open-shut case convictions impossible as now you have to deal with the defendant and his attorney watching everything they say and regulating what they can produce from that point on. Cops have and will find or treat you as if you're guilty regardless so long as you appear guilty to them, they over-analyze things and assume things that can result in responses that may not actually be a guilty response but what they'd call "abnormal" resulting in unnecessary harm just to catch someone out. In some cases people get wrongly convicted for this despite innocence, in some cases even the evidence could contradict and it still wouldn't matter.
    1
  1369.  @m.scottmcgahan9900  The problem with him is he studied part of the ancient language, the formal version of it most specifically, (as in the kind that philosophers and "intellectuals" of the day used) there's a number of things however he ignores in his claims about the ancient language as well as the history. (he also seems to ignore basic principals in the study of linguistics which is odd as someone who is supposed to know an ancient language) One mistake he makes is he presumes the vocabulary he learned is not time nor context nor subject specific, anyone whose even spoken English for the past 20 years should know that's false, let alone someone supposedly studying an ancient language which its use spanned at minimum more then 5 centuries across an area larger then the Roman Empire's apex. I could logically refute his points on that basis alone, that is nothing something I should be able to trivially do because I'm not even that well educated in any of the topic. Another mistake he makes is that he does not actually study any of the actual history behind the ancient languages, he might have studied some of the Ancient Greek's history perhaps (though clearly not the Koine Greek given he treats Ancient formal Greek and Koine Greek as synonymous when they we knew they weren't by the 1880s) but he absolutely has not studied Ancient Hebrew at all nor has he followed the history of the Ancient Hebrews, and he most especially knows nothing about the Tanakh as a whole, I'm not even sure if he realizes that the Torah is only a fraction of the Septuagint and most of our references of the Messiah as a term don't even exist in the Torah. Not to mention even the It kinda seems like he completely ignores the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim, the other two separations that the Ancient Hebrews had of their Scripture. Like we have ancient copies of documents in the Dead Sea Scrolls whose known age well predated Jesus by centuries and yet described irrefutable prophecy of Him.
    1
  1370. Here's being simple: Your feelings do not define reality in any way, what you think is not who you are, you do not get to modify categories of physical state, your mental state does not determine what you are, and who you are is the byproduct of action alone, trying to modify physical state by mental control is false action, there is no female living in a male brain, there is male brain, female brain, excessive variation from that is mental dysfunction, children are born in more alignment with feminine traits by nature because the feminine traits coincide with immature traits, this is why as you look at younger children the distinction between male and female is a lot more difficult to distinguish, that doesn't mean there isn't a distinction, it means the distinction is less drastic.
    1
  1371. Also to note Gwen Stacy only even existed to remove MJ and she was bland as hell, nobody cared about her until they axed her off which only works because people liked Spider-man, but nobody was mourning over Stacy being dead.
    1
  1372.  @cybermiguelo  Isn't msdt a mechanical crutch for that business then? I don't think that actually supports your argument as much as you think it does, that just demonstrates that your business is trash and sucks at managing its own people, msdt isn't even being used for the so claimed appropriate purpose then, msdt's only legitimate function is diagnostics exclusively, you're literally misusing it because everyone is too dumb and lazy to use a more proper tool. (and there is no justification for lockdown of those resources, but I get corrupt...oof did I say that I meant corporate...corporate being retarded and demanding you they watch your every move regardless of justified reasoning)
    1
  1373. Trending on Gaming? What?
    1
  1374. I'm willing to bet adblocking follows a similar revenue issue as taxation, that being when you collect less taxes you make more money. Unfortunately like modern governments, these fools don't understand basic economics and think the only way to increase revenue requires more invasive strategies which ironically and hilariously have the opposite effect.
    1
  1375. Jordon forgets defamation and libel exists... Also I don't entirely disagree with Peterson on anonymity, it enables someone to enact the most wicked behavior they can consider without repercussions, that which is at the core of their psyche, that's why pedophiles use the internet for CP, you think they'd be able to get easy access to it otherwise? I disagree with how far he takes it and I absolutely oppose any government involvement whatsoever, but he most certainly makes a valid point about it, 4chan proves him right.
    1
  1376. Youtube is a monopoly that needs to be busted.
    1
  1377. That's insane, surviving a dog attack can be brutal enough, makes ya curious about the man this dude will become.
    1
  1378. According to that worldview there is no reason for Christ to die. whatifalthist doesn't understand even the basic of the Christian faith and literally pulled historical assumptions out of his ass about what fathers of the church thought or said. Not to mention he misquoted Jesus in order that He violate His purpose, both with saying men are inherently evil and that the Biblical text itself is allegorical in contradiction of Jesus. There is no reason for Jesus to die if the Kingdom of God did not come upon the Earth. Not to mention in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John it literally refutes his allegorical interpretation of the Kingdom of God, it was also literally said by Jesus: "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:45-47
    1
  1379.  @oserodal2702  The issue is that a lot of C++ developers use obsolete C features regularly and ignore warnings, sanitizers, and static analysis. (which warn you about unsafe and especially using C features, -werror outright prevents their uses, also they don't even use the C++11 feature set most of the time despite C++17 being usable and mature in every compiler) If you use RAII, move semantics, and such, literally doesn't produce the memory holes. (which I've validated my code with address sanitizer and still haven't found a case of memory vulnerabilities) Using unique_ptr and shared_ptr eliminates the memory safety issue for raw pointers, using span and the STL datatypes eliminates it on the arrays. C++ also has manners to perform checks on unsafe calls in C++17 and later, again its simply the fact people treat C++ as if its still the 90s and ignore any feature that isn't C. (by running their compiler in C++03 mode and then ignoring even much of the C++03 features)
    1
  1380. Then its the most historically reliable historical fiction to ever exist, being more historically accurate then every historical writing preceding it, and all the historical writings following it into the 17th century. By that same metric literally everything written about Plato, Homer, Aristotle, and Julius Caesar are historical fiction. Are you the type of person to say Muhammad and Buddha existed?
    1
  1381. Never really understood how anyone with half a brain can regard the argument of a CEO making a massive wage, the executive is performing an executive business, of course he's to be payed highly, its not a job anyone can just do and its not a job that almost anyone working in the company can achieve. And that aside if the CEO was part of the founding members of the business that's what happens, you spend most of your business years at the beginning making no money and barely scraping by, even those that are lucky suffer much worse problems if this doesn't happen, this is such a dumb argument. Also here's why they don't treat them better: Nobody is being taught that employment is a competition, and there is no expectation that the employer needs to compete, if people with experience would decide more to find better paying jobs from better companies (like EA as an example does) they'd be able to move up the financial ladder, gain more experience, get more money, and reduce their financial worries, and it would promote employers act so as to increase employee loyalty.
    1
  1382. This is basically a software version of "who watches the watchers?"
    1
  1383. Its because of the Civil Rights Act, look up disparate outcome law, its just legally mandated minority quotas, you get sued otherwise. Japan and Korea are the only western countries that don't have it, hence why they don't have a problem with it, discrimination is not economically profitable, in the US there has never been discrimination without the law enforcing it, Jim Crow was law, not a product of the free market, free markets naturally prefer not to discriminate for better profit, its self-regulating.
    1
  1384.  @IronskullGM  They have a western constitution, western style laws, they operate under a western form of government, they have a western economy and are reliant upon trade and cultural interfacing with the west, they also teach English as a secondary language like every European country does, they're part of NATO, they're under numerous western trade deals with both Europe and North America that is not reserved for non-western nations, and they also are extremely open to actual western foreigners. Their culture is reliant upon western principals and ideas, modern Shinto and Buddhist rituals in Japan do not operate like their pre-1800s counter-parts. Also anime itself is based entirely on early 1900s American animation, the US inspired anime. (as says every early anime and manga writer and animation studio) As well they literally were civilized by adopting British, German, French, and American laws and industry going back to the Meji Restoration.
    1
  1385.  @IronskullGM  There isn't really a consolidated concept of eastern government because unlike the west which has a shared identity, there is no shared eastern identity as they didn't share a general Christian outlook and they rarely had any diplomatic interest in global powers until they got conquered or colonized usually, they didn't accomplish much of anything except usually seeking independence from western nations, maybe you could consider Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand as "eastern" but that's just Indo-China basically and there isn't much of a shared identity between them, whereas in the west, even a Russian shares a lot with an American as far as values because of the shared socio-cultural Christian outlook, which South Korea and Japan adopted (and in fact to this day has turned Korea into a 35% Christian country, and its only increasing) through westernization efforts by adopting British, German, French, and American outlooks and behaviors, and South Korea itself being an extension off Japan at the time and later being released by the European powers resulted in them having a quite similar society to Japan who is a western nation.
    1
  1386.  @IronskullGM  China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Bhutan are only a few of many examples of nations that aren't western.
    1
  1387.  @IronskullGM  I don't know a single case of someone who describes a western nation by its longitude, (and I'm part of numerous groups of map, economic, and history enjoyers, we play Victoria 2 and Crusader Kings 2 for fun) when I refer to "western civilization" not once were we referring to Egypt, Morocco, China, or Iran, westernism, westernization, western civilization, and being western have very little to do with location outside of the origin of the society being in Europe.
    1
  1388.  @IronskullGM  Cartographers have very little to do with any historical knowledge beyond mapping history, cultural history is outside your claimed area of knowledge. (which I neither believe because you screwed up even on that knowledge) And you definitely don't know crap about religious history. And no, that's not how any society has described the concept of being western, you're just an idiot. (also nobody calls Islam a western religion, it has nothing to do with being "Abrahamic" not that Islam even spawns from Abraham historically anyway, they're just liars)
    1
  1389. Still issues on the fact that Christianity was not made by Rome, Creating Christ is roundly debunked book in all Christological scholarly circles, (whether secular or not) even figures like Bart Ehrman, who claims the divinity of Christ is a later Christian invention, refutes it. Also the Hermetics predate Christianity, their texts and religion go as far back a 300 BC and the most popular writing of them, Corpus Hermeticum, is already well past written and completed before Constantin converts in 312 AD in which he legalizes Christianity, it wasn't even a populist faith at the time and between 100 AD and 300 AD the pagans throughout Rome did not understand anything about it, they still called them atheists and persecuted them for that. (and that work was known to be finished by 300 AD, it very likely was written in 200 AD) The Christians and Ancient Hebrews were still called atheists by 300 AD. And that aside the Hermetics also share nothing with Christian or Ancient Hebrew Faith outlooks.
    1
  1390.  @OthorgonalOctroon  That's not unique to Bart, literally anyone that studies actual history regarding Christianity and antiquity would call you an idiot if you don't. There is literally no other historical accounts in history that are more reliable then the New Testament accounts, we have more historical documentation closer to the events then Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and Caesar combined and none of that would even be a 1/10th of the Biblical history documentation we, it doesn't even come close, combined all while being written in a range of less than 70 years of the events. You literally won't be able to find anyone who actually studies Christian history that doesn't affirm an integrity of some sort.
    1
  1391.  @3dmaster205  "No, that all men are sinners. But being sinner doesn't make one evil;" "And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." - Mark 10:18 "What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” - Romans 3:9-18 "All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." - Psalm 53:3 "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." - Psalm 14:1-3 God says otherwise, repeatedly so. So no, all men are evil, they are born iniquity, there are none who seek God, all have turned away for the desire of sin, they are not deceived, they are wicked. As Christ so says "No one is good except for God" so why do you call him a liar? For had man not been evil there would be no need of Christ, redemption is useless without folly. And only by God's providence can such be found, not in man. "there would be no redemption for anyone; faith in Christ or no." Then you are condemned in accordance with the word of Christ. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." - John 3:16 As it says, all who do not know and believe in Him shall perish. "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28 In accordance with these Words, all things done, ALL THINGS, are done for the sake of good, for those to be called by God. That means it's God's directive, not man's, to save men from evil. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2 Corinthians 5:21
    1
  1392.  @RanMouri82  He still rejected Original Sin, which can not be Biblically avoided, by calling any man in the story "not evil" yet enacting evil acts, he has lost the capability to call his work Christian. The Elves and Dwarves so too committed many evil acts (isolation and the allowance of the proliferation of evil is by nature itself evil) for which there is also not shown any case for them being evil regardless of nobility. No, Tolkien relied on paganism, which did exactly the same in its tales, not Christian morality, to write his stories on. He rejected inherent wickedness which in a logical sense would make his stories also rejecting of Christ, but that's a natural position of many Catholic writings and thinkers.
    1
  1393.  @3dmaster205  Then look at the original Greek and Hebrew, terms that get translated to things like corrupt directly translate to evil as well, as well antonyms for righteousness: badness, evil, evildoing, immorality, iniquity, sin, villainy, wickedness Synonyms for wicked: bad, dark, evil, immoral, iniquitous, nefarious, rotten, sinful, unethical, unlawful, unrighteous, unsavory, vicious, vile, villainous, wrong If you are not good and righteous, but you are wicked and corrupt, you are evil. If no one is good, then they can only be bad and evil. If you get pedantic about the word evil, then you are arguing like a child who thinks they are so smart by catching out their opponent without actually making anything close to a valid argument. "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways." - 1 Corinthians 13:11 "Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart." - 2 Timothy 2:22 "For fools speak folly, their hearts are bent on evil: They practice ungodliness and spread error concerning the LORD; the hungry they leave empty and from the thirsty they withhold water." Isaiah 32:6 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed." - John 3:18-20 "But when the judge died, the people returned to ways even more corrupt than those of their ancestors, following other gods and serving and worshiping them. They refused to give up their evil practices and stubborn ways." - Judges 2:19 "To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech." - Proverbs 8:13 "Should not your piety be your confidence and your blameless ways your hope? “Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed? As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it. At the breath of God they perish; at the blast of his anger they are no more." - John 4:6-9 "The way of the LORD is a refuge for the blameless, but it is the ruin of those who do evil." - Proverbs 10:29 "Deceit is in the hearts of those who plot evil, but those who promote peace have joy." - Proverbs 12:20 "Whoever is pregnant with evil conceives trouble and gives birth to disillusionment." - Psalm 7:14 "Do not drag me away with the wicked, with those who do evil, who speak cordially with their neighbors but harbor malice in their hearts." - Psalm 28:3 "You use your mouth for evil and harness your tongue to deceit." - Psalm 50:19 "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires." - Romans 6:12 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 6:23 "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." - Romans 12:21 "remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." - Ephesians 2:12 "For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly." - Mark 7:21-22 "When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed." - James 1:13-14 "The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil." - Matthew 13:41 "The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." - Genesis 6:5 These "quotes" are the direct Word of God who spoke for our sake so that we may be given the light and reveal it to others. God, being He who created all things that were good and for which good is made by, defines evil in opposition to Him and that which we have committed against Him in our own folly. Sin and evil are not distinct, but in fact refer to the same thing.
    1
  1394. I don't get how someone even if they were outright writing assembly would ever conceive that software couldn't be bugged enough to fail in just a manner that it could kill, even if it were merely a fluke bit switch caused by subatomic particles on the machine, let alone a bug in the code itself, this is how you can tell the company responsible for the THERAC-25 didn't have a single damn developer in the company, when dealing with software, you should always have someone nearby who at least understands general software if you can't have the one who knows or built it themselves. This would've been so easy to fix if the company weren't made up of a bunch of fools, damn corporatists.
    1
  1395.  @AllLogarithmsEqual  Left leaning people statistically live in a bubble, and he proved even that when he found that over 40% of them are willing to censor things that disagree with them. And this is a simple statistic commonly found in psychology, its also found that leftism has a excessively high association with mental illness and is greatly associated with low intelligent consumers, and there actually have been psychological studies on these phenomenon, another one came out only a few weeks ago, they simply don't have the capacity to debate because their ideas were never associated with intellectual thought, and I'm not saying every left wing person, but the chance is quite high that they simply are incapable of basic reason and you can't converse with them. Even more they are easily influenced by propaganda and mainstream narratives and it fits in with Yuri Bezmonov's explanation on demoralization. And it is true that such paradigms are pervasive and all encompassing and they become bigoted against dissent just like any communist perspective must because its about control and power, not about goodness, truth, justice, love, or even fairness. All these terms it uses to control and manipulate people.
    1
  1396. Except that implication is then made by subjective by whoever is in power at the time, which is why this fight is being made again. (that and Roe v. Wade is such a flimsy case with shockingly large amount of problems in it)
    1
  1397.  @RascaldeesV2  Most of those emergencies are unconstitutional specifically because they represent a circumstantial infringement of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The few cases where that's not valid is if another right is being clearly infringed. (if a right isn't clearly being infringed, a warrant is required Constitutionally, and a no one is allowed to search or seizure the premises of any criminal circumstance without a warrant) "Most notably, exigent circumstances. Basically in an emergency I can enter your home if it would be done by a reasonable person" "done by a reasonable person" is a subjective standard, the only standard you can have is the clear infringement of individual rights, otherwise you have no ability to intercede and it is considered trespassing. (which entitles you to be shot according to property rights) "Even without emergency, there are still other ways to get in. If there is a warrant for your arrest and I know you're in there I can enter without a search warrant. I can enter after chasing you in there. Technically I could enter if I tried to pull you over, you didn't stop, and you calmly walked into your home with nothing other than a tiny speeding ticket." That's still a court mandated warrant, (or its suppose to be, otherwise its unconstitutional) and you have to have irrefutable evidence that the subject is on the premises. That fails and those responsible should receive maximum punishment for trespassing, including being killed. Also that's not constitutional either, that's an infringement. (and honestly I'm not only justified shooting you, but I wouldn't feel remorseful about it) If you try to enter my home by flimsy justifications I would not hesitate to protect myself until I am legally obligated by a court order to cooperate. "Oh. Or if anyone that lives in the home invites me in. Or the landlord says it's okay even without your consent." This one is literally the entire concept of property rights you doof, that's how property rights work. If the landlord owns the property I live in, then everything done to the property is at the landlord's discretion, not mine. Same goes for if I invite a cop in, personally I'd never invite an on duty cop into my house willingly (at least if they were doing a report involving me, btw that does not mean I'd be hostile to the cop just so you're aware) but that's my jurisdiction until the court rules otherwise. But the system has failed, that's why SWATing exists. Also I don't respect the lack of a warrant of search and seizure until a constitutional court hearing over it is concluded, I honestly don't care if I live or die over it. Its not my righteous in the first place and I do no respect an immoral system.
    1
  1398.  @emawildchaos9861  Only material things can be owned because they're the only things that can have attested proof of ownership. If it requires government intervention to have, its inherently not a right, its a privilege, a right is built into reality and cannot be taken away without permission or violence, that which is given at leisure can be taken away without permission or violence and thus is a privilege.
    1
  1399.  @emawildchaos9861  Still waiting for somebody to sue me.
    1
  1400. Connor doesn't understand what Jesus had said and created his own assumptions without any Biblical reference to actually draw from, when Jesus says in Matthew that "we will be like the angels for which they do not take in marriage" (paraphrasing obviously) and for which Jesus explicitly says in that manner, are the angels who are individually named and referenced part of this "corporal being" or is Jesus wrong? Jesus never once describes this "dissolution" into the totality of the corporeal body of God and there isn't any Christian of any denomination I've heard that describes it this way nor argues for that. You created a contradictory view to Jesus and the theological perspective of even the Catholics, (for which are Biblical apostates) Jesus describes Lazarus and the rich man as well in which Abraham and Lazarus are still individually (Luke 16:19-31) named waiting for God in Paradise yet they do not want or need anything outside God, are they dissolved? "That isn't the conception of Heaven from the Bible" All will be made new with a new body on a new Earth and a new Heaven, but those who are not saved will not have inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, you will meet your loved ones again, but only so far as at judgement, those of the saved however you will know and see individually and in equal love to every other member of the church under Christ. It is also quite clear that you will know of those who were not part of the elect as Lazarus knew the rich man, but we will only feel a pity for them, just as God does, no more sorrow for they had made their choice and we will be comfortable. As an aside you have a purpose and role in Heaven, even in the life after you will still have to work and worship, but you will never be lazy, never have to force yourself to, and will never suffer for it, you will desire to do all that pleases God which is your expressly defined purpose.
    1
  1401. Even if many of his views can't, their parents can, and its quite likely that families of people who watch Adin will think twice about Kamala.
    1
  1402.  @danielescada6785  Ubuntu does and its pretty widely used for servers and enterprise.
    1
  1403. Looks nothing like Borderlands.
    1
  1404. "Something needs to be done" LA: "Yeah, lets burn down our own property, that'll show the feds we're a serious threat, capping ourselves in the foot. Its not like our worthless economy isn't already in the gutter or anything."
    1
  1405. "Non-profit" law has always been a massive massive scam.
    1
  1406. tbf Antifa and the actual Nazis fit that meme rather well, problem is Nazism is a tiny minority of even white supremacists and even a smaller amount are even that radicalized, whereas Antifa while a minority, is nowhere as small and most are radical extremists/terrorists. I do find it funny tho that even the fringe "on the right" are generally still willing to be rather diplomatic about their engagements tho.
    1
  1407. The manner in which that force was authorized is shady and dangerous especially when there is a border militia there who are claimed by government forces to be "thieving and vandalizing" government and military fortifications.
    1
  1408. Just to point out, the original show had 20 episodes of 30 minutes per season (last season had 21 episodes but that's not a big deal tbh) that means 10 hours per season, netflix had 8 episodes of 1 hour, there most certainly are 4 season 1 episodes they could've cut out and still otherwise exactly mimicked the show with their time slot, here is order of least important episodes they could've cut imo: 1. The Great Divide - literally the most despised episode in the show and contributes absolutely nothing 2. Imprisoned - probably the second most despised episode in season 1 since very little really happens and Katara is just kinda annoying, its way better then The Great Divide, but still kinda poor 3. The Fortuneteller - a good filler episode, but not a very good plot driver, can be removed if you can rewrite Katara to reconsider ignoring Aang as a potential romantic interest 4. Winter Solstice Part 1 could be condensed into other adventures and still work Of course that doesn't work if you're not even gonna try to stay true to the source material, but its not that hard to condense season 1 into 8 hours, if I was a production manager I would then push to get season 2 as a 10 episode season and just replicate the entirety of season 2 in live action.
    1
  1409. To be fair, had there been a malicious actor in a closed-source version o XZ, the exploit would've never been discovered, some people like to claim private companies audit their code better but often times they're simply worse if not equal to open-source at it, the only valid concern with open-source that would be uncommon with closed-source is the potential for a high-value, sparsely-considered piece of software has a burned out maintainer who might accidentally let something bad pass or add a malicious actor as contributor. However it is because XZ was open that it was even possible for that exploit to be caught, so while the possibility of a malicious actor getting full reign over a project is higher, the amount of eyes over said project especially in dev branches would mitigate that risk, specifically had XZ been released, it would've only been viable on Ubuntu before it was caught, which was why the malicious actor was attempting to get it pushed into Debian quickly, cause had it followed normal Debian protocol Ubuntu (or even perhaps Fedora) would've been the canary in the coalmine even before the Microsoft employee stumbled upon it. That would've been bad, but so long as we have diverse release schedules, catching things is merely a matter of time when it comes to dev releases. It would be better then any Windows release where they all practically get bricked at the same time which has happened with pieces of Windows software, so on that level Windows is actually no more secure regarding the XZ exploit.
    1
  1410.  Ace Diamonds  "people in the US die from lack of treatment all the time." Not a valid argument, foremost its a conflation of a different argument unrelated to the original point, you can't switch tactics on an argument just because you can't answer it, either admit failure in your side from this point or don't argue at all. The point was about wait times, not about lack of treatment, wait times aren't an issue in the US, they seriously are in Canada and other Commonwealth nations, and no amount of arguing gets around that. And that's not from anecdotal circumstance, that's statistical reality, wait times are a problem in socialized healthcare, that's because the economic system is noncompetitive and thus has no requirement to service adequately on time or in a reasonable manner, without competition, there is no risk of opposition which pushes prices down and quality of service (including wait times) up. This is an unavoidable fact about government systems that those advocating socialized welfare can't just avoid, don't try to change the point, its a very serious problem, especially when you could be beyond saving by the point the waiting completes. (especially when someone can throw money at the problem and resolve it in somewhere like the US) "they go into debt trying to pay for that treatment." This is neither a valid argument for the point, and even if it was valid, its not even statistically true, statistically people can afford to pay for treatment because of the insurance systems that exist. (we can argue separately about the problems of the pricing and insurance, however in most cases insurance in the US does cover you and thus makes this argument fallacious in the current case) Most people for example don't in fact go bankrupt by medical bills, they go bankrupt by lack of a job, medical bills are just another expense, and only when you lack insurance is that even a problem. (which tends to happen when you don't have a job so...) "plus look at any list of the top healthcare systems around the world america comes in below those other countries." Also not a valid argument because there are only two studies that claim this, both of which are heavily biased and heavily subsidized by government forces in making socialized welfare look better. They also rate healthcare based on subjective preference and have a low count of test subjects, ones who've never experienced another healthcare system. Its not an objective standard. In terms of healthcare you are actually statistically several times more likely to live through most diseases then in any other nation, and in many cases you will be treated just as well as in any other nation if not better. Its not really hard to do when its still semi-competitive and has to make a profit. "comparatively canada is a better system." Not an argument, also statistically and objectively not, only from a subjective standpoint maybe and even then the western provinces of Canada are way less positive even from a subjective standpoint. "if the only problem with the canadian system is long wait times then the canadian system is far superior." Its not foremost because its a required tax rate on top of everything else, also the medical system is less effective, efficient, longer wait times and you are more likely to die or fail to receive adequate treatment in a appropriate time for any problem which is why the US has a higher statistical success rate on treatments and cures. "plus those problems can be fixed by promoting more people to go into the medical fields." This is like arguing that the only way to fix national debt is by printing more money. This is not how economics work and pushing people to go into a field that pays little, is noncompetitive, and is ineffective at actually solving problems, all you're gonna be doing is wasting more taxpayer money. (not that anybody that uses tax money cares) Most people will not choose a job that pays well and requires brutal work ethic, and if you push more people into it you start to devalue the existing workers, thus bringing the average income of the medical practice down, which in turn discourages people from further joining that particular business. You can't solve this problem by advocating more people be employed to it, especially if those people already aren't interested as a majority of them already are. The fact of the matter is you can't economically fix a broken system like this, it can't be sustained because its based on terrible economic principles that don't work. Pushing more people into the business just isn't going to help, least not with government control, they are incapable of bringing anyone up, they only drag everyone down. If you want to bring people into the job, you need to make it economically worth it, competition works both ways and even doctors require a competitive market to pay them. It is a natural law of economics that you can not just avoid.
    1
  1411.  @mochithepooh5368  "Rather than talking about anecdotal evidence, let's look at the study by Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey." Which is based on subjective anecdotal evidence, and has no backing with an objective statistic nor an economic foundation. (which when it comes for financial problems you can't just avoid) It was also heavily bias and subsidized for specific results so its trustworthiness is even more up in the air before we recognize how they measured their data. "It takes about 24 days to schedule a first-time appointment with a doctor in America, 32 days to see specialist in larger cities." I'm fairly certain that's not the average and even then that points moot because of private clinics which don't have that wait time, also that doesn't even economically make sense unless you're telling me that nobody wants to work in the financially lucrative field of medical care, if the demand is high then the supply with naturally attempt to balance itself to it, in which case under natural economic principles either that appointment isn't a necessity and its at the behest of the consumer or its a fabricated claim.
    1
  1412.  @nimrodery  When did I was say I was adverse to reason? My arguments have been 99% logic and reason.
    1
  1413.  @nimrodery  "your comment displayed that in spades." You need to prove this claim, what have I said specifically that leads me to disregard reason. You can't tell me trying to keep on topic and focus on the exact details of the argument is disregarding reason because those are both fallacies. So what is it that disregards reason then that I have said? "Arguing the merits of one system vs another isn't "changing the rules," you just like to find trivial reasons to discount arguments." No, the argument is about one subject, you don't have a right to change the subject when it turns out to only function on anecdote and not in objective truth. This is a fallacious argument at best. And defense of it is wroth in foolishness. "You don't rebut the arguments themselves." I already gave reason and evidence for my side of the argument, and proved that the opposition was wondering in fallacies, if you can't hold an argument and have to change the subject instead of focusing on the details then you're intentionally creating fallacies to obscure the audience and your opposition. You can't argue from one fact and detail, from one specific point, and then when you find out that holds no water and doesn't stand, pivot, that's not an argument, its not even rational thought and its entirely unreasonable to expect anyone to deal with that. Even more it proves in the least the debater doesn't understand the position they hold, which suggests either they are standing purely on false rhetoric (which is common in political subjects) or has a terrible understanding of the subject, in which case there is no reason I should change my point of view for them and neither should the audience. This is basic logic, you don't modify your worldview if the opposition can not demonstrate their worldview as an objective reality, if they have to pivot constantly and avoid the specifics, they are incapable of demonstrating a consistent worldview I can conceive as valid. At what point should I have been convinced by what I was told? "Logic and reason don't find themselves so confounded they have to rule out an argument they're unprepared to address." Provide red herrings and you'll be rebuked, provide strawmans and you'll be rebuked, provide bagwagon fallacies or pleads to authority fallacies, you'll be rebuked. Simply don't use fallacies and keep to the objective with an extreme focus and your points will be considered. Its pretty simple, reason is rigid on what is and isn't acceptable, fall outside that range and it must be disregarded.
    1
  1414.  @nimrodery  Good job providing evidence.
    1
  1415.  @nimrodery  Using vague and erroneous claims to try and dissuade belief and gaslight me so you can keep an sophistic outlook on the world is pretty weak willed of you. Doesn't matter, I don't make my statements for your sake, you carry a cultic belief in your ideals and not even direct witness of God would convince you otherwise. Logic and reason aren't remotely within your realm of consideration, especially since I doubt you even actually read what I've posted.
    1
  1416. This dude sounds like an imported soyboy and he looks like it too, doesn't matter how old he actually is.
    1
  1417. The fact that we have records that are dated so close to be within the frame of John's life, and they were prophesies that could've been recorded right before the Abomination of Desolation is a fairly clear sign, also we have records of the prophesies of Isaiah were dated to before the birth of Christ.
    1
  1418. To point out, a lot of the stereotypes and tropes are the result of physiology and behavior, women generally already have a difficult time actually being a leader specifically because they're not mentally designed for it, whether you take from an evolutionary perspective or a Creationist perspective, they are meant to functionally be separated from the harshness of the world physiologically, even if individually that doesn't always apply. (you can see this demographically by analyzing how many reduce or ignore major threats and their later acceptance of rule under encroaching threats afterwards, like French women under German rule or the Celtic women under Nordic rule) This alongside the more emotionalized behavior of women because physiology means women, specifically embodying feminine traits, are terrible at making leaders specifically over men. The best you can expect in that case is a women who can overcome all these systems which in essence is stripping of feminine qualities as a result, thus why they tend to become manly women. (tho tbh I see the concept of trying to force women into this masculine badass role in the first place plain, boring, and stupid because of how continuously its forced for little actual reason, I don't mind it all the time given its written well, buts its so overused these days, I don't need 50 Ripley's a month in every story I want to be interested in) Men will generally be the active head of a story because of their risk propensity, strength, and willingness and ability to face danger without breaking down over it. This is why they tend to be portrayed in this way and why even in alternative societies you will tend to not find women, specifically feminine women, going out and being a badass, leader, or being active in doing something more. (basically its not their purpose to actively go outside, their actively shaping of the world tends to come from a different place) As for why its usually white, that's because western civilization culturally and near physically conquered the world, from Rome to the modern day, the world has been managed and controlled by a hegemony of majorly white population nations. As for why straight, that's actually because most men are straight, Greece only had a higher amount of bisexualism because the people who could read and write and the people involved in that high class society were bisexual, those you surround yourself with produce your worldview of the world just as much as you create them to be your worldview. As for why, that's a question about why Greek society in the higher classes was so open to it, because of lot of the lower classes were not. (most probably because it was a decadent behavior in the lower classes that they couldn't afford to partake in, homosexual acceptance only happens in decadent, usually collapsing, societies because its not a positive production to partake in such behavior for it undermines development of the future generations)
    1
  1419. The thing I hate the most about the "German higher critiques of capitalism" is that they try to portray competition as a bad thing and against a natural state. But they're so stupid that they forget their systems only function at the behest and assumption of competition dragging everyone down and lifting no one up. Where as in true Capitalism, John Locke's Capitalism, the free market without government interference, only in that case does competition have capability to lift people up and help others. Communism is about hording and selfishness, capitalism uses selfishness to combat itself and correct the human condition.
    1
  1420.  @pedrofelipefreitas2666  I'm rather confident that it was an accidental criticism cause the writing is too stupid to be any real propaganda, its someone being honest and stupid thinking they can just present the end goal and nobody would question it. Its like what would happen if the Communist propagandists were complete morons and wrote out their plans to gulag and starve everyone that caused them problems, since we don't live in a fully Communist environment yet, (but oh Lord are we heading for it) most of the folks in charge of curbing this are also retards who can't actually operate in a free market.
    1
  1421. Truthfully I just find that everyone completely screwed up the transitioning to a standardized wasm that doesn't suck and now everyone is mad that they can't change anything in this fragile pipeline, the web devs, tool devs, and engine implementors are all frustrated but none of them are really willing to assist each other in fixing the problem, (I would suggest by getting out of the JS as a base mindset) meaning every single issue will remain unsolved. At this point compiling JS would've been the best solution but nobody can really use a compiler for JS yet and doing so would just piss off a lot of web devs and implementors alike.
    1
  1422. I wouldn't say the king manifests anything, instead he is the representative for the divine granted by God to uphold justice and through him God gives divine justice or divine retribution. All kings are anointed, either to uphold justice or to punish the injustice of the society that it so deserves, a tyrant is a byproduct of this anointing for a people who are to be punished, it is judgement upon the people. A just people then will oppose such a king and if that king is performing injustice against a people who are acting in a just manner then he has lost his anointing and a new king shall be anointed to take his place. It is then down to the king and his people who justify all the hows and whys but in reality those are merely events, truly what defines the king is his anointing by God, this is why the best king is a humble king because he realizes this and submits himself to the higher standard of God who anointed him, he knows that his anointing was neither by chance nor by his own power but foremost was because it was given to him to do justice. This defines the most honorable king. But all kings are anointed, most kings may not be explicitly anointed by God but those who are close to God knows its disrespectful to even attack God's anointed until the time they are called to do so if they are called to do so.
    1
  1423. I swear half the steam award wins are reddit brigades, maybe as a joke, but definitely not on any legitimate basis.
    1
  1424. Tim, Thomas Jefferson AND James Madison literally talk about the prime purpose of the second amendment is to threaten and secure against domestic threats, specifically regarding government tyranny, how can you believe the second amendment isn't about opposing the government when the founders of the document explicitly state such that as the foremost purpose of said right. They just fought a war over this and even George Washington instates this fact despite ALSO FIGHTING REVOLTS BECAUSE OF THAT FACT.
    1
  1425. To be fair, even if this is part of the point, this is an extremely bad problem to use vtables for, its a problem that almost certainly would benefit more by either using templates or designing your own runtime lookup, some C++ libraries even do this, (granted usually its embedded or for scripting purposes) if what you're doing is an atomic operation that itself doesn't take up enough time to justify the vtable lookup, you literally could've just made a vtable abstraction manually and it would've almost been as fast as the C version. Those who knows more then the basic of C++ should never consider virtual methods and vtables the solution to more then specific problems, even more then inheritance which is useful purely for code reuse reasons, there are plenty of solutions that C++ gives you that even Rust has its problems addressing better.
    1
  1426. American Brand, the company is German and hasn't been American for a while.
    1
  1427.  @jonathanyoung8109  The wicked are given their punishment, their heart is turned, their eyes are veiled from the truth, that's why they get only proverbs.
    1
  1428. Canadians explain to me, any reason not to split Vancover region from the rest of BC, would that not fix the voting problem?
    1
  1429. I kinda want to see Low Level's opinion of the C3 language.
    1
  1430. For Whom the Bell Tolls.
    1
  1431. Bruh Blaire White, a current trans dude (man to "woman") who is fairly convincing and who has not detransitioned also affirms Charlie's position as stupid and wrong.
    1
  1432. I don't recall pre-wedlock women ever speak about what they want honestly. I'm pretty sure its a widely accept stereotype that they're often hypocritical, probably because they're overly emotional and gullible as a sex.
    1
  1433. No one has right to conceptions, IP law needs to be abolished, its just another form of enslavement.
    1
  1434. The funny thing about Judiasm is how constantly they tend to misinterpret their texts for personal benefit, they also have a long history of disbelief in God despite being God's people which is more of a revelation pointing towards Christ then anything. Also from a Biblical Christian view none of the Bible is meant to be taken as allegory unless its explicitly a parable.
    1
  1435.  @TheRezro  First off, Catholics believe in purgatory (and some "reformed" Catholics don't still) not Christians, Protestants in fact are wholly opposed to such concepts. (we take the Bible at face value and are opposed to non-Biblical additions, everything we have faith in comes from Jesus and the Word breathed out by God, we don't speak from our own words, but His) Secondly no its not, consensus isn't a justified position, especially when contradicting the text, and in fact there are multiple verses that outright demand the Bible not be taken as only allegory. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, - 2 Timothy 3:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. - 2 Peter 1:16-21 As you can see it is in fact anti-Biblical to take the Bible as allegory according to Timothy and Peter. And Paul had much the same position, as did every apostle and disciple. Simply put a consistent Christian does not conform to your belief of what a Christian thinks or believes and you neither seem to understand much about Judaism and Christian theology.
    1
  1436.  @TheRezro  The belief of Protestants is defined as faith alone in Christ, (Sola fide) otherwise its not a Protestant faith, (anything else is not belief, for example anabaptism is not about faith, most doctrines and denominations on their own are about traditions and standards, not faith, its rare for different denominations to claim all other Protestant faiths are outright heresy) and most of the "non-singular beliefs" you talk about are the subject of that specific belief being infringed which means they aren't Protestant, they can't even really be considered Christians but people make up their own language so they can manipulate society. The entire point of Protestantism is that singular belief, if voided then the Reformation had no purpose and you'd need to deny any theology after the 1600s pretty much. (or honestly anything said by Peter, James, John, or Paul) Some "Christians" do, however Christian theologians don't, most folks who think that way don't even believe in Jesus anyway and none of those people are theologically educated at all, most theological studies will result in the unavoidable fact that you can't believe in Christ and deny the Bible in any respect. Also conflating individual interpretations with theological doctrine provided beyond oneself is a rejection of arrogance and self-importance in the manner. Doing so is an intentional manipulation of what's being said and the faith being had. As for not being taken by sane people, when you live in a relative world sanity is a matter of opinion, only a decade ago sanity was considered very much different, half a century ago it was even more distinct, there is apparently no consistent principle for sanity if you don't have a foundation for it. Which most people don't. (and in the case I don't believe you do either) Also how about you don't twist what was originally said, you said one thing about allegory being the mainstream interpretation of the Bible, which means that most of it is not laterally applicable nor does it describe historic events. You can't make the claim of the allegorical interpretation approach and then backtrack when you realize it doesn't work "in every case" as that's both hypocritical and inconsistent. You argued for allegorical interpretation, you're the one responsible for that discussing that interpretation. There is no "only allegorical" or "blindly literal" standard of the Bible, the Bible either stands as a historic document that contains moral lessons (and just gotta be clear in this case to prevent manipulation of the text, metaphors and allegory being described in speech of individuals or being used to describe something does not equate to the text being allegorical or metaphoric as that interpretation also tends to conflate) or its a totally fictional and untrustworthy book of made stories describing manners to live. The latter does not hold up to scrutiny and in fact is a functional lie, not to mention that the text also opposes such interpretations of the work. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. - 2 Timothy 4:3-4 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. - Romans 16:17-20 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. - Revelation 22:18-19 As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. - 2 Peter 3:16 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. - Galatians 1:6-9 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1 As for what you say on Timothy and Peter, you clearly don't understand the text nor its context then. First off Timothy in the text is speaking about following what has been given to the men of Christ, they are told in that text that they are to follow God's instruction for what they know as true, this means the historical account of the Old and later New Testament. Peter's text is even more direct and upright, it literally says "do not follow cunningly devised fables" which is referring to heresy and interpretations that precede the testimony as fictional or false. The text directly opposes interpretations of the Bible that do not reside it as the full truth. And private interpretation means do not prescribe interpretations of the Word that does not speak from the theology of Christ and his truth. It's pretty what it says and it repeats that message time and time again, you need to deny a lot of context and previous aspects of the text just to deny that. You do realize flat earth theory was debunked at least 4 centuries before Jesus, (possibly even earlier, we mostly can't confirm because our texts on that subject only go back to the pre-antiquity Greeks) and that generally people already did not believe it because it didn't line up with demonstrative principles of the world. Sailors and those experienced at sea would especially deny the world being flat because it neither appeared that way nor did it act that way. Also conflating flat earth theory with Christianity is a false paradigm used mostly as a strawman to shutdown opposition. Anyhow clearly your interpretation of the Bible doesn't functionally work nor apply. Well you're beliefs about others speaks heavily on your beliefs and your ideals. You clearly believe that Christianity is both stupid and incoherent and that anyone that opposes your worldview is absolutely fundamentally wrong and needs to be berated. (given how disrespectful you've been I can also say you have no humility and speak in arrogance) You also clearly don't mind lying and manipulating demonstrative proof and falsehoods to get your position across, so its pretty clear that in the least you're fine with attacking opponents and diffusing their statements so you can claim to strong arm them. It also seems like you have a pretty vehemently disposition towards Christianity, whether that's to religion in generally or Christianity specifically is harder to tell but its pretty clear that you either oppose spirituality or opposed Christian spirituality, so either atheist/antithiest or an agnostic that despises Christians. (though that's generally rare so probably the former)
    1
  1437. @Aditya Chavarkar "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them." - Matthew 7:16-20
    1
  1438. Holy crap, I hope he has insurance cause I'm betting you they're gonna try and "killed himself" Elon.
    1
  1439. There's two different qualities of respect, one is the manner of being respectful or giving other dignity and the other is granting someone respect for their behavior, those need to be separated, the former is considered a moral given (though why is itself a question nobody bothers to answer) but the latter is absolutely something you have to earn, and you totally deserve to be called out, even perhaps insulted, depending on how poor your behavior is. Linus is extreme but I absolutely say he is a lot less in the wrong then most people try to claim he is.
    1
  1440. Government is not a friend, its not a parent, and its not your leader, its your oppressor that is suppose to preserve ONLY the most basic of God given rights.
    1
  1441. Jeremy not understanding that "queer rights" was purely made to overthrow the core Christian values, less then 10% of homosexuals ever partake in gay mirage, it wasn't about "rights", it was about glorification of degeneracy. Lack of opposition is still supporting them.
    1
  1442.  @Knightfall182  Yeah, the writing and directing of Man of Steel really poisoned Cavill's reception as Superman, it is quite unfortunate since he would've fit the bill of him quite well if they would stop making him do trash and half-assing his narrative. Then again they don't even known what Superman is, there is no way they can write him decent.
    1
  1443. Honestly I don't understand whats wrong with Japanese nationalism, they've got a lot of things that put their nation above the curve justified for nationalism.
    1
  1444. Its quite bullcrap that the US demanded the disarmament of Japan regardless of how awful they've been, even worse is it only further authorized the hyper-Hoplophobia that the Japanese, and in particular their politicians and bureaucrats, had, which is actually a huge contributor to why Japan as country was overly-imperialist, and it seems with the recent assassination of a former political figure in Japan with an electric pipegun, that's only demonstrating once again, as keeps happening, why civilians owning weapons is superior to letting the government claim to protect you. Its pretty hard to commit to gunning someone down when you're gonna be surrounded by armed combatants who will take you down, perhaps before you even get a shot off.
    1
  1445. The argument for getting rid of the nuclear weapons make little sense, its the same type of logic as banning firearms, it makes everyone who doesn't want to use them more vulnerable to those who are willing to use them, and that logic is absolutely proven true given historical record, every time a state has abandoned nuclear weapons, they have always been immediately invaded or turned into a puppet state, yet every state that has retained nuclear weapons keeps peace and stays independent enough. Even North Korea, hated as it is, is independent of both Russia and China despite being just as irrelevant internationally as Ukraine. Also throughout history, any time one side refused to use a weapon, their opponents would always come out victorious. There is no closing pandora's box.
    1
  1446.  @jaydunbar7538  While technically true, there are two issues with this, first being if they enforce a mask they are liable for my health, they are required by law to treat all people equally regarding health and that includes whether you wear a mask. (once you point this out, no decent manager will be willing to take that liability and gives you an exception) Secondly I also have the capability to boycott their store.
    1
  1447. Since when have you needed medicine to get over the flu? My family just rides it out without drugs and we wakeup 3 days later just fine. (even as a 2 year old we were doing just fine) Also Tim, corporations are not part of a free market economy, its called crony capitalism and big phrama is one of the biggest offender of that. Big pharma gets massive incentives and subsidies and does not require an ounce of profit in the medicine to recoup its loses because the government and insurance companies pay it all off. So they're already in the positive without anyone buying a single thing. Now that aside there is also the problem of massive government regulation that prevents anyone else from joining the market. You know what that means? Its a government enforced trust or monopoly, and one that won't be resolved because of how much money it makes for the lobbyists that get into politics from big pharma. That's not capitalism, that's just fascism. (that's what "corporate crony capitalism" is btw, a form of fascism actually) If the government was to remove these massive expensive regulations on drug research and didn't provide massive incentives and such to the corporations exclusively, it wouldn't be hard for the medical field to be cheap and easy. Not even to mention insurance negotiators in the US are trash, they end up getting paid for higher profit margins and have no incentive to keep the costs bearable specifically because its designed to prevent you from actually keeping the medical finances you get in check. Its all about obscurity. And anyone who tries to fix the system tends to get Epstein'ed.
    1
  1448.  @willguggn2  Just to point out anarchocapitalists are not remotely anarchists. (they don't use layman definitions for almost anything, the words they use have very little to do with what you think they saying) Also libertarianism as a political movement going back to the 40s has always been associated with the right wing, its generally been left wing and centrist politics that expanded the government.
    1
  1449. Being a homosexual is not inherent, it is a reflection of living in sin, some have the propensity for homosexuality, but Paul is quite explicit, in Christ there are no homosexuals. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 One they were but they are no longer, there are no homosexuals in Christ. Also Paul speaks against asceticism "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." - Colossians 2:16-23 Also funny thing, Peter did have a wife and he would've slept with her while being this "head of the church", (no in reality he was not, but Catholics don't like this fact) in fact the old expectation of Hebrew priests was you needed a wife, you could not be a priest (or presbytery) of the Hebrew faith (and this includes the Old Christians faith of the 1st century) without at one time having a wife. Now this aside, it is evil to hate anybody, you may hate what they do but not the person, it does not matter how wicked they are. Also men are not the children of God, only those who are of Christ are. It is because they reflect the image of their Creator that we are to love them even when they are wicked, but only the elect are God's children. "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." - Galatians 3:25-26 "What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.” - 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." - Romans 8:14 As you can see, Paul most especially makes it quite clear that only those of Christ are sons of God, which also means they cannot be homosexual, they must be washed in Christ of such.
    1
  1450. Well that's inherent to her being a women, she can't be a bishop nor a pastor.
    1
  1451. They can be teachers, they just can't be spiritual teachers of men, that's what God had said by the Pauline Epistles.
    1
  1452. Its pretty simple, men and women choose women and men, when the relationship breakdowns or is violated, it is the fault of each party that also did not investigate and audit the other, you should start with your demands in the relationship, the boundaries in the relationship, and the objectives of the relationship, and for a girlfriend or boyfriend that cannot uphold this contract and is unwilling to repent (as in apologize and turn away from this behavior, like seeking help) you immediately drop them and move on. If you don't share values, don't even bother unless you expect to bring them into your value system.
    1
  1453. Scalpers are just a nature result of a market that undercuts the supply/demand ratio and won't sell things at their actual market price, market price is near or on what the scalpers are selling it for given they actually sell anything, not what the distributors and manufacturers are selling it for. If you sell at the actual market price then scalpers cease to exist.
    1
  1454. I always find it a bit disheartening that even people with a lot of experience with guns still forget one of the number one rules of firearm safety, don't put your finger on the trigger unless you're prepared to kill the thing you're aiming at. (and the second being don't aim it at something you're not prepared to kill)
    1
  1455. I have tended to take the perspective that instead of they can't, any voluntary female warriorship was usually a demonstration of a collapsing or once collapsed society, (least of said women) not because they couldn't fight and on notable occasions win fights but instead for more logistical reasons even ignoring socio-cultural or religious reasoning, any society for which had its women voluntary go to war would overwhelmingly be erased through outbreeding alone. It seems telling to me that the societies that did it had generally one notable generation of occasion and then faded into a culmination of lesser occasions. (I am not saying that they disappeared, but that they shrank and weakened themselves without external subsidization and through such would always eventually collapse) As for the reason I say this, its simply because the population of women caps the reproduction rate of the population and its actually for this specific logistical reason why women are highly valuable and protected and men can be so comparatively recklessly thrown to warfare. (pregnancy defers value, 100 women can be impregnated by one man every 40 weeks, the inverse will only result in one pregnancy every 40 weeks) Any society that protects its women and keeps them from the frontlines, especially before they reach menopause where their womb becomes useless, will simply always outcompete the society that doesn't except in the case where said society that doesn't were to wipe out all the men or an overwhelming majority of the women. Now a menopause woman is kinda irrelevant to that logistic but such a woman tends to become a handicap for a battlefield. (the only case in which that wouldn't be true is if she weren't fighting, but directing the fight) Of course the exception is when the women themselves are under attack and have no choice but to fight, usually for their children, in that case succeeding is directly related to that logistical calculation, if she doesn't fight for her children, she would naturally just reduce her people's reproduction rate then, and this is the inverse of what I mean when I said "voluntary female warriorship", when she has no choice but to fight then the only way to have survival of her people is to win the fight and thus she must participate when backed into a corner.
    1
  1456.  @switchblade6226  Honestly I kinda don't, X11 already provides a stable platform, Wayland already supports X11 windows, (sure a bit gimped but its not like its unusable already) so with all that done, all that its better to have a long term goal you're never gonna run out of then to rush it and need to replace it over and over again. I see it similar to IPv6 and 64-bit architecture, (granted with 64-bit this is referring to when it wasn't a nearly as common yet, obviously that's a demonstration of the success of hitting that end goal) it took a while to come about and it'll take a while longer before its the standard that literally everyone uses, until then its still usable to use the old standard and wait for the new one to be not only better then the old but able to massively outlast the old ones record with no need for explicit considerations.
    1
  1457. There's a few I would say are modest, but definitely the bikini ones, hotpants ones, those where men could be provoked by the female form, they are definitely what I'd call immodest and I would oppose, because Paul speaks quite clearly about this, I also oppose bikinis and immodesty of the female form in the modern era elsewhere, I don't care why they dress immodest, God despises that, He makes it quite clear. "likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." - 1 Timothy 2:9-15 Modesty and respectable apparel bikinis and hotpants ain't, that which has cleavage and thigh, that which you consider to have sex appeal not reserved for the woman in the home, that's definitely immodest and not respectable. Why? "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." - Matthew 5:28 Because they are to love all men so as not to provoke them. The same standard applies to makeup and proactive dresses, that which draws attention to the male gaze so as to lust after the woman in any regard are inherently sinful. A woman of marriage is good for her, but to show her sexual appeal to anyone is immodest, degenerate, and wicked, it is these things that are condemned. "Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening." - 1 Peter 3:1-6 "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." - Romans 12:2 God is pretty clear, the point of her modesty isn't for her sake, its for the sake of men, it is hatred and selfishness for which one will gratify themselves by causing another to stumble. "Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." - Romans 14:13-19 “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire." - Matthew 18:7-9
    1
  1458. Wait, how is Doom left wing? And how is any Japanese game left wing? Zelda and Mario are pretty damn conservative in essence, Mario and Zelda is about a dude working for, fighting about, and trying to overcome obstacles for a woman. Also how is Halo left wing? Its a militaristic, anti-resistance FPS with masculine super soldiers, outside of a few female secondary soldiers that rarely ever show up, its very much conservative in ideal, retards have called it xenophobic for less, and it doesn't necessarily argue that extermination isn't always the best to eliminating a problem, only that it is ineffective this time. Also spider-man is pro-police.
    1
  1459. You know young (usually black) women dressing up as pseudo-punk poser is an exceedingly annoying trend and speaks way too much of how stupid hollywood is. Like seriously? Punk isn't even cool anymore, and the true punks don't look like arrogant losers, the whole point of being punk is suppose to be anti-pretentious. Which probably explains why having true punks wouldn't even work with the Matrix.
    1
  1460. You know what doesn't make sense, being medicare for all or banning private healthcare, and being an anarchist. You can't be an anarchist if you expect a government or governing-concept equal to it to take power.
    1
  1461. A good woman works the hardest for that which she loves, her children, her husband, her home, her community, this is her complimentary purpose, for God hath made them man and woman, she was made his helper and he was made her defender, protector, and provider, and in unity they reflect the perfect under God, her job is just as vital to the world. Blessed are those who know these things, and so they shall flourish. Just as the Spartans had said, the most important and vital role of the woman was to raise Spartan men, a woman who died in childbirth was like a man who died in battle, respected and beloved of society, even they understood a fact, the most vital thing was that she established the next generation before anyone else, no institution can supplant her, nobody can replace her, she is the most valuable element of society.
    1
  1462. I'm never gonna be comfortable running web tech in places it is most certainly not suited for, that being native GUI applications.
    1
  1463. Minimum wage should be ruled unconstitutional.
    1
  1464. This sounds stupid, the package exists, use it at your own peril, the existence of the code isn't under copyright or licensing so just rewrite it then, are people stupid?
    1
  1465. Given how Drake is acting, I feel like the accusations might be overblown, not that he's a good person and didn't do something wrong, but that I can bet it probably wasn't nearly bad enough as its being made out to and even more its likely not worth getting cancelled over. The fact Drake knows about all these things and still looks fondly on both his time in Drake and Josh and most especially on his time spent with Josh suggests that he's not nearly as depraved as is being claimed, maybe I'm interpreting details, maybe he's only acting kind to get into good graces with people or most especially to attempt a reconcile with Josh but I'm inclined to believe Drake, and with Josh outright lying in order to disassociate with him and clearly giving him much thought except when it looks good for him, that suggests Josh is acting more toxic. Again I might be interpreting things as I don't know them personally, I can only make assumptions of the psychology based on what I know or experienced, but Drake's open behavior even with all the backlash doesn't suggest he's what everyone claims him to be.
    1
  1466. While just trust in the crowd isn't that secure, decentralized audits are still more secure then a centralized one, so open source is most probably gonna be more secure then closed source.
    1
  1467. You are doomed if you don't institute a right to bear arms, there is no liberty unless its enforced by the partakers of liberty.
    1
  1468. Just gonna say this since I don't have anything else to add, there are those of us who oppose any form of IP law including patents for moral reasons. The simple rationality behind this position is threefold, the first being that all IP law is quite literally a government enforced monopoly, the second being that no individual in the Middle and Lower classes is capable to take advantage of the legal avenue for IP law against any reasonable threat as they'd be unable to afford even the legal cost for a short time in all but the most exceptionally obvious of cases, and three intellectual "property" or conceptions are incapable of a proof of ownership inherent to their design and neither are they non-fungible. That last point means no individual can objectively demonstrate that they own an idea (as that requires proof of ownership capability) and once individual could independently devise their own conception that appears like another and be claimed against despite objectively committing nothing wrong. Economically they are discourage competition which is also a negative.
    1
  1469. If you're dying, I'm not so sure you'd care what you're being pumped with if it has potential to save your life.
    1
  1470. The reason we talk about what is essential, the thing is all businesses are essential to the people employed, and no government authority has the right to determine what is and isn't essential.
    1
  1471. Two things: 1) This applies in the US as well, though not as broadly in law as in corporate implementations, most corporate entities have massive incentives and bias towards hiring women for higher positions, (whether they're suited for a job or not) even Microsoft had a women pointing it out and how its actually sexist discrimination against men and women. 2) A lot (not every but most) of women don't want to or aren't psychologically suited for most high paying jobs because they don't have relations to people working in the job, they take up too much time for a social life, (that a women would usually desire I mean) or they need to decrease their feelings of empathy to compete, that's not to mention in the labor cases where they aren't physically built for the job or the case of a lot of women don't have a high capacity and desire for pursing things like engineering jobs. (this too was talked about by the Microsoft female employee) And when you bring in the fact that a lot (again not every but most) of women will also eventually feel an emotional desire to find a man and settle down with kids. (though they may not pursue it or may try to subdue it) That's not at all me saying women can't handle the thought intensive jobs btw, unlike labor where they do have a hard time, women in those jobs aren't physically disadvantaged so they can, but they generally don't want to, a women who gets to that position being given incentives to get there and pushing corporate to do it damages both the corporate and the women, not to mention it reduces quality of life and only further harms the birth rates. (though telling women that they don't ever need a man and should pursue a job instead of determining that themselves as they mature is definitely part of the problem, also sex culture and abortion doesn't help)
    1
  1472.  @timmytuckerson3450  Nah its only gotten worse.
    1
  1473. Blame disparate impact law.
    1
  1474.  @MunyuShizumi  The problem with his alleged statistics work is its never been presented in court that he's done anything and even worse he make statistic falsehoods, assumptions on stats that nobody with stats experience would ever support and any statistician would've told you NEVER SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT, (even first year stat students would've told him shutup, even stat kids in high school would've been able to say "he can't say that") and he got away with saying crap and people like Asmon, who don't know anything about stats, believe him cause he's got skills in a completely unrelated field. If Asmon was the average juror, which glad he's not, they'd have made a crap assumption that's wrong regarding the lawyer and the "Wizard" over a misunderstanding of what statistics is. He doesn't get to call it scientific at all and if he is a stats expert he quite literally lied to the court.
    1
  1475. This is why putting government in the problem is stupid, right to repair doesn't need to be solved by government because the issue it tries to solve was created by government, patents and IP law are infringements upon individual rights because you can not own an idea, manifested object, something with practical and functional existence can be owned, but a concept or idea can not be for it is not manifested. It requires active systems that can encroach upon personal liberties since someone could devise a unique object that infringes that infringes someone's conceptions, but how can you validate ownership without government? You can't. By having the government forbid replication of good ideas implemented badly you are encouraging monopolies that ARE GOVERNMENT ENFORCED. And the only people that can take advantage of the monopoly system are those with the money, thus monopolies follow money. Monopolies die when government is left out. This applies for all IP law, film, software, books, music, none of them have to truly compete against superior skill and talent, once someone has been registered with the government, they can coast on it and rip everyone off. Bandaid solutions don't fix the problem, IP law and patents need to die. (and we know for a fact that neither patent, copyright, or trademark are enforced by someone without money, also trademark and copyright can be socially enforced, as that generally happens naturally especially with the internet, Streamlabs is the perfect example of that)
    1
  1476. Yeah, I don't have any idea what she was expecting to happen, did she really think Dallas security would just run away when they're in the same room and have a load handgun on them? Even the Uvalde cops wouldn't be that stupid...probably. (they'd be in threat and running would not save them at least)
    1
  1477. Just gonna point, vaccines don't solve plagues, they just evolve stronger ones.
    1
  1478. ​ @genericchannelname4110  I'd rather reserve the vaccines for those who will die from an infectious disease, we can already treat and cure pretty much every disease that we have a vaccine for, the only folks who need a vaccine are those at high risk who couldn't be treated by such methods without dying. That way our immune systems build up against the struggle and we don't develop autoimmune diseases or other problems. (which as an example, many heart problems seem to in the least be correlated from the chickenpox vaccine instead of dealing with the virus, and even has shown form of relation according to the few studies done) It also prevents the artificially forced evolution of infectious diseases to overcome efforts to vaccinate. Our immune systems aren't designed to deal with half-functioning diseases well, and its why most vaccines need a booster, if a vaccine was truly effective, boosters would be unnecessary. And why do we vaccinate against a disease that doesn't even kill? So many of them barely even makes us suffer. Also the Covid "vaccines" is not a vaccine by definition, its a form of gene therapy that supposedly is designed to mitigate damage while infected, however there aren't many studies confirming its effectiveness and not many that have demonstrated lack of harm. It also was not approved for human trials in 2020 because it kept failing the rat trials, it didn't even make it to monkey trials.
    1
  1479. It's an incorrect interpretation that technically can be used for draconianism and tyranny, however that is not the intention, tbf I agree with the law however complaining about the law having unforeseen consequences instead of fixing said consequences is more my issue, everyone rants about the wrong approach, just ban the right for the state to legislate how it see fit instead because someone feels they have a morally superior position to others.
    1
  1480.  @terrydaktyllus1320  But there's a "Red Hat evil" guy right above in this thread, what you saying you're "not aware of the hate", calling Red Hat as equal to MS is exactly that type of statement. And its pretty common, especially when you get into the systemd topics that Red Hat hatred will popup and they'll just start blaming Red Hat for the fact that systemd is so common on Linux even though that was a voluntary decision by a bunch of users and distro maintainers because it was the least crap init system at the time. The only thing that even remotely sort of sucks about systemd, and which is a fairly new problem with it, is that you can get a lot more problems with things that have or need support for an init system as often times that means anything other then systemd can break your apps as so many things are so heavily integrated into systemd now.
    1
  1481. While delusional women are very prominent, making the argument that you can't find a decent women is a cope against self-improvement, in the past men used to be driven to dominate the world in part because they didn't think like this, even ignoring the tyranny of women (which yes did exist in history before, Rome and Greece at times had the same female tyranny we do now) and simply dominating the market. All it takes to erase female tyranny is for men to dominate it, coping about not getting a good woman is pointless because bad woman have always existed and they're often most prominent, but never before in history have men given any regard to the opinions of women in comparison to being the master of the domain. Also the foundation for a woman to be good is a good man protecting and guiding her, bad woman are the product of bad men, a good man can change that.
    1
  1482. As a Reformed Baptist (Calvinist Christian Baptist) we admit the existence of demons preying on man to occasionally claim to be ghosts of the dead, some mediums and psychics are given demonic powers, usually not many, but sometimes they do interact with demons, messing with the realm of things they don't understand, can't control, and that will destroy them, you open that door and there is no keeping it closed (without Christ, who they hate) and sometimes they practitioners will also prey on the desperate just as the demons do for they operate on behalf of demons, so they do as the demons do. These are not ghosts of the dead, but spirits of wickedness, princes of evil and destruction, wish only to deceive you, but they fear the name of Christ, they are enraged and flee in terror at the name of Jesus, it is not all cases, but not all spiritualism is false in the sense of a lack of supernatural acts, but only in what they call good or true, or that they be human, when those they may contact or be possessed by are in fact wicked evil spirits worse then any human could imagine, some who are more intelligent and cunning then any human could hope to be, some so ravenous and chaotic that it is impossible to even communicate the insanity, there is nothing comparable to both the cunning and insanity that these spirits, who occasionally may show up may possess, but if you are in Christ, they cannot harm you and at His name, the name of Jesus, they will always flee.
    1
  1483. Blame the Premillennial Dispensationalism heresy common among the Christian congregations for that, Darbyism (the teachings of John Nelson Darby) and Scofield are heretical practices that literally believe that Israel should not be questioned.
    1
  1484. Blame the Premillennial Dispensationalism heresy common among the Christian congregations for that, Darbyism (the teachings of John Nelson Darby) and Scofield are heretical practices that literally believe that (((they))) should not be questioned. (blame youtube, I don't like using that "dogwhistle")
    1
  1485. Blame the Premillennial Dispensationalism heresy common among the Christians for that, Darbyism (the teachings of John Nelson Darby) and Scofield are heretical practices that literally believe that they should not be questioned.
    1
  1486. Blame the Premillennial Dispensationalism heresy common among the Christians for that.
    1
  1487. Darbyism (the teachings of John Nelson Darby) and Scofield are heretical practices that literally believe that they should not be questioned.
    1
  1488. Darbyism (the teachings of John Nelson Darby) and Scofield are heretical practices.
    1
  1489. "Sam is like the Joker to their Batman, except unlike the Marvel characters," Bruh, next thing you'll be telling me Spider-Man's first issue was in National Comics which went defunct in 1977.
    1
  1490. This gets passed, revolution time.
    1
  1491. Ah, the monopoly of force, efficient, effective, and benevolent as always, the truth and justice under God, such is their power to teach, to adapt, to absolve, and to love that we do not suffer. Bellum esse pacem; Servitus Inducta est libertas; Ignorantia est virtus.
    1
  1492.  @Friendlyfirefish  Why don't they ever use Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Wiccas, Shintos, Animists, Fetishists, Neonorse Paganism, Neohellenism, or any other religion then? These are all religions with religious leaders that can (and have had people) control populations and dictate societal directions, including in the US, and none of them are ever portrayed in Hollywood. Or how about non-religious cults like those based on the Unabomber? Yes luddite terror cults do exist too, that's literally what luddites were and they still exist. Or what about Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and Scientologists? All these religions have had these exact type of issues and are already categorized officially as cults yet no one ever associates them with villains. Also what Christian was a good guy in the TLOU show? There's been no other Christians in the show.
    1
  1493.  @Friendlyfirefish  "maybe because Christianity is a more recognised religion in the country the media is produced in, so it would make sense to use that one. Basically, it's a product of its own success." That makes no logical sense, why then is no one else openly Christian in any of the shows aside from the bad guys? "Also, are you guys ignorant of all the Muslim terrorist shows/movies? Lol" Name one case of where they go into detail of Muslim villain with Muslim cults in a tv show. Where is the Muslim villain that we watch for hours on end butchering people with a Quran in hand quoting endlessly from it? Not just some brown dude we assume is Muslim or some random guy with a bomb strapped to his chest yelling "Allah Akbar".
    1
  1494.  @Friendlyfirefish  "there's also all those witch horror movies for the pagan stuff" That's whataboutism, that's a fallacy of misdirection and irrelevance.
    1
  1495.  @Friendlyfirefish  "I also didn't say there were good Christians on the show. I just said there were more people who weren't Christian who were bad than there were Christians who were bad." That doesn't fix the issue, none of the other people had any religion or ideology they openly proclaimed (for which also relates to regular people) except for David, who had an open ideology and religion and made continuous reference to Christianity, and he's the only one. "I mean, the show basically has little to no good characters. Even our main characters aren't good." This is not a valid argument, this is intentionally misdirection, we know David is one of the worst humans in the show, he's a pedophile and a cannibal, and now he's a cult leader who indoctrinates people, relative morality is a copout, you don't get to hide behind such a vapid defense when he's the only one portraying Christianity in the show. Where is a decent Christian man if Christianity is supposed to be so prominent? Nobody sees Ellie and Joel as indecent, else they wouldn't care about them at all, it doesn't matter what they do if everything they do isn't a strict violation of morals because its self-defense to protect yourself from potential threats you can't assess, David does is actively torturing and harming people and is doing much worse now in the show.
    1
  1496.  @Friendlyfirefish  Its not whataboutism if the whole point of the argument is "Christianity is the largest religion in this area" when the next question is "why then is no one else in these shows that take place in said reason that's Christian at all?" That's consistently applying the logic back into the argument, stop deflecting. If I say to you "they hate Christianity, they only portray it as evil" and you respond with "that's because Christianity is the majority religion and is the most related to the population" the next question becomes "then why is it that the only people that are so called Christian in said shows the bad guys?" This is a very basic logical connection, only a fool cannot see how easy that logical connection is without it having to be explained to them.
    1
  1497.  @Friendlyfirefish  "there's plenty of shows with openly Christian people in shows who aren't bad people. Call the midwife." Call the Midwife is based on a book; the entire production is located in the UK, not Hollywood; and is not a mainstream show. "Name one show which a Muslim terrorist? OK. Strikeback." Strike Back is based on a book; the entire production is located in the UK, not Hollywood; and is not a mainstream show.
    1
  1498. Idiots, we don't have $2,000 to spend, I swear to God anyone who says pay money from the federal government is intentionally trying to kill us, this money is not coming out of nowhere, its being stolen from our GDP, it is literally stealing the value of your economy, your production, and your wealth, all without making them give you the money, you are bankrupting us by supporting this crap, the governors need to start being charged for their unconstitutional interference in business and individual lives, even insurrection act should be called in many cases, New York and California governors and legislatives should be executed for tyrany.
    1
  1499. The spicy cat showed up on her oshi's stream again lol.
    1
  1500. Mozilla is already rather compromised by leftist ideology, I'm not going through another Wizards of the Coast situation.
    1
  1501. Makes you question why they'd go out of their way to silence ideas of Nazism, the warzones, and debate the points that the Nazis brought up that were valid even if implemented against terribly behind if the governments of Germany didn't believe it was a German fault. And to be honest, Germans were likely the only collective group that could come up with Nazism, aside from the fact it glorified Germans and made very particular analysis of false history and culture to do so, its take on the "Jewish Question" that it had was not a uniquely Nazi philosophy, but a rather common German one, (granted many people's despised the Jews, but the German philosophies had a different methodology and justification for it) and its overall philosophical structure and nihilism/fatalism and apathetic nature of reality was a uniquely German philosophy. The fact these philosophies are still incorporated in some manner in Germany more then any other nation also makes Germany still uniquely susceptible to similar ideological battles that can't be seen in other nations by direct contradiction of commonly accepted social values. Regardless Germany goes too far with censoring truth and speech, especially since free speech is the perfect opposition to bad ideas, granted you can carry a gun, so maybe Germany was doomed from the start.
    1
  1502.  @thoththeatlantean1226  He clearly doesn't know anything about the Septuagint, and he has no knowledge of Koine Greek, he performs context fallacies routinely. You do realize that Koine Greek is not the same as academic Ancient Greek right? Like its been long known that the Bible's Greek is extremely different from the Greek of philosophers and religious leaders of the 1st century, originally they thought it was some form of special Greek spoken by God's Apostles. Later we found out that Koine Greek is actually just a common primitive dialect of ancient Greek, hence why its called Koine (as in common) Greek, when you find receipts of the era, they're not written in a formal Greek, they use Koine Greek. Luke's is the most sophisticated of the Gospels and even if still uses a form of Koine Greek. This is because the Bible was designed to be transmitted to the common man.
    1
  1503.  @KjngKhanh  He doesn't have to tell them its a critique of anything, but it seems instead of using it to manipulate communists to realize what its actually criticizing, he actually believes his own claims, albeit them being totally wrong.
    1
  1504.  @KjngKhanh  I referenced the first definition, and secondly you don't understand English if you are gonna act like criticism and criticizing don't apply to equally as connotative terms that share intonation with each other, no single dictionary would agree with that and neither would any native. Go and ask 100 people whether a "criticism of capitalism" would look kindly upon capitalism and see what they say, since language is made of collective understanding. Even further I say that all language is defined by contextual relation to terms, English most especially so, and there has never been a "criticism of capitalism" that has meant a good thing because in every case they aren't criticizing capitalism, they're criticizing human nature and blaming capitalism as the problem. Show me in one case where you can criticize capitalism? And even further you seem to not understand how to read context since contextually you don't leave the door open for "criticism" when you didn't criticize your subject. He literally didn't criticize capitalism at damn all even with all that because there was no capitalism.
    1
  1505.  @KjngKhanh  English doesn't have academic language, there is no formal definition nor standard committee, the fact you weren't capable to argue with what I said demonstrates a lack of evidence in reason so you resort to manipulating the goal post.
    1
  1506.  @KjngKhanh  "you are selectively choosing the definition that supports your argument" Not really, I'm using common definitions with common intonations that regular people use, I'm literally using the context for the phrase that is exclusive to the phrasing, there is no positive manner for which you can describe "criticism of capitalism" because the rational nature of it is perfect and can't be examining in a manner which perceives negatives unless you don't live in reality and believe nature is something that it is not. Only those with psychosis can make a claim for a "criticism of capitalism" for it is a perfect inhibition and regulator of the fallen design. It needs no help nor is it imperfect in moral principle for it retains the perfect capability of justice, morality, volunteerism, and ownership. You can't be critical of capitalism, you can only maybe critical of nature, but that's our blame, not a system's blame, for which capitalism is correcting perfectly inherently. "while disregarding the second definition that is more precise and relevant to the subject." Context and reason already disagree with you, nobody says "criticism of capitalism" and means to say any reason since capitalism is objectively perfect and good in purpose and design. Even further you didn't refute what I said, you're just saying I'm being exclusive which you're doing the same thing. If we examine it in a vacuum without context of language and history of English and the West, then perhaps it could be up in the air, even though rationally that still makes no sense since you can't criticize capitalism, but no way can you claim that you're not being selective with your abuse of the definitions. I'm not being selective, I'm being contextual, only if we strip all capable context including rational does your definition actually even come into capable play. If it requires all that effort before consideration that suggests most certainly that it is in fact not in play as a result of Occam's Razor. And again you've yet to present rational to support this, that's an Ipse Dixit, a baseless claim. "That's why it's called academic language," I have never heard anyone use such a claim (and I know an awful lot of college educated folks as non-college folks, where pray tell does it ever come into play?) before nor make a claim to its existence, can you provide evidence for its foundation and objective standard, one that is not relative to collective understanding of language? "because it allows you to use precise diction not necessarily based on its colloquial meanings." That makes no sense, language is literally about collective communication, that's the whole point of having a language. The reason we define terms is so we have an idea for what is being communicated, no individual can design a preexisting language to do what its already doing else. You don't get to manipulate terms in order to get them to agree with you, and you don't get to redefine them away from the definition, we've established the definitions quite clearly already and now you're trying to say only yours are correct, by doing that you are guaranteed you lose every argument. Nobody will take your rational seriously if this is how you communicate to them, for its irrational, childish, and pathetic. Give me reason, not trife like "academic" language, support your position with reason or shutup.
    1
  1507.  @KjngKhanh  "I said you are using COLLOQUIAL language" All language is colloquial, that's literally what language is, this qualification is nonsense, also that statement makes no sense since it still doesn't address what I said. "there s a reason why it's a "critique of capitalism " not "criticism"." You're making up your own definitions, you are moving the goal post, stop using fallacies and I'll care to actually address you seriously.
    1
  1508. ​ @KjngKhanh  You have not presented any rational that supports your position, there is no reason I should believe your claims.
    1
  1509.  @KjngKhanh  That's not a rational argument.
    1
  1510. ​ @KjngKhanh  You know insisting that your claims are rational does not make them rational, you've presented absolutely no reason and have committed multiple fallacies instead. You also have deflected from the point at hand and have literally ignored every single argument I've made and have not once refuted any of it, to which you in the least must address before your points could even be considered rationally sound, let alone valid. And a rationally valid point for your claims requires moving the goal post to such a degree that it could not be presented as it contradicts reason inherently. You are wholly irrational, I have no need to argue further with you since you have presented yourself as containing nothing for me to argue against, there is no substance to your words and you have made yourself an elitist fool with no credibility.
    1
  1511. xkcd 927 to the rescue
    1
  1512. Is it ok to say this is bit of an extreme criticism that's kinda irrelevant? IDK, COD has never portrayed Russia in a positive light much like Tom Clancy, its just a thing they do, its a signature they have. Even being the fault of American's I think its kinda dumb to ignore but if the game is good otherwise, a singular break in reality seems kinda small. Now if it did it a lot perhaps I'd find it more terrible.
    1
  1513.  @iplyrunescape305  It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriminating against white folks, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally having a position they don't agree with, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their ESG positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has outright said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with their political opinions, they want to eliminate you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
    1
  1514.  @iplyrunescape305  It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriminating against wh*tes, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally having a position they don't agree with, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Blackrock/Vanguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has outright said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with their politics, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
    1
  1515.  @iplyrunescape305  It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriminating on skin color and other immutable/illegal characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Blackrock/Vanguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has outright said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with their politics, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
    1
  1516. ​ @iplyrunescape305  It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable/illegal characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Blackrock/Vanguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with their politics, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
    1
  1517. ​ @iplyrunescape305  It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Blackrock/Vanguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with their politics, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
    1
  1518. ​ @iplyrunescape305  It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Brock/Vguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with them, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
    1
  1519.  @iplyrunescape305  It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Brock/Vguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has said numerous times if you don't 100% agree with them, they want to rid you from their userbase, outright saying "we don't want you here, don't use our distro, get out of here".
    1
  1520. ​ @iplyrunescape305  It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it, (Apple's fanbase statistically is actually a lot of right leaning politics as well despite their Brock/Vguard positions) the folks at RH, Mint, and Gnome are only some of the ones that do. Mint has said a lot if you don't agree with them, they want to excise you from their userbase.
    1
  1521.  @iplyrunescape305  It already does, there are things they're already doing that do effect distribution, IBM and Red Hat is also being sued for discriming on skin color and other immutable characteristics, and if you're discovered on their forums even incidentally disagreeing with them, they ban you. Apple being friendly isn't an issue because they don't go searching and don't ban you over it.
    1
  1522. Tim should realize by not being a gun person he's blaspheming the Constitution explicitly, the whole point of the Constitution is that every man (or more like literally every household of the US) is a representation of the Constitution, partaking in every right equally, that includes the unregulated and unalienable right to own a gun. (all gun tracking and regulations, including background checks, are Unconstitutional by the way, let the free market manage it, that's what the founders explicitly wanted) Also its already been proven that a registry is always a bad idea, look at Australia or Canada, they both had registries with lower restrictions and they still ended up outright banning gun ownership, hell in many regions you kinda were required to own a gun and they banned it. And people were constantly attacked and kill in upside down land when they banned guns, even disregarding the lesser gun culture they had, they still had one and the government was able to stamp it out well enough because not enough people stood up and told them they have a right to their guns. And even more nobody stood up when the registry started.
    1
  1523.  @tessycaldwell6950  Its not me changing anything, its called semantic drift, its a known histo-linguistic phenomenon.
    1
  1524. Monopolies only exist specifically because the government ensures they exist, they are provided government provided advantages, including regulations, lobbying, tax credits and tax breaks, and preferential treatment in both the financial and legal sectors. Google is a government entity only claiming to be separate from the government, they get paid by our taxpayer money. Trust busting and anti-monopoly government intervention is exactly what creates monopolies because it gives the government full capacity to control and dictate business which they then give preferential treatment to those that its supposedly made to stop. 630 million dollars is trump change to them especially when they're robbing us of our money to pay it out.
    1
  1525. Racism doesn't really exist, its pretty much a 4chan acceleration prank, and its hilariously working exactly as intended.
    1
  1526. "Suzane was the first to write this young woman who was anti-establishment, anti-government" Atlas Shrugged has entered the chat.
    1
  1527.  @johns557  To point out, while it is true that gold value is subjective, that's just basic economics, everything has a relative (as in subjective) value, the reason gold is often considered a stable trade currency is that its rare, sparsely useful, (even now, having gold in bulk serves little purpose for individuals beyond its value) and has no corrosion in the open air. As a result people assign high value to it specifically because you can't generate gold, which makes it near impossible to inflate or manipulate in value. (to any significant degree, all values fluctuate)
    1
  1528. "What is it called the dark ages, its because of religion" Uh no, literally every historian I can recall would call this take stupid, I can name at least 5 off the top of my head right now from all political sides that have called that take stupid outright. The dark ages is a false moniker, in fact in many cases the people of the "dark ages" were more ingenious and innovative then those found during the renaissance where the term "dark ages" spawned from, during the "dark ages" more people bathed then for centuries following it. During the "dark ages" lots of old Roman infrastructure was routinely maintained where after them much of the infrastructure collapsed. All modern philosophy and law spawns from the "dark ages", absolutely dumb propaganda at work, Asmon view of history has, as once again proven by his trash NA education, to be dumb and wrong. Also if Asmon really knew anything about the Crusades, it would be pretty hard to claim what he has.
    1
  1529. The Constitution only exists as a result of the Ten Commandments, look up Holy Trinity vs. the United States.
    1
  1530.  @davidmays8974  You are the definition of a midwit dude.
    1
  1531. Leave it to the socialist material grifters to believe money alone solves literally every problem.
    1
  1532. They're literally jokers for our entertainment, funny thing is they also desire the actions of the joker just to silence their opposition, rules for thee, not for me.
    1
  1533.  @diadetediotedio6918  Memory safety is trivial in C++, if you use RAII for memory, especially with smart pointers and containers, you won't run into memory safety issues, if you use the C++17 and C++20 type-erasure types like optional, any, and variant, and if you include ref_wrapper, you can do pretty much everything without needing to deal with memory at all.
    1
  1534. Correction: American Chattel slavery rarely ever had American abductors involved, it was either an "inherited" position as a child of a slave or the abductors were part of the African tribes.
    1
  1535. The trans ideology is just cultural marxism, it doesn't care why or how, its a poison and needs to be exterminated, those who partake in it should be so shamed out of society that they can't even maintain a business. The judge is a he, either use correct English or shutup.
    1
  1536.  @oblivion_2852  If you get the government out of business, it actually eliminates that problems because massive conglomerates would have a leveling play field with small business owners, there's a reason all big businesses lobby for the government to institute more regulations against their specific field and products, it raises the barrier to entry and lower actually lowers the competition, which is the driving factor behind shortages and/or high prices. (if you cap the prices, then you just massive shortages, see the COVID toliet paper fiasco)
    1
  1537.  @noahhager1187  Minimum wage actually drives down competition, driving up prices and eradicating low skill labor, it massively contributes to unemployment of low-skilled/introductory/junior workers and interns, its a big contributor to why gen z can't find or hold down a job because it forces preference of labor to higher multi-skill laborers who are more valuable thanks to the hard cap on the minimum amount of money you must spend on each employee. It makes it so that instead of a janitor or fry cook who does one of a few things simply and well enough, (so he can build skill) you need him to do many things and have competency to do them at the quality and speed capacity of someone who has been doing it for a few years, leaving less room for probationary training or in the best case having to speed up probationary training of new employees and curbing those who aren't capable to support the work at those speeds. (hence why you see the rate of employer-caused employee turnovers in fast food skyrocket over the last 3 decades) Its an economically foolish policy and it violates basic freedom and rights of free association because the employer and employee are not actually allowed to agree to a price of their own volition for work, the employee volunteers for the work and if he finds issue with his pay too low, he can walk away, there has never been excuse aside from entitlement, irrational fear, or laziness to not be capable of doing this at any point since the 1800s. (yes those who worked even in the coal mines were not enslaved, unless they were literal slaves as in being told "if you don't work, you will be terminated", otherwise they were not obligated to do so)
    1
  1538.  @noahhager1187  Minimum wage actually drives down competition, driving up prices and eradicating low skill labor, it massively contributes to unemployment of low-skilled/introductory/junior workers and interns, its a big contributor to why gen z can't find or hold down a job because it forces preference of labor to higher multi-skill laborers who are more valuable thanks to the hard cap on the minimum amount of money you must spend on each employee. It makes it so that instead of a janitor or fry cook who does one of a few things simply and well enough, (so he can build skill) you need him to do many things and have competency to do them at the quality and speed capacity of someone who has been doing it for a few years, leaving less room for probationary training or in the best case having to speed up probationary training of new employees and curbing those who aren't capable to support the work at those speeds. (hence why you see the rate of employer-caused employee turnovers in fast food skyrocket over the last 3 decades) Its an economically foolish policy and it violates basic freedom and rights of free association because the employer and employee are not actually allowed to agree to a price of their own volition for work, the employee volunteers for the work and if he finds issue with his pay too low, he can walk away, there has never been excuse aside from entitlement, irrational fear, or laziness to not be capable of doing this at any point since the 1800s. (yes those who worked even in the coal mines were not enslaved, unless they were literal slaves as in being told "if you don't work, you will be terminated", otherwise they were not obligated to do so)
    1
  1539.  @maybayV2  "Curious, so you say that having no access to heath care because of the price is better than having less quality health care?" See the issue is in the US is we can pay for an insurance that generally still takes care of us in most cases, the cases for which individuals can't get healthcare is actually fairly rare because insurance in most cases does cover, and most Americans make enough money to at least subsidize the cost of the healthcare coverage we need. We complain about it being expensive but statistically we are entirely able to pay it. That doesn't mean the expense is not a problem but it is false to say it is inaccessible, and that aside in the American healthcare system if you are willing to completely ignore insurance you can actually choose competitive clinics that do have incentive to drive down costs and thus aren't expensive, however most Americans are lazy and don't bother to think of this as an option and thus most don't do this. Its also harder to find a good clinic like that because the supply of those clinics is limited which does still drive the price up a good bit, still its way better then our normal socialized prices. (because yes our medical system is heavily socialized and nearly nationalized as is)
    1
  1540.  @maybayV2  "but let private insurance stay so there can be providers who offer higher quality work for those who have money, while still keeping the government funded free health care to those who don't." Also private insurance isn't allowed to compete with nationalized insurance, its simply not possible because the nationalized insurance has a monopoly on the insurance, you're basically giving it an infinite pocket book thanks to the government. This is aside from the government trying to control every aspect for the sake of justifying itself, which often just regulates private insurance into either non-existence or uselessness, these are only some of the many reasons private insurance functionally does not exist in any nation that has fully adopted nationalized healthcare. The economic incentive alone destroy the private insurance. Also you don't need insurance to drive down the costs, and if you got the government to stop subsidizing the healthcare system you'd find it actually would decrease the costs too.
    1
  1541.  @maybayV2  "I really doubt the people who can't afford Healthcare, care if they have to wait. They've been waiting." This can be solved with competition, you don't need the government involved at all, its just poor economics and a terrible understanding of incentives for which anyone thinks you need government involved in the healthcare system, it was working brilliant in the US before the government got involved, it was cheap, fast, and the highest quality in the world with the best outcomes. We're still coasting by on the highest quality with the best outcomes, it can be fast in some cases, but the price is massive because of how monopolies the government has caused the industry in the US.
    1
  1542.  @noahhager1187  Fix what?
    1
  1543.  @jubacelmesias1154  So true.
    1
  1544.  @Rubenz343  "A better economy doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has more money." That's not how economics work, economics is not and will never be a zero sum game.
    1
  1545.  @Rubenz343  I do understand because I don't look at people as actors on the basis of wealth and no wealth, most people are completely immoral, money or no money, instead they operate based purely on incentives, a LEO's bad behavior is only a product of his incentives, even a bad LEO would not be willing to act like a bad officer if his incentives are right, the same is true of business, take the hand of government out and their incentive to lobby the government in their favor disappears.
    1
  1546.  @Rubenz343  You may also not understand that rich people don't pay the costs they're called to pay, its the poor that pay it because the rich are the suppliers of goods and services. Its all about second order thinking, incentives, and consequences, its actually quite simple if you can comprehend abstract consequence.
    1
  1547. ​ @ashrafothman1458  Means nothing to my argument.
    1
  1548. There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, it was never part of American Constitutional Law.
    1
  1549. Just to point out Python is technically running in a VM so it would always be above Java in that list, the difference is that Java is produces a bytecode output whereas Python is really only ever interpreted as is (yes it has a bytecode but you will never see it, if people want a performant Python script, they just compile it to a native binary anyway with something like py2exe or cpython)
    1
  1550. I don't really agree with that Brandenburg point btw, that's because I don't believe government has the right to create preventive measures for crimes, they can not commit to thought crime or pre-crime because no crime was already committed. Its not a legitimate role of government to punish the possible crimes and its not the government's job to prevent crime. The government's job is to punish committed crime, crimes you can prove demonstrably are crimes and that have happened. Otherwise you set a valid precedent for government to start invading the privacy and sanctity of individuals to prove they are possibly unproven criminals. As an example for that women with ex-boyfriend, its not the government to ensure he doesn't kill her, instead it should be the prerogative of the women to handle preventative measures freely so that she can avoid ever being assaulted. This should include unregulated weapon ownership, warnings, and other proactive prevention manners that she should already be taking. And only then, if she feels she is in reasonable danger of personal harm, she may terminate him with her unregulated weapons. That is how you deal with that situation. The government only comes in afterwards to ensure that every choice she made regarding his termination was morally justified as far as she was aware.
    1
  1551. I know of DeVault, I know he's been a royal pain in the ass, but I do not remember for what else right now.
    1
  1552. Aside from incorrect application of economics, which by the way Marxist view of economics were demonstrably proven not only wrong, but detrimental for adoption, you are also assuming a lot of the symptoms and problems we have now are a result of very specific things. But thing is the problems we are suffering from are not a result of capitalist principles nor of inevitable evolution of those principles, they are the result of removal of those principles which were happening all the way back before Karl Marx took the throne of king of economic autism. As an example the reason why health costs in the US are high is because of constant sabotage by the regulatory powers, lobbyists, and later the pharma monopoly and the FDA, they were constantly pushing the price of the whole economic sector of the medical field while preventing competition, and then they lock out even insurance competition before they chained the premiums to an increasing interest rate. It was a continuous process of many different actions culminating together to cause the problem, and honestly if you didn't expect that to happen eventually you're either blind or stupid. The same thing happened with the real estate market and college market however because there was never a monopoly in either they instead turned into bubbles. Nowadays we are surrounded in corporate lobbies and government manipulated marketshares, it is inevitable that locking our economy to the American interest rate as we increase our debt and inflation constantly would result in economic problems. The problem has nothing to do with capitalism, it has to do with lack of limitation on government, when a corporation can walk into DC and demand capability to influence the market without qualms, that's not capitalism's fault, that's the fault of the political system. And that happens in every single town, there's a reason everyone hates the cable company, and it all starts with the lack of competition, no amount of government intervention would fix that, it only makes it worse. How about we get government out of the market before we start blaming the market for the problems the government has been causing for a 150 years. Another stupid thing is the belief that automation will remove or replace jobs as if an unemployed person is incapable of transferring jobs, the entire point of capitalism was also employee competition, not just product competition. But instead we've created systems that make employer and employee competition even more impossible and difficult thus driving up the cost of an employee for no reason and also removing a capable person from capably entering the market rapidly. And that aside you can never create an economic system that removes the human brain, even if all jobs that currently exist were taken humans would create new jobs to generate wealth off of, wealth is not a zero-sum game and those who believe it is are retards.
    1
  1553. Now if only they'd actually fix their stupid population and government problems. Japan ain't gonna exist in a few decades.
    1
  1554. Literally none of OG Bungie is at Bungie, they all left by the time Destiny 1 reached EOL, I have no reason to be interested, especially when it lacks the things that made the OG Marathon interesting.
    1
  1555.  @Naxiwuno  Pretty sure Jason Jones helped kick out the entire rest of the team to prevent paying the contracted benefit shares that were promised when they joined the company. Marty talked rather extensively about the business crap that happened during the Destiny purge. I wouldn't really consider him alone OG Bungie at this point, honestly he wasn't even involved in the best games nor had the best ideas.
    1
  1556. China has a lot of problems because its been made by fools who love socialism. Socialism doesn't pay kids.
    1
  1557. The only reliable states with mailin ballots are Florida and Ohio.
    1
  1558. Its called disparate impact law, its legal to discriminate and actually required by law so long as its in preference to minorities.
    1
  1559. Populist Republicans would pretty much always win, if only such a world existed.
    1
  1560. Bluetooth is a joke, quite literally every other wireless standard is superior.
    1
  1561. Neither with God's Word do we rely on accepting such, we use exegetical analysis and corroborating details which is nearer to impossible to get wrong, even Scripture this is what we do.
    1
  1562. I still don't think you can really call a markup language a programming language if its not Turing Complete, and it doesn't really program anything, plus all calculative instructions take place outside of the environment where HTML is parsed, the lack of machine instruction compilation in HTML kinda precludes any programming designation I'd think. And HTML doesn't even change the state of any memory upon execution by its own nature.
    1
  1563. The LP has long been co-opted the same way the Tea Party was, turning against its values. The establishment poisoned the well to prevent competition.
    1
  1564. This isn't really the correct answer, in the least its a minor aspect at best, the core of the problem is the decadence itself, the lack of striving for a better being is a form of idling, idle hands breed idle minds, idle minds are the problem, we are built to progress individually, to improve and expand ourselves, when you live in a society that does that for you and teaches you to stay as you are you are doomed to never evolve. Suicide tends to be the result of misunderstanding one's own purpose and fundamentally finding that you have none, that is the core of being for each of us, and when you are striving in a postal world, what is left but to go postal.
    1
  1565.  @jokuvaan5175  A moral people recognize the value of protecting and preserving women from harm and society's evil, for they are easily manipulated by its evil and so they do their utmost to do prevent this. Women are not resistant to thought like a man is, for they are not build like a man and thus they were not treated like a man. This is why women in a moral society at one time would naturally and decisively avoid any interest or part in politics or religious discussions, they did this intentionally so, it was not some male plot to keep women out of things, it was deliberately a woman decision, for as far as morality was concerned they had no place to input such, and if they did, it was to be judged as well on the basis of their husband or perhaps their father, for women were to be silent in the church and politics according to good moral principal. The reason this was the case was because it was clearly known that women were of the less rational and more emotional perspective even in the best of cases, this is not to say they didn't have great insights, but men and women were made one, not a separate but a whole, and thus the man would engage the world while the woman would preserve the house, and the man would thus provide and protect the house. Woman would thus go to her husband for guidance of the world and to assist him in dealing with it, as well as to help judge that which she thought recognizing that she must keep herself humble to him to be herself moral. This after all was the design as set forth in Genesis and followed in iteration by Abraham, Issac, Moses, and then Jesus to John, Peter, and Paul which all agreed with this principal explicitly and which these people of such ages knew of the Biblical teachings. The purpose of marriage was to bring a two of separate houses together as a single house, to leave the old house and form a new one that would follow to the next generation. This does not happen if women are believed to be the in equity to men nor that women are in equity to men, they are different parts of the whole but not it they are to be equal or the same. This is the poison of all forms of feminism, men are to love their wives, wives are to respect their husbands, as so put forth by Peter in 1 Peter 3 and Paul in Ephesians 5, under these as principals of guidance it is unnecessary to have feminism unless you opposed God already, for you'd not believe the doctrines of Christ then but believe in the doctrines of man as guidance. It is thus why men and women behaved in such the way they did at the time and would refuse the conceptions of the later centuries. Not to mention that feminism as a principal doesn't and still didn't work without failed attempts to modify female biology, which still does not apply. Its a simple fact that they are not designed for that purpose.
    1
  1566. Trademark, Copyright, and Patents are all violations of natural rights because you don't have a right to conceptions because they can't be owned, (also organizations can not own anything, ownership is reserved for a private individual but that's beside the point) there is no proof of ownership of concepts, so all IP law violates the the requirements to be owned, it also violates innocent until proven guilty as there is no innocent suspect in IP law regardless of application to following the law, it should not be required that anyone adhere to the registry of acceptable government acts to say what is law in order to follow the law. IP law violates the basic rights regarding liberty .
    1
  1567. 19:00 Asmon should've specifically asked "Can any of you recall a case of little league sports where boys and girls were co-ed" cause I can tell you there isn't a single one, I played little league baseball, they never had any girls.
    1
  1568.  @NothingtoseeHere.Movealong  "I'll admit that we don't have complete freedom of speech here, but then again what is restricted is specifically Nazi ideaology and calls to incite violence," Doesn't matter, Nazis are humans that have rights as well. They have a right to be a Nazi and say what they want, a call to action is also mostly covered under free speech up. Also if I remember correctly, even video games that merely depict Nazi iconography or Nazi adjacent iconography gets unjustly banned. That's just purely evil. "Even then, the government is, atleast in my opinion, a bit too exact on what symbols are bannes, with many a neo-nazi at demonstrations using the Hitler salute with a clenched fist or using saying 88 in clear reference to "Heil Hitler" to get around being ounished while clearly representing Nazi Ideaology(Ideology?Excuse me for my incorrect writing)" You can't capably ban speech because people will find new ways to circumvent a ban, the underground and evil will continue to exist regardless of ban, correction required ideological opposition, not legal opposition, it doesn't stop them. And government can't go far enough without doublespeak and newspeak, 1984 is the only result of such manners of authority. And I'm completely fine with a Nazi doing as they please, allow them to be public, we can argue with them and if they start acting violent, we have self-defense justification to shoot them, beyond that they should keep their rights because they are human. "But what interests me more is your statement that the government shouldn't dictate morality. I agree with you that it shouldn't be dictated, but the general population agrees with the sentiment of forbidding the spread of Nazism and Holocaust denial. Is that still the government dictating morality? " Yes, for two reasons, one the government teaches you that morality in schooling and through propaganda, and also the government can not justly dictate what is and isn't said by the people through a moral standard, it is not a moral arbiter and should not be able to dictate moral demands no matter what the people want. This is because we also don't believe the people define morality, we know this because we think the Nazis, Communists, and Fascists wrong, which you can't consistently do unless you believe in an objective morality beyond the people. This aside the government is incapable of figuring out moral standards just as the people can not define a moral standard. And lastly the government is an authority irrelevant to the people, a democracy does not determine society and society does not determine a government. In fact they are more in opposition then anything. But too many people like to treat the government like a Mother. I see this as immoral especially since it gives power to the government to do as it pleases without oversight. "Unfortunately I'll have to disagree with the statement that ideas will go unopposed if banned, referring partly to my first paragraph," Except they don't because you can't argue with them without breaking the law. You can't consider their opinions and experiences and you can't be kind to them, which allows them to spread in the underground without opposition. And both sides can and will use the government's claimed authority to try and undermine the other in lieu of actually debating. "with those groups often finding loopholes to still present their ideology in public." You don't argue against them, you can't and feel no need to if you ban them, but you must in order to oppose tyrants and authoritarianism. "Furthermore, discussion on those topics,specifically nazism, are heavily encouraged in school, as shown in the video." "Discussion" by opposition and dictation is not discussion nor debate. "Admittedly, yesy the teachers of course will try to convince you that Nazism is not a sound ideology or evil, you're still free to make up your own mind." Being able to think what you want does not mean anything. Also that does not teach critical thinking nor does it encourage debate and intellectually consistency and honesty. "Lastly, most likely due to not entirely believing in this democracy and being similarly cynical about the nature of humanity as you are, I honestly wouldn't mind people who believe in Nazism or in general fringe extremists on the left and right to commit crimes and to ostracize them from society, and to use violence on against them." I do because I believe in the rights of all men to be equal, and that the fight of ideals can battle in the public square without sacrificing reason and truth. I also don't believe any speech nor ideology is equal to violence, and that only an individual can commit violence. I don't believe either that its the government's job to bulldoze and clear the way society and its offense. I believe it is the right of the individual to stand responsibly, and if that is not held to strong, then regardless of the government, the society will fall. "And yes, I know I sound extremist myself. And I am. Extremist pragmatic centrist.(Yes, I am aware of the centricide meme. Hilarious, look them up yourself, can only recommend them)." I'm a Christian libertarian, I believe God has given each individual the right to act for himself and decide for himself. This also means each life has the right to their own autonomy alone, I vehemently oppose government intervention in all things for I don't believe a legitimate role of government is to be a preventative measure, merely a punitive one. This leaves the individual as the truly preventive measure, that is the right to self-defense which the American 2nd Amendment ensures. (which also protects the right to liberty, which opposes tyranny and invasion as well, and ensure the other rights absolutely) A society which stands without Christ shall too fall to chaos. I'm a radical and take no quarter for this ideology and yet I will always attempt to act with compassion and consideration, out of respect for human life and the divine rights. I believe no man is good and hence why no man should be able to hold almost any power. "And lastly, Germany is a Wehrhafte Demokratie/defensive democracy, which means we won't accept opinions that oppose democracy, and I'm fine with that" Not free, also democracy is not an ultimate good, just because a methodology or ideology is accepted does not mean its right. Often times democracy can and will be used to oppress the minority because there is no morality for it not to. Also democracy was never designed for nation states and anyone who uses them for it are stupid, they were designed for city-states where each individual is engaged and capable of understanding the issues, it was meant for a highly intelligent capable society where free thought is allowed, a nation state is incapable of preserving this, and even in its time democracy was questioned as the most optimum method of rulership, hence why the Roman Republic was founded as it was.
    1
  1569.  @RavenLuna89  "This is a very American thought process though." Actually no, it was devised principally before the establishment of the US, (in Great Britain, France, and the HRE) the US adopted it because it was the first totally independent nation with an opposition to a ruling authority, being one of the first nations founded after the Enlightenment. That however does not mean the mindset is unique to the US nor that its purely designated for the US or its people. Remember Voltaire wrote his biggest stuff before 1776, (in which he did write on the absolute value of free speech, often being paraphrased, He was French) he died in 1778, only two years after the Declaration of Independence was signed in the US. He was dead for a whole decade before the Constitution or its Amendments. "This is the foundation of our 1st Amendment which is Freedom of Speech." Its also not based on Americanism, it was based on Christianity, the principle being that all men are giving divine rights, and that the Constitution upholds this for those citizens validated by the nation state. "We are losing our 1st Amendment our right to speak openly and honestly so I dont think it's very fair for us to criticize the German government if our own people are trying to suppress thought at the moment, especially with big tech companies suppressing us the most." This is a massively unfair statement, you can't claim by being oppressed at home means you can't argue regarding oppression in anywhere else, that's a logically vapid argument. That aside I don't really believe you have a right to free speech regarding the internet, my issue with it comes down to government interventionism which allowed this to happen in the first place, they have many government provisions that enabled them to easily monopolize the environment and take it over and they were also given legal qualification to manipulate the legal framework so they can't be prosecuted, once again the fault of government. Remove both these issues and they lose everything instantly and competition can return. "I understand what you are saying because I am 1st Amendment absolutest but we have to secure our own rights that are currently under threat before we can lecture other nations about our ideas that are no longer considered sacred to ourselves." Massively inconsistent here, I can criticize any government for having problems regardless of what my government does, by this metric, France and the UK aren't allowed to even question the American hegemony nor having overseas troops in places like Afghanistan or Iraq. I am not bound by the standards of my government, they aren't my God and the only power they can hold on me is power that I give them. Also what do you think happens when you allow the infringements of the 2nd Amendment? Regulating and restricting the right to bear arms opens the door to the regulation and restriction of every other right based on subjective measure. There is no justification for this and this logic is foolish and flawed at best. "We have to recognize that we are the only nation that holds these values and need to learn where to draw the line." I'd rather not because that's not what the values are designed to do nor is that even remotely true, every major nation that has a Constitution to this day stole or based it on ours and cherrypicked the elements of our values to do so. You can't do that, that's why Europe is such a mess of stupid nonsense and one of the many reasons why I will berate them. You don't get the concepts of rights established for a nation state without US existence, and everyone else failed because they still don't understand all the nuance and checks that the US provides. Where it took centuries to undermine the Constitution, it took less then a few decades to oppress Germany multiple times. (even with a Constitution) This aside we can't start from the principle that a nation is free if it does not uphold the right to say as you please for any and everything you wish to say, and that's an important point to be made, you are either free to do that or you aren't free at all, you don't get both, there is no spectrum. That is what freedom is. "It is not our place to tell Germany what to do and I will loop this with why do we have 36k American troops in Germany currently today 7/29/2020." It kinda is since they stole so much from us in terms of values and ideology now, we even forced them to adopt two Constitutions based on ours, we've already done this twice at least, its like how the Jews told Christ "we've never been enslaved" you don't get to just say that and get away with it. That aside I actually have nothing against having trooped in Germany, my problem is Europe is a economic and political deadweight that won't carry its share and expects us to do everything for them. If they want that then they should be forced to follow our dictations, otherwise they should defend themselves. No nation should get NATO and to do what they want, it should be our way or the high way. "We have zero business being in Germany, we dont have German troops in America and we have zero business telling Germans what to do." Already explained why this is a bogus methodology, also if they want American military might, they need to follow our rules. I also don't really like the idea of American militarism, I'd rather argue for citizen militias only, but nobody cares, personally I'd rather let Germany fall to Communism again if its gonna steal from us and contribute nothing tho. But if its gonna steal from us and get advantages from us, it needs to be what we say. I don't see an argument otherwise. "If they want to Censor people that is on them, we need to worry about our own censorship 1st." Why not do both? You're not saying very reasonable things, I don't think you know what you're even arguing. "We need to stop worrying about the world and let other nations be other nations and worry about ourselves," We're directed not to do this, both from a Christian methodology and by word of the founders, who believed in American isolationism, but also believed in American rebuke of failed European institutions, that's why they still criticized Britain and France despite being isolationists. "if something pops off like what is happening in China. Fine, I totally get that let's go do our thing and then go home." That's not consistent, also just start a bunch of individual PMCs and volunteer militias, they'd easily be able to wreck China, its a paper tiger anyway. "But policing Germany or any other nation that is not a direct threat to us is ridiculous at this point. We need to learn our own boundaries." You don't have a consistent worldview and also you don't know what you're arguing about nor have any philosophic, historical, or methodological basis for your opinion, Germany is not free, it does not get to claim that its free, and those who try to push it need to be corrected and explained what freedom is and how it can be ensured, also they have no right to steal our values and doctrines, claim them for their own, and act like they have a free society that they don't have.
    1
  1570.  @NothingtoseeHere.Movealong  "Please don't see this as an attempt at being adversarial, I'm just genuinely interested in your reasoning and beliefs." I generally don't mind nor care about it, all I really care about is truth and righteousness. "To your first response, in the German Grundgesetz/Constitution the right to free speech has asteriks'(what's the plural of asteriks?), so legally there is basis for denying them the capability of espousing or glorifying Nazi ideology( sorry if I repeat myself)." Yeah which is problematic for two reasons, one it required oppression of a people that will by necessity be expanded, and two the German Constitution, as with all major national constitutions, rips a lot of the US Constitution and values off without understanding the meaning and purpose behind them nor applying specific logical reasons behind any aspect of it. This result in its failure to mean anything comparable to what the US Constitution means. (which gives us a right and duty, and even tells us, to overthrow a tyrannical government) And my arguments around of course pertain nothing to the current legal or moral standards set by the German government, I believe in standards superior to a world government. "There is also a significant difference to a call to action and calling for or inciting violence, which as far as I know is also disallowed by the American constitution." Actually no, calls to actions and inciting violence are still covered under free speech even in the US, there is a problem of selective application of this standard in some cases, however if no action (as in violence) is taken then there is nothing that can be done. As a result I can tell people I'm gonna kill them in public and I can't just be jailed for that. However I'm way more absolutist on that and so were the founders, that standard has been twisted rather far. "And yes, video games, movies or media that depicted specifically Nazi iconography have been banned or altered to comply with german law," The fact it could and did happen is the problem. "but over the last few years the ministry responsible for that has become a lot less zealous and stingy about it." Cool but its still at the behest of the "Ministry of Truth" so I find it abhorrent. "Nowadays most media can portray Nazi iconograph aslong as it doesn't glorify the Nazis or portray them as good guys." Very easy to abuse, also still oppression of a people. They have their rights to produce, say, and do what they want if it doesn't infringe another person's rights. "To your second and partly your third paragraph, there is both legal and ideological(thank you for the correct way to write) opposition, with pro-Nazi/extremist right wing demonstrations often being met by a larger number of counter-demonstrators with those confrontations remaining for the most part peaceful." Doesn't sound like argumentation nor debate on a local scale though, being able to protest doesn't mean much and personally I actually kinda despise protesting and "demonstrations" because they mean very little and mostly get in the way of the average citizen, you shouldn't need to demonstrate for anything because just showing up to a house of politics and threatening them with a right to bear arms should be all you need to tell a government what you think of something. Counter-demonstrations and non-government targeted protesting is stupid and contributes nothing. Also "far-right" is a worthless term, by its claims I'm very far-right, but I'm not an identitarian, I just merely believe the government is the worst representative for interventionism and preventative measures (and also terrible with finances) and that while promoting liberty I also highly promote traditionalism and Christian moralism. I mean at least its peaceful unlike Antifa. "A greater risk I think is allowing those fringe groups to publicly speak their mind, with the danger being that their exposure and presence on discussions and debates will be disproportionately larger than it should be due to their fringe nature." What? There is no risk, bad ideas lose in the public sphere, they require oppression to ensure in the public sphere which is how Nazism became acceptable and then required in the public discourse. This does not happen if you can debate bad ideas and prove their evil, that goes all the way back to Martin Luther proving it again after continuous suppression. People don't just adopt ideas because they hear them, and if you give people real facts, most people tend to accept moderate position unless forced otherwise. And if you have the capability to defend yourself being forced stop beings a problem. "Also allowing them onto the political stage runs the risk of seemingly legitimizing them." No, this is a massive fallacy in the argument against free speech, you do not (and nobody thinks you do) legitimize an idea just because it is unrestricted, Count Dankula has a perfect video that deals with free speech and this is one of the arguments he debunks. Freedom does not and never has constitute support nor legitimization. "Unfortunately the possibility of shooting them is quite low in Germany, due to different self-defense laws and more stringent control on access to guns(although I'd love the opportunity to plink through some of my 8mm Mauser)." I find this a more evil methodology actually because it treats them as less then human, when they are human by all rights. No one should be harmed for what they say and nobody should be attacked no matter what they believe. In fact I love them just as much as I love you because they are endowed with divine rights because they are a man. As well all men are evil and deserve a fate worse then death, no one is good, no one is redeemed, if pure justice was served the Nazi, me, and you, we would all serve eternity in Hell, but because we don't just believe in pure justice, we can't apply this standard to anyone and thus should apply it to no one ourselves, for it is not our judgement. "And I guess you're referring to Universal Human Rights?" And no, I'm referring to divine rights established by the Christian doctrine, which the Constitution recognizes and upholds. These rights establish that all men are spiritually equal and deserve equal justice in their depravity, but by love and mercy are spared, and thus we are given opportunity to be saved, which is also a reason why we are given reason and logic even if the man version is flawed and incomplete. "For your third paragraph: Is any information gained through school propaganda and morality training then? " When it comes to government provisions, yes, government provisions are never based on the benefit of the people, its based on the desires of the government. "That incendiary question aside:We're for the most part confronted mostly with just the objective information of the time, and alot of visual media, ranging from Nazi-era propaganda reels and movies to various pictures taken by correspondents, journalists and soldiers from all sides of the war. (You'd be surprised by how many Germans still think that the Highway was a Nazi-initiated infrastructure programm)." Objectivity can not be known nor is it true in schools. Even if they teach you some truth in school, it is always biased towards the current government and victors. "We are allowed and in some states it's even mandatory to read Mein Kampf(with the caveat that it is commented, but the main text remains unchanged). Of course the teachers will somewhat try to instill their own morals and opinions on the students in this context, but for the most part we're left to make up our own minds." Mandatory reading is stupid and problematic, also having notation for it is extremely stupid. Its not that hard to teach critical thinking using Mein Kampf as an example without any notation, especially since the book constantly undermines its own arguments. And of course if you have any economic, political, historical, or ideological knowledge, its extremely easy to point out how stupid Hitler actually was. Also I don't like the idea of the teachers teaching morals and opinions on students. "I'd like to think this promotes what is considered critical thinking, also I'm unsure when it comes to the semantics of 'critical thinking'" It really doesn't, critical thinking is developed by understanding logic and reason, fallacies and logical consistency, the principles of logical debate are the basis of critical thinking, you don't need a book to teach it, you could use it for an example or reinforcement of critical thinking skills, but reading it in such a biased (and yes, its very biased which harms critical thinking) way does not promote critical thinking.
    1
  1571.  @NothingtoseeHere.Movealong  "I still think that especially in a democracy the morals it 'dictates' or adheres to are reflective of and decided by its population, with people who are considered immoral not being elected into offices. " You don't consider that true by direct opposition to Nazism, you can't argue that the people establish the morality because if you do that then you have no justification for what is moral in another country (or even in history) and can't criticize anyone. As an example you are not allowed to criticize Female Genital Mutilation in another country. You can't stand on a moral platform saying Nazis were bad and then also say morality is determined by democracy. We all know it isn't, if a democracy decides murder is okay, that doesn't make it morally okay. The people do not decide the morality and its foolish to act like we can do that. You have no standard of morality if you do. "Furthermore, I, for my part do not believe in the existence of objective morality, primarily due to the vast breadth of morality systems that exist," Then Nazism can't be wrong in your eyes. This is called cognitive dissonance, you are holding two contradictory ideas at the same time, you can't claim there is an evil that must never be allowed to happen and that morality is subject to the desires of the people, if the people decide what is evil then if the people decide murder or genocide is good, then it is not evil. A society of relative morality does not stand and hence why no society truly believes in relative morality. "although it remains a concept I wish were true." It is, and there is demonstration of it, we already know in our hearts what is good and evil, (as its a gift to know) and by the doctrines of Christianity I stand on I can say absolutely that evil is defined very specifically and particularly and that all men are evil and none are in fact good. That being another reason I will reject moral democracy. (and also why I reject general democracy too) "Morality seems to me be more of a social conteact and aet of rules that people set themselves so as to have a functioning community, atleast that's what antropology leads me to believe." Which isn't true, those taught that philosophy don't understand the nature of man nor are they given experience in the doctrines of moralism. The reason morality exists is to guide the individual to be more righteous and just, and to know how depraved all men really are. That's the purpose morality, to know our depravity. As an extension is enabled kindness and consideration which enables us to deal with each other fairly and honestly and protect ourselves from those who wish to cause us physical harm. "I also believe that the main reason for Nazism and Communism being widely considered immoral nowadays is primarily due to the fall of these systems from government, and not due to beinh inherently wrong." That's not what was said after the war, that doctrine only really came about in the later part of the 20th century and the reason you couldn't do that is because morality is not determined by relative acceptance, we know to a certain degree what is moral because we are given a glimpse of that standard naturally, but without the doctrines of Christ, you can't even understand yourself nor why those systems exist. "Who knows, if Nazism somehow survived as the reigning ideology in Germany I would have very different views(although i probably wouldn't have existed anyway)." It would survived longer because it was designed to outlive Communism, and China is actually Fascist proving that Fascism will always outlive it, also Franco Spain is another good example. (tho it was less Fascistic then China currently is) "Going to a much later paragraphs of yours, you say that all humans are equal, so shouldn't you theoretically oppose ideologies such as Nazism that definitely do not give all humans equal rights? Well, I guess they do to what they define as human." By humans being equal (in spirit) that means all men should be left capable of saying and thinking as they please, they have the right to be what they want and say what they want. Even if they promote ideas of supremacy or oppression over other humans, they have a right to do so. My opposition is to treat them as a man and inform them about the truth and problems with their ideology. "And in my experience there are many ideologies that expouse violence as the way to their goal, be it wanna-be Red Army Faction, neo-nazis, fundamentalists of various religions or other extremists. I think we can all agree that organizations such as ISIS or the Lords Revolutionary Army should be seen as having non-violent ideologies. And who holds the individual responsible, if not the community through the government?" Individual responsibility is under purview of the individual, and no community can be held responsible for the actions of an individual alone. Even those speaking on violence need not be considered if we have the capability of self-defense for no longer can they enact force and violence for a means without push back. (which is why the smart ones take over the government and push gun regulations) "I'm a bit unfamiliar with american definitions of some ideologies. What is libertarianism(did i spell it right?) I know it only so far as to that it's more on the conservative side of the traditional political spectrum and that there are some Republican Representatives that say they are Libertarian. On a sidenote, may I know which branch of Christianity you follow?" Libertarianism in the US is defined more in support of Government Non-Interventionism, and often the abolishment of almost every government authority in the US, most especially economic. Instead we believe that the individual is the only subject capable of operating an economy and society, and that government is wholly incapable at every level of doing so, including at the regulatory level. Most Libertarianism believes in the idea that our government should be limited in scope, taxes, and control over import and export, and should only be capable of a very specific set of systems, usually being immigration/citizenship, tariffs (maybe), and a singular flat tax, and maybe a currency. In many case Libertarians in the US may not align with conservatism or traditionalism because the idea is purely a socioeconomic principle for government behavior, not necessarily a social doctrine. However there are a large amount of traditionalists, especially Christian traditionalists, that reside under some Libertarian principle because of their belief in the rights of the individual and the supremacy of the free market over the government regulations. (especially with how much draconian regulatory power the government has added to it in the past 60 years, our healthcare is one of most overregulated things in the world, more then any western nation, and it makes it totally non-competitive) As for my branch, technically I'm a Presbyterian, but in reality I'm really just a very hardline Non-denominational Calvinist. "While I general share your distaste of democracy due to the necessity of everyone being engaged in politics and not falling prey to demagogues and the need for an educated population was already stated by Plato for Athens, what would you suggest as an alternative? Benevolent dictatorships?" I say a Constitutional Citizen Republic, the expectation is that it will only work for so long if not refreshed in blood, but there is no other manner to eradicate tyranny and ensure the rights of the individual. Personally I'm fine with a libertarian theocratic (as in its understood that the head of state is a representative of God, not that he enforces "God's will" on his people by his decree) monarchy where the people can carry any weapon (or vehicular weapon) and say what they want, but that type of freedom is frowned upon, and in time even that system would fall apart without the doctrine of Christ. "Furthermore, democracy didn't even work out for city-states either, with most of te classical examples of Greece being replaced by oligarchies or monarchies. And the Roman system of appointing a dictator almost never went well, with most instances plunging the republic into civil war or terror, but I get your point" Yeah, its human systems, as Jefferson said, "Liberty must be washed in the blood of patriots and tyrants" but I believe if the citizenry is given capability to defend itself and the responsibility of the society, then of course we can achieve this, it will only fall apart when the nation falls away from the truth.
    1
  1572.  @NothingtoseeHere.Movealong  "I would humbly suggest that much of the American constitution was based heavily on the English one." Not really, the US operated under English law and legal speak, but the Constitution as implemented had nothing to do with the English documents other then inspiration, specifically relating to things like the Magna Carta, but there are no documents that you can point to that define more then inspiration of the American Constitution. The entire document stands on its own. "US Constitution were already in english legal documents." No English document enshrines the rights of every citizen or individual, and none of them recognize inalienable rights to all men being divine in nature. The closest you get is the Magna Carta and that only pertains to Lords, Nobles, and other specific land owners. "it's quite arrogant of you to name other nations as nonsensical messes." I don't think I said nonsensical messes. I don't see it as arrogant anyway since its just plain fact. "And just from a historical perspective, the Weimar Constitution was mostly impressed on Germany by the Entente powers, with alot of somewhat forced input from America, so you can't entirely put the blame on us." I put the blame partly on the American government which I have always had a problem with, and the French and British government has always been made of retards. But the American government even at that time didn't actually believe in the American values, but it is still true that it was based on the American Constitution that was cherrypicked. "Furthermore, if the US Constitution was so finely made, how come Amendments had to be made?" The Constitution was made so to establish a ruleset for states to be able to rule themselves and agree to immediately, the Amendments were designed while the Constitution was being written so that nobody could alienate the rights of the individual after the fact, but they needed a document that explained the rules and process of rulership over the states and how it was to be organized and what it held as its ultimate value first. Hence why the Amendments were written. It was also to allow rules that all the states agree to carry as much power as the Constitution. However the Constitution was designed to both validate and work alongside the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) from the start. "Reading a bit further in your response, saying that we 'stole' ideologies or constitutions" Those are two different things, I never said anyone stole ideologies, but it is made clear that European powers stole the idea of our Constitution, most prime example being France where a lot of European Constitutions were even more directly based on. (which was an entirely cherrypicked version of the US Constitution) "the one for the Bundesrepublic though is distinctly self-made, without interference from the Allied nations that time (considering what a mess the first one was)." Self-made doesn't mean it didn't try to reflect the US. "Furthermore, you're arguments for Europe being a political and military deadweight are also msotly due to American startegic interests." I don't think I called it a political deadweight, but they don't spend that much on the military, which is unjustified since it means our taxes don't even slightly go to our benefit anyway. "Continued American interest in NATO was/is to maintain strategic depths, power projection capabilities and to curb the influence of other global powers." Eh, kinda. "We are also collectively your biggest trading partner, so maintaining cordial relationships seems to be in everyones interest." Honestly trade value doesn't really pertain to nation relations, as China can attest to. Especially if you adopt a free trade policy. "What just startles me is the decision to move the US headquarters for Eurooe out of Germany. All the infrastructure and facilities are already here, why move most of the personnel to new bases? Just fiscally seems weird." The American budget is already beyond anything regular people can pay back, at this point money in our government's eyes doesn't exist. "Also NATO doesn't have a mandatory percentage of GDP that members have to pay for defence expenditure," Actually that is 2% of GDP, it goes unenforced, but the treaty does outline it as 2%. "so your argument saying that Europe doesn't pull it's military weight is also unfounded." Even if the expenditure wasn't in treaty documents, if its paying less then its percentile budget and resources into the alliance, it would still not being pulling its own weight.  "If anything, the NATO alliance has mostly served as a form of legitimization for american-led wars through an international alliance." Eh, I guess, NATO on that front is being abused, personally though I don't believe in state alliances anyway.
    1
  1573.  @NothingtoseeHere.Movealong  "Oh, don't worry, my plinking comment was meant in the case of self-defense only, as you said😅" Fair enough, still its a bit off to talk about in a manner that nears targeting, was a bit confusing to read. "And in regards to relative morality, I am fully aware that I then don't have any 'real' basis for saying that other people's beliefs are evil except for my opinion, but that is all I need." The acceptance of inconsistent worldviews creates social collapse overtime, this is what the removal of moralism has done, because there is no consistent framework for action and ideals which in turn allows anyone to devise their own and try to attack the society. And without an objective standard, you have no justification for authority. And people aren't capable of establishing this for themselves. "I can still criticize the moral systems of others and other countries, even if they in their sense of morality are doing nothing wrong. I do not feel the need for an absolute assurance in my morality system." Using an inconsistent worldview its intellectually dishonest and does not pertain to a reasonable outlook of the world, and a pragmatic argument doesn't cover most forms of morality, and none without an objective standard. Even Nietzsche tried to do this and failed, it drove him insane, and from a logical standpoint within a moral framework you simply can not devise one otherwise. And I feel more secure knowing I have a hardline capability to define what is and isn't moral, it makes it easy to life and know when I am acting in the wrong and when I am acting in the right, I do not question my actions and there is no ambiguity, I (and others) are either in the right in which I will quite literally die for the righteousness, or I am in the wrong and I accept my fallibility and depravity. There is no middle ground. This also enables me to quickly and readily act consistently to any problem or question thrown my way. And if I ever need to question that morality, I question the standards I have individually, which are once again proven to be upheld objectively, and further clarify wisdom and knowledge on the subject. This is what objective morality has given me capability to do, I need not make a single hard decision because all decisions are weighted as either moral or immoral. As well I do not need to question the existence of my morality and have a consistent standard to rebuke others from. (especially without fear inconsistent changing standards that) "And there have been several societies where murder/killing of others was not seen as a moraly objectionable thing, but rather is encouraged. I think if one grows up in a system that encourages such thinking, for example Nazism, your sense of morality might be different." Without an objective moral standard, you can not consistently criticize this, but with the standard that I believe in, I am not only capable of this, nor am I only demanded to stand up, I am even left capable of upholding truth and justice. "I've grown up in a culture and enviroment that has deemed such actions immoral and including my own thoughts and research on the topic so I believe it as such as well. Even the most 'monstruos' of people will believe themselves to be just figures, and according to their sense of morality they might be, even if the majority of people disagree. I do not claim that my sense of morality/moral platform is the only 'true' one, it's just how I see the world." I don't declare my sense of morality as the standard, I declare there is a power above me that has established the rules and told us already what is moral and immoral, and this has even left those who were properly adhering to that morality to realize how much of a monster they were and turn against it. There is no other moral standard that upholds this as a core tenet, though there aren't even any other moral standards that see humans as evil and incapable of good and still puts itself out there to save it. But I would say better not to argue for moral relativism, there is no logical argument you can make to justify it once you start down that road. And besides its not even how any nation lives, the existence of any intersecting laws points to an objective moral standard that's already been de facto accepted, which actually was the Christian moral standard in the west. "Thanks for sharing your denomination, I'll have to read up on presbytarianism. In general I'm unfamiliar with alot of the protestant denominations." Presbyterians can vary a bit more then many other denominations, but generally they are much more true to the Bible then Methodists, Pentecostals, and sometimes even the Baptists, but it does still sorta depend on the leadership. "Hm, would you consider yourself a deontologist regarding moral philosophy?" I don't think honestly I could, this is just a common topic that most true Christians will end up arguing that they need to know how to deal with it, especially with how flippantly prevalent moral relativism is. It doesn't tend to promote very intelligent discussion because as soon as moralism gets brought up, the relativism shuts it down with the claim that "you're standards don't apply and can't apply" as if that argument makes any sense. I'd consider my approach to this be more theological and doctrinal in nature, and most of it isn't really my words, I merely report the Words of God and what he speaks for on the topic. I mean Paul talks extensively on these type of topics, moral relativism is even addressed particularly by him. And that's just a snippet of all the things the Bible says on so many subjects people never realize it addresses. "Edit: Either way, I think we have come upon an impasse, with our differing beliefs in regards to the absolute nature of morality. Still thank you for the discussion. It was quite interesting, if at times somewhat insulting" I don't think I have, but this tends to happen with relativists. And this isn't really that distinct from a debate, politeness is unnecessary in the argumentation of reason and truth and only hinders discussion.
    1
  1574. Three people deserve to be charged with murder and at least 20 years, the swatter, the 19 year old jerk who called the swatter, and the SWAT jerk who pulled the trigger.
    1
  1575. HCQ is a very safe drug, and even more it has been demonstrated to save lives with very little side effects with other diseases, even if it was ineffective there is literally no reason to punish people for promoting it, (not to mention on your death bed who gives a damn about efficacy, if it can save your life, everything else can go to hell) either you believe it is ineffective and don't care, (which case there is no reason to act) or you believe its effective and you want people harmed or dead. You can't presume incompetence over malice in this case because if they were incompetent they wouldn't target a safe drug, I'm starting to see these people as straight up murderers. The FDA should be charged with treason and disbanded, it just ensures a monopoly anyway, and big pharma should be purged.
    1
  1576. Augustine was a lot more influenced by Paul then he ever was of Plato, and Aquinas had a lot more issues with how he addressed reason and logic, but otherwise pretty alright, Ayn Rand is a big jerk though cause she still held the belief that serving others was inherently immoral.
    1
  1577.  @KGFan08  That's not what he's saying, he's arguing its reasonable for women to feel uncomfortable with compliments from someone they are not attracted to, often because women assume men that make compliments to them are interested in them (women being the picky sex usually believe every man wants to sleep with them and subconsciously assume that in most interactions with men) and will pursue a relationship, despite the fact that actually isn't often the case (after all men being visual creatures are interested in sexually attractive women but that is not the end all for most, sex is not the only driving factor) but that's what their natural ego makes them believe.The problem is they're sense of feeling wronged and offense to this ego has been pushed into overdrive in order that they assume an unattractive (to them) man giving them a compliment (and even in some cases attractive men to them too) is equal to harassment and should be a crime. This is the problem, not that women should feel comfortable with someone they consider unattractive but when that happens they should brush it off and consider it an uncomfortable experience to move on from.
    1
  1578. Man of Steel was rather trash, mostly because of Snyder who doesn't know crap about comics, let alone superheroes, and he definitely shouldn't have been directing a Superman film. (granted it is superior to DC/Marvel woke trash, but that's not a high bar)
    1
  1579. Because Daily Wire is controlled opposition, always has been, if you listen to Ben Shapiro's takes outside of wokeness, he's worse then John McCain, actually worse then Fox News.
    1
  1580. Many people are ignoring the fact that this is what causes revolution, violence will unfortunately be the inevitable result of this fact.
    1
  1581. I don't recall anyone being called a soyboy for those reason, usually its because they act feminine, submissive, highly neurotic, highly emotional, and acts subservient to their wife. (or they're a cuck or support cuckoldry) Since when has anyone called someone a soyboy merely for being considerate or reasonable? I can't recall. The most common groups of people that even use that phrasing (beyond shitposting and roasting which I'm not really sure when Adam would have time to associate with such groups) refer to those with high self-control and reasonableness as exclusively good things for which don't include soyboys.
    1
  1582. A lot of people also forget about private charity and private advantage too, you could feasibly make a product or service for which does not intend to receive profit for its own reasons.
    1
  1583. Its easier to relate to a character when they relate to your physical traits in some manner, not to mention in a medieval fantasy RPG based in almost exclusively European (inspired) mythos it just makes sense for the characters to also appear European. Also who the hell cares. Also honestly, I wouldn't give a crap about it being a joke, there isn't a good justification for making a joke like this belittling your audience over analytics, I would rather bash Larian for pointing out they wasted development time, but whatever, I don't give enough of a damn for it.
    1
  1584. That troll ending while shilling skillshare was great. ;D This is such a refreshing channel.
    1
  1585. As a Reformed Christian and a former Catholic, I can't tell if the code of ethics is a joke or not, a lot of them are good but then I see something like "don't move someone to laughter" and now it feels like a Puritan being hyper-legalistic completely ignoring that Yahweh is also the God of comedy. Also I refuse to be buried dead because I don't want people worshiping or even acknowledging my dead body.
    1
  1586. ​ @Komatik_  That doesn't change the position, asceticism is still a heresy.
    1
  1587. It was already ruled twice now by a federal judge that J6 "trespassing" couldn't have been a crime because a reasonable person could not have distinguished whether they had permission to enter the building. Which as consequence means that its by definition entrapment and a crime to punish J6 protestors simply for "trespassing".
    1
  1588. Whether it does or not, liberty is about personal self-autonomy.
    1
  1589. Just to point out there is a difference between classical liberal and social liberal, social liberals (who don't really follow the concept of being a liberal but whatever) are the leftist methodologies that want social democracy to socialism, who believe in collective groups lacking any individual thought, and disagree with dissent, classical liberals are the free liberty types of the 19th and 20th centuries, the classical liberals in the US more so align with libertarianism now because the left leaning authoritarians politics hijacked the term. Truth be told the right appears to be the side more focused on true anarchial systems and anarchial ways of thinking while the left is authoritarian, the "right wing" authoritarians aren't even about right wing concepts, they align more with left winged politics and merely perceive things from a more centrist extreme type of view, like they believe in marxist control of the markets but instead insist upon ethnic and racial exclusion instead of pure egalitarianism, both manners are insane but that's not a right wing extreme, that's a centrist extreme, right wing extreme would be pure anarchy without backbone.
    1
  1590. "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne Excerpt Meditation XVII "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. " - John 3:16
    1
  1591.  @Senzeni  Technically they were both slang words until the original associations started using them, and then they stopped, however they were at one point canonized as official terms for the sports, least until the modern professional leagues were developed.
    1
  1592.  @5226-p1e  The founding fathers hated democracy, the US is intended to be anti-democratic, the Electoral College and Senate were never supposed to be democratic at all.
    1
  1593. The point of Marx was that any "Jewish religion" (as in any religion based on what he saw as Judaism) is heathenry to the Socialist religion, he was advocating the Jews (and those of the "Jewish religions") to abandon their religion and adopt the Marxist religion , and if they did not they should be exterminated. Its quite interesting how often the atheist religions adopt more heavy handed inquisitions then the Catholic church ever did.
    1
  1594. If something is just as good, you don't need to say its "just as good", if a game or its mechanics are good, you wouldn't need preface it with "for a Bethesda game".
    1
  1595.  @skeetskeet9403  "well, why did the Android's Binder IPC being rewritten in Rust not lead to a change in performance if Rust is fundamentally slower?" And how was this benchmarked? By what metric have you actually tested this? Further still what techniques were used to attain that speed? Because using the Rust library and Rust infrastructure directly will cost you performance because it is more disconnected from the memory architecture then C++ inherently requiring techniques to recapture these systems which requires way more additional thought. Rust is more abstracted from the memory infrastructure and it absolutely does not believe in no cost abstractions (its memory architecture makes that quite clear) nor does it believe in not paying for what you don't use, it believes in declarations of safety over performance, all safety costs performance of some kind, I'm not even considering the compile-time performance cost, there is inherently a developer disconnect from memory in Rust compared to C++ as a result. Rust is inherently not capable to build as lean by default as C/C++ because of its emphasis on safety over everything else, that doesn't mean it can't be lean at all, that's not the issue. As demonstrated in this example, its requirement that many operations be "safe" absolutely will cost you in the marginal cases that require immense performance. And it doesn't make it remotely easy to escape this, and when you leave that pretty much every capacity to be safe is also lost resulting in those paths being even more bug ridden because Rust is not designed to be easy to intuitively understand once you remove the safety systems it has.
    1
  1596.  @jusss31  Well that wasn't a destructive device anymore then loading a microwave with tannerite is a destructive device.
    1
  1597.  @wintergirll  He was only convicted of giving an underage girl alcohol, and its fairly reasonable that he could be convicted without knowing her actual age. The girl had to retract every other claim and he wasn't convicted on anything else.
    1
  1598.  @matthewloma1215  The conviction as far as I know wasn't on the text, I would say its probably he was being convicted on it, but I do doubt the convict would be as clear cut as giving her alcohol would've been, (least with US law, its hard to nail it down texts as much as alcohol) but yeah it seems weirder only in the assumption that he knew her age, (and its not surprising in internet/texting era for girls to easily fake their age, even legit seeming fake ids are still trivial as hell to get) which from what we know he shouldn't have at the time, and since the girl retracted all the other claims aside from the texts, I'm way more willing to believe the him since he's shown a more legit character in everything else and didn't refute the whole of the situation.
    1
  1599.  @gottesurteil3201  Just to point out that specifically freezing/unaliving of inseminated eggs for IVF is still opposition of Christian values because every inseminated egg is a human fetus which makes freezing/unaliving of them inherently anti-life by Christian doctrine. Regardless no Christian would do this, the reinforcing of murder wouldn't make any sense.
    1
  1600.  @jamilvints  Hebrews 11 says otherwise.
    1
  1601. Ironic that they're bullying themselves because they're such weak pricks.
    1
  1602. "He seems like a republican" Asmon is such an idiot, this dude is a hard leftist, he hated the republican.
    1
  1603.  @Asdasdas1337  Type strictness and RAII pretty much solves all the safety problems in a simpler, more performant, and more direct fashion without making the system for less safe execution harder and less safe. (in fact RAII and type strictness can inherently make even C code more safe, as well as being trivial to compile with) Never once have I seen a safety issue personally when using C++ features properly, every time I see a safety concern, its been over some fool using C functionality in C++, like scanf, printf, strlen, or something just as unsafe and type-loose. Even more with concepts and constraints, and especially with modules coming to mostly replace header files, the only problem with the templating system in C++ will also disappear, that being that you have to do everything that isn't full types in header files. (even better that we'll no longer need declaration and definitions) Unfortunately we can't use that on every platform yet, GCC and MSVC support it but Apple's LLVM is still kinda busted, but those are merely the final conveniences on C++17, even in C++11 RAII and type strictness work perfectly fine.
    1
  1604. ​ @Asdasdas1337  Type strictness and RAII pretty much solves all the safety problems in a simpler, more performant, and more direct fashion without making the system for less safe execution harder and less safe. (in fact RAII and type strictness can inherently make even C code more safe, as well as being trivial to compile with) Never once have I seen a safety issue personally when using C++ features properly, every time I see a safety concern, its been over some fool using C functionality in C++, like scanf, printf, strlen, or something just as unsafe and type-loose. Even more with concepts and constraints, and especially with modules coming to mostly replace header files, the only problem with the templating system in C++ will also disappear, that being that you have to do everything that isn't full types in header files. (even better that we'll no longer need declaration and definitions) Unfortunately we can't use that on every platform yet, GCC and MSVC support it but Apple's LLVM is still kinda busted, but those are merely the final conveniences on C++17, even in C++11 RAII and type strictness work perfectly fine.
    1
  1605.  @Asdasdas1337  Type strictness and RAII pretty much solves all the safety problems in a simpler, more performant, and more direct fashion without making the system for less safe execution harder and less safe. (in fact RAII and type strictness can inherently make even C code more safe, as well as being trivial to compile with) Never have I seen a safety issue personally when using C++ features properly, every time I see a safety concern, its been over some dope using C functionality in C++, like scanf, printf, strlen, or something just as unsafe and type-loose. Even more with concepts and constraints, and especially with modules coming to mostly replace header files, the only problem with the templating system in C++ will also disappear, that being that you have to do everything that isn't full types in header files. (even better that we'll no longer need declaration and definitions) Unfortunately we can't use that on every platform yet, GCC and MSVC support it but Apple's LLVM is still kinda busted, but those are merely the final conveniences on C++17, even in C++11 RAII and type strictness work perfectly fine.
    1
  1606.  @CD-vb9fi  Nah, you assume a lot of me, nothing about what I said supports that interpretation.
    1
  1607.  @CD-vb9fi  "You said you didn't see a problem with government play "boom" with civilian lives." I didn't say this.
    1
  1608.  @CD-vb9fi  "You said you don't have a problem with this." Contextomy and strawman fallacy. You didn't even bother to read the whole of what I wrote. Just as much as its in the right of civilians to own explosives unregulated as government, anything the government can own, the civilians shall own unrestricted, anything the civilians own unrestricted, the government shall own unrestricted. Everyone has a right to all weaponry unrestricted. "Criminals are still civilians unless you are trying to reclassify them into something else." A criminal who puts people's lives in danger has forfeit his right to live, he has no rights anymore, any means that will exterminate him and save lives without killing anyone else is acceptable, anyone who commits murder must die, anyone who commits rape must die, any justice system that fails to perform this act is evil and is inherently oppressive and hates human life. "I also went on to explain how people like you intentionally look the other way when government abuses these things." I don't, I call out said abuses, but keep telling yourself that. Not like it matters anyway because it an ad hominem and guilt by association fallacy anyway. "Remember my comment about how many people government will need to genocide before folks like you even start to wake up?" Your speaking fallaciously and other nonsense, I haven't bothered to consider most of what you've said because you didn't bother to consider any of what I've said and then made assumptions about me and my position. You saw "I don't mind the government having this capability" that you completely ignored the fact I had a designated if statement that clarified a standard that no modern government follows anyway. "You are the quintessential "government worshiper" everything they do is okay so long as they "pinky swear" they won't use the power you idiotically give them except in "emergency" situations." Again I never said this. Strawman fallacy. You didn't even bother to read what I wrote. "Where government is concerned... YOU are their enemy, and you YOU keep giving them more power." I haven't given them anything, the state and civilians should be equal in capacity for all acts, everything the state can own the civilians must be capable to own, anything the state can do, the civilians must be capable to do as well. Any state that prohibits this is inherently tyrannical and must be exterminated without remorse, (and all its actors must promptly be punished if they were involved) anyone who allows this promotes and supports tyranny. Anyone that allows the government to intervene in the lives of the individual is supporting tyranny. Any tyrant government must be destroyed, burned to the grown, and any society that supports such a government must be judged to suffer for their evil. If it is tyrannical government that will judge and kill them, then so be, they asked for it, but I'm not complicit in any of this. "I wonder how long it will take before people like you are okay with the police calling in drone strikes on situations that are "emergencies"" If I have the capacity to use a drone as a weapon unregulated, I don't care if the government can do so as well. "I am sure they will "pinky swear" to not abuse that one as well. But then again... maybe you like the idea of your fellow citizens being classified as enemies of the state if they vote the wrong way?" Voting systems are tyrannical anyway, the whole concept of the social contract was a mythological and religious lie to enslave people anyhow. Only a king and his subordinates given this power can perform justice, those who are put in power by democracy can never perform justice for they either fear the people too much to ever use power or they grow an unmanageable corruption in secret, any republic or democracy that has corruption can not be fixed, the only fix for these corrupt democracies and republics is to burn them all down, and corruption like this is inevitable and appears in a very short term period, if a republic returns it will suffer the same fate, a republic can not last long because it has no power to eliminate corruption. Thus all republics and all democracies inherently tyrannical.
    1
  1609. Do keep in mind people used to pay upwards of $15,000 or more just for the verified checkmark, so it clearly had worth to those type of people. (granted that $15,000 was not a public figure, it was via corporate fraud quid pro quo type stuff, yes anyone should've been capable to be verified, but verified was fraudulently locked behind a paywall, it had no incentive to be done well)
    1
  1610. We should kill the government monopoly on everything, this is immoral, this is evil, this is socially lethal.
    1
  1611. I get the issue, but I despise outright crashing users, sounds like the bottles devs are lazy gits that don't actually understand how to design software for users, there a plenty of more effective ways to prevent users reporting the problems to you before you resort to crashing the program.
    1
  1612. Honestly this dude is just a nutcase with no reason. I also find it funny how little polygamists have for the psychological health of women, the fact he was a polygamist just adds to his nuttery tho. This guy seems more like a hedonist then anything tbh. Nice vod tho.
    1
  1613. Styx, have you seen out the site Sargon started using, Subscribestar? It still has a overburdening abuse clause in its ToS, (and an anti-immoral clause) but better then outright being banned off Paetron. I suppose.
    1
  1614. [](auto value){}() Immediately invoked lambdas are actually exceedingly useful to get performance and take advantage of compile-time effects.
    1
  1615. Honestly I have to wonder the brain of some FOSS folks, I love FOSS, I'm a fanatic of it, (though I'm an unlicensed anti-IP law kind of fanatic of FOSS, which means I also hate GPL) but if you don't have an existing financial scheme to provide for yourself or job, that's your fault. Aaron Swatz's criminal trial is insane and I think everyone involved should be executed for "a perversion of justice from authority" (and yes I think all perversions of justice from authority should be swiftly and ruthlessly executed) but what he did was thievery and vandalism, nobody is obligated to give you information, I agree we should be free to volunteer our information, but nobody else is obligated to give that information to you, that doesn't make you morally right. Just because information itself can't be owned does not mean the means to acquire, use, and abuse said information is free to you.
    1
  1616.  @gg_ingy  You don't understand what that analogy even means do you? Are you a fool?
    1
  1617. Why the heck wouldn't you just buy two pairs of "barefoot" shoes if you're gonna be this dumb?
    1
  1618. "I hate Corona" this aged like fine wine.
    1
  1619. I really want to see prime checkout C3, not necessarily use it as a big thing yet, as its still way more alpha then Zig, but I think given Prime's position on Zig, he'll love C3.
    1
  1620. You know the funny thing is that the world of 1984 and A Brave New World are both demonstrative dystopias produced of post-modernist worldviews. Generally modernist dystopias are harder to craft fictionally but they tend to fit more in line with the Nazi worldview then 1984 managed to. Another funny thing about Orwell was his admiration for socialism despite the largest socialist empires, which evolved into their current states as a result of socialism, being absolute hellscapes that ruled out all independence and thought, which is funny enough at the core of half or Orwell's writings.
    1
  1621.  @marconatrix  I have, but Orwell was simply put a socialist, iirc despite being an atheist he also went to church, he didn't really act or live consistently if that's true.
    1
  1622.  @fegeleindux3471  "Fins loved the T34 (they had only two of them and they lasted the whole war)" This is fairly irrelevant to the argument. Most of their warfare success had nothing to do with tanks and they had little reason to rely on tanks, they wouldn't have notable experience evaluating the best tanks for any job. "Italy also copied the T34" I don't recall success with tanks being what the Italians were known for historically in WWII. Copying a design does not mean the design was good, it maybe meant they thought it was good but Italy was notorious for bad infrastructure and bad industry even during WWII, as best it suggests it was the best tank they could manage to build with crap industry and crap infrastructure. And again, Italy's prowess regarding every front with all its divisions was always overshadowed by the Germans, it was often said by British leadership that if the Italians had proper equipment, they'd have been much better fighters then the Germans, the operative piece being that they never had proper equipment. "after they captured one and even the Germans changed their tank's hull with the Panther which was an evolved giant T34" This doesn't necessarily suggest the tank hull even was better, it could just as well be that it was cheaper to produce as Germany was running out of iron and coal. (not that they actually were but that German logistics broke down creating resource rations for things that were even plentiful in the country) "while the British still operated boxed tanks (Cromwell and Comet with no slope and some of them still used shitty bolts which could be dangerous for the crew, the first Shermans were also inferior to the T34 althought the later versions were good competitive workhorses similar to the T34 in industrial philosophy" Being cheaper doesn't outright mean better, generally nations only start thinking that way when they run out (or think they're running out) of resources, but when they have the resources, usually the most tested systems are developed. Though that may not always be the case, especially when you get ideological and drive out meritocracy, which to be fair all the nations of WWII did so its hard to say any of the tanks had any real merit behind them. "The Lend-Lease program was helpful but not fundamental in winning the war, it amounted for 20% of the Soviet industrial output," This is just outright false, without external support, the Russian military would never have been able to turn the tide at all since they were wholly incapable of independent production for much of the the precursor, it was a lot more then 20% at the breaking of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Russia most certainly didn't have enough functioning industry at the start. And even after the declaration they still did not have the resources nor personnel to resist until about 43. Russian personnel initially openly talked about how the west saved them and only later were they forced stop speaking about it. The rest of this was more less irrelevant.
    1
  1623.  @strategicperson95  Its always great when two historians agree on basic premises without ever really knowing anything about each other all simply because they notice and demonstrate the facts.
    1
  1624. You know the dumb thing? Identity politics, if it were rationally consistent, would conclude individualism, but they not even smart enough to get there, let alone actually follow through.
    1
  1625. Its sort of understandable maybe if you're a frontend dev dealing with users that can't do much of anything technical and may complain about issues wrongly and really easily without attempting to solve it, which AppImage sort of is, but the problem here is that that's most certainly no way to treat someone who is skilled or competent at the technical side, especially when you're already being toxic by just pumping and dumping your kind of stupid version of Flatpaks. (not to say those who use it are stupid, but it really is a worse alternative to a problem that flatpak specifically solved way better)
    1
  1626.  @ValdVincent  Look up "How bad were medieval teeth" from Modern History TV.
    1
  1627.  @ValdVincent  "Anyone that sites third hand sources is Vox Nihili" First off its cite, if you're gonna be a pedantic fool, at least learn how to spell basic words. Secondly literally no historical study would nor can approach third hand sources that way. "You don't site 3rd's, nor are you allowed to in academia if you want to be taken seriously" That's not remotely true and that aside that's hypocritical. "I don't know how you passed high school let alone college, you site authority as a fallacy even, there isn't even such a thing as a "Historian."" Okay cool, commit an ad hominem fallacy and then accuse me of appeal to authority fallacy that I never made, you're also committing the fallacy fallacy. I didn't appeal to authority, I merely made reference to someone who I know for a fact is trustworthy on the subject, compared to you who I can absolutely tell you've not read a single source of medieval history. Also are we pulling the "historians are a social construct" crap now? "I and you are both Historians if called such by our self or others." No, being called a historian does not make you one, the subjectivist argument is a ridiculous fallacy and always devolves into absurdist positions, it is not possible to make a rational argument on the basis of such titles not being objectively defined. But you don't understand logical conclusions anyway so I suppose that just appears to be nonsense to you.
    1
  1628. 2nd Amendment would've been really useful for SA right about now.
    1
  1629.  @derikuk2967  ZA? And fixing violence is only really about executing criminals and arming the civilian population, when everyone is armed, nobody is unequal, its extremely hard to terrorize a population that's armed to the teeth, granted so long as some people actually care about their neighbors or community, which most people usually do. An organized armed civilian population is quite effective.
    1
  1630. V8 is honestly trash, and Google always makes it worse.
    1
  1631.  @Mr-Trox  Actually tbf, military psychology in the sense of training someone to not be a person didn't much exist before the Victorian era, like Rome never really promoted the idea that they were less then human to their soldiers, instead they just got their soldiers to disregard all human life.
    1
  1632. Should've also pointed out that by generating wealth they allowed themselves and those that were able to gain from said advancements could both volunteer and afford to volunteer time and money into people who were less fortunate even while they were brought up better then their fathers. The state has never been able to decrease issues of poverty like voluntary charity has, religious charity at that usually.
    1
  1633. Oh Thank God, out of such a nightmare scenario, having a dedicated enough father for that is at least a glimmer of hope for this event.
    1
  1634.  @carculturenation2166  Truth be told, this is the reason age of consent laws make no sense, I don't see how the age different in mid to upper teens makes a difference in anything especially when its a very natural for younger women to go with older men even at younger ages. It makes no sense as well to me because I don't see sex between say a 15 year old and an 18 year old as any different morally compared to sex outside of wedlock of any other age range. Sex outside of wedlock in all circumstances is evil, wrong, and destructive, its not consistent and can't be logically enforced by any sense by the law and can't represent justice. And to clarify so someone doesn't take the inevitable direction of guilt by association, it is not that I agree with the pedophile mindset that I hate age of consent, I hate it because there is no logical, biological, nor otherwise consistent manner for which such concepts can exist nor be enforced by, you end up describing rules with so much nuance eventually that there exists no more distinct rule for any circumstance and have to make it up practically on the fly. Age is not a consistent metric for any individual, two individuals living to the age of 15 can share completely different levels of psychology and biology like maturity in both, it is easier if we rely on more solid forms of protecting the innocent, problem is if a 15 year old perform such acts they're no more innocent and I don't see how they're a victim, unless we argue that such ages can't victimize others which is logical nonsense given we will convict them for crimes otherwise. The fact of the matter they committed an act, had crap parents that didn't oversee their acts and behavior who did not protect them and raise them properly, and engage with someone into an act that they both were entirely willing and able to an extent to understand, it doesn't matter if the gravitas of the situation is not fully understood, that argument doesn't stand when up to the age of 25 that same argument holds true for men at least, with some still never grasping it beyond that age. That then can't be argument for that rule. So what argument do you have? It is logical nonsense, fallacious even, that a 15 or 16 year old could have sex with someone only slightly older but because of a birthday or lack thereof the other person must be a piece of crap. Either both of them are pieces of crap for having sex or neither of them because we all are pieces of crap, you don't get to be selective about that.
    1
  1635. I think swatting should be a capital punishment, you are seeking the death of someone, your life should be taken.
    1
  1636. Far right mostly just means fiscally conservative most of the time, a lot of the parties aren't all that right wing.
    1
  1637. Regulations on what we are allowed to do is an infringement indistinguishable from state sponsored murder.
    1
  1638. Welcome to the world where the US lost the Cold War, the Communists have already won. Silicon Valley is a communist "utopia", Twitter was caught wasting investor money on giving people months of paid leave for no reason, and Facebook, Google, and TikTok are just glorified government spyware
    1
  1639.  @spitepouch  "What does that girl have to gain from lying?" #MeToo was majority of the time lies or gross exageration, you don't believe someone just because they're a woman, that's sexist and unequal weights and measures. Justice can't be blind if you do this, you are immoral by saying this. She gains clout and power by it, she also gains attention, something all young girls and even many women seek. If you think a woman wouldn't do anything to attention from someone you don't understand women. "Aside from people like you calling her a liar and treating her like crap for the rest of her life" How is questioning her accusations treating her like a liar and like crap? She could be convinced to say such things, or she could be lying, but that's not for us to decide, and its not like questing her accusations of being possibly or probably false doesn't mean we are treating her like crap. Its people like you that allow children to be seized by crap mothers who abuse their children over responsible fathers who worry about their child's wellbeing. I was in this exact circumstance at one point, my mother accused my dad of many things for literally no reason, in her case she was sick in the head and gained nothing by it, and the courts still almost sided with her. You don't get to "trust women" just because they have boobs and a womb, they're just as human as men. "It's not like Drake Bell is some affluent celebrity who remains in the public eye." Presumption of innocence. Literal basic 101 of justice. You are a hypocrite, I could accuse you of abuse and so long as I'm a woman I'd have no questions against me in that worldview. This is immoral, unjust, and plain foolish of an argument. "Taking him down offers nothing." How do you know? You don't live in her head, false accusations aren't under scrutiny of motivation, they're under scrutiny because of the presumption of innocence. Else innocent people will be put in jail for crimes they did not commit. The basis of law is the Blackstone Ratio: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." "Women he's dated going as far back as high school have spoken about how abusive he is with, again, no incensive except for public scrutiny and accusations of lying." Yet they never provided evidence and they have incentive to dogpile for attention. There are plenty of reasons they could but that's not the point, we don't ask whats the motive of the accuser, we ask whether what they accused happened. I hope you don't experience the dogpile of a woman accusing you or any of your loved ones of rape for no reason what so ever. Do you not think his exs wouldn't want to attack him and destroy him more if they didn't already despise him? Revenge is validation enough to destroy someones life to lots of people, you're doing it right now despite having no stake. Vengeance isn't yours, that view of your is what will condemn you to hell should you not repent.
    1
  1640.  @Frip36  A government has no obligation to compete, they shouldn't compete, and there is nothing that gives them the right to compete, that is reserved for the private market which they are not a part of and share no benefit of and generally accost more then anything else. The government is in place for its only purpose to punish the wicked and protect the innocent, it should not achieve that through means that encourage success at all costs, (innocent being massively more important then getting anyone who is guilty, not a single innocent should be accosted for a guilt and suffering ever else the system has failed) if innocent suffer then the government failed and is committing tyrannical acts, even one case is a failure worth executions over.
    1
  1641.  @franciscomoutinho4390  Because he's a soviet sympathizer (Tankie) and uses fallacies and disingenuous assault on speech to try and spread his message, he's kinda worse then Vaush.
    1
  1642. Just because it may be decentralized in the sense of being multiple institutions doesn't guarantee that (even as you imply such) and in such cases that voluntary association would still be functionally a common man's state institution, even the patchwork of institutions might still rightly be considered that. This is kind of an issue with using definitions that aren't even from a native English tongue. As well it kinda seems like most "ancaps" don't put much time actually communicating to non-"ancaps" outside of oppositional forces at best, in which they just accept the principal of "they wouldn't understand our definitions anyway", it should not take a common man a decade of reading to understand your arguments, most of them are simple and just full of overcomplication.
    1
  1643.  @Jennthegreen  Then you're a fool, men and women are not equal, women are designed for a purpose, feminism is a residing with the demonic for it guides women to think they are better without a reliance on men, but they are named after men, she is woman for she came from man, she is his helper and he is to rule over her, this is the good design, and no woman can be enraptured in a joy by killing her womanly design, this is what marriage is for, that man would be assisted by woman and that woman would be that which helps him, for that is her purpose. "Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." - Genesis 2:18-25 "To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” - Genesis 3:16
    1
  1644. @TimPoolWithoutTheBeanie Men can have kids in their 70s and 80s, women cannot have kids past their 40s if they're extremely lucky. (and of the rare few women who can, it puts them at massive medical risk, funny enough a women who has a lot of kids can actually delay menopause)
    1
  1645. My problem with this is more so that the slide is conflating requirements with complexity reduction but those aren't even remotely the same thing, they have no relation but he just makes everyone assume it is, if the issue is complexity that hides issues, the answer isn't to document the complexity, its to ensure the complexity is as small as possible, requirements don't ensure this. I can totally understand Linux not serving this purpose, maybe a Linux-like kernel/system could, something that emulates it but in a highly simplified manner, but the argument that you could fit Linux into this seems incredibly flawed to me especially if we're gonna justify it by requirements.
    1
  1646. Now I want to make an NPC costume. I didn't even want to dress up for Halloween but now...
    1
  1647.  @4thzone697  "and how is the search for a submissive wife going? No self respecting woman would willingly make themselves a serf of their husbands, especially not in the name of a fictitious religion." Given that the Bible and history demonstrate the opposite, you are already incorrect but secondly "make themselves a serf" is a strawman. Are we serfs and slaves to the government? Are you arguing that every government enslaves its people? So are we to live without government? But would not authorities rise up, just or not, to perform the exact duty in according to their whims? Is the government not put in authority over us? Do they not have jurisdiction to protect and guide in manner of what is right and wrong in society by justice? What about your parents? Do you argue that children never listen to their parents? Do we argue they spit in their face and oppose their parents in everything they do? If man is put under authorities everywhere else, how is the household not an authority to be put under just as God had us to be. Your logic makes no sense, its inconsistent and clearly just an attempt to degenerate your opposition without even a basic self-reflection. Unless of course you argue for lawlessness, that you oppose all authority and say both children and government be abolished, you can not state this claim. As for "fictious religion" you didn't refute what I said. A claim of understanding is not attained by a belief of understanding, its attained by an adherence to seeking truth. If you sought truth you wouldn't have made such a flimsy case but you don't seek truth and only wish to glorify yourself, to please and pleasure both yourself and those who witness what you said that see the world as you do, none of it stems from reason, none of it stems from morals, and none of it stems from this fairness you implicitly accept. One that makes no sense because you can't even speak to that which defines a value for life, why do you consider value inherent? That's not an inherently defined concept and you can't accept it as a position of your foundation. If its not an inherent position why do you assume that we must be fair to anyone, let alone women, and not force them into serfdom in the first place? You don't have a foundation for that, you don't get to make that claim. What is our service towards? How do we define life in such a way that you you can actually tell me I'm wrong? For your claims to stand this must be answered. "that’s a lot of words to say you have no proofs, beyond some abstract concepts of faith. You claim of empirical proofs, provide them then." Should I give a blind man, who can not read, written notes? Should I speak to a deaf man by covering my mouth? How do you expect me to communicate to you empirical proofs when you don't have the mind to understand what I give you? All evidence, all proof, all things, they are interpreted by faith, even just the faith that tomorrow will be the same as today, and faith that what we empirically analyze is consistent enough to always be true. Even this basic concept is faith for we could not even live in a world without such. There however is no proof I could give you that guarantees that from where you stand, there is nothing that absolutely tells me from that view that what I measure is all there is to measure and that it will always measure the same. We presume this case every moment of life we live. I have proofs for which I know those things to be true but you can't receive them because you have no spirit to do such. If the evidences of Creation and Word of the Savor, by the mouth of the Prophets and Disciples, would not save you then no amount of evidences would ever convince you. "And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” - Luke 16:24-31
    1
  1648.  @bobmularky7456  DCAU Wally West is what most people like, for comics its a lot less decided.
    1
  1649. "Nvidia graphics drivers are generally better, generally easier to use, and generally come out quicker" Yeah, so long as you're on Windows maybe, but take even one step off Windows and they literally never work, suck to use, and are slower then molasses if they even ever provide anything for you. Nvidia functionally hates all non-Windows users with a passion, they've intentionally gone out of their way to spite non-Windows users to an unnecessary degree. And especially nowadays, their DirectX performance is still trash compared to AMD's Vulkan performance.
    1
  1650. Its the fault of disparate impact law.
    1
  1651. Monopolies only happen because a monopoly came in to enforce the monopoly by force, the government is that monopoly, without the government getting involved, there is no monopoly and any business that detriments the interests of those in the market would immediately die. The solution is not more government intervention, its less, big companies die quick, small companies die slow. Basic economics. Also Asmon is objectively wrong, government doesn't exist for your safety, its there to punish those who would violate justice, not for the sake of those who would follow it but only for the sake of those who don't, anyone who doesn't understand this justifies authoritarianism and tyranny, there is no way to ensure the safety of the public without totalitarianism and socialism, that which are already living under in the US, (for the US government is a syndicalist government, it already owns the means of production as do all modern states) which means you do not own your home, you do not own your children, you don't own your labor, and you don't own your own body, everything is decided by the state and only the state and nothing shall be against the state. For the state is the society, the market, the nation, the people, and the community, it should not be such but that's what you've made it as, when one says any of these words or synonyms, know that you are saying state/government and not any reflection of individuals or groups outside that metric, and using it to deflect the wrongness of your terms is fallacious and foolish. No if we lived without this government tyranny, we would be free to own that which we labored for, that's private property, if you pay rent on a property you do not own it, a tax on property is rent, not even a property may be owned hence why they tax it, neither your labor for income tax is owed to the state. You want to know how to ensure people stay safe without government intervention into everything? Simple: If one devises a product or service they are held in responsibility for in which the subject buyer is unable to know of the damages presented by the product or service to their existence and for which they used properly and appropriately and they end up dead, every single contributor to the creation and sale of that product or service should be executed. If it merely harms them, they are punished in a manner to avenge the harmed sevenfold, finances should be under provision in accordance to all their costs accrued as a result of the harm including medical bills, job loss, and beyond. If the damage is so extreme as to mangle a survivor than the execution of the producers and sellers is still on the table. There need be no protection laws, for even the mere risk of infringement will potentially open you up to execution, and yet confident knowledge of avoidance will keep things at the right balance. Extraordinary circumstance that the producers and sellers did not have capacity to account for means also they aren't always held responsible, but are dealt with fairly just as the subject buyer is dealt with fairly. Justice must never be partial to a side before the evidence of guilt is presented to the accused for which the accused can not refute.
    1
  1652.  @jonnyso1  "The Rust standard library is build on top of a lot of "unsafe" code that if turned out to be unsound, would fail all the assumptions everyone that depends on it." That's not actually true though, safety isn't the issue for that point, its semantics, there is nothing in the standard library that would violate those assumptions because the the unsafe behavior below Rust is preserved through the legacy of the C standard library which is always backwards compatible, and if those semantics were to change it will break Rust. I don't expect the Rust standard library to either change semantics unless it wants to break all preexisting code, the C and C++ standard library is full of deprecations they can't get rid of for a reason, unless Rust does that it would fail to be a usable systems language at all. "if you change it we'll be the ones responsible for keeping up with it, just document your stuff properly" But that requires nearly as many Rust contributors just doing that as C ones, every change needs to be managed by both a Rust and C developer then. (and if that fails, Rust will break) Maintenance to that level is an unmanageable problem without a tool that forces it, which the kernel devs cannot use. (and I speak that from experience, even on a small level maintaining that is an impossible and often stupid task)
    1
  1653.  @jonnyso1  Maybe it could work, but in my experience managing a FOSS project of nowhere near comparable size to the Linux kernel, (and doesn't need nearly as many guarantees as the kernel does of course either) even having full control over the project managing compatibility with legacy behavior, especially when the language you use doesn't natively provide any semantic awareness, is an absolute nightmare, semantics behavior that is changed by internal behavior changes to a function pretty much throws the entire semantics guarantee out the window, (it could become downright impossible in some cases to work out correct semantics) while I do agree that it should be documented, if you expected someone else to manage accounting for those changes, I am willing to bet a lot of people will have burnout, and if that happens to enough folks, it could kill development to either the Linux kernel or the Rust side and if the Rust side burns out then adding Rust to the kernel will have objectively been a mistake. It then becomes a case of who has the harder head.
    1
  1654.  @kreuner11  But those sames checks can and have already been done in freestanding C++ implementations, (and I would prefer C++ just because those implementations can also come with user policy control) so it doesn't make Rust any better at it, and its not the only example of a systems language that's done that.
    1
  1655. If someone has an incentive regarding something as a form of reliance, they aren't worth considering for anything.
    1
  1656.  @andrescruz9741  The Law part however violates the basis and spirit of the US Constitution and rights of man because we were infiltrated by communist narcissists.
    1
  1657.  @bobmurphy9686  No, that's pretty standard historically, its actually uncommon for the upper classes to be in decent contact with the lower classes, its exceptionally rare because most historical class systems were functionally caste systems and communicating with them was often of little consequence, rising out of your class was exceptionally rare, modern class systems are a late Christian development.
    1
  1658. I will always have a problem with the communist nature of post-Hegelian governments.
    1
  1659. Bruh I'm 26, even with the beard I still look like I'm in my early 20s, my sister whose 24 looks like shes still 16, (her bar buddies joke about this every so often, if she goes somewhere unfamiliar she'll always get carded) my family is just built different.
    1
  1660. Ginger being an anagram is some high level noticing.
    1
  1661. Just to note (not sure about the others) Treasure Planet's failure was quite literally self-inflicted and deliberately employed, it failed because Disney executives didn't want to give their promises to the two writers of many of their best titles preceding it, to prevent a resurgence of the tech the film employed and to kill the 2D animation for some more following years, they sabotaged Treasure Planet at every turn, to the point that they even deliberately pushed back its theatrical release to be between two blockbusters alongside spending nearly nothing in marketing. The only good thing left was that they actually allowed a heavily inflated budget at the time, which enabled it a lot more room to look good and polished, but fairly certain it was done to increase the chance of a flop to everyone else.
    1
  1662. She's not a pastor because she's a woman, women can't be pastors. (even aside from the fact she's also not Christian) Also Christians aren't supposed to segregated themselves from politics even in the Church, they must act only in accordance to the Bible, she does not and thus is a heretic.
    1
  1663. Pretty certain no President that we've ever had would ever go into a hospital even slightly sick without oxygen.
    1
  1664.  @Usammityduzntafraidofanythin  She choose the man, she rushed a marriage without any evaluation, that's not remotely traditional, she took no responsibility for her faults either, you can't be a traditionalist if you don't have family and friend marriage evaluations.
    1
  1665. Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution and has never been set even as precedent of the Constitution, nor would it ever have been. Look at it this way, none of the founding fathers would've even considered your testimony in a court of law as admissible if you didn't admit to being a Christian and the Ten Commandments. (yes even Ben Franklin)
    1
  1666. Actually funny thing is that slavery is less productive then employment, when you get into actual economics you quickly learn that slavery is highly unproductive in the long term. The reason China does it doesn't exactly have to do with making money, its keep control.
    1
  1667. Disgruntled Youtuber: "Youtube treats us like trash, we don't deserve this." Also Disgruntled Youtuber: "Don't go to the alternatives, nobody likes them and they all suck and can never improve." When I hear people say crap like this I say they deserve to suffer and be as miserable as possible, they're the retarded pieces of crap that made Youtube suck in the first place. Its these weak willed hypocrite whiners who take absolutely no action that have dragged down Youtube the most, they promote the monopoly and anti-consumer practices and I hold them most particularly responsible, more then even the corporate neckbeard soyboy shills at Alphabet and Google.
    1
  1668. The Fediverse has a massive problem of bastards calling everyone they don't like racists, nazis, and fascists, and honestly its the most annoying crap, they did this stupid crap to Gab all because of its free speech principal, Fediverse morons are all anti-free-speech, like say what you will about mainstream social media, least you can say something controversial and not be immediately banned for "racism" all the time. Sure its not the same type of ban when your instance is defederated, but its still bullcrap that prevents outreach and just reinforces the problem of attracting bad actors and criminals, its no wonder the Fediverse is so full of CP, pedophiles, and other criminal bullcrap, I'm 80% sure they call them racist to protect their pedophilla trafficing rings.
    1
  1669. Honestly TLOU2 deserves a worse score when you factor the only reason you play the game is the story, nobody plays Naughty Dog games for their gameplay, even more its not original nor interesting, and it doesn't do anything that deserves a better score. (and nobody should be arguing that making good graphics deserve a good score, unless you're sitting at the bleeding edge like Crysis was, where you're doing crazy imaginative things to innovate the market and experiment there, maybe you can argue it, but just saying it looks good is expected especially from Naughty Dog, it doesn't have an original aesthetic so looking good is still wholly unoriginal, and should not be praised for that, it did not innovate and does not deserve a higher score)
    1
  1670. I don't see how Carbon anymore solves the issue better then Rust does tbh.
    1
  1671. The fact the government didn't enforce rights here (as the cartel fining people is generally an infringement of rights) is one of the problems here, another is that the government was intervening in the economy in regards to the electric companies of the 1910s and 1920s, which got worse in the 1930s, no longer requiring them to compete at all.
    1
  1672. You know the funny thing is Fascism is by design incremental pragmatic socialism. It's basically just a slow communist revolution.
    1
  1673. The issue about free will is basically just a more complex and indirect way of asking if someone is a spiritualist or believe in the supernatural, those who do will answer in affirmation without realizing it, those who answer in the negative reject the supernatural, a lot of people misunderstand the question because they don't see the true point of the question, what it actually does is get people to admit to an underlying foundation of their view of the world, if material is all that matters, variability of the reality does not refute it, but if there is another realm to reality that is non-material but for which can influence the material, then it is inherently true that free will does exist and comes from the non-material realm.
    1
  1674. In embedded software this makes sense, but in common development this would be a stupid statement because it delays finalization of a project because of an optimization that can be handled in the polish phase of development where it would result in quicker completion.
    1
  1675. Except she blamed men in general for it, not foreign men specifically, she's just a narcissistic psychopath.
    1
  1676. The Bill of Rights explicitly says "not be infringed" which means there is no government restriction that can be applied. That's because the Founding Fathers knew that the government didn't ever need to be involved in regulation of firearms. And people were able to own weapons superior to military arms of that time and even build private citizen militaries and artillery. They knew that once someone approves of weapon regulations, tyranny follows not moments after.
    1
  1677. I don't think Tim is very good at recognizing that most people don't know what they want or what makes them happy, hence why depression is so easy and becoming an even larger a problem then it ever was. Most people don't make choices that make them happy, they make choices that they think will make them happy, but happiness isn't driven by what we think we want. If you're unwilling to submit to reality you suffer eternally for it, too many people, even us here, are unwilling to submit to some fact or reality no matter how much we claim that we do and thus we suffer.
    1
  1678. Its pretty clear that the RT reviews are bad and were just told to mark it as good, they're just cucks and fat sluts.
    1
  1679. Just gonna point out, Russel Brand was probably removed because the UK government was gonna try and sue Youtube if they didn't, (not that the UK would even have the right to) it was a government trying to silence Russel Brand over allegations that hadn't gone to court yet, that's what happened with Rumble, the UK tried to kill it when it said it would stand by Russel Brand. The UK is an authoritarian hellhole.
    1
  1680. semantic names are still massively useful for code review
    1
  1681.  Don Shepard  Its not about spending, inflation has nothing to do with value, it has to do with generated currency, its called inflation because its inflating the currency, which drives down value of the currency which by symptom increases prices. And more then 60% of all US dollars ever printed were printed in the last year, the value of the dollar is not invulnerable to inflation and the US economy has not been growing nearly enough to out do the recent currency printing, which if continuing as it is due to politicians not understanding basic economics and throwing money at the problem again, with create a hyperinflation crisis. (again)
    1
  1682. "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin The founding fathers gave us what they did for eternity, not because our government is suppose to feel safe oppressing its people. Without the right to own firearms (even full automatics and artillery, which btw private citizens owned back in the 1700s under praise of Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison) there is nothing keeping the government in fear of its people so as to serve them, and even more then there is nothing they can't do. Losing that right means you lose all the others (which tbh we have, the 1st and 2nd amendments are the only ones left) regardless if people vote for it or not. Government doesn't give us rights, they have no right to take them away.
    1
  1683. Degeneracy has always been been a oneupmanship game, there's a reason the Bible constantly warns of it.
    1
  1684. Even implying that C++ is dead is rather dumb imo, its the backend for the majority of most other modern languages that came after it (if its not C usually, and there are only a handful I know that don't do one or the other) and its still the most capable for performance along usability, while Rust, Go, and D all have made improvements upon the C++ design in their own ways, none of them have made it into the same position that C++ has even with all their support and promotion. Fact of the matter is that the functionalities of C++ seems to be exactly what is needed, and not an improvement to its functionality that abstracts or outright removes said functionality. (resulting in while possibly better scalable code, [maybe even less bug ridden too] likely less dynamic and performant code overall) All this aside right tool for the right job, there are very few dead languages that do exist, most of which are the result of specific requirements in regards to the times that attained a successor that provides the same support with better functionality. ALGOL is a good example of this in many respects where most languages that have existed since the 60s are almost entirely based on improving or providing a subset of ALGOL. (or doing so to an ALGOL-inspired language, thus making it as well ALGOL-inspired)
    1
  1685. You're discounting that Christianity teaches both self-sacrifice and self-regard, you completely ignore the writings of Luther, Calvin, or the Christian Fathers who wrote that one should not disregard the self nor the material, but that one should show love to each other as is needed, to sacrifice when necessary, but to love your house, home, and to take care of yourself independently of your house. The principal of self-sacrifice in Christianity requires foremost an ability to take care of one's self first, its not a hatred of one's self, in fact the whole principal of calling it hatred is a false interpretation, when Jesus says such things as found in Luke 14:26, it should be obvious that it is not meaning to say you are to hate anyone but that in comparison your love of Jesus, God, must be before all other love such that it hyperbolically compares to hatred. That's how Hebrew rabbis of the time would write as well, when they would make a point they would say something extremely hyperbolic to get the point across of the meaning and importance, this was in fact quite a common concept in Ancient Hebrew thought. I would love if at some point or some way I could have a discussion with you on this subject.
    1
  1686. Thought it would be a genocide run and then he realized sparing is less work most of the time, lol.
    1
  1687. Do note Revelation refers to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the singular Revelation revealed to the elect, not a collective of revelations that appear, it is not plural for that implies multiple ways, not a singular Revealed Way. (hence why its called Revelation)
    1
  1688. 51:00 its these type of dumb anecdotal outlooks that bug me about asmongold, "oh yes because I have some personal experience of people with good relationships that means everyone and everything that measures a gender war problem isn't happening" No that's a dumb response no matter how you slice it, first off anyone who serves you anecdotal evidence as an argument isn't making an argument, they're simply ignoring the problem and have no solutions.
    1
  1689.  @vikkidonn  "The person calling it holy water because they don’t off handed know the full compound list?" That's a fallacious statement, ancient people's would not have referred to material things as simply holy water cause they did not know what the specific ingredients pertain to the substance, that being aside from the fact that headache medicines and anti-inflammatory medicines were generally not water-like in the ancient world either so they'd never associate them as such.
    1
  1690.  @vikkidonn  "Which is again why I asked the question what do people think what they say “medical Greek”." It wouldn't matter because there is no reason for Hellenized Ancient Hebrews to speak in "medical Greek" either, many Greek medicinal use was even forbidden in the Hebrew Law and the Septuagint itself never used such concepts. Why would undereducated Greek speaking Hebrews even use medical terms for spiritual matters? They wouldn't even have access to the manner of speaking for such texts, they may not even have been capable to read it properly. And Luke and Mark both refer to things historical, they both actually refute their text as being inherently religious in nature, they both present themselves as historical in nature and use historical terms and concepts.
    1
  1691.  @vikkidonn  "If a lay person who doesn’t know the technical or medical term for something uses language that doesn’t fully accurately describe said thing are they wrong?" First off yes, secondly if they know Koine Greek (which means common Greek) they would've known how to describe in such a way that such mistakes would not be made. Like I don't need to refer to something by a specific name to know how to describe it, and I don't need to use spiritual concepts for medical descriptions and neither was any example of that found in the Koine Greek.
    1
  1692.  @vikkidonn  "This is where this question comes from. " No its a deflection, irrelevant conclusion, and missing the point fallacy.
    1
  1693.  @vikkidonn  "Calling it aspirin versus its full chemical name doesn’t change anything does it? " That would depend on what it is, what it does, and the context of the term being used. What its generally called is irrelevant because its about the context and significance of what is being said, nothing about this topic had anything to do with in-specific description, which I might add does not fit any element of Scripture, so its also an irrelevant topic.
    1
  1694.  @vikkidonn  "Pliny the elder was a lay person he was a well educated man. Would he speak the same way a random peasant farmer would? I doubt it." Again missing the point fallacy, what I said had nothing to do with how either of them spoke. All I said is that Pliny the Elder makes it obvious that ancient people, which does include the peasant farmer, did make separations between material and spiritual concepts.
    1
  1695.  @vikkidonn  "theres nothing fallacious about a direct question. A question that wasn’t specific to that time period. You’re again making assumptions and being intellectually dishonest in the way you’re engaging with me." A question that implies a false answer is fallacious, and a question that ignores the topic is also fallacious. You aren't asking reasonably expected questions, you're delving into irrelevant conclusions and presupposing false statements that result in claiming Ammon is somehow correct in his interpretations of the Scripture without evidence.
    1
  1696.  @vikkidonn  "so in all your responses you don’t explain what “medical Greek” means. You then essentially give me circular logic." I have no obligation to, nothing about my responses requires me to and there is no burden to explain the specifics of such a topic. Also you really don't know what circular logic is.
    1
  1697.  @vikkidonn  "It can’t be that because it doesn’t make sense to the rest??? The rest that Ammon has also discussed and it makes FULL sense??" No it doesn't, Ammon's discussions delve into things that contradict the historical and documented features of the text alongside the preexisting commands that are attested to by the figures related to in the Scriptures.
    1
  1698.  @vikkidonn  "And in this response you ARENT claiming that his translation of the Greek is inaccurate." I'm pretty sure I've made it obvious that I find his interpretations to be false, whether his defining of words are correct, which I think in a number of cases are wrong, but in the least what he interprets out of the text as he claims of his translations is obviously false, you need to go back to school and learn some basic English reading comprehension.
    1
  1699.  @vikkidonn  "You’re simply disagreeing because you personally don’t understand or rather don’t want it to be true. That’s not a real argument" That's literally just a fallacy, I gave you well reasoned justification for my issues with what he has said and his interpretations, you're simply a bad faith actor.
    1
  1700.  @vikkidonn  "The fact you keep throwing out nonsense, and making multiple responses instead of just responding concisely shows how disingenuous you are here." I don't throw out nonsense, half the time you don't even actually bother to read what I wrote. And as for the multiple response you should blame youtube, if I don't do this my comments tend to get deleted because I always tend to somehow trigger comment deletion which results in much of my comments disappearing. Also that further suggests bad faith because you refuse to believe that despite it having no relation of a negative behavior for argumentation that doing it somehow means I'm trying to be disingenuous, even though how still remains in question and unexplained. It is also a poisoning of the well.
    1
  1701.  @vikkidonn  "Fallacy? False answers??? A translation and interpretation are two different things. You have claimed his “interpretation” is wrong based on contextual definitions. Which you believe he’s wrong about. You have in no way claimed that he is somehow completely wrong in his TRANSLATIONS." All translations are inherently interpretations, you can't translate without interpreting, any translator (or even linguist) who knows what he's doing would tell you that, in fact there is what you could call a spectrum of philosophy to translation where you ask what is more important, the literal statement or the meaning of the statement. For example if I say "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" which if literally taken means its better to have one bird in your hand, but that doesn't inherently communicate anything when translated literally, the meaning however means what you have is more valuable then risking risking it to get something better. Both of these are interpretations. Another example is in Japanese, when the Japanese say a romantic "I like/love you" they never actually say the words "I like/love you", instead they say "The moon is beautiful", so if you literally translate anime as an example not once would any subtitle say "I like/love you" but it takes cultural context to understand that the Japanese saying that phrase actually means "I love you", literal translations don't make sense to an English speaker. Its still an interpretation to take either angle.
    1
  1702.  @vikkidonn  "The questions I’ve asked you hit DIRECTLY at the heart of this distinction and issue. Asking you to explain what your intended meaning is when using a word or phrase isn’t fallacious. It’s good faith in that I’m trying to understand how you see the situation and are communicating in this conversation." There's a number of cases where I can demonstrate you weren't trying to understand, you made a presupposition and asserted a position, there's a number of others where you asserted a position I didn't hold to. Regardless you did ask questions that were completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and to anything I had actually said, whether because you failed to read what I said or you refused to actually understand what I said.
    1
  1703.  @vikkidonn  "A question you have YET to directly answer, and are now blatantly refusing to answer claiming it’s “irrelevant”…….. somehow…" Because it is irrelevant, you asked a number of irrelevant questions because you implied statements I did not make with them, there is no reason for me to answer on those topics. In other cases I also am not required to answer things for which the burden of proof is not on me to answer because that's a deflection of the topic. An argument needs to stay focused on what I am actually called to answer for, what I do say and what I have claimed is important, not simply your interpretation of what I have said.
    1
  1704.  @vikkidonn  "You sight a man invoking appeal to authority as if that man is the single authority or voice to this conversation when he isn’t. Which was why I questioned you bringing him up." First off its "cite". Secondly I didn't cite anyone, I never made an appeal to authority. Are you trying to imply that I specifically referenced Huff for something? I'm pretty certain I did not here, I don't recall treating him as an authority, at most I would've only referenced a statement insomuch as it pertains to something Ammon said which is completely different but not once have I asserted him as an authority of any kind like that, let alone have I appealed to him. If you were thinking of anyone else that you claim I appeal to I have literally no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  1705.  @vikkidonn  "The other question I asked you is also NOT fallacy. It is a theoretical example in order to again understand exactly what it is you’re claiming." If you mean "medical Greek" you ignored my statement of what I explained of it already and I am not required to explain it any further because its a waste of discussion, if you refuse to read what I wrote there is no reason to repeat myself.
    1
  1706.  @vikkidonn  "Your argument again seems to boil down to you attempting to separate the idea of “medical” terms and “spiritual or religious” terms. Which again you blatantly have refused to explain or define what you MEAN by medical." I'm not required to, I already gave you a number of reasoned points for the separation, I am not required to define any specifics, and that aside I already explained why it neither make any sense even if we were lacking such clear separation that Scripture in particular cannot relate to the claims for which Ammon makes and the terms he claims are in Scripture. If you will not read what I wrote then there is nothing I can do for you. Scripture is explicitly clear on the subject and it make no sense for Ancient Hebrews and Ancient Greeks alike to agree on the topic and be writing an "orderly account" using terms that aren't material in nature. Especially since neither any Ancient Hebrew would be willing to consider such interpretations in accordance to the text they already had in Ancient Hebrew which is historically proven to refute such capacity. And Jesus Himself refutes that and there are a thousands of eyewitnesses that attested to that fact.
    1
  1707.  @97footballplayer  That's called appeal to accomplishment and its still a fallacy, its not an argument and neither addresses nor refutes anything I said.
    1
  1708.  @97footballplayer  "It is objectively clear that biblical scholars do not have the experience or exposure to “medical Greek” to" No its not and that claim by itself is fallacious.
    1
  1709.  @97footballplayer  "Know whether or not its context/use is relevant to the interpretation of the Bible" Look at it this way, there is no Hebrew who would ever teach anything for which is found in those cases.
    1
  1710.  @97footballplayer  Even the Sadducees, who were the Hellenized sect of Temple scholars and priests, would still have called such things heretical.
    1
  1711.  @97footballplayer  Even more to the Pharisees, for which Paul and a number of disciples before Paul were would have even worse words to say, even after Paul's conversion.
    1
  1712.  @97footballplayer  Now add on to this that three of the four Gospels are based on accounts of Peter, a Hebrew fisherman who became one of the most prominent backbones of the Church aside from Paul, him and Peter were directly involved in calling out every first century heresy while they lived, and not a single mention have they made to this interpretation of Greek, and Peter himself affirms Paul as an Apostle and writer of Scripture.
    1
  1713.  @97footballplayer  John the Apostle, who wrote the Gospel of John, was the last writer and just like Peter was a Hebrew fisherman. Mark and Luke had no witness of Jesus themselves, they only recorded direct description of what both laymen and religious leaders had to say.
    1
  1714.  @97footballplayer  So tell me where can Ammon pull his claims from?
    1
  1715.  @97footballplayer  "They objectively cannot steel man his case and provide a meaningful rebuttal." You can't steelman a direct contradiction, the Bible is not hard to interpret, its written in plain language, Luke explicitly tells us that, the facts presented by Luke are not to be reinterpreted to treat Jesus as some kind of Christ consciousness or experience.
    1
  1716.  @97footballplayer  "Perhaps an under-appreciated reality is that if the biblical scholars developed the experience and exposure to “medical Greek”, they could provide wonderful insights into the history, meaning and context of the Bible." You do realize Biblical scholars don't just study the Bible right? They read all forms of Ancient Greeks which includes more formal forms of Greek, Koine Greek is called that because it was common Greek, and its the king that the Scripture is especially prevalent of.
    1
  1717.  @97footballplayer  "And thus, robbing Christian’s of a better understanding of truths. After all, it is the biblical scholars that’s have brought so much to light this far. " Its not truth when you're contradicting direct statements of the text. It was literally against the Hebrew Law to partake in taking drugs that put you in an altered state of consciousness, and any form of opening the eyes to that was explicitly referred to as sorcery in the Torah, which is a capital crime. Jesus cannot fulfill the Law, that which He said He would and also said He explicitly followed, if that was what He taught, ergo is a contradiction.
    1
  1718.  @IshuesTV  That's a fallacious response to give. Its a complete deflection and doesn't even address the "medical Greek" concept because the the argument never was that "medical Greek" is some kind of different language, but that it is not Koine Greek, the Bible's Greek is incomparable to other religious and philosophical texts found in the 1st century, Ammon completely refuses to address that Koine Greek is not intellectual/formal Greek of the 1st century. Also Ammon completely ignores the fact that most of the New Testament was written by devoted Hebrews, his interpretations of the Greek neither make any sense.
    1
  1719.  @meffistodily  Ammon completely ignores the context of the day because he thinks literally everyone was Greek and agreed with Greek culture, (completely ignoring that the Maccabee rebellion had only recently happened in the day of Jesus as exclusively Hebrew opposition to the Hellenic culture even when they used Greek as a common languages, that is referenced even by Jesus, and within 30 years of his resurrection they rebelled again and were wiped from Judah) if you think Gentiles and Hebrews are indistinguishable you don't have any right to translate any Greek, he completely ignores that there was not a single Ancient Hebrew who would've permitted such an interpretation of the text, and routinely the New Testament calls those things blasphemy and heresy, that being aside from a direct violation of the Torah which Jesus explictly said He did not come to abolish. Simon Magnus and Cerinthus were declared heretics by the Apostles and disciples at the Council of Jerusalem and Jesus spoke out against such things explicitly.
    1
  1720.  @meffistodily  "Not only does he lack the necessary professional background to effectively counter Hillman" That's a number of fallacies, its impressive how many you used by just stating that.
    1
  1721.  @meffistodily  "but he’s also deeply biased" So is Hillman, that's not an argument, there is no one who isn't biased, you sound like exactly like the religious nuts you claim to be against because you take Hillman's words as gospel without any question or investigation at all.
    1
  1722.  @meffistodily  "but as someone whose perspective is heavily influenced by personal religious convictions." Alright, why does truth matter?
    1
  1723.  @meffistodily  "Rather than engaging with Hillman’s work through a scholarly or historical lens" Which he has done so without needing to address any of his arguments because he's presenting the Scripture as it is in the context of its society, not as somebody who wishes to interpret it lacking the context that its a Hebrew written book, Paul was a Jew, James was a Jew, Matthew and John were Jews, Matthew was a Levite which were the only ones able to be priests, Peter was a Jew, the only people who weren't Jews who wrote in the New Testament were Mark and Luke, (and Mark was being led by Peter as the writer of Mark and was a close associate of Paul) everyone else had always been a Torah believing Jew. Jesus didn't invalidate the Torah, you can't use drugs and serve God, its explicitly made clear, 1 Peter routinely explicitly states that, as does Titus, 1 Timothy, Ephesians, Romans, Matthew, Isaiah, 2 Chronicles, Exodus, Deuteronomy, the list goes on and on. All forms of drug use were explicitly sorcery. That's in fact where we get our term for pharmaceutical and pharmacy from, the Greek term they used for sorcery which was pharmakeia, which in the New Testament and Septuagint is explicitly used for sorcery.
    1
  1724.  @meffistodily  A very clear fallacy he makes is presuming that definitions don't have context restrictions, he routinely presumes that simply because he can read Greek and he knows all the definitions he doesn't need to regard the context of the writers, environment, target culture, source culture, phrasing context, source character, time frame, or other forms of background including things like extra reference texts. (and each of these contextual elements bleed into each other too) He also ignores that there is such a thing as Greek dialects, written dialects can and do completely change the meaning of even words that would otherwise refer to the same thing in a more common dialect, Koine Greek is a completely different dialect then those written in Athens, Alexandria, or Rome by intellectuals and most of the New Testament is written in it. (not that you could even inherently compare the dialects alone) And these aren't even all the contextual relevant details, these are historical details you must account for when translating and interpreting works. He routinely ignores this and makes of faulty interpretations by being reductive to history and saying it functionally doesn't matter what the writer actually intended to say according to what he had already said.
    1
  1725.  @meffistodily  Its not theoretical, its a provable fact, (I can prove it in English, Spanish, Japanese, Koine Greek, Ancient Hebrew just as a few examples, proving it on Youtube however would get my comment blacklisted, I've done a tiny bit of it above in English and Japanese already) but even if it were theoretical it being a logical argument that is both sound and valid means that you can't trust anyone who disregards it. (proven by the fact you can't refute it cause you don't know how) Unless it is addressed, no argument is allowed to stand as valid or sound. Its basic rationality, if you can't sustain an argument against it, you have no argument and your point is invalid and should not be considered. That's how easy it is to debate him and why so long as you know anything about linguistics you can easily refute what he says. Its literally the basis of linguistic descriptivism, which he's supposed to be doing but he's not, he's performing linguistic prescriptivism upon a ancient historic language which is objectively wrong. Not like he cares about truth so there is nothing objectively wrong in his worldview.
    1
  1726. Free Markets create Free People, Government should never be involved, the Oil, Pharmaceutical, and industry of the Military were created by government, they exist as the behest of the government, you remove those factors in and all those problems disappear basically overnight, the only reason lobbyism exists is because the government has involved itself in the market, a lobbyist goes to government originally to keep the fed off his back, after receiving compensation, assistance, and benefits, they involve themselves into the government deliberately, and as a result they manipulate the government (as it manipulated them originally) into what they want, as in destroy competition so they can act independent of economic factors, this happened with the steel and the railroad companies, they were subsidized, funded, and assisted by government forces and raised the cost factor for introduction into those industries via the government and pushed out competition, and then everyone would instead blame capitalism for something that was a natural result of government interference in the market. If they had left the first few years of the market industries alone, that wouldn't have happened, same thing for our modern railroad monopolies. Did you know that the US government has a hard limit of allowed doctor certification per year in the US, even if you migrate as the greatest MD, if you surpass that hard limit, better luck next year? And to be a doctor you need to be government certified. Did you know the government also has deliberately killed and banned independent medical insurance over half a century ago? These are merely a few of the many examples the US government has deliberately done just in one singular market to ensure competition stays dead. Did you know that child labor and sweatshops were already erased from the market before the government gave any regulation on it? When is anyone gonna learn, the free and unregulated market is superior to anything any centralized authority can do, a decentralized authority is superior in every way to a centralized authority.
    1
  1727. Wikipedia started by being co-opted by left wing activists very early on, its not actually even FOSS, it was a sham, there are Wikipedia alternatives that are way less trash.
    1
  1728. Define Socialist: doesn't understand basic economics. Consequences? What are those? Incentives? Never heard of em?
    1
  1729. What makes me real angry about these leftists is that they have already destroyed everything I've ever loved, and now they're destroying another thing I love, I'm starting to feel like they're nothing but a complete waste of life, they can't even develop good software, those who want to bring their ideology in and exclude anyone who doesn't agree needs to be gatekept out of our spaces.
    1
  1730. Man is asmon out of the loop of police reform and NYC. They've been freely releasing murderers and rapists for years.
    1
  1731. Do note Revelation refers to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the singular Revelation revealed to the elect, not a collective of revelations that appear, it is not plural for that implies multiple ways, not a singular Revealed Way. (hence why its called Revelation)
    1
  1732. lemmy is still full of tankie garbage.
    1
  1733. Yeah kinda expected, Adam Criggler speaking about the crap that went down with Tim speaks clearly to why Tim has done everything he's done even here, and Tim being a degenerate, of course it would bite him in the ass when he also completely disregards both people and basic separation of business and personal life. Tim is a crap businessman with an ego problem that happens to be very charismatic, not really all that distinct from a Megachurch "Pastor" in many ways, says he's going great things for the people when in reality he's not accomplishing much and just feeding his own ego. I like some of the things Tim talks about but Tim really is the problem in his own way, really needs to surround himself with sycophants, ironic that he likes to question everyone else's narrative but nobody is allowed to question his else he lashes out.
    1
  1734. I would like to ask where the evidence of this happening enmass, you can't just tell me to look it up, the burden of proof is on you.
    1
  1735. Business "crime" is made up by people who have vested interests in controlling business. I'd rather let people suffer because they deserve it, its your damn fault if you trust a bank, its your fault if you don't like "insider trading", stop being a dumbass and trusting ponzi schemes and maybe, just maybe, you'll stop being ganked and scammed. Morons.
    1
  1736. ​ @mayank13489  Lets take a few examples of his positions: Vegetarian: check Pushed animal rights over human rights: check Believed his rule was a democracy: check Environmentalist: check Was part of the Socialist Bavarian Revolution: check Now lets ask, what were other left wing positions at the time: Eugenics: check Racial supremacy: check Socialism: check Don't know anything about economics: check Believes in collection ownership: check Sterilized people: (especially who they considered the "mentally and morally" deficient) check Locked people in labor and death camps: check Catro, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, you can't name a single Marxist dictator (the end goal of Marxism) that didn't do these things. Even many left wing policies in the US, Britain, France, and beyond did these things, the eugenics the Nazi's performed were directly based on American Law down to the translation of the words.
    1
  1737. Alex seems to misunderstand what God said when He said "they have become like Us" because it is saying "God declares what is good and what is evil" and God is explicitly stating in that passage "Now they have become like Us, declaring what is good and evil" and had you read any of the rest of the Old or New Testament plainly in exegesis of Genesis 1-4, that be plainly read.
    1
  1738. Now just think of one of us anti-IP law folks, we give even less of a damn.
    1
  1739. I'm gonna bet you that was a local thing if its even true, there are plenty of good reasons why someone would however lie about this and you didn't give me any evidence of why I should believe this dude, also Black Lives Matter has always been a racist cult of law-haters, it was based on a lie and was popularized by outspoken Communists. (anyone who ends their post with BLM and Police Reform is a questionable source for abuse of the cops) Also if you're gonna tell me defund the police, then let me carry a chaingun without regulation, cause I can ensure that neither cops nor criminals will break down anyone's door with a chaingun, otherwise you should really shutup.
    1
  1740. They really don't, they don't make money off the labor when it is done, (and in most states you can't anyway) they make it off of scalping taxpayers and fines.
    1
  1741.  @xIcarus227  Depends on your behavior, I don't expect you to actually answer my questions when you act like a dumbass entitled child who can't wipe his own ass. I would react the same way, I have no obligation to hear you when you behave like a moron. I don't ask questions to get an answer of your stupid head, I'm asking you to make you realize your in a position to submit or get the hell out of my way. I don't ask questions always intending to get an answer, even if they aren't rhetorical or sarcastic, sometimes I intend to demean you for your disrespect, don't disrespect me and maybe I'll give you some respect, respect is earned, not a given.
    1
  1742.  @xIcarus227  Depends on your behavior, I don't expect you to actually answer my questions when you act like a dumbass entitled child who can't wipe his own ass.
    1
  1743.  @xIcarus227  I would react the same way, I have no obligation to hear you when you behave like a moron.
    1
  1744.  @xIcarus227  I don't ask questions to get an answer of your stupid head, I'm asking you to make you realize your in a position to submit or get the hell out of my way.
    1
  1745.  @xIcarus227  I don't ask questions always intending to get an answer, even if they aren't rhetorical or sarcastic, sometimes I intend to demean you for your disrespect, don't disrespect me and maybe I'll give you some respect, respect is earned, not a given.
    1
  1746.  @xIcarus227  When you make a demand without authority, that's textbook disrespect, go ahead and try that on the street or against a soldier, see how long it takes before they beat your ass for it. One of us has actually gotten hit in the face, so one of us knows what disrespect is, you only really get it if you been beat, sheltered boys like you couldn't take a moth in a fight.
    1
  1747.  @xIcarus227  When you make a demand without authority, that's textbook disrespect, go ahead and try that on the street or against a soldier, see how long it takes before they beat your ass for it.
    1
  1748.  @xIcarus227  One of us has actually gotten hit in the face, so one of us knows what disrespect is, you only really get it if you been beat, sheltered boys like you couldn't take a moth in a fight.
    1
  1749.  @xIcarus227  Why would being punched in the face imply you're a badass, it just means you know how much it hurts to be laid out, you only truly understand what disrespect is when you get a beating.
    1
  1750.  @xIcarus227  Why would being punched in the face imply you're a badass, it just means you know how much it hurts to be laid out.
    1
  1751.  @xIcarus227  You only truly understand what disrespect is when you get a beating.
    1
  1752.  @xIcarus227  "given that you think I somehow disrespected you by asking a question" What? Where the hell did you get that idea from? Do you not know how to read?
    1
  1753.  @xIcarus227  No I didn't, you asked me about asking questions, I answered you on that, what I said had nothing to do with what you said outside of being a direct answer, it doesn't make any sense for what I said to apply to yourself. (unless you're a narcissist or true solipsist)
    1
  1754. Everyone agrees Amber was the worst character, but only in the show, in the comic she is literally just an average pretty white girl which is mostly used as a plot device. I don't mind them adding more to Amber's character to make her as unique love interest, but the whole SJW thing was so annoying and jarring that you really can't wait for Mark to break up with her for being a stick in the mud.
    1
  1755. Oh look communism caused starvation that couldn't be managed, and when they regulated manners to manage it, it only further destroyed the country, almost like what happened with the Soviet Union, its almost like government intervention is a bad thing...almost like Rothbard was right.
    1
  1756. My display server on one of my CPUs used to randomly and completely hang out of nowhere, thought it was a display server problem, it required a reboot to fix, but now I wonder if that wasn't a kernel panic, replacing the CPU had long since fixed it.
    1
  1757. Tim, you're so stupidly wrong on the ADL not being evil, they're just as evil as warhawks and tyrants, they're more authoritarianism then communists and nazis. And they know what they do is wrong and evil, but they just want to win.
    1
  1758.  @Steven_Edwards  Its not involuntary servitude if its a result of biological process, often resulting from personal decision, this is a fallacy used to justify idiosyncrasy that is invalid in both law and logic.
    1
  1759. Imagine being offended by a celebration that even the irreligious celebrate openly and proudly, this is the first world problem of first world problems, always gotta find something to be offended over, I have to wonder how these people who actually get offended can even function in the real world, they must be incredibly shallow getting triggered at the drop of a hat, because there is no way they can think deeply on anything no matter how intelligent they are.
    1
  1760. I'm completely (and aggressively) opposed to government interventionism, its highly illiberal, honestly the fact we even have gambling laws is bull, everyone should be given the right to independent self-autonomy and responsibility, instituting laws on such systems is an infringement of the concept of liberty for the sake of collective infantism. And once you breach the line, the line will be towed forever.
    1
  1761.  @djy0tub3r  "by "they burned them alive" do you mean the Branch Davidians intentionally setting fire to their own compound?" No, the records disagree with you there, even the FBI documents don't say the Branch Davidians did it.
    1
  1762. 13:18 Asmon being a midwit of basic economics and anthropology once again. Then again the support of any high time preference behavior is inherently midwit behavior that destroys societies and zack supports all such things.
    1
  1763. Doesn't fix the invasion advocated and manipulated by Soros and the EU tho, it might not be socialistic, but Sharia isn't much better.
    1
  1764. Should keep in mind that homosexuality is a consequence of God abandoning a people who abandons God and His ways, so to say the justification for the collapse was homosexuality even in this case is backwards. So even if you're gonna say that it was a moral failure for why Rome collapsed, the moral failure was abandoning God and so God would give them over to sexual immorality, not that they partook in sexual immorality and thus collapsed. That aside God's punishment upon a people for abandoning Him has not always been that overt, the Old and New Testament is full of cases that have God directly refute this fact, Paul says it numerous times, just because there are successful people does not mean that they are of higher or lower morals. Also Paul addresses God abandoning a society that abandons Him, homosexuality is the second phase, the first phase is sexual immorality, the second is homosexuality starting with the women, and the last phase is a reprobate mind. And all that aside the Roman society at the time was more averse to homosexuality at its collapse then it was before its adoption of Christianity in the 4th century.
    1
  1765. You should read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed.
    1
  1766. Functionally all forms of IP are just government enforced monopoly anyway, it prevents competition from taking place in the market for the sole purpose of claiming that nobody would compete simply because they don't have monopolistic control over something that can only actually get enforced when you have a million dollars. Its literally systematic pulling of the ladder mentality, the result is that instead of protecting everyone, it only protects those who foremost shouldn't even have the protection. (which is also why big companies try to keep extending it whenever its about the end for one of their properties) There is no actual way for a regular person to enforce it without sacrificing any capacity to actually make a living and keep their finances. As is the case with all court related systems that also assumes that the one on trial is guilty out of the gate. The same thing applies to patents and trademarks by the way. A true capitalist market would oppose the government involvement in IP. (which funny thing was named that by its opposition specifically because nobody wanted it to become intellectual property) Also there is no right to an idea, you can't have any stake in an idea, you can't demonstrate ownership, only a physical thing can be demonstrated to be owned, and nobody has even a capacity to own an idea, concept, or principal. There is no reason I should be expected to have an exclusivity to anything I produce, the entire point of me getting paid for my production is my continuation of producing things, I can determine my own needs and involvement in order to get paid by figuring out my own manner in which I get paid, a government should not and has not obligation to do such for me, that is a socialistic principal. And no you're not a libertarian, libertarianism has to do with government disinvolement, especially of economic systems, that's literally the whole principal of the philosophy, its symbiotic with the Austrian School of Economics, if you are arguing for government involvement and even regulation in the market, you are not a libertarian by argument, you're almost certainly a interventionist and perhaps even a protectionist. (though that may not be true, but its usually true) Interventionists are never libertarians, protectionists are rarely ever libertarians.
    1
  1767. A woman can't be a pastor, she's not a Christian, the Bible is explicitly clear about that, this was an utter sham.
    1
  1768. Money isn't the issue, homelessness and poverty didn't prevent people historically from having children and getting married, that is a very new claim to make, it doesn't fit the historical record, its something else.
    1
  1769. As a member of gen z, I can definitely see how its more conservative.
    1
  1770.  @naftulzvi3353  If you think prettier graphics means its decent, its not even worth dealing with you, the narrative, characterization, and intrigue is absolutely worse, E;R said it best, this is gonna be a travesty.
    1
  1771.  @naftulzvi3353  The whole point of Sokka being sexist was him learning to be a better man and stop making false assumptions about women, he had to learn that, lessons are not learned if there is no journey to learn the lesson, you can't make a point that something is bad if there is no struggle for the lesson, else its not going to teach anyone anything and nobody will be capable to sympathize with the character, especially if they suffer from the problem. A situation without contrast isn't a fair assessment of reality. And at least the movie doesn't butcher the entire narrative in a way anyone can take seriously, the film has entertainment value, the show does not.
    1
  1772.  @naftulzvi3353  "Freaking out about rumors of some level of "downplaying" before the show is even out to judge is literally mental illness." Except its not a rumor, its coming from an official source, are you blind? "The film butchering every aspect of the source material even down to the names isn't entertaining." Dude, you watch travesties because they're hilarious to see them go wrong, watching woke propaganda isn't fun because the message is overbearing and obvious and its trying to shove its messaging down your throat. You don't watch B-movies because its well written, you watch it because you don't have to take it seriously. I can laugh at Shyamalan's crap because its hilarious and its not overbearing nor is it shoving a message down your throat, he simply and honestly doesn't understand anything about the show, Netflix is deliberately disregarding everything about the show. "There is media that is bad good and that movie is not one of them." The show is still worse, I'd rather something be written poorly and not understand the medium then for it to be woke and deliberately remove all the intrigue, all characterization, all the narrative, and treat you like a complete and total r*t*rd. I can watch B-movie screwups, there is nothing fun about wokeness. That's entertainment value. If you go into a B-movie thinking its good, you're the one with mental issues and have no idea how to enjoy anything, how could you even watch comedies? "It takes itself seriously and had a budget to match despite failing horrendously." You don't watch The Room because its intended as a comedy, you watch because it takes itself so seriously and yet its so bad its hilarious, you don't watch Tommy Wiseau because he can write, direct, or act but because he can't do any of those things and it makes it a brilliant piece of comedy as a result. Do you watch Sharknado and expect it to be "good"? Or watch Rubber because its the the best film? No, you watch them because they're utter nonsense and its hilarious. Many of Shyamalan's screwed up films are also hilarious, like you don't watch Signs because its a really good film, even though its higher quality then some, the whole premise is comedic gold, that's what a lot of Shyamalan's films are really good for, and they take themselves super seriously without any overbearing messaging crap injected to try and force white propganda down your throat. "The irony that you're bitching so much about this Sokka rumor but are fine with the movie literally doing nothing right is palpable." Again, not a rumor, its an actual source, directly coming from the cast directly which was discussed with the writers, director, and producer. The showrunner confirms the same thing, the co-creators of the original show left because of its complete disregard for the original show. Have you even actually read the article? It has sources, the showrunner openly admits they're not following the show. I'd still rather watch something that does nothing right then something that butchers the source material just to push a woke message and screws up every character, narrative, and element of the setting just to fit "modern audiences", its no different from Jamie Marchi changing the anime to have more gen-z slang, woke politics, and to remove the cultural context that you watch the show for.
    1
  1773.  @naftulzvi3353  "Freaking out about rumors of some level of "downplaying" before the show is even out to judge is literally mental illness." Except its not a rumor, its coming from an official source, are you blind? "The film butchering every aspect of the source material even down to the names isn't entertaining." Dude, you watch travesties because they're hilarious to see them go wrong, watching woke propaganda isn't fun because the message is overbearing and obvious and its trying to shove its messaging down your throat. You don't watch B-movies because its well written, you watch it because you don't have to take it seriously. I can laugh at Shyamalan's crap because its hilarious and its not overbearing nor is it shoving a message down your throat, he simply and honestly doesn't understand anything about the show, Netflix is deliberately disregarding everything about the show. "There is media that is bad good and that movie is not one of them." The show is still worse, I'd rather something be written poorly and not understand the medium then for it to be woke and deliberately remove all the intrigue, all characterization, all the narrative, and treat you like you're completely and totally mental. I can watch B-movie screwups, there is nothing fun about wokeness. That's entertainment value. If you go into a B-movie thinking its good, you're the one with mental issues and have no idea how to enjoy anything, how could you even watch comedies? "It takes itself seriously and had a budget to match despite failing horrendously." You don't watch The Room because its intended as a comedy, you watch because it takes itself so seriously and yet its so bad its hilarious, you don't watch Tommy Wiseau because he can write, direct, or act but because he can't do any of those things and it makes it a brilliant piece of comedy as a result. Do you watch Sharknado and expect it to be "good"? Or watch Rubber because its the the best film? No, you watch them because they're utter nonsense and its hilarious. Many of Shyamalan's screwed up films are also hilarious, like you don't watch Signs because its a really good film, even though its higher quality then some, the whole premise is comedic gold, that's what a lot of Shyamalan's films are really good for, and they take themselves super seriously without any overbearing messaging crap injected to try and force white propganda down your throat. "The irony that you're bitching so much about this Sokka rumor but are fine with the movie literally doing nothing right is palpable." Again, not a rumor, its an actual source, directly coming from the cast directly which was discussed with the writers, director, and producer. The showrunner confirms the same thing, the co-creators of the original show left because of its complete disregard for the original show. Have you even actually read the article? It has sources, the showrunner openly admits they're not following the show. I'd still rather watch something that does nothing right then something that butchers the source material just to push a woke message and screws up every character, narrative, and element of the setting just to fit "modern audiences", its no different from Jamie Marchi changing the anime to have more gen-z slang, woke politics, and to remove the cultural context that you watch the show for.
    1
  1774.  @naftulzvi3353  "Freaking out about rumors of some level of "downplaying" before the show is even out to judge is literally mental illness." Except its not a rumor, its coming from an official source, are you blind? "The film butchering every aspect of the source material even down to the names isn't entertaining." Dude, you watch travesties because they're hilarious to see them go wrong, watching woke propaganda isn't fun because the message is overbearing and obvious and its trying to shove its messaging down your throat. You don't watch B-movies because its well written, you watch it because you don't have to take it seriously. I can laugh at Shyamalan's crap because its hilarious and its not overbearing nor is it shoving a message down your throat, he simply and honestly doesn't understand anything about the show, Netflix is deliberately disregarding everything about the show. "There is media that is bad good and that movie is not one of them." The show is still worse, I'd rather something be written poorly and not understand the medium then for it to be woke and deliberately remove all the intrigue, all characterization, all the narrative, and treat you like you're completely and totally mental. I can watch B-movie screwups, there is nothing fun about going the propaganda route. That's entertainment value. If you go into a B-movie thinking its good, you're the one with mental issues and have no idea how to enjoy anything, how could you even watch comedies? "It takes itself seriously and had a budget to match despite failing horrendously." You don't watch The Room because its intended as a comedy, you watch because it takes itself so seriously and yet its so bad its hilarious, you don't watch Tommy Wiseau because he can write, direct, or act but because he can't do any of those things and it makes it a brilliant piece of comedy as a result. Do you watch Sharknado and expect it to be "good"? Or watch Rubber because its the the best film? No, you watch them because they're utter nonsense and its hilarious. Many of Shyamalan's screwed up films are also hilarious, like you don't watch Signs because its a really good film, even though its higher quality then some, the whole premise is comedic gold, that's what a lot of Shyamalan's films are really good for, and they take themselves super seriously without any overbearing messaging injected to try and force white propaganda down your throat. "The irony that you're bitching so much about this Sokka rumor but are fine with the movie literally doing nothing right is palpable." Again, not a rumor, its an actual source, directly coming from the cast directly which was discussed with the writers, director, and producer. The showrunner confirms the same thing, the co-creators of the original show left because of its complete disregard for the original show. Have you even actually read the article? It has sources, the showrunner openly admits they're not following the show. I'd still rather watch something that does nothing right then something that butchers the source material just to push a wicked message and screws up every character, narrative, and element of the setting just to fit "modern audiences", its no different from Jamie Marchi changing the anime to have more gen-z slang, political propaganda, and to remove the cultural context that you watch the show for.
    1
  1775.  @naftulzvi3353  "Freaking out about rumors of some level of "downplaying" before the show is even out to judge is literally mental illness." Except its not a rumor, its coming from an official source, are you blind? "The film butchering every aspect of the source material even down to the names isn't entertaining." Dude, you watch travesties because they're hilarious to see them go wrong, watching woke propaganda isn't fun because the message is overbearing and obvious and its trying to shove its messaging down your throat. You don't watch B-movies because its well written, you watch it because you don't have to take it seriously. I can laugh at Shyamalan's crap because its hilarious and its not overbearing nor is it shoving a message down your throat, he simply and honestly doesn't understand anything about the show, Netflix is deliberately disregarding everything about the show. "There is media that is bad good and that movie is not one of them." The show is still worse, I'd rather something be written poorly and not understand the medium then for it to be woke and deliberately remove all the intrigue, all characterization, all the narrative, and treat you like you're completely and totally mental. I can watch B-movie screwups, there is nothing fun about going the propaganda route. That's entertainment value. If you go into a B-movie thinking its good, you're the one with mental issues and have no idea how to enjoy anything, how could you even watch comedies? "It takes itself seriously and had a budget to match despite failing horrendously." You don't watch The Room because its intended as a comedy, you watch because it takes itself so seriously and yet its so bad its hilarious, you don't watch Tommy Wiseau because he can write, direct, or act but because he can't do any of those things and it makes it a brilliant piece of comedy as a result. Do you watch Sharknado and expect it to be "good"? Or watch Rubber because its the the best film? No, you watch them because they're utter nonsense and its hilarious. Many of Shyamalan's screwed up films are also hilarious, like you don't watch Signs because its a really good film, even though its higher quality then some, the whole premise is comedic gold, that's what a lot of Shyamalan's films are really good for, and they take themselves super seriously without any overbearing messaging injected to try and force white propaganda down your throat. "The irony that you're bitching so much about this Sokka rumor but are fine with the movie literally doing nothing right is palpable." Again, not a rumor, its an actual source, directly coming from the cast directly which was discussed with the writers, director, and producer. The showrunner confirms the same thing, the co-creators of the original show left because of its complete disregard for the original show. Have you even actually read the article? It has sources, the showrunner openly admits they're not following the show. I'd still rather watch something that does nothing right then something that butchers the source material just to push a wicked message and screws up every character, narrative, and element of the setting just to fit "modern audiences", its no different from Jamie Marchi changing the anime to have more gen-z slang, political propaganda, and to remove the cultural context that you watch the show for.
    1
  1776.  @naftulzvi3353  "Freaking out about rumors of some level of "downplaying" before the show is even out to judge is literally mental illness." Except its not a rumor, its coming from an official source, are you a brainlet? "The film butchering every aspect of the source material even down to the names isn't entertaining." Dude, you watch travesties because they're hilarious to see them go wrong, watching propaganda isn't fun because the message is overbearing and obvious and its trying to shove its messaging down your throat. You don't watch B-movies because its well written, you watch it because you don't have to take it seriously. I can laugh at Shyamalan's crap because its hilarious and its not overbearing nor is it shoving a message down your throat, he simply and honestly doesn't understand anything about the show, Netflix is deliberately disregarding everything about the show. "There is media that is bad good and that movie is not one of them." The show is still worse, I'd rather something be written poorly and not understand the medium then for it to be woke and deliberately remove all the intrigue, all characterization, all the narrative, and treat you like you're completely and totally mental. I can watch B-movie screwups, there is nothing fun about going the propaganda route. That's entertainment value. If you go into a B-movie thinking its good, you're the one with mental issues and have no idea how to enjoy anything, how could you even watch comedies? "It takes itself seriously and had a budget to match despite failing horrendously." You don't watch The Room because its intended as a comedy, you watch because it takes itself so seriously and yet its so bad its hilarious, you don't watch Tommy Wiseau because he can write, direct, or act but because he can't do any of those things and it makes it a brilliant piece of comedy as a result. Do you watch Sharknado and expect it to be "good"? Or watch Rubber because its the the best film? No, you watch them because they're utter nonsense and its hilarious. Many of Shyamalan's screwed up films are also hilarious, like you don't watch Signs because its a really good film, even though its higher quality then some, the whole premise is comedic gold, that's what a lot of Shyamalan's films are really good for, and they take themselves super seriously without any overbearing messaging injected to try and force white propaganda down your throat. "The irony that you're bitching so much about this Sokka rumor but are fine with the movie literally doing nothing right is palpable." Again, not a rumor, its an actual source, directly coming from the cast directly which was discussed with the writers, director, and producer. The showrunner confirms the same thing, the co-creators of the original show left because of its complete disregard for the original show. Have you even actually read the article? It has sources, the showrunner openly admits they're not following the show. I'd still rather watch something that does nothing right then something that butchers the source material just to push a wicked message and screws up every character, narrative, and element of the setting just to fit "modern audiences", its no different from Jamie Marchi changing the anime to have more gen-z slang, political propaganda, and to remove the cultural context that you watch the show for.
    1
  1777. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, you act against advisement while cops are aiming at you while you have a violent record including aiming a gun at a cop, and then you try to escape, no pity for you, its your fault, you got what you worked for. Antifa and BLM should be executed for treason.
    1
  1778. Wouldn't a thermal imaging camera still make this trivial to detect these days? It might not work on the engine specifically, but if the flames are hotter then the skin, which it must be to cause burns, then a thermal imaging camera solves this problem.
    1
  1779.  @tristanholland6445  Fair enough.
    1
  1780. Screw around, find out, don't be a dumbass and you ain't gonna be shot. (unless you're sent to the front)
    1
  1781. Blame the Civil Rights Act, we have disparate impact law in the west which mandates discrimination in preference to minorities else you'll be sued to nothing.
    1
  1782.  @adianblabla  Just gotta love disparate impact law.
    1
  1783. Its called Sunk Cost fallacy and its related to the gamblers fallacy, both of which have been know for at least two centuries.
    1
  1784. As an aside the woman always always implicitly consents to the child's implantation by partaking in sex, rape is extremely uncommon and actually its even more rare for rape victims to desire abortions. Now that aside consent not being the moral implicative of anything anyway means consent doesn't determine the murder of the baby but in their worldview logcally only rape victims even have the right to consider abortion.
    1
  1785. @@voidfield101 The only reason that Linus actually had to eject C++ was because C++99 and C++03 only fixed the inconsistent compiler behavior problems, the standard was resulting still inconsistent before that, (and in some measures it needed tuning and refining even afterwards) it took until C++11 before anything beyond the compilers standards themselves really became mature, it was a nightmare to manage before that so its no wonder they dropped it in Linux, however C devs have little reason to be against it now, they were burned by the language in the early aughts and that resentment is part of why Rust exists and why they hate C++ still, granted not the whole reason nor does it define Rust in any entirety, it has good ideas you don't get from that mindset, but just as many stupid ones. However the reason most C projects rejected C++ was because of that period during or before C++99, though even then it was safer then C. So if safety and performance were the only concern like Rust devs claim then C++ would've been adopted, this is how you can tell that claim is a farce. "Fanatic religious people can be found in any language like C as well." I've not noticed them shoving their religion down everyone's throats and demanding of every major project that C be accepted as a standard. I've also yet to see anyone try to claim C has no problems, I have seen that with Rust, and even if I explained it to them they resorted to saying wrong and calling me names, lots of fallacious talk defending I've yet to ever see with any C devs. "There are many people that (before Rust) always mentioned how that project X has to be rewritten in C or that Python program is much better in C++." Depends on the project and language, though I will say any compiled (and usually statically linked) language is better then an interpreted script language for anything that isn't throwaway simply because it'll either perform much more consistently and more efficiently or so long as its open source its just as likely to be fixed when it does break. NodeJS and Python production programs have given me more headaches then I've ever received from even alpha programs in compiled languages. "The important part is that the developers get the work done, and forcing the maintainers to use a language they don't want to is not going to benefit anyone." Maybe and I don't have an issue with it being Rust if not for the Rust community itself being so cult-like. Disagree with the syntax, I must not know what I'm talking about. Disagree with the build process or have concerns that it violates KISS, doesn't matter, "your opinion is stupid". These are comments I've heard constantly and continuously coming out of the Rust community not just a few times, but every time I've met a Rust developer. I don't go out of my way cause I actually kinda hate Rust so I'm not the target demographic and won't venture just to attack others or their tools, but every time I've had a chance to meet a Rust dev, even ones that claim an appeal to accomplishment, the result has always the same. "Personally I also ran into issues with C++ type resolution that got quite annoying." Which version of C++? I remember them in C++99 and C++03 but since C++11 and C++14 I've had no issues.
    1
  1786. @@voidfield101 "Templates in general are pretty badly implemented in C++ you can't really use the typical Header/Source-File separation with them" Templates are unique in that they were introduced to solve a problem without the backbone to actually manage them at all causing all types of issues, if you want to break the C++ compiler templates have always been the way to do so, I'm aware at how crazy the whole thing with templates are, its not a bad idea if it had that backbone to make it stop being annoying, something that modules will actually also address alongside reducing the header-source division we've had. "Personally I have 2 issues with C++. The way you can do some things like even just a function parameter (could use parameters as a value, reference, pointer, smart pointer or move schemantics)" Not sure why this is relevant to an issue. "same with polymorphic which is currently on a bit of a downward trend because it tends to make programming interfaces harder to maintain or a ton of refactoring when the class tree changes." Its a paradigm, use it reasonably and responsibly and this doesn't crop up, take a look at Godot's source for example and the polymorphic behavior is well used without being complex or making it that hard to manage or maintain. You need to reasonably approach every paradigm as a tool to use. "The second is throwing an exception which requires a lot of space in the binary to do stack unwinding, it can be disabled but it does break every API that uses try-catch and throw." Yeah the standard really should have a manner to allow generating code when a codebase uses exceptions that disables it without breaking things. How to do that is in itself a question. "A think I personally don't like in C++ and Rust is the fact that their ABI isn't considered stable, so different compilers and different compiler versions may produce a binary which has different call conventions, RTTI layout etc. so you can't use create a dynamically linked C++ ABI or Rust, you can still create a dynamic library in those languages but it usually requires marking the API as "extern C" (so they use the stable C ABI), not ideal but doable without too much hassle. "Honestly those are just my 2 cents on that. I have ditched C++ for the most part (except when I have to use it for some APIs). I still use C especially since most of the embedded frameworks I got used to are implemented with C." I prefer C++ because of the lack of limitations, I use the features I can rely on and am happy to have features I might use if the need arises reasonably so. "I do have a few issues with it, I think there should be more support for not relying on cargo (which is a big part of the compile time as it also does the dependency management)," Yeah, I've pointed out how that's a really bad design, Rust folks didn't like when I said that and got really mad at me for suggesting that build dependency on a package system is a problem. "I think no-std (embedded use case) support is still not optimal. and async/await is not well standardized and relies on third-party libraries making their own APIs on top of it (which also makes no-std usage of async not easy)." Yeah, I kinda more despise the paradigms, justifications, and syntax of Rust just as much, I will always find a way to avoid it when I can.
    1
  1787. While I get Paul likes to be hyperbolic, I do think he's going a bit far when he does his blanket statements, tattoos can have a value of marking us because we desire to be marked, for example I'm entirely fine with having a scar basically saying I'm a Protestant Christian on my body, just not on my face, hands, or anywhere that wouldn't fairly easy to hide. I also wouldn't mind getting a small simple mark for my favorite band, however I'd definitely mark myself just as much for my ideals as for my faith, liberty and self-autonomy are concepts I'm deeply ingrained into. And if you can get them done in an artistically unique manner all the better in its value.
    1
  1788. Jesus wasn't referring to Peter as being that foundation, He made it pretty clear that He was referring to the office of Apostles.
    1
  1789. The "Sandy Hook family victims" are really making it stupid easy to believe they were never actually victims, I'm way more inclined to believe Jones was actually correct after everything they've done.
    1
  1790. If I could choose between contributing and paying, it solve the paying problem for me, idk about anyone else.
    1
  1791. Its literally just "Our Expectations for You Were Low But Holy Fuck"
    1
  1792.  @augustday9483  Its called "eating your own dog food"
    1
  1793.  @EdgeGaming  It be more efficient and less of a hassle to rewrite the scripts unless they are exceptionally complex, but yes you can call NodeJS and Rust from Godot if you use the Rust or Javascript bindings for Godot.
    1
  1794.  @reaperplays47  You can't publish a paper unless you tow the ideological line, and every major academic institution is super woke, Harvard just had to layoff another of their medical professors for false publishing of academic papers with plagiarism. And peer review is not a standard of quality, but they tout it like it is, STEM is full of this bullcrap.
    1
  1795. While Gal's outlook is a step in the right direction against full feminazis, it should be pointed out that mentality of "I can do it too" for women is actually a rather terrible message still. After all women have their strengths and weaknesses both biologically and anthropologically, and to try and force them into the man's role and strike them from their actively fulfilling roles (for themselves) is actually probably worse for everybody. Its like putting women on the frontlines and expecting them to face active combat just as good as men. We know they don't and we can't even fulfill the quotas on it because they vehemently avoid it demographically. We know that's a lie. Honestly female empowerment especially in today's age is absolute bullcrap, we know for a fact that the more we let them off the leash the less they demographically like it because they go even further into their traditional roles even despite the fact they aren't getting married nearly as much. Can we for once just treat women as women and men as men, facts can't be "xenophobic"
    1
  1796. I kinda want to know what song is being played.
    1
  1797.  @anonymousalexander6005  Its a mistake to blame the language, and especially to point to C++ on this when the problem has nothing to do with C++, every single safety issue came from people refusing to use basic C++ features and just doing things the C way, (and C devs you put in Rust will just do the same thing in Rust because that's how they work) aside from static analyzers that prevent me from writing code that could introduce the problems claimed in the directive, if I don't use legacy C functions and rely on functionality introduced since C++11, I'll never run into the problem in the first place, even in C++98 I had all the tools necessary to replicate the safety of Rust, and by C++11, it was well ahead of it, static analyzers already tell you to stop doing things the C way and can error out on unsafe memory behaviors, and C++17 and beyond already gives us plenty of tools to deal with the remaining legacy C in a safe fashion.
    1
  1798. We have a lot of build systems for C++, and all of them have pros and cons, CMake is pretty standard, but Meson is another one that's getting hugely popular.
    1
  1799. Dear Lord, "the plural of anecdote is not evidence" is genius.
    1
  1800. That second to last response to the issue was exceedingly stupid for xdg-portals.
    1
  1801. Look up BRIDGE social impact, its a rebrand, not a removal.
    1
  1802. UBI cannot work in the longer term for any society that runs on high time preference, and it is utterly useless in the best case for a society that runs on low time preference, thus the argument for it is stupid from a simple rational basis, plus its still an expansion of the state.
    1
  1803. If we're going to quote the Bible for things, why was "why would God allow evil things to happen?" even left like that? Even as a hypothetical. Quite literally Jesus, Paul, and John (alongside many proverbs, psalms, and other OT verses) speak that man its unspeakably and irredeemably evil without Christ, so its just quite evident that nobody will not have the judgement of wickedness upon them, whatever the reason it was done for the sake of, the justification is "they deserve much worse". Paul is literally quoting the OT when he says in Romans 3 “None is righteous, no, not one;" There's plenty of things I'll take issue with here, I appreciate that you warned your usage of non-canon sources, but part of the issue I have with them is that many of them teach heretical and deceptive doctrines and traditions that oppose God, the apocrypha is about as close to correct as they get, and even many of them are dubious and wrong. Like Lilith did not exist, we know for fact that she did not exist and God would not have let her exist, her existence is demonstratively opposed to His nature. Many Catholic canons are also mistranslated, syncratic pagan adoptions, (a lot of named saints also fall into this category) or straight up baseless deceptions and superstitions. Another point I should speak on is that assuming what they meant by eyes is the same as what we see as eyes is an anachronistic interpretation, back then a stable shaped light would only be explainable as an eye to the people for no other object of the time could be described to appear in such a way, so in the least it is very likely that eye could be a conceptual mistranslation, not a literal one, but one for which they would have no explanation for an alternative in that time. Like say you showed someone of that time a television screen without context nor language to reference it, their descriptions would be strange and mangled is translated. Its often described that some angels use "chariots" as vehicles in the physical realm, for what is meant by that translation is also hard if not near impossible to describe for our eyes. Think of it this way, we could more readily describe an angel with modern words now than they could since we have more specific concepts capable of explaining aspects of them that was not shared in the past.
    1
  1804.  @notyourtypicalwaifu  I have no idea what your reply means to say.
    1
  1805.  @notyourtypicalwaifu  I have no idea what your reply means to say.
    1
  1806.  @notyourtypicalwaifu  I have no idea what your reply means to say.
    1
  1807.  @notyourtypicalwaifu  I have no idea what your reply means to say.
    1
  1808. Its pure justice to kill a man that not only confessed, but was evidentially found and convicted, if the courts aren't gonna execute a know pedophile who repeatedly rapes kids (first account would be castration, second or more is death) then justice is only served by the execution handed down by the citizenry.
    1
  1809.  @prosaic4195  The English are way too passionate, constantly coping about their inadequacy, when you're famous for beating and killing people over a game of soccer, you deserve criticism for your feelings behind the game as a country.
    1
  1810. Twitch is stupid, the "SRPD" is the German SRP, they have never gone by the acronym SRPD, it was a post-war neo-nazi party.
    1
  1811. I always love a case of free market forces working out exactly as necessary, I always argue for unregulated free markets and when I get another demonstrative case of it, I always get giddy.
    1
  1812. This is just a common Trump thing, he does it all the time at his business properties.
    1
  1813. "The objective of democracy is socialism" The reason this stands true is because in a democracy, the majority will strive to benefit off of the minorities. Human nature and human self-destructive instincts necessitate that we always push ourselves above others. That's advantageous for a system built on merit where strength and progress comes from the conflict to improve which is how and why even remote capitalism like we currently have in the US is so effective. However when you build a system where you're giving individuals the same exact power then you create a system where that conflict can be spurred against the 49% and such just less then half of the society will suffer. (and that's if it were perfectly incorruptible, include that issue and that number can objectively be noticed to oppress way more then 75%) Undemocratic methods of representation are preferable in this case as they may individually seem less fair however they're mathematically better in every way.
    1
  1814. Promote unconstitutionallity, get unconstitutional doctrine, we promoted the removal of the rights by enforcing gun regulations, speech regulations, warrantless search and seizure, the Patriot Act wasn't even remotely the first nor last case, what did people expect when you opened the door to authority.
    1
  1815. You know the funny thing is generally women like being objectified because it validates one of their core sexual functionalities, the reason the objectification tends to be a problem to these stupid feminazi types is because those complaining are generally envious, insecure, or both.
    1
  1816. Firmware updates don't replace the hardware's firmware, that's pretty much always inbuilt and irreplaceable, and no you can't see that and it can't be audited, there is no way to examine that. What usually happens is firmware updates download to a local writable place and the chip firmware tries to load the firmware update automatically, the update generally operates on the basis of a hidden encryption key that was put into the machine (or the chip firmware even) so that only their updates can be installed and used, often times this firmware is also encrypted so aside from needing to decompile the firmware, which you might have to get access to, it likely is obfuscated and encrypted as well, least until its in a place the chip can load the new firmware on. The only way you can install firmware through this without being related to the company is if you get access or leak that special key, which has happened a few times, but not to every company, and what always happens is a rapid change and occasionally even a small sized recall of devices most affected by something like that, they'll try to change the secret key in as many devices as possible on the hardware. (because yes it is written into the hardware to do this) Usually the key's identity itself is airgapped and has a lot of security, legal and physical, surrounding the specific case, but not every company does this, and sometimes the companies that don't do this screw other companies over when they get hacked, but all this has been generally uncommon aside from certain hardware manufacturers.
    1
  1817.  @DanielRumbacher  Their goals would be great if only they could actually be reasonable, but they're completely poisoned by ideology alone, they don't care about regular people, they just want to enforce a dumb religion, its not pragmatic and unless someone starts a successful GNU death cult, there is no way its going to succeed, especially when they keep screwing with regular and reasonable people and pissing them off and then complaining at them for using something they have no choice but to use.
    1
  1818. ​ @liquidsnake6879  Well first off GNU's definition of libre is stupid because its restrictive and inherently anti-liberty, (which is the reason you'd even steal the term for) which means its anti-libre, you can't be free if you prevent people from doing as they wish. There is nothing positive nor noble about GNU's goals when the whole principal revolves around ideologically bashing anybody that doesn't agree with them and then performing a bait and switch culticly telling everyone else that they're anti-liberty, literally violating the entire principal they supposedly claim to support. Even more idiotic they don't fight on any other principal, they have no capacity nor will to benefit anyone and their so shortsighted that all they do is piss everyone off. GNU will always be niche specifically because being ideologically driven instead of rationally driven is never productive, its just retarded. I honestly say software would be better if GNU didn't exist, its contribution can be independently achieved and according to market forces it would have to, maybe you could argue it happened earlier then without them, but I really have to wonder if its not their fault that the whole thing including its principal has gone absolutely nowhere in 25 years. Also what kind of cancer do you have to be to create the GPLv3, what kind of brainrot must you have to use the principals of proprietary monopolies to enforce your own monopoly, copyleft is just as retarded as copyright, both sides are just in my estimation more in league with Satan then any good principal.
    1
  1819.  @jasonhughes63  Anyone is capable to read the Koine Greek, its translation is well documented and we have dictionaries that you can use to parse through it even if you can't read the vocab and grammar. Ammon doesn't understand anything about semantic context nor multi-meaning vocabulary, just because a term can mean one thing does not it always means that. Like if I say I'm making a killing versus you're killing me, the first phrase means I succeeding at something but the second means you're hurting me, if you disregard context and ignore vocabulary meaning more then one thing, one of those two interpretations will be presumed false despite we clearly understanding that makes no sense in English. That's what Ammon is doing to the Koine Greek.
    1
  1820. @jacobbocab Even though that's not what he's said, and this wasn't a debate.
    1
  1821. you're poisoning the well, that's a fallacy.
    1
  1822. I see the occasional person going "it was a backdoor contributed to by systemd" completely ignoring that without distros patching liblzma, this specific backdoor is useless, with Arch being the prime example of security because it simply does not patch it.
    1
  1823. "Unfortunate and untruthful" Yeah for you, what an odd way to state that, even as an official response that's pretty self-incriminating.
    1
  1824.  @shortyorc121  I was meaning that the UK doesn't have the same nationwide obsession with race as the US does, obviously people will notice and point it out and there are plenty of intersectional morons in London, but in the US it is not uncommon for racial supremacy to become a topic of discussion for both blacks and whites, or for justifications of Black or White Israelite movements to be brought into question because of the racial outlook, in the UK as far as I've noted they do not bring those things up in common discussion, least for local understandings, most of Europe doesn't, the only case where that kind of happens is in like the Balkans.
    1
  1825.  @shortyorc121  "Some of the best white nationalist speakers and movement organizers are from the UK. Enjoy your phantasy land." So your media obsessively talks about how black people are oppressed, how you have a history of slavery, a common talking point being that black people need slavery reparations and that black people are generally all poor because they were enslaved and how affirmative action is necessary because black people were enslaved and Jim Crow existed to keep the black man down. Does the UK also have the black supremacy movements that actually get public attention, or like how black people are constantly killed by cops apparently despite the statistical opposition to that viewpoint, or how you need to defund police because they're racist and how math is racist because apparently math "is a white man's tool to oppress black people" or how "hard work and scheduling is white supremacy"? I don't recall the UK being that obsessed with putting race into things. You're lucky that all you have is a few "white nationalist" speakers, we got white and black supremacists who get mainstream prominence for stupid political purposes who speak about black and white genocide all the time here, also what do you mean by best? Also phantasy?
    1
  1826.  @jeao7115  Majority of it is London, and even London's diversity crap doesn't compare to the US, especially in a larger population with bigger population centers that have giant sections devoted to pretty exclusively to minorities. Unless the UK spent two centuries integrating multiple distinct ethnic minorities into it alongside encouraging and receiving the largest amount of global immigration in history, it can't possibly compare to the US on that front, that's part of my point in explaining why the US is seeming so obsessed with race.
    1
  1827. Nothing is more permanent then a temporary government system. Also a lot of government regulation on the market is absolutely unnecessary because the market was already moving towards competitive implementation, like health and safety regs, or min wage, or insurance. (and if it didn't that meant the region was too poor to be able to handle it and none of the locals could afford to have such systems, only rich societies can afford to implement such ideals, hence why the Asian spheres don't bother, and yet everyone of the market still participates)
    1
  1828. The problem with black Santa has to do with the fact that its anti-tradition, and that's the problem conservatives have, Target is doing things just to spite tradition. Now as a Calvinist I despise the very concept of Santa and the fairy tale lies we tell kids, but even despite that I understand the outrage because I can actually sympathize with the desire to preserve cultural tradition, and Santa is traditionally white, or if you're really gonna be a pedantic ass, Saint Nicholas was a Mediterranean, meaning he was bronze skinned like Romans, Tunisians, Egyptians, Jews, Greeks, and southern Spainards. Saint Nicholas has an interesting story as well because he actually went and punched Arius (the biggest heretic of the 3rd century) in the face according to tradition, for he was a zealous man for God. But the fact they are pissing all over western tradition is rightly gonna stir anger, if you can't understand that still I'd question if you really human to be honest.
    1
  1829. Actually every citizen that accepts benefits from the government, local, state, or federal, is part of the government and thus not subject to rights, which is how they justify and supplant many rights in the first place. So long as you are not considered an individual, which requires independence of the state, you can and will be a servant of the state, to which has no rights and neither a right to complain.
    1
  1830.  @Rognvaldi  Yeah, its sad that people can't even keep up the sentiment of argumentation anymore.
    1
  1831.  Matt Brennan  But you don't have to prove an axiom, (in many cases you actually can't, most mathematic axioms can't be proven which leaves you with the question of how real is mathematics) that's kinda of the entire point of axiom, its an assumed truth.
    1
  1832.  Matt Brennan  Not really, and even then being close minded isn't bad, its close minded being against immoral behaviors like theft, murder, and rape. Just because you're close minded to an idea doesn't mean anything regarding an argumentation of those ideas, specifically when those ideas are immoral. In this way I'd say leftist ideology is immoral because it wants to force equity on all populations by force, and it desires all financial requirements of that be funded by pointing a gun at the more successful aspects of a population. (instead of being at the liberty and choice of the individual to decide what they want to do with what they have) Is it not immoral to steal someone's labor and property for those who don't put in enough effort? You can't fundamentally equalize a playing field of humans, so why even bother? Does it not subtract from the capability for individuals to perform generous and charitable acts themselves? This is why I wouldn't call it an axiom, not because it can't be proven, but because its provably immoral to take someone's property and give it to someone else just for the sake of equity standards. Government was not given the provision of property and financial control, and I'd say no matter the world we shouldn't subscribe to immoral ideology just because its assumed to protect short-term (usually selfish) interests. A left wing ideologue doesn't truly believe in liberty of the individual to promote generosity and charity, despite the fact that contradicts all principles of market economics, they just want the control cause they believe they can bring an unprecedented utopia.
    1
  1833.  @raifwinn2475  "To the point about public schooling, the reason it’s very poor in quality is because a lack of funding and attention from the government." No in the US we used to have a kinda decent school system in the sense that people actually broke into the market. Granted they had no practical skills and could barely do anything but in the least they were willing and capable of learning on the job. But in our more recent age of schooling, you don't have that, people are so babied and coddled that often times they'll avoid doing anything or give up. The schooling isn't responsible either way for it, its the cultural that fed into it. A proper education system wouldn't educate people in worthless crap that you never use in daily life. They would give you practical skills that you can use immediately. But no public education system has ever done that, they're all incorporated and industrialized as if you'll only ever be a industry worker. "Instead of funding education we poor money into the military and border walls." Throwing more around money doesn't fix things, (especially when the problem wasn't even financial in the first place) especially when you start out indoctrinated with an agenda. Not to mention separating children from their families for the long and strange periods of time as school does is also actually really bad for their health but nobody ever talks about that. Its funny what happens to the social and mental health of children who at least get home-schooled. "Also, social security, implemented by fdr, along with the rest of the new deal helped America out of the Great Depression. I don’t see how you say it has no value historically and most of all now." You really don't know anything about history, do you know how long that Great Depression lasted? 15 years. Do you know how long the government was involved? All of it. They were trying to "correct" the market by funding a boom economy with printing money and lowering interest rates but that eventually has diminishing returns which started happening in 1929. So they tried to continually correct it over and over. But it did nothing. It wasn't until the rope on the economy's neck was released in 1945 that it started to recover (which was later then every other economy of the time) By that point you can't say the New Deal had anything to do with it because: 1. you can't say something started by government was fixed by government as if they deserve credit for fixing 2. the new deal lost all its teeth when FDR died and Truman pretty much stopped caring about the economy, and then the economy immediately recovered. 3. economic effects don't take 6 years, economies aren't that slow 4. not to mention you make that assumption when you can't even statistically prove it Also did you know there was a Great Depression before 1929, in 1921 they had a Great Depression that only last 18 months and had no practical government intervention, it recovered in 18 months. The exact same economic recession happened in 29 and last for 16 years. I'd definitely blame government intervention. Especially since economies only go that negative thanks to government intervention. Also social security is unsustainable without expansive (and expensive) taxation. And it also enabled further seizing of assets and property and is the most insecure piece of crap system ever devised as a half-assed identity measure.
    1
  1834.  @raifwinn2475  "It is absurd to believe that the public school system does not suffer from a lack of funding." I don't believe I said it wasn't but whether it is or isn't doesn't matter because it will never be able to solve the problem it claims to be designed for even if it was. Government is incapable of solving problems because they have no pressure to do so, and that includes how to educate people, you don't get a choice in where you're money goes or what organization you have to deal with in regards to that education, it doesn't have a pressure to succeed and thus it doesn't. This is actually a natural principle of all life, when pressured to succeed in a competitive environment, all organic things will either strive to success and prosper (whether by procreation or wealth) or fail and die out. Since government has no obligation to succeed (it gains very little from success and suffers very little for failure) and has monopolized its "market" it can do whatever it wants without the regulation of natural pressures. It does not need to optimize its finances nor practices and it neither needs to be accessible or rational. "Has the thought never occurred, that the reason many teachers have bad work ethic is because they get paid shit?" Actually most teachers get paid pretty good for the economy they're in, they actually probably get paid way too well and they get a lot of time off compared to more real jobs, the only hardship at all is precursor education and experience, but once you pass that hump you're generally very well off. Personally I think teachers in our current public systems are overpaid and they share no risk of being fired so they can do whatever they want with no consequence and still get paid very well. That is why they tend to have subpar work ethic, they also don't have to compete in the job market regardless of demand most of the time. They have no pressure from the market to perform well and thus they don't. Money actually doesn't often contribute to bad employee habits, instead its the employer and their economic behavior that informs their employee habits, an employer that doesn't regulate their employees tend to get very poorly behaving employees, when they are economic secured regardless of behavior and are guaranteed an income, what reason do they have to push themselves? Once again, natural pressures at work. (or basic economic behaviorism) "Do you not think it is ridiculous that teachers often have to dip into their own pockets to get the necessary supplies for their students?" Honestly I actually expect that, it honestly should be the prerogative of the teacher to teach how they see fit, and thus they have to pay for their teaching equipment because then its there personal teaching form and style. Even for crap public schooling I actually find this argument stupid because government resources would be was less optimized and wouldn't be personalized to the teacher or students, it be cookiecutter factory. (granted that's what public school is designed for, but better to cut down on that as much as possible) "The public school system has many flaws that are not financial, I have experienced them first hand, but to say that NONE of the systems problems are financial is blatantly false." I don't think their the root cause nor the majority of it and I say throwing money to try to fix it is just stupid at best. Its not finance we should worry about, we should be privatizing the education market instead. (it also be cheaper if we stopped justifying our taxes to schooling, there's a lot of advantages to doing this) "Indeed, the school system teaches many things that are not very useful to the average person, but don’t private schools suffer from the same problem?" Actually no, outside of the subsidized private schools (which are like an intermediate between public and private) most private schools don't suffer from these problems, many of them teach basic math, literacy, and history, and the rational behind scientific principles and systems. What they tend to do is teach people the reasoning behind the systems and how they function before they completely teach the systems themselves, sometimes doing it hands on. For example there are some private schools which allow you to sell things on campus and directly educate the students on market and capitalist principles. This is super effective at teaching children finances and math without lecturing them or having them memorize things, (as its a practical experience) plus they make money and benefit the internal community of the school at the same time. "Furthermore, many impoverished people go to public school." What benefit does going to school give them? Will it give their family more money? No, the best thing is it takes the children off their parents hands for a few hours (which honestly is pointless anyway since if the parents are working in the lower classes, they work longer then school hours or otherwise they're always home because of welfare subsidizing them) Schooling itself does not demonstrate a statistical advantage in the market, least in taking them further up in the economy. The only thing that does correlate with that is self-control and determination, which public school itself does not effect. "Would it not be wrong to not teach them math and science?" Its wrong for two reasons. The first is it requires money from people who have no vested interest in the success and in many cases it fails anyway. The other problem is its pulling resources from everyone around them for something that they'll never use or benefit from, thus they're pulling down society with no manner of paying it back, its like taking upon massive loads for college only to go into gender studies and dropout just before you graduate, the only distinction is that everyone around them is paying the loan for them, they owe everyone, all of society, for that massive 10+ year loan but at what point can any of them pay it off? What part of schooling allows them to definitively and pragmatically pay it off that they needed to go to school for? And could they not have been a beneficial member of society by not taking any debt and just taking up a cheap job instead? "After all, STEM jobs are very high paying." That requires a lot of money to get in, impoverished folks almost never make it into those STEM jobs, and it isn't the public schooling that gets them there, this is a copout at best. Also the reason STEM can pay high is because of high demand, (tbh half of them are overinflated and government subsidized so technically they economically drain the market and are living on government loans, that's what a subsidy is basically) saturate the market with lots of STEM employees and you'll tank the job value, you can't inject a large amount of people into any field and expect it to still pay the same amount. "School gives you a little bit of everything so you can find your niche and become a functioning member society." This one is at best a lie. School doesn't teach you anything about business, finance, or reason and doesn't educate you even slightly on manual labor or practical chores. (or general pragmatic life decisions) Basic math and literacy are pragmatic, afterwards its fulfilling an ego of intellectual idiots who think they are smarter then they are. In order to become a functioning member of society I had to drop most of the things I learned from school as it gave me nothing to actually deal with the real world. (even the social skills you get from schools only really work after you're establish in a job environment, they don't teach you how to deal with breaking into that environment) Everything I've done to become a functioning member of society or do anything productive I had to learn on my own from scratch. And despite outpacing most of my classes in school I had to go out of my way to gain the necessary skills to living normally. And I'm not the only, that's a statistical problem with most public schooling systems. "Too often, people look at the most extreme cases of teachers attempting to indoctrinate their students whether they be on the right or the left and then say that the whole school system is bias and corrupt." I could care less about teacher indoctrination because the school itself is an indoctrination system, it teaches you how to fall in line and listen to what the warden says, to follow a schedule and don't step out of line or risk being punished both academically and socially. Honestly schools to me feel like the prototype to 1984 but that's generally just authoritarian control. "I have been to several schools, all of them different; the one which I currently attend is very conservative leaning." I've been to a good few different ones as well, doesn't really change the fact the systemization is the same. Only private schools break the mold from what I've seen. Honestly this going on I'm too tired of the rest to care, most of it isn't even worth responding to.
    1
  1835.  @SVVV97  Never had a problem in C++ with clangd or Visual Studio.
    1
  1836. Jordon Peterson addressed this perfectly in his Hover Institute talk, narcissistic people have to generate virtue without any of the actual work of attaining it, which also results in them demonizing anyone who questions their stake of virtue.
    1
  1837. No proof that its racist, also I wouldn't trust the word of someone who could easily pull this stuff out their ass without proof.
    1
  1838. She's not even a Christian, she's a heretic, women can't be pastors, she's clearly never read the Bible. (or she rejects everything she disagrees with, which in reality is the entire book)
    1
  1839.  @ajzaradich6096  "Also the bible condones actual slavery" There are two forms of active participation of "slavery" found in the Bible, indentured servitude, as in when you are indebted to someone where you can't pay the debt you become their servant until the the payment is cleared, and war bondage. The other was war bondage is in when you conquer a people you "enslave" the survivors so that they may live and not risk rising up against you, this was a very merciful and common practice in the ancient world so as to prevent the need of wiping people out when they lost a war. If you didn't they would soon try to attack you again killing more people, it preserved human life. The only other case is when they bought slaves from the pagans who had already enslaved someone, however if they found question in how they were enslaved they would've been required to release them by the Law. Now all this said there is the year of Jubilee which about every so many years they are required to free all servants and slaves. Also all slaves and servants must be treated rightly and justly, you cannot beat them that they should be harmed or they shall be immediately set free, and if you kill or grape them you would be immediately executed. You are also required to take care of them should they come to harm.
    1
  1840. tbf the rule is thou shall not murder and its only being mistranslated to kill otherwise, there isn't murder in war in a general case by individual soldiers however it could be argued that outside of defensive wars (which a lot of Reformed Christians did have to partake in) religious justified wars were completely hypocritical for the ruling bodies of the time, which actually tends to pop up a lot in Protestant faiths, take the Anabaptism for example, many of which were actually eventually wiped out for their fairly radical opposition to infant baptism. (especially since it was a sign of the Church and State for registry by the state took place through baptism which they did oppose)
    1
  1841. Just to point out, its a vote based on the state itself, that was most important factor, that the states themselves had control over the system.
    1
  1842. Honestly the only big reason I can see for the systemd hate is because its mainstream and successful, not because its got problems. Its like crabs in a bucket, when you reach the top, everyone will try to drag you down. (which also means they're scrapping for any little niggle of problems they can make up with systemd instead of being reasonable about their issues which are extremely tiny compared to what it does) Whether others are more suitable for any specific use case is not relevant for general user use case and its not like anyone is prohibiting you from running anything outside systemd, it just takes a massive amount of work to handle anything differently and it would require deliberate integrations from developers who are already used to systemd.
    1
  1843.  @terrydaktyllus1320  "What if I want to just exercise the choice that Linux gives me to build my systems the way that I want to without having something I don't want to use running on my systems?" Go do it, nobody is obligated to help you, it should be naturally expected that going against the grain is gonna be met with friction, that's literally what choosing to use Linux does. Whether the cost is there for you is your choice, I don't care, just don't ask me to do anything for you when I don't care, especially if you piss me off by complaining about an issue I find utterly pointless. "And how about you let the developers themselves decide what they want to work on," Sure, but if they want mass appeal, they need to appeal to the market or die out. Only a fool insists his way is right when facing market forces. If you don't appeal to the wider audience at all, you get what you deserve. "rather than being a "zealot"" Why you calling me a zealot? I literally told you do whatever you want, just stop being an asshole about it and insisting your way is superior, some of us are fine with parts of our system just working without us thinking about it. "and wanting them all to work on just the projects you want" When did I say this? "just so you can end up with "one monolithic Linux" to your "exacting" standards that everyone else just to has to accept" I never said this, but if its good for the user/consumer, its better for everyone. A decision that insists its way is better but is a hassle for the user is appealing to nothing but fools if it expects to mean anything more then a niche. If you don't appeal to a mass market you don't get to complain about the lack of market appeal. "and all because you're unwilling to put in time and effort to learn Linux properly yourself." Thanks boomer. "Learn Linux" as if I haven't been here for years. What you think of as learning Linux and what I think of as learning Linux aren't the same, by what standard do you think you can judge me on? My system works very well and it doesn't break, I don't care to switch, why should I when I'm comfortable where I am? "I don't "hate" systemd because I know Linux well enough to simply "skirt around" it on the systems I build - "hate" is for lazy people that can't put in time and effort to learn how to empower themselves to make better choices."" "Better choices" by whose standard? Yours? So you force your opinion of whats right and wrong on me? Quite communist thinking I should say, that you insist to know my life and priorities better then I do, its that type of stupid thinking that causes people to starve, that you know about my system better then I do despite the fact I built it and have been exclusively (no dual boot whatsoever) daily driving it for over half a decade. I can live my life better by my own decisions then listening to a parrot such as you.
    1
  1844.  @terrydaktyllus1320  "You're a complete stranger on the Internet, I could care less that you are pissed off, or what caused you to be pissed off." Then you're being hypocritical. "Your thinking is too complex - developers in the Open Source world make the software they want to make." If its popular this stops being the case. It becomes a job. "If you choose not to use it, that's your choice. And you've contradicted your first paragraph because you said it's all about your choice, but the choice the developers make is not their one to make." Where did I say this? Nothing I said was complex, its basic market forces, its literally basic economics. How is anything I say got anything to do with telling developers not to do what they want? If they are expecting to work on a project without appealing to an audience, they get what they deserve, they'll have no market appeal and never be popular. "If the cap fits, wear it. I've never met you, I've simply described what a zealot is. You decide if it fits your demeanour or not." You used the word as an insult at me even though I don't care. If I was a zealot I never would've said I don't care. "Like I said, "complete stranger on the Internet" - all I can do is examine the words you write here."" That's not how this works, foremost because you engage me when I didn't prescribe anything to anyone, all I said is in regards to people complaining and yet they get mad because something is popular, if that wasn't the case, they wouldn't act so irrational. If you can't understand why people use systemd, nothing you do with ever be as popular or desired as systemd, if you can't think of good points of systemd, that suggest you have a problem, not me. I already admitted that systemd is not perfect in every case, you've still yet to say its even suitable for any case because your obsessed with hating it, not with providing an alternative. That's why you responded to such a milquetoast statement with such vitriol. "Choice is good for the consumer." In a competitive market where competition is needed, that means if an aspect of the market isn't competing or isn't suitable. Competition is useless if its not for the sake of an endgoal of making people's lives better in some metric. For systemd to be majority use without consumer outcry demonstrates that its inherently already doing that, its why its so common. Choice is not an objective good, choice paralysis is one of the most primary problems with overabundance of choice, also standards and practices go to crap, the issue in regards to choice is when it comes to restricting choice, nothing else, and systemd does nothing to prevent that. Not going out of your way to help you is not hindering you, those are completely different metrics. "Use of the derogatory term "boomer" usually means "I am overwhelmed by my perception of your knowledge and experience so have to try to negate it by childish name-calling"." Okay boomer. "Don't worry, I take that as a compliment - even if you're just demonstrating the same "cancel culture" that you will probably claim to abhor."" That's quite an unhinged statement, from dismissing your nonsense with a meme being taken as a compliment by exclusively you to you now accusing me of cancel culture despite the fact I'm not targeting you at all is insane. That sounds too much like a troll, but I have heard dumber insanity of the premise not following and other fallacies before so I wouldn't be surprised if you were legit. Whatever man, live and let live, I don't care, stop demanding I give you crap for free and stop demanding that I care. "Yes, my standards." My standards are superior then, your opinion is worthless. Thanks for proving my point regarding relativism then. "I know what I want, I don't know what you want - and as a "stranger on the Internet", I don't care what you want because what you want doesn't affect what I want, and vice versa." Cool, now if you would actually live that way. "Don't pretend you don't think that way either" I still don't get why you even bothered responding if this is supposedly your position. If you truly thought this way, you wouldn't have responded. "it is simply "exercising choice" which was my original point that you'd understand if you read the comment properly and wiped the spittle from your monitor, sonny."" Your demanding people provide choice for you, nobody is obligated to do jack for you, why you insist that what I said is some massive slight against you because you're offended when I called out your stupid "I only hate systemd because its popular" defense is beyond me. There is no reason to attack me on that unless its true, its a cornered pig that squeals the loudest.
    1
  1845.  @terrydaktyllus1320  "You're a complete stranger on the Internet, I could care less that you are pissed off, or what caused you to be pissed off." "And how about you let the developers themselves decide what they want to work on, rather than being a "zealot" and wanting them all to work on just the projects you want just so you can end up with "one monolithic Linux" to your "exacting" standards that everyone else just to has to accept - and all because you're unwilling to put in time and effort to learn Linux properly yourself." If you didn't care about what a strangers thinks or says, there is no reason to say this and accuse me of being a zealot. One who does not care does not respond, its like an atheist saying they don't care about religion arguing over religious matters so deliberately you'd think they had their own god to preach about.
    1
  1846. Just to point out that the original purpose of GPL is everyone who forks is forced to expose their changed as potential contributions back to upstream. Unfortunately however it doesn't distinguish between library users and forks.
    1
  1847. Welcome to the socialist's world.
    1
  1848.  @Aspectt1991  She doesn't admit a single fault, she doesn't take responsibility for marrying a crap man that she had sex outside of wedlock with and neither had anyone evaluate her relationship. She was never traditional and she was never gonna be.
    1
  1849. Whenever I hear that "There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program" always pops up.
    1
  1850. Look up BRIDGE social impact, its a rebrand, not a removal.
    1
  1851. We need to organize a mass violation of the law, the ATF, FBI, and SWAT have no capacity to enforce a law if even 3% of the population decide to intentionally violate it.
    1
  1852. Everyone who says crap about this always seems to believe democracy is a moral good. Yet never once can they actually rationalize this moralistic position that they push on everyone else. Its a religion, like any ideology, but without justification or reason. The founding fathers created a Constitutional Republic, the Constitutional document overrules anything the "democratic" process votes for because its by intention not a democracy. This is why we Constitutionalists will tell you the US is not a democracy, for the people are not the ultimate authority over law unlike every other nation. If it was gun rights would've been abolished federally and it we would've become a lot more unitary. (more comparable to Germany then France, Germany being a semi-unitary federalism, its federal government can rule anything over its regional governments as it wishes without much regulation, but it only does so in so many cases, the US does not share this trait even remotely) The founding fathers hated democracy and described it as the worst thing for the people, as its just mob rule. Everyone always talks about how the electoral college is non-democratic and is an old system, but that's the point, its supposed to be non-democratic, its supposed to be used to increase the threshold for tyranny, the original system worked as intended, the changes actually corrupted and broke the system because those systems weren't, even amongst the compromise, meant to be modulated. The point of the nation was states have more power then the nation and the only point of the federal government was to intervene over the violation of one's rights. Anyone who doesn't actually ever bother to read the founding fathers and actual history of the Constitution and the US, and no your high school social studies class doesn't teach you crap, should stay in their lane and not try to discuss politics over a topic they don't understand as if they're an authority. Foremost there are no living authorities over truth and facts on Earth here, and those who don't know anything about the authority shouldn't have any say.
    1
  1853. We already have very good federally universal background checks Tim, but people aren't being charged for offenses that would get them on the "don't sell a gun" list, dishonorable discharge due to violent conduct, violent offences, behavior violence, these things are already gonna restrict gun ownership on a background check, but when you don't actually run the charges through, the background checks are useless.
    1
  1854. ​ @rodh1404  Expressions neither share the attributes of property (it also isn't even logically true because you're selectively protecting some expression of ideas but not others, like if someone has a specific idea of protest you can't protect that, its an unequal weight) and still require government intervention, violating the very principal of rights and the principal of innocent until proven guilty, that's only rationally kicking the can down the road, not refuting the argument. Any system for which you give government power over is inherently gonna be expanded by those who can then buy government power, and no amount of prohibiting bribery and corruption will fix that, only completely prohibiting the ability for government to enact such capacity in the first place can prevent that. If you wanted to prevent this from happening, you have to completely prohibit their involvement, the government can't decide anything in regards to the market, else it will manipulate and influence the market which builds incentives for big businesses to use the government and get it on their side in order that they can lobby advantages, even without bribery, and you can't just blanket prevent such people from running for office else you'll also prevent the government from have anyone who knows how business and markets work for the common man at all. The only way to ensure that power doesn't get abused is not to give it such power in the first place, its not a legitimate role of government. All government expansion is based purely on incentives and capacity, and so long as it has capacity an incentive will be had to use that capacity against opposition, even if you have an anti-corruption system in place at one point, the incentives naturally will get rid of said system because there is no incentive to keep it, it is purely by convention that such would exist and thus it can be taken away by convention. People, and thus government and economics both work purely on incentives so the best way to prevent abuse is to build a natural incentive for both that naturally discourages such behavior without violating individual liberty or the capacity for the system to operate efficiently, that means you can't just make a law to ban something, especially when it will have loopholes, incentives can't have loopholes, that's part of the design of the incentive and it is much more natural to simulate the effects.
    1
  1855.  @rodh1404  I was talking about the protest itself, that's an expression, you can't protect expression either, expression acts can't be protected but that's a logical requirement of saying its the expression and not the idea. Neither of them can be protected, that's a fallacious position hence why I said its just kicking the can down the road, its not a rational argument. Also being anti-IP law is not being anarchist or supporting anarchy. What I am saying is in keeping with the concept of justice, else I wouldn't even believe in a legitimate role of government, I was pretty clear in explaining this in my posts, there's no reason to to bring the concept of anarchy into the discussion, governments existed before IP law and you don't need IP law to have a government and that aside I demonstrated how IP law itself violates the very principals of justice alongside actually violating property rights, you can't own non-physical things, for say music, you own a distribution of music, you can't own the music itself, you can't prove ownership and it shares no attributes of property. And there is no distinction between expression and idea, its a claim without distinction. Also you completely ignored my point of incentives, humans are purely driven through incentives, especially without a backing moral system that threatens excessive violence on violators.
    1
  1856.  @rodh1404  "How can you control the distribution of something you don't own?" I never said you control the distribution, I said you own a distribution of the music, that means a manner for which the music was distributed, whether it be a cd, vinyl, or even digital file of the music. (which yes is a physical property) But you can't control the distribution of it, that being the music or its expression. "But string a long enough sequence of musical notes together, possibly including vocals and other effects, and provided it meets the originality requirement you do have something you can own." It can't be owned, you can't prove ownership without government interference, which means its not a right, if it requires interference to exist then it doesn't exist, a right is only that which you have on a stranded island. Violations of rights are interferences that must be corrected which is the purpose of government, not to ensure a fair society or a fair market, that is neither the government's job. "That's your work, your creativity and it just makes sense that there should be a period of time where you have control over it." No one has a right to their "work" for that can't be owned, it shares no principal of property, if the work is a property then its not a work any longer, its a product, if its a service, you'd have to voluntarily provide it, if it were otherwise under threatening violent coercion then that's a violation of rights, but other then that you are not insured by government of anything except that you did not rob someone. "An idea is a concept. The expression is when that idea is put into action. The expression can have IP protection when it's original and put into some kind of fixed material form." Again an argument lacking distinction, there is no material form, music does not have a material form, it only has a representation which in this case I was calling "a distribution". But neither expression has any attribute for which to be called a property, you can't prove ownership inherently, it does not even have a form, it has representations which do have a form and those can be owned, but that which lacks form is unowned. "It's more of a carrot and stick kind of thing. There are incentives, and there are punishments. Frankly, I thought this section didn't merit a response. But since you want one: Watch a series of videos called "Great Moments in Unintended Consequences" by ReasonTV. Incentives can have loopholes." Unintended consequences are not loopholes, they're the natural consequence of the badly designed systems, a good incentive is not designed like a system and any incentive that is designed by authority is a bad (as in principally, not in function) incentive, an principally good incentive pushes a behavior without restriction, you don't tax nor subsidize an incentive, you devise manners to produce behavioral outcomes without authority interference at all, unintended consequences only exist as a product of forceful authority interferences which is a violation of individual rights most of the time, and in the few other cases they're anti-economic solutions that people disuse as claiming to be economic, for example the cobra effect is a product of enforced incentives by the state which in the first place used coercion to create the bounties, a better bad incentive would've been to at least ask for the snake hides, if the objective was to eliminate the cobras then targeting them with less direct subsidized means would've been even smarter, but that would've destroyed the environment and ecosystem which in the long term is an undesirable result. A better solution is to allow the people the ability to protect themselves and to push for manners that discourage snakes passively from harming people and if that should fail they will kill the snakes locally. Had the government changed the incentive to focus not on a negative outcome for some opposition but a positive outcome for themselves, the economy, or the people, it would require absolutely no regulation (in fact less then they had) and neither would anyone have to worry about the dangers of cobras. It would not have even required coercion of people to pay for the bounty system.
    1
  1857. What, when was the 8 year old using drugs?
    1
  1858. Lumping C++ in with the memory safety thing doesn't even make any sense because it carries the exact same memory safety as Rust, static analyzers warn you about doing things the C way (resulting in semantic errors the same as in Rust that don't compile) so attacking C++ is absolute nonsense.
    1
  1859. Yes, dating suppose to be nailing out whether the person is suitable, using it for anything else is just asking for judgement.
    1
  1860. Hasn't its non-relativistic version been the only type of Pilot Wave that's been disproven? iirc the debunking only accounted for the oldest versions of the theory, which kinda makes sense given its sparsely worked on and is fairly immature compared to the Copenhagen interpretation
    1
  1861. Funniest thing about the slavery thing is that even during the Antebellum period the South was naturally moving towards a post-slavery standard anyway, numerous states already had part-time slavery systems for most slaves (as in you worked as a slave for some time and then would have a part-time job that paid you directly, not your owner) resulting in a transition of slaves into functional serfs that were on their way to becoming free men, so even the South from an economic standpoint, despite the government intervention, was on track to abolishing slavery, the estimate by any rational observation was that this would've happened in the Confederacy within 10 years at max. (the ironic thing about the Confederacy too is they weren't setup for Jim Crow era laws with the incremental abolishing of slavery so the South actually would've been less likely to have the discrimination laws that came about after the Union won, which I find hilariously ironic)
    1
  1862. Just want to point out, Adam Smith's labor theory of value has nothing to do with Marxist LTV, it actually almost operates opposite of it.
    1
  1863. There isn't generally that much evidence on sea levels rising, definitely not in any catastrophic levels, a depleted ozone is a useless worry if you don't have a fix, (which the closest you can have is one which will never happen and would likely be irrelevant to any worthy effect anymore, note: its much more complicated and worse then you think and yet all the more obscured) I'm not sure what migration crisis you refer to but no modern nation has sustainable native population growth rates so its a pretty bad issue, and I still don't actually get if its such an old disease that the Rus had survived before why are they not immune. Regardless there are far worse diseases which have much higher sustainability rates, anthrax is not one which has even reached a critical mass, not to mention it isn't nearly as immune to modern treatment as worse problems.
    1
  1864. Conspiracy theory isn't semantically correct since speculating in regards to theories of conspiracy, which includes investigators and detectives, is conspiracy theory. The correct phrasing would be theoretical delusion/paranoia. As an aside I am unironically a staunch libertarian monarchist, though not for the sake of power but in centering guilt and shame upon rulers to be held to account when they fail without a shifting tide of politics and policy. You could call me quite radical since in the sense I have surface level agreements with a few authoritarian precepts however I disagree with them most especially in the respect of the divine, and thus rights derived of the divine, being the penultimate above any state or authority. I don't agree with concepts of democratic nor republican values principally because I don't believe the people have capability to understand how to structure a government to rule them and that individuals need to be built and perhaps even grown to that, which suggests the first few rulers will be utter garbage anyway, they are capable to manage themselves and thus be left to their own, but not decide the rulership and authorities. It should at best be expected that such authorities reach out voluntarily but not interfere beyond the judgement to punish the wicked and reward the righteous. The expectation of such systems is that protests with light threats keep the powers in line, should this fail perhaps violence (against the state) becomes justified upon governing loss of the divine justification to rule by violating justice and righteousness itself, (which is not just doing one slightly wrong thing, think seizing someone's property without a court order and they defend said property) and should that fail the system itself shall fall quickly judging the people for corrupting their society against its moral framework. Simple systems work best.
    1
  1865. Its just generally better to give choice to developers then to restrict their choice so long as it does not come at the cost of something else, and the developer should be able to build choices into their systems without restriction instead. Taking choices away is not a good enough and its the paradigm obsession of modern languages that actually frustrates the hell out of me.
    1
  1866.  @formbi  Libre wasn't though and its basically that everyone has source access.
    1
  1867. Nothing has intrinsic value, the attempts to assign value to gold are fallacious, value is an agreed upon concept based around supply and demand, that's why value fluctuates, its subjective to those in the demand and in accordance to current supply. Demand is inherently subjective. Nothing has objective value and by result can't have intrinsic value.
    1
  1868.  @bradensmith8682  That's a deflection, its irrelevant and I don't have a phone so unobtainum. Usefulness doesn't define value, how much bread does it take to buy a phone? Ignore the currency, how do you evaluate the value of bread to phones without a currency? Can you give me an answer in the amount of bread I must always expect to pay for a single phone? Would that apply in a thousand years? How about in a million years? How about a hundred years ago? A thousand years ago? Or how about we boil it down to gold, how do you evaluate the value of something without money? How much gold must I spend to get a phone, not the resources of gold, but how much gold would I need to buy a phone a thousand years into the future? Or better question, how many phones would it take to buy a painting? According to your proposition all paintings must be of equal value in accordance to their materials and usefulness, so tell me how much it should cost for a common painting to be bought by a phone in three hundred years?
    1
  1869.  @bradensmith8682  Neither does your statement, as does neither the internet, a painting, gold, or anything you put work into. All value is subjective to the desires of those who want what you have, that's the literal economics 101, demand is not defined by an intrinsic concept.
    1
  1870. Tim doesn't seem to understand still that the pro-life position has never meant the mother's life being in danger requires bringing it to term, I have no idea why he keeps assuming that its an exception when the whole point is the preservation of human life over everything else. It is a decision the mother and father have the right to make after being properly informed. "...if a women is forced to, lets say a women is raped and she did not choose, she was not irresponsible, I don't see why she should be forced by someone else or by the state to give up her body to another life form." Majority of cases of rape foremost start by the woman being reckless, irresponsible, or foolishly naive, they put themselves into situations where they take undue risk for a rapist to harm them. Common case women who travel alone at night, most especially without a responsible man or group of friends, or when they're drunk or they get roofied because they stopped watching their drink. These are cases where they most certainly were irresponsible, not as much as having unprotected sex with a stranger perhaps, but the issue stands that its not the same risk as walking to a day job on a busy street. Now that doesn't justify that rape is anymore okay, but you are already wrong in majority of cases of women not being irresponsible when they do such things that introduce undue risk that opens this door. There's a reason God tells women to dress modestly, for the proactive women not only causes men to stumble, but for some men to enact injustices upon her if they feel they could get away with it. Inciting these behaviors is still a form of irresponsibility. Now that aside next up is a larger question. Do you have a right to let someone die? As in you could actively save someone's life without putting your own at risk, are you obligated to help them? This is not a legal question, this is a moral question? The moral figure would answer yes, obviously. How is that different from birthing a child? Its not like you need to take care of child, you can put it up for adoption, there are lots of churches that do this regularly, EndAbortionNow does it all the time. Another question, if you have a siamese twin who don't like each other, they wish to be separated and have a doctor who can perform it without killing them, great that's a great case. But lets pose this question again but instead ask what if you knew you could only save one of the twins in the separation and both twins wish to live? Or what if one of the twins is willing to sacrifice the other twin explicitly to separate themselves? Does that twin have the right to tell the other twin he must be killed? Should the state not get involved and question "what about the other twin's life"? This is the argument Tim is making by this "forced" claim. Logically if you think we should not kill one of the twins just to separate them then you can not argue for the execution of a baby for the sake of the mother's convenience even in rape. Did the twins make a choice that led to them being conjoined? Aren't they forced to live that way? But let me ask you this...by who? Who forced them to live that way? Their parents? Nope, the choice was made by God and our sin, God designed the beings, the people, and the sin crept in and damaged the wonderful creation he set to such a degree that it harmed their otherwise conventional life. But by Tim's argument siamese twins can sacrifice one of the two for the sake of separation. Now lets ask a deeper question than that. Who is forcing the woman to have the child? The rapist? No, he inspired the event but he is not responsible for the child's existence in the same regard as a father, its a consequence but not an equal responsibility. You want to know what's forcing the woman to have the child? Nature. God's devised nature that was made to birth the formation of a child, it is not the child's fault. Since when do we punish the child for the sins of the father? Why must a child be killed because his father violated the law? You see you can't argue its not already a separate life and that argument has been routinely lost by those who oppose the position of life, neither can you argue its not a child for once again its recognized as separate conception in the womb. So the argument stands that if its a life and if its a child, why are we giving authority to murder it for the crimes that it has not committed? Name a crime that the child, not its father, the child, has committed. There is not one but yet why must it die? Tim you're not thinking rationally here because if its about the preservation of life, why must the child be killed? The child did nothing wrong and poses no threat to the mother so how can you rationally justify killing it? Dependence is also a bad argument anyway, if we are justified by dependence and its father being a rapist, then what about a post-born baby of rape? It has the same dependence as a pre-born child yet you treat its form, size, and dependency different because you're not being logically consistent. If you were logically consistent you can't have unequal weights and measures, convenience, even if you were not overtly responsible, doesn't overrule responsibility. You are responsible for things that happen to you even if you are not the one who enacted those things upon yourself. Is a man not responsible for his finances when the market collapses? He didn't do anything irresponsible to destroy his finances yet the market has collapsed, by your argumentation he can't possibly be responsible because he wasn't enacting any behavior recklessly yet your argument claims that he shouldn't take responsibility and should let his finances collapse to spite his acquired responsibility. Who in life is capable of being responsible if not for having responsibilities enacted upon them unwillingly?
    1
  1871. Should try checking out Ladybird and SerenityOS.
    1
  1872.  @tzaphkielconficturus7136  Correct
    1
  1873. I do wonder if the experiment specifically was tried but if it was I'm not so convinced it worked, I generally sit more on the edge of rational conspiracies.
    1
  1874. Just gonna point out you can't increase taxes in the US to make up for the deficit, we're already well beyond the Laffer Curve, decreasing taxes will increase tax revenue. Although to point out, taxes don't currently exist for revenue purposes anymore, its a deflationary measure, its how the Federal Reserve manages inflation. (this is a bad thing, but its how it works, if you want to eliminate taxes and increase revenue, you need to eliminate the central banking system which enables them to systematically control inflation)
    1
  1875. I'm always gonna have a problem with a push button, take a pill medical philosophy, I don't care much for homeopathy, but I don't think most folks in the medical industry care at all since most issues are prescribed with a pill and nothing else, maybe a surgery, often times one that'll remove something, and no regard to behavior and diet.
    1
  1876. They already have a record of targeting, attacking, and abusing political groups with distinct opinions to their corporate policy, their corporate polices include but are not limited to religious opposition, sexualization of kids, the belief in hate speech not being covered under hate speech, opposition to any form of civilian gun ownership, and other similar corporate Orwellian policies, they have blocked payments and shutdown accounts associated with such things that disagree and refuse to do the same to those who "break the law" by speech calling for violence so long as they align with their corporate policy, even worse then Twitter does. They have been selectively enforcing their politics for a few years now, and this isn't the first time they have been caught with their pants down, its merely the first where everyone actually gave a damn.
    1
  1877. 26 million+ views
    1
  1878. Thing I find hilarious is that the Nation of Islam believe in a separate yellow race, but its not Asians who are black to them.
    1
  1879. Honestly 90% of the Fediverse hosts are themselves trash, Facebook is honestly a better social media network then them, which is hilarious at demonstrating how bad the Fediverse actually is. That whole Gab thing demonstrated that fact.
    1
  1880. A lot of Fediverse instances are run by absolute children, I don't expect anyone who was considering block Threads turning back on that, I like the idea but God is the Fediverse full of retards, its like a GMod DarkRP server only with way more dumb communists.
    1
  1881.  @daigoro7216  "Giuliani case" Had nothing to do with Trump, he did that himself. Which I might add its not a crime to lose a lawsuit, even against the state. (nor is it a crime to sue someone even if you were to believe yourself likely to lose the case) "Georgia calls" A case of complete fabrication? Like the details of those claims do not refer to a crime. "Jeffrey Clark as AG to overturn the election." Even though he's not being charged with that and nobody is even pointing to that as evidence of a crime. Go examine the court cases they did make, none of them are related to that.
    1
  1882. This was in 2012, that movement claims to have succeeded in reforming section 5, but the same issue have remained.
    1
  1883. Of course Stallman and the FSF religion screwing with people again, who would've guessed...
    1
  1884. Look at it this way, either we execute pedophiles for molesting kids or they service their time and are free of all charges, you don't get to do both, I would prefer execution, but if you don't, then you can't say they don't have a right to a firearm afterwards. Anyone who doesn't respect this is a moron.
    1
  1885. I've checked out the predecessor to the Safe C++ proposal, the Circle Compiler, it was an interesting experiment, but the proposal needs to be written to take into account the C++ standard as whats coming in C++26, and it still hasn't yet.
    1
  1886. God I wish I could say "like anyone would trust a twitch thot with lawmaking" but goddamnit they already trust two potatoes to the executive branches and already implemented BLM legislation which was already found to be committing fraud.
    1
  1887. ​ @poppabigcat6742 The E isn't good, asmon is falling for the name not understanding it has nothing to do with what he is saying, as someone whose spent years investigating these people and their tactics, the environment part of ESG is not good either, its actually probably worse because its core objective is extermination of human life because it perceives humans as the problem, Marxism sounds great until you actually investigate what it does and what it wants to do, it was never good, ESG is a Marxist system designed to incorporate a communist state without direct government interference.
    1
  1888.  @poppabigcat6742 ​ The E isn't good, asmon is falling for the name not understanding it has nothing to do with what he is saying, as someone whose spent years investigating these people and their tactics, the environment part of ESG is not good either, its actually probably worse because its core objective is extermination of human life because it perceives humans as the problem.
    1
  1889. Honestly I still don't get what you exactly mean by altruism and opposition to it, like I get the idea of you using the definition of altruism being about self-sacrifice at risk of one's self, which I would argue is only one, and specifically Comte's, definition of altruism, but the issue I have is that you switch the target of the definition in ways that make it hard to understand what is the positive affirmation your claiming to. Like what exactly do mean by "focusing on the self" and how do you mean for that to play out? Ayn Rand wasn't able to define it either and its one of the reasons anyone who knows any moralist arguments finds her epistemology and moral arguments a joke as her arguments were already addressed by Paul, Augustine, and Calvin. So far what I've seen of your position suggests you simply can't believe in limited selflessness yet you at the same time claim that you do not operate on a hedonist or all encompassing narcissistic outlook, (is that merely based on preference or is there a definition why that isn't your rational conclusion?) which confuses me. And why it seems like you need to completely refute all altruism instead of taking a limited altruism position which would be more balanced. I suppose the lack of Christian foundation is part of the issue, as you demonstrate while you sort of understand what is being said, you don't understand how Christians arrived at the rational conclusions we have, missing elements of interpretation necessary for awareness of the position thus hurts your reception of the context of the text you were referencing. Christian teaching is very context sensitive as our devotion is to truth at the sacrifice of ourselves. Fundamentally I can't figure out what is the foundation for morality in the view you're expressing, and its likely a big element of what caused the response you got, you pointing to altruism and not separating it from the limited altruism you described makes it sound like just as much an attack especially on the Christian foundation because it sounded like you were equating Christian teaching to disregard for the self which would be faulty. It seems that was unintended, but when you enter into a discussion of moralism without a clear definition of the rightful moral system and merely an advocate against a moral system then it becomes difficult to know how far the criticism actually goes. A good moralist discussion requires very clear and rigid definitions. It doesn't help that you brought up in one of your response comments an example of a Catholic woman who you said practiced rampant self-hatred because of her faith, causing her depression, which only further reinforced the idea that you actually see this issue as a Christian problem else there is no reason to bring her up. I'd argue that it was specifically the lack of Catholic understanding of Scripture that is more the cause as Catholics don't as a religious address original sin and depravity, or it could just as much be a specific problem with her even, either way it presents a case of suggesting its a Christian model of altruism that you also have a problem with, potentially including other faiths.
    1
  1890.  @diadetediotedio6918  "If you say that you despise language, in that sense nothing would satisfy you other than her contempt for language." And pray tell where you're justified in assuming that? I never once said this and there is no possible manner to support this. Perhaps if you read what I have written on the subject you wouldn't have made such an erroneously foolish claim but no you don't care for reasonableness, you have to attack me instead. This is quite a personal attack and its incredibly insulting to say the least. Its also quite the accusation, so where is your proof? "You simply want to hear the flaws you want to hear." This is what I am referring to when I call Rust fanatics childish, you don't care about my position, you just want to defend a religion with your irrational zeal, I am totally fine with the existence of Rust but you don't care because you have to attack anyone who doesn't agree with you, I am not okay when its community does this type of crap over and over and over again. Says something about the Rust community more then it ever does about me. I am also not okay when every language duplicates and mimics Rust without question, it puts into question what the point of another language even is. Do you even know what I have said about the language, do you even know what my position specifically is? I doubt so given how you just accused me that I must think everyone share my exact perspective. Did you ever stop to consider some languages for different purposes are also in use by different people perhaps? Did you ever stop to think I don't consider Rust for me and won't use it for that reason? The arrogance for one to be so insulting when you don't even know my position is incredible.
    1
  1891.  @diadetediotedio6918  "I think you're hyper-reacting to something that just underlined the things you said." Claim without proof and it lacks reason. It also is an ad hominem fallacy. "See, it's a principle of rationality that you should keep your biases away from your concrete judgments" No one can do this and neither should they try, reality, reason, truth, and facts are all inherently biased and to believe anyone or anything is capable of being without bias is also an invalid perspective. There is nothing that informs this belief except ignorance or arrogance and you can't even prove it true, in fact its easier to prove that everything is inherently and necessarily biased then it is to prove otherwise. For otherwise there would be distinguishing nor classifying factors behind anything. Also this is still not an argument. "in that sense I manage not to hate or love any language and still recognize its strengths and weaknesses." If you believe that my hatred of a language informs that I believe that the language must not exist or be used by anyone instead suggests delusion and arrogance. You clearly didn't bother to read what I say, you read what you want out of what I say and ignore what I actually have said. You care nothing for my position, you just want to put me down for why else would you raise yourself to a superior position and present no reason? Why are you even speaking in regards to opinion when I have explicitly stated that my opinion is not what's informing my opposition to the Rust community. You have still yet to even speak about that refuse to even address what I've said. You don't get to make claims of my character and claim yourself superior. That is inherently self-righteousness, a biased position. You also have not given one good reason not to have a negative disposition towards a tool that you find innately and inherently flawed and problematic most especially for the purpose it claims to be for. My position of disposition behind the language is not informed either by opinion but thing is I never presented it because I did not find it relevant. Why then however do you assume you know what I have said when I have never spoken it to you? You don't get to make those assumptions and then also assume you are right by a strawman fallacy? "I don't even consider myself a "Rust programmer", nor a member of the "Rust community", but look at how you've acted, in complete dismay, based on your assumptions." You attacked and assumed of me and then made ad hominems character attacks and strawman fallacies for positions I never presented, ignoring what I have said to support a position that was never argued in regards to. I have a disposition towards the language, nothing about that speaks to me being irrational, I never even presented you a reason for issues and neither have you addressed them, I have been fairly vague and/or light in all my criticisms regarding Rust because they were not the core of my issue regarding the Rust community, who has done just the same thing you just did. I don't care about your opinion of me and I don't care about your fallacies regarding me. Neither do I care for my own opinions, I care for the facts and truth for which you presented none of and merely assumed upon me for. "You basically called an experienced driver programmer a fanatic" You're the one who acted upon me, I will call those who act in a manner not by reason what they are according to their act, you didn't use a well reasoned argument to refute me, you made assumptions of me, and then used that you make yourself look better. You have presented yourself a fanatic and thus were referred to by what you have done. Experience does not exclude fanaticism, why you act like they're mutually exclusive either speaks to lack of understanding or delusion. In either case it does not speak well of what you've done. I don't care for your character but your behavior I will criticize, never once have I said something that isn't the result of your behavior, act better and I won't say anything regarding behavior, act poorly and I will criticize, its quite a simple metric. "and you said you would disregard her opinion if she recognized the "flaws"." First off, sounds like a typo, I said I would disregard her opinion regarding Rust if she would not recognize the flaws. How does that say that I hate the language to the degree you accuse me of? I hate the language informed by its flaws but if one doesn't recognize flaws in a language how then can they be trusted to be truthful, honest, and worth listening to? If one says C is the best thing ever and it has no flaws, would you suggest that I should consider their opinions more then those who see the flaws? For this is what I say of Rust folks, but for them they do this with Rust. When I speak of Rust flaws, they accuse me of things and attack my character and refuse to acknowledge what I say. Closest someone ever came was saying "yes but" which isn't an acknowledgement but a defensive mechanism. Now if someone does this, why then should I regard them? Do you believe that I like and use C and C++ because I think they have no flaws? Do you truly think I don't recognize that Rust solves some of them even? If you believe that of me then I must call you delusional, in the least your behavior makes that implication of how you think of me which itself is both irrationally and was never stated. Do you believe that I am unaware of C memory management being a pain that assists the creation of bugs? If no then why have you accused me of all these things that I haven't said nor have I made a support of? The only reasonable expectation of your position is that you do believe that I think such a way but as to why I don't know and truthfully I don't care. "And finally, you said you despise language." I also despise murder and murderers, do you suggest I should have no reasonable argument towards murder then? Would you make the argument that only people who care nothing for murder speak regarding murder? If the answer is no you have refuted your own argument as rational argumentation does not in essence require lack of a disposition, there is no reason to assume this except to attack someone's character and disregard their argument. In essence it is a deflection tactic and always an ad hominem fallacy. "Do you want people to get what you say if you say it in such an emotionally unstable way?" Foremost I don't care about what people do, think, or believe, most especially about me. I don't matter and nothing about me should matter. If I do matter then you have lost the plot and can't sustain an argument in the first place. Regard for character over argument means the opposing argument should not be considered because it inherently can not be a valid argument. (that does not mean the argument is incorrect or correct on either side, but the side that doesn't use a fallacy is more trustworthy by inherent position of the lack of a fallacy until presented with a proper refutation) And emotionally unstable how? If someone refuses flaws to something that must inherently have flaws, their position is inherently invalid enough to put anything they say into question. That's not an unstable position by any regard, it is entirely rational to ignore a position not informed by truth but by blindness if one does not keep themselves under reasonable expectation of the world.
    1
  1892.  @mmstick  "Rust is in an all new class of its own, and we have yet to see any projects seriously challenging it." It is this exact mentality why I do not consider the perspective of fanatics. "Go ahead and name a language that has all of" Why should I? This is a deflection, just because a language would have any features does not mean its a good language, a language is not a pure sum of its features and to think otherwise is say the least foolishness. You can list language features all you want, there are plenty of languages that share and implement many, most, if not all of these features in some manner, and to claim that Rust is so great because it has these features, ignoring the languages that do or may also have them by literally disregarding the capacity to be wrong religiously so, and yet it lacks many other very "vital" features to some degree or another, ("vital" I may add that neither would I consider vital but what others may call vital) not that most of these are specifically vital even for its objective, in the best of cases many of these are conveniences and nowhere near what makes even a decent language, some of them I would even argue detract from the language. For example, functional and imperative programming are no more special then any other paradigm, in fact I would suggest they are often push developers into a negative space as they override the mechanics of the language to force one singular paradigm of solutions, which Rust most certainly does, no doubt in part thanks to such behaviors. (and no that is not me saying I despise such, it is me saying they are at best serve a limited purpose that limits both use and capacity, often I would say for little gain from a programming perspective, they're nice optional features, they're terrible required features and they often uselessly add development oversights and undue complexity) It is the sign of a fool that believes he is right by answering an address of "nothing compares" as if that's actually true. You don't know every language and neither do you know even a subset of a modicum of languages that service the same purpose as Rust, let alone C. Only a foolish argument will stand on a blanket and absolute claim as "nothing compares, its in completely different class compared to the others". And which yes, C will by necessity have more general use then Rust because Rust exclusively focuses on one subset of use cases regarding C to the exclusion of other purposes, that's how tradeoffs must reasonably and rationally work, and every language feature you add increases your tradeoffs and thus your specialization. For every feature you add, complexity is increased, and for each bit of complexity not only is there more to go wrong, but there is more to learn and understand, and if those underpinning systems, which Rust has a lot of, are not so well understood, there will still be more bugs introduced by developers and more non-solvable problems for which developers will have to deal with. I didn't even need to argue anything about what you said for you made a blanket statement, and I have no reason to consider your arguments when you don't make a single one. Instead of arguing against what I have said, you go right into defensive child mode just short of explicitly stating "its better" as though that justifies the acts and the behaviors of developers of Rust and their willingness to completely disregard any criticism of the language. If one can not recognize any flaws in a system, they do not love it, they idolize it, love is not blind, for love seeks for truth, it is idolatry and blind worship for which one will refuse to acknowledge flaws and attack the character of its opposition. This is why I call it a religion. Can't even stand to hear someone telling you it has flaws, gotta defend your zealousness with childish intent.
    1
  1893. ​ @mmstick  "didn't even bother to answer my original request." Because its a diversion. I care not to partake in a diversion from the point. "Deflecting is not a mature way to have a discussion." I did not deflect because I'm staying on point, you're the one committing to a red herring fallacy, what value to the discussion does bringing the languages I speak of provide? It does not strengthen my argument nor would it refute my argument to be absent, hence why I only made mention of their existence, for they be merely a reference, not a point in of itself, the existence of the language is completely circumstantial to my point, the specifics on that is completely irrelevant. You tunneled onto something you so thought you could assault in complete disregard to what was actually said, that itself is immature.
    1
  1894. There is at least two things I'm confident on Waco: 1. The claimed evidence for David molesting kids makes absolutely no sense. 2. Never once did the compound violate the law, especially gun law. Also what is he talking about "this didn't happen before"? The same type of crap caused Ruby Ridge, it followed same result of the feds murdering a bunch of innocent folks, that was 1992, Waco was in 1993, it was the FBI and ATF that did both.
    1
  1895.  @unknown-qp8pk  I run a FOSS game project with some dudes, we operate through discord and we're pretty damn based, our rivals are woketards though, its rare but we exist.
    1
  1896.  @unknown-qp8pk  I run a FOSS game project with a discord that's based btw.
    1
  1897.  @mf--  I don't really care either way, whether they're offended or not is irrelevant to me, I simply say it to speak truth.
    1
  1898.  @HuraRas  He is linguistically neutral, that's how its defined in formal English.
    1
  1899. Making things up, quite interesting to see fabrication. Also if you riot, I'd be fine with taking you out with violence.
    1
  1900. Blame the Civil Rights Act, its a product of disparate outcome law, otherwise known as legally mandated minority quotas, they can sue you for not implementing them. Go ahead and look it up. Reason it doesn't happen in Japan or Korea is because they don't have any civil rights laws for private business, whereas most western countries, like Sweden, Poland, Britain, France, and Germany do. You don't need laws to prevent discrimination because the private market solves it through basic incentives, it is simply less profitable to discriminate, all discrimination in the US has always been based on state intervention. (Jim Crow was law, you were not allowed to violate it)
    1
  1901. This is why putting government in the problem is stupid, right to repair doesn't need to be solved by government because the issue it tries to solve was created by government, patents and IP law are infringements upon individual rights because you can not own an idea, manifested object, something with practical and functional existence can be owned, but a concept or idea can not be for it is not manifested. It requires active systems that can encroach upon personal liberties since someone could devise a unique object that infringes that infringes someone's conceptions, but how can you validate ownership without government? You can't. By having the government forbid replication of good ideas implemented badly you are encouraging monopolies that ARE GOVERNMENT ENFORCED. And the only people that can take advantage of the monopoly system are those with the money, thus monopolies follow money. Monopolies die when government is left out. This applies for all IP law, film, software, books, music, none of them have to truly compete against superior skill and talent, once someone has been registered with the government, they can coast on it and rip everyone off. Bandaid solutions don't fix the problem, IP law and patents need to die. (and we know for a fact that neither patent, copyright, or trademark are enforced by someone without money, also trademark and copyright can be socially enforced, as that generally happens naturally especially with the internet, Streamlabs is the perfect example of that)
    1
  1902. There has never been a point when it served a purpose, it was idiot intellectuals thinking they were smart completely misunderstanding that farmers did not give a damn about the exact times they had to work.
    1
  1903. That woman is the spokesperson for repealing the 19th.
    1
  1904. Democracy always leads to tyranny and communism or socialism, from Aristotle to Hans-Herman Hoppe, even Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler (course they made it seem like socialism was a good thing because they were the tyrants) explicitly said such, this has been a known fact by every political philosopher who actually examined the root of democracy. Aristotle predicted 1984 in 300 BC. (in fact he goes into more detail about the exact specific policies a tyrant implements and how they think)
    1
  1905.  @Jose-yt3qz  He's probably in hell, but that's irrelevant because that includes anyone who doesn't bow their knee to Christ regardless, even if they were to claim to be Christian and do good things. (Matthew 7:21-23) Those in Hell are not there as a product of their works on Earth, same as to those in Heaven. There are no good people in Heaven, there are murderers, rapists, and likely even genocidal maniacs washed of their sins in Heaven, the difference is they repented and bowed their knee to Christ, I cannot tell you if someone had done that without knowing their last moments personally, and only God knows the heart. And its not whitewashing, God had preference for him of the many other dictators, his small kill count is demonstrative of that, the lack of having that power that you claim, which I don't even agree as true, but even if it were, that's being shown preference from God too, God gifts to those less evil that he prefers even if you think he was more, I don't believe there is such a thing as more evil regardless, but just as those who do good are shown preference even when they hate Him, that does not save them from Hell. This is proven with Cyrus.
    1
  1906.  @augustuskeller7214  God is sovereign over such things, (Genesis 50:20) and all evil itself serves a purpose by God's hand, if the child is elect then the child will receive all that's necessary to overcome in Christ, and He will give wisdom to know these things with our humble submission, but as for the Godless, these things will be made known even in their conscience, but they are condemned for their refusal of God, comfort cannot be received by those who do not desire it.
    1
  1907. If only you could become one of the tech/open-source advisors to a second Trump administration. (I look fondly on his administration in the hope it will help combat the DEI crap)
    1
  1908. Would totally use it if I ever had a reason to go to such antiquated boomer crapsites that don't give you anything but dumb ideas.
    1
  1909. Asmon doesn't understand the involvement of Vanguard and Blackrock in this, this is the ESG score crap, the more ESG and DEI you make your products, and the more you act ESG and DEI, the better your stock price will become, the better loan interests you get, the better your office mortgages can be, the more credit you will have, the more government money you can be paid to you, the reason this is happening is because the underground government subsidizes Vanguard and Blackrock to who own majority of the banking, real estate, and financial industry, and with this ownership they then rank companies based on ESG metrics and the better your ESG metrics are, the more advantages these industries will pay out to you and the higher your market cap can go. Also look up Social Impact Bridge 2.0.
    1
  1910. "plausible deniability" If this dude wasn't crazy perhaps he'd realize they're dog whistling to the actual racists on the left (usually people like that lunatic u/PM_ME_with_nothing) to deliberately send them into a crazed lunatic state. 4chan isn't actually that racist and most of the "racists" are just people screwing with the media because like us they hate them. (they just are way less politically correct about it, that and they're politically incorrect when it comes to questions) You know the funny thing about fascists is they actually tended to agree with leftists methodologies, they're Marxist socialists who see things through race instead of class, the left these days is just a form of neo-facism since they do that these days, then again they love praising the corporate or are the corporates which were the original hallmark of fascism.
    1
  1911. Yet to see Respawn actually screw up a game, so I'm cautiously optimistic, little bugged its using the SW Canon EU but its an officially licensed Disney Star Wars game, we aren't getting any Legends shit anymore because Disney is full of retarded cucks.
    1
  1912. To point out, a "Gravity Well" is the region of space where noticeable gravity effects begin to take place surrounding a body in space.
    1
  1913. Everyone believe monopolies control things, including the people in control, who believe they can now act with impunity, in reality monopolies don't exist, its merely a illusion devised to keep people sated with a moderate but low amount of frustration without competition living otherwise comfortable lives, but competition can't be stopped without a socialist economy, which ironically absolutist states always try to do, unless the power of the state is reduced it will eventually be the case that there will only ever be one monopoly for which all resources are allowed to be given from, and it will be government or government owned and operated. Everything else will be the black market.
    1
  1914. Nobody ever seems to get the only reason you had a right to vote was originally because it impacted you and you had a responsibility that made you understand what to vote meant, landowners hence were the only ones capable to vote and they voted for the sake of their family. The only reason they relaxed it to all citizen men was because they justified it saying "well any man can be drafted so he should have the right to" (which I might add there wasn't originally constituted in the US, it was a later "innovation" hence why that argument made no sense originally) but what do women have a responsibility to in voting for which their husband doesn't have more of? Women can't get drafted, which is the new justification, and women don't have any responsibility for landownership, which was the old justification, they have nothing to justify their capacity to vote. Women are naturally irresponsible and necessarily need an authority over them to act reasonable and responsible. Women are controlled heavily by their environment and atmospheres for which they relegate themselves to and they shifted with the win, they are not stable unless the environment they are within itself is stable. Take a look at women who have good family lives before they go into college. Every single case you see they start by being fairly conservative, reserved, submissive, traditional, whether partly or entirely, they consider family and are quite considerate and often respectful. But every time they go to college, an overwhelming majority become deranged lunatics, even in high school this encourages that behavior. Men don't act like this, they do not change their entire personality by environment because men don't adapt to their surroundings but make their surroundings comfortable for them. Women adhere to social conformity, they always conform, whereas men do not, so what happens when women go to conform in a place that hates them or hates men, or hates their country? They conform to such things, thus how women overwhelming go from being simple in conforming to family and national values to being opposed to them entirely. This is the reflection of the truth that women need an authority so they have that stable environment. This is why responsibility for leadership should not be trusted to women, and while I will never volunteer myself to be under a woman, for I am not below the rank of women so as to be ruled or ordered by her. This not to say I would not love or respect her, but she is not my authority as I am a man, if I am a child, I conform to my mother and my father, but as a man I conform to neither but she shall reflect of me a good nature just as I care and love her respectfully so. This is not to say men are all authority over women but that those who are married are the authority over their wives, those women unmarried are under authority of their father or then next closest male relative before their own eldership among the church. She then should seek marriage unless she has once been and is no longer urged by any desire of marriage. (which regards the desire for a husband and children, which is usually reserved for old women) Then so I also oppose any voting system anyway, women should be married, but voting systems inherently are stupid anyone, for who has authority to rule himself? Why then do we give him power as though he has authority to decide his own rule? It is hypocritcal.
    1
  1915. Scripture does not give you such interpretation and nothing says that a Heliocentric view has any association with paganism, that's a completely nonsense claim, recognizing the sun is the central reference for rotation procession in our cosmological (or astronomical) system has literally nothing to do with a sun god, you need to reread the Commandments again, God never once gives a principal of idolatry to anything but actual worship, knowledge and the recognition of ideas of truth are not related to worship. If one is to become what they worship, they will reflect what they worship, (which God also says in Scripture) so let me ask you, do those that believe in the Heliocentric view (helio is just a reference for the sun, it has nothing to do with paganism) then reflect the nature of Helios? And if so how and where?
    1
  1916. It doubly pisses me off because the little girl is also fine with it, that's just cute children things, more wholesome then whatever the hell these modern degenerates are doing and saying, the children know the truth, its healthy behavior for boys to do stuff like this. Death to modernity, this stuff is crap.
    1
  1917. That is not valued in any European system currently aside from maybe Switzerland which also isn't part of the EU. If it was, the people wouldn't celebrate democracy, equality, and enlargement of state involvement, it also wouldn't support the bureaucracy of the system, the majority of European people either don't care or support those aspects even when given Euroskepticism (which is useless without the change in values and desire for ultimate liberty over all else)
    1
  1918. It takes men first to correct this, it was the fault of men that it first happened.
    1
  1919. Look up BRIDGE social impact, its a rebrand, not a removal.
    1
  1920. "Muh 2 world wars" now have another well tested argument against them, Fudds now on suicide watch.
    1
  1921. CBR? More like CBT.
    1
  1922. You don't have a right to a "decent wage" because a wage is an agreement between employee and employer, anything else is a violation of both property rights and free association which directly contradicts the teachings of the Founding Fathers. So you're enforcing a violation of natural rights, black markets always exist because the free market is being immorally hampered by the government.
    1
  1923.  @waynejohnson1786  The reports later turned out to be proven false by witness testimony and it ended up just being the ATF and FBI making crap up to the media, there was never any reasonable suspicious of that.
    1
  1924.  @pinguwingu7690  There are multiple independent witnesses attesting to this guy making contact with people before the incident and there are direct records and associations that can't be faked, there's too much evidence it wasn't fabricated.
    1
  1925. You mean metal, while rock is an ancestor of metal, its a distinct, more hardcore child of the genre, rock isn't heavy enough for Doom, in this case the subgenre they should've used is either Djent of Thrash.
    1
  1926.  @cthuludreams1  Some of can be good, but a lot of djent is just poorman chugging thrash ripoffs, some of works fine as atmosphere audio rather then music.
    1
  1927.  @XxTW0F4C3DxX  Just because something is complex doesn't make it good, (and criticizing the quality of anything, especially creativity, does not require being capable of performing it) that said I wouldn't have called it trash, but a lot of it is subpar abuse of technical skill with little creativity.
    1
  1928.  @XxTW0F4C3DxX  Yeah, a lot of metal can be quite an acquired taste, though there are a lot of musicians and bands that think high technical skill or high complexity instantly gives them something better then anything else, which actually annoys the hell out of me because 9/10 times they butcher the soundscape and way over-bloat the headspace, (which is a shame when the ideas and sounds are otherwise quite interesting, looking at you Black and Death Metal) leaving nothing in the song itself to shine, as well as making it practically impossible for the audience (or least most audiences) to understand. A good public commercial musician, someone building music that they plan to release to the public commercially, should be looking for a balance on all these concepts as well. This is also why I say Djent is so poor comparative to music that we from the likes of Soundgarden, Avenged Sevenfold, or Dream Theater. (and I still think DT overdoes it) That's not dissing it, but if anyone in the genre does want mainstream appeal, they need to be more radical and revolutionary musically beyond attaching bits from music theory, or perhaps simplify it in a manner that expands its impact. If they don't they're fine where they're at now tho.
    1
  1929.  @lawrencedoliveiro9104  That's not how you define machine language, an instruction set does not by nature mean its machine code, (it could be, but doesn't mean it is) which is what we're referring to by machine language, in the case of Javascript, it does not sustain an intermediary bytecode and does not translate to native calls in any respect, it might inadvertently make them (though not in a browser because it has to be sandboxed in order to be secure and not leak the container, nodejs also tries to do this because chromium) but it does not make any direct translations to native calls. Also when you define something by calling it compiled, it has nothing to do with hardware or software, that's a misunderstanding of those terms, it has to do with instanced compilation or pre-compilation (which in most languages that become a true bytecode or the instruction set machine code is the latter as its considered generally more performant, however less flexible) which Javascript doesn't do either because it doesn't actually compile. (though in many respects you can treat the "JIT" concept in JS as if it is, however there are distinctions to this)
    1
  1930.  @lawrencedoliveiro9104  No, a machine language is a specific type of instruction set for a machine to interpret, its not applied to anything that can be "understood by an appropriate 'machine' " most especially since the using the word "understanding" in this context is just straight wrong. That aside you're speaking in a vague abstract, that's not theory and doesn't even work as hypothetical so its relevance is empty. That aside its not compiled and my your conception of "machine language" the reference is literally useless because it makes no categorical distinctions and speaks nothing to function or purpose, and neither contributes to theoretical understanding.
    1
  1931.  @lawrencedoliveiro9104  You are speaking in a useless abstract, you can't operate, contribute, or construct under that thinking, you can't make categorical conflations and expect anyone to take you seriously.
    1
  1932.  @lawrencedoliveiro9104  I don't go to an academic setting for my understanding, I find them worthless and everything I've ever needed has been self-taught, from processing algorithms to constructing a compiler, (granted I was assisted by the purple dragon book, but I had no other assistance on that, learning theory from scratch is a waste of time) but I find looking at the abstract momentously pointless, if it can not be implemented and serve a direct immediate purpose, you are wasting your time and effort in worthless ponderings and empty philosophy.
    1
  1933. She's not a Christian, women can't be bishops or pastors.
    1
  1934. You don't have a right to a job, you have a right to seek for a job, freedom of association is a right, violating it by restricting the association of people is a violation of human rights expressly stated in the 1st Amendment. Nobody has a right to be provided nor to keep a job, they're just stupid or lazy.
    1
  1935. So are they trying to turn this into a Russia/China/Iran thing? Are they gonna try to force a war for the attempted assassination to keep Trump out of office?
    1
  1936. Claiming that language is relevant here makes no sense, the premise suggests that its the culture, and a culture develops language and the language develops off the back of cultural needs, not the opposite way around, a culture does not change to suit a language, that makes little sense, this rather clearly suggests that language is downstream from culture, and there is no way for someone to separate the influence of culture and language except by having someone learn a new language well after they've root themselves in their culture, and there has been no case so far that anyone has demonstrated language instead changing how you think, at most its only demonstrated to change how you can express any thought because now you have additional manners to describe any specific thing. Else newspeak is in fact an effective manner to control people, which I don't see any example of that, the Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, and the Czechs all rebelled rather consistently under regimes that enforced newspeak, so as far as actual social "experiments" there is no case demonstrating a mindset change that validates the claims of those who support newspeak, which contributes against the presumption that language influences how you think. Also I speak English, I have never spoken anything other then English, I have never even been outside the North East of the US, I have rarely if ever heard even someone utter an East Asian word physically near me, (and certainly I've never heard anything like Arabic, though I did one time visit a synagogue for a friend's bar mitzvah, but that was really short) and even online I have never heard anyone say anything in an East Asian language aside from watching subbed anime, which I can only read in English, I have put absolutely no time into studying another language. I never even watched anime until I reached my 20s, I still saw the hexagon as only being convex.
    1
  1937. Of course Shoe still likes socialist policies because she's still a white woman at heart, being married rarely means crud, ha. Like if you actually think that the democrats ever good economic policy you just have brain damage, Shoe still doesn't understand anything about economics as usual. If you think men don't already massively side against that, especially as libertarian ideals of the American Constitution are becoming more politically entrenched, Trump has already popularized late 1700s small government values, as his "terminate income tax, fund with tariffs" policy he is now touting, and he very likely will try to do this proving once again the way to prosperity is by ejecting socialist economic policies, look at Argentina.
    1
  1938. The capacity to bare life makes them infinitely more valuable then men, also one man can impregnate many women, one woman can only be pregnant once every 9 (or so) months, and while she could potentially have multiple kids per pregnancy, this is not a rule, 3 kids per 9 months is still 1 kid every 3 months, where as if a guy impregnates 3 women he is guaranteed to hit that limit excluding a miscarriage, potentially higher if any of them even has a twin let alone more children. A society can recover if the women survive, it cannot recover if the women start dying.
    1
  1939.  @Aexorzist  Pattern matching has never been a big deal for languages, its nice to have, but that type of behavior can actually be implemented in C++ with operator overloading if you're really obsessed with it.
    1
  1940.  @rcoder01  std::optional is stupid easy to deal with, std::variant was only annoying because no member visit and the lack of intrinsic function overload, both however can be implemented.
    1
  1941. I stopped at "feminist"
    1
  1942.  @Megalcristo2  Biggest cases and why you can't really use references is when you need to also return an empty pointer and your class doesn't or can't have a tombstone state. (which usually you don't want if your class consumes more then a pointer size of memory on construction anyway)
    1
  1943. Look up BRIDGE social impact, its a rebrand, not a removal.
    1
  1944.  @anon_y_mousse  Generators are one thing, but there's a number of parser combinators that can allow that, but it still is a pain to be context sensitive, and C3 wanted to be a much simpler parser still.
    1
  1945.  @anon_y_mousse  Maybe but even then would still easily be able to walk into the most vexing parse in that case.
    1
  1946.  @anon_y_mousse  Yeah but then you're moving further away from the visual simplicity of C and from C in general tbh.
    1
  1947. ​ Jay C  I don't know where you're pulling this idea from, that's not even remotely true, I've been to multiple military education institutions, from West Point to the Annapolis Navy Base, and many places in between, and I've had friends go through even grunt bootcamp, while I disagree with a lot of manners of training and manipulation of troops, making the claim they're not educated, that the training is crap, that's just plain ignorant. I'm an isolationist anti-war individual but I'm not gonna lie and and make up my own reality to try and prove my point. The Air Force is widely considered the highest educated branch, (and its well above anything I've seen at Annapolis or West Point) the Navy is also significantly intelligent, and then come the Marines before the Army but none of them are uneducated in the least, and their training is definitely way above any other military to date. It seems you just have a bone to pick with the American military and don't care if it disagrees with reality. Also training tends to be highly specific, all branches are taught survival skills and as far as I've seen many of them are well prepared for most poor situations they could face in the military or out of it.
    1
  1948.  Jay C  What are you talking about? If you're referring actual education they do get that and many aspects of the military have relevant fields that do translate to non-military jobs. Wherever you're pulling this belief from is completely false. Especially since most military personal do take up jobs post-training or deployment invalidating that idea. (especially since you can't do anything to prevent someone from becoming a qualified civilian anyway, which as far as statistics go they would've failed to ensure, qualifications aren't anywhere near the problems of former military, its usually PTSD that drives them out of any job if anything) As for education credits, that's first off not education and anyone who makes that claim is an idiot, and secondly the military does actually provide a modicum of it, though it can depend on service. Either case you're making no sense and just spouting invalid conspiracy claims without evidence. (that are contradicted by reality) On a side note, you're intentionally being vague on what you mean so you can manipulate your points and refuse admission of being incorrect.
    1
  1949.  Jay C  That's a lot of bias there, and you've provided me nothing qualitative in argumentation nor objective in measurement, just opinion generally between anger and hatred, it almost sounds like envy in my honest opinion.
    1
  1950.  Jay C  Well given your responses lacking in any nuance or reason and your inability to actually read, I'm gonna say your arrogance in ignorance is beyond any rational. Think of it this way, if you can't think of a manner in which a person could convince you of an opposing position then perhaps its not your opposition that's the problem. Though you also seem to lack any self-awareness so perhaps that's another key to your arrogance.
    1
  1951.  Jay C  What facts? I stated facts, personal anecdotes, and more in-depth knowledge then you, all you've claimed is its trash and have repeated that exact same line 5 times, if you want to prove your point bring be something more substantial then "because I said so" I'm also inclined against believing you because of intentionally manipulative bias where you explicitly proclaim nonsense conspiracy theories without any substantiation. But its clear to me that you're insane, reality is what you make it, you choose your god in your own head and to hell with anyone who disagrees because they're just evil sociopaths. How far off from your narcissistic mind am I?
    1
  1952.  @ghostkilla931  Dude he shot the gun, it doesn't matter what he thought, or how involved anyone else was, he shot the gun, he killed the person, we could argue it was manslaughter, but its still manslaughter, even if its not a high degree of homicide. If you aim a gun at someone, pull the trigger, and a bullet enters the person you aimed at from your trigger pull, you killed them.
    1
  1953. Lot of people like to completely ignore that Jim Crow was a state's law issue, not a federal law issue, the CRA was a dumb solution because it intervened in the market instead of just mandating the state's themselves can't regulate the markets to discriminate. DEI and diversity hires go away if you get rid of the CRA because of disparate impact law.
    1
  1954.  @Jump-n-smash  Discord folks also tend to be hyper-toxic like reddit morons.
    1
  1955.  @timon6759  Still irrelevant. Like who cares if its FOSS or not especially when its dead.
    1
  1956. The concept of asylum has been utterly destroyed, none of those migrants are asylum seekers for two reasons: 1) they're not fleeing deterministic specific persecution from their origin, especially in nations that have no changed in any manner to warrant such pleas 2) they're not planning to return to their nation of origin granted the first problem ended (had it been real in the first place) Aside from the fact you can't assume or warrant asylum outside the nation and without a process of acceptance, rights of citizens shouldn't be granted nearing the same level as asylum seekers who don't even desire the rights of the US themselves, otherwise they'd have legally migrated. Personally I would also bar asylum seekers from ever being able to become legal US citizens unless they abdicate their asylum status and their origin citizenship. (I'm actually kinda for the invalidity of dual American and non-American citizenship since the concept of citizenship should apply loyalty for the nation state, perhaps be a bit lenient in that you could keep citizenship if its your first nation of citizenship)
    1
  1957. Economically that none of your points stand for why debt can be good, like for the first point being completely wrong, the recession happened because of government intervention in the first place, same to the depression and covid, so why the hell should anyone trust it to solve a problem it caused in the first place by stealing our money and making us pay the interest on it that we'll never actually pay back. Its literal debt slavery. This is classic Keynesian bullcrap, a theory of economics that's been widely and completely refuted numerous times, no government does not boost GDP, it steals from it, it has no capability to benefit the GDP because its not suppose to.
    1
  1958. Personally instead of Marx, I would've gotten rid of Robespierre or Hegel, both of which were necessary for a Marxian ideal to exist.
    1
  1959. Not to mention its the government's intervention that caused the healthcare cost issues. Anyone who thinks of economics as zero-sum has not idea how economics work and has no right to say anything on it.
    1
  1960. Let death take a murderer so it says in Exodus 21:12, but vengeance is not his, do not repay evil with evil, for wickedness breeds wickedness and death seeks death, cruel is he who brings vengeance but well is he who seeks justice.
    1
  1961. For that abortion statement: Asmon really doesn't understand basic morality, guess being a nihilistic pragmatist gets you there, he literally sees every decision as purely a way to power, that's actually a narcissistic personality disorder by the way. Moral battles stand regardless of popular opinion, then again he's an idiot that doesn't understand crap about the last 200 years let alone the last 2000 years.
    1
  1962. God despises the concept of alimony, it is Satanic for it destroys the institution set about in Genesis 1 and 2.
    1
  1963. I'd never be inclined to mark someone with claims of being racist unless you could definitely prove that was his justification, which as far as I can see don't exist, the mere fact that they are black is not a standing argument for that suspicion in my mind. Everyone is capable of being a scumbag, and he was a grade A scumbag, he does not need to be racist nor is there proof on that case, I don't care how much of a scumbag anyone is, suspecting thoughts beyond demonstration is too far and immoral in my mind regardless of how evil the person acted. I also generally despise the use of race as a justification for being a scumbag instead of focusing on the fact they are a scumbag alone, racism doesn't have anything to do with being a scumbag, not to mention plenty of racists don't kill people, for whatever reason (and yes, some of them do still consider them valuable life, not all racism is the same in the cases of its known existence) it is in my mind an unreasonable application simply because the defendant was white and the victims were black. There are also plenty of psychopaths (which he rather seems to be given his willingness to use emotion) that just look for the justification to shoot or kill, without any further intent.
    1
  1964.  @mossbogger8366  Yeah, one of the big things that bug me about the modern era is how rampant race baiting and race conflict is these days, often with undertones of things like "they can't help it" or "they're inherently racist" or "you are incapable of not being racist" or something of the sort, and often it gets painted of questioning such a narrative or behavior as being inherently racist instead of demonstration of emotional manipulation that it is. Even those who mean well will often paint a situation as being about race in order to personally disassociate the person, often to dehumanize them, and as a result comes a belief that they should be treated as being less human instead of being subject to justice and judgement. One of the most infuriating things for me in this is when people insist behaviors, that in a vacuum or without the assumption of race, would just describe asshole behavior or beyond, but because of assumptions like such that they must be racist because apparently a non-racist wouldn't be willing to commit such atrocious acts. (despite that rarely ever being the case under examination) Its unreasonable and creates undue strife for what I often consider (intentionally or not) malicious and evil purposes. There is no gain to painting an evil man as also racist, if he is then its wrong, but if he isn't you just created a very nefarious narrative that will be used to further justify evil acts and behaviors and sow strife. If people could just readily admit that a white man could kill a black man simply because he wants to kill, or simply because he doesn't value any life, I think that's worse then just being a racist, and there is no justification for having to consider the lesser mental charge of being a racist. He's a murderer, it doesn't matter afterwards. It sometimes feels like we value murderers more then racists, especially those that haven't done anything, or that you are irredeemable in a way a murderer isn't. In any case it makes no sense, be depraved as any man does not qualify a difference in value of life, black men are not more valuable then white men, nor vice versa. I find it quite revolting that we even consider this line of thinking just to demean character of someone whose already a known murderer.
    1
  1965.  @mossbogger8366  "I believe these race baiting attitudes must be tied to some internal, self aggrandizing mechanism...if I had to guess I would assume it is the result of too little conflict in existence to define people's character." I don't entirely disagree, but I will say its more of a factor then the cause, I think part of the problem stems from the emergence of foremost "anti-racist" crap that goes back to Jim Crow, and then the resulting social justice that came about partly to elevate the previously segregated folks because they feel entitled to damages that have no definite demonstration separate from personal action. (which they assume also means everything was made off the backs of them despite the contradiction) Part of it could also be an emergence from liberation from such which led that entitlement to grow, and it doesn't help that cultural marxist behaviors and thought was being adopted as that era was ending. Would also explain why it looks so different in Europe. It probably also has something to do with the integration and growth of actual racist thoughts, most especially in modern institutions. "is it possible that a person lacking the opportunity to prove themselves to their piers or have some sort of right of passage in a public setting, will be driven to invent "ghouls" that "haunt" them and they need to take action against which will earn them a sense of virtue and praise which sincerely is lacking in their life.." In a way, perhaps, though I say with the loss of eternal/spiritual justice, many people believe the dead receive no justice and thus only through Earthly punishment does anything happen, which in turn means that innocence be damned, retribution needs to be served. For without an end-all justice, nobody suffers, and that's what they really want. And it makes them angry when someone doesn't suffer. Also a big issue I've seen crop up in modern society that's even revealed as far back as boomers is they don't understand fights or have never been in one (which I find odd at the older ages especially) where they got hit, especially enough to knock them down. (and not by an authority figure, but by someone of equal footing) It seems the lack of this and the lack of masculine aggression that's become demonized and opposed in the modern era has sheltered people and made them believe that words alone are violence, and thus they are justified in reacting to them. (where as reasonable people who have been hit hard or in a fight will do everything they can to prevent any type of violence) Or in the least it justifies in the moment them receiving what they consider as their rite of passage, that being the death of someone. The peaceful age has probably also provided us with a lack of outlets for aggression especially in demonizing the actually decent outlets, which include for men sometimes sparring with friends (or "frenemies" I suppose) which includes getting some hits. Masculinity also has been portrayed to not usually defend the innocent anymore, and its rarely taught, even decades ago, by the older folks. And I see this on both sides of the problem and beyond the racist section entirely.
    1
  1966.  @iwashere3167  That only demonstrates he was racist in the cell though, (and even then I don't think that's reasonable expectation anyway) there isn't any reason to say he killed them because he was racist, and even if he was, its a stupid charge designed to only cause problems, it helps no one and merely justifies a political narrative. He was a murderer, it doesn't matter what he was otherwise, he murdered a child and tried to murder 3 others, that's worse then any form of racism that exists in my opinion, I'm way more fine with a racist then I am a murderer, and the murderer is worse then the racist when applied to the same person. I see no value as painting him as a racist except to muddy the water from what he was.
    1
  1967. If you point out pedophiles in high places prepare to get shot, anyone remember Pizzagate? Pizza in this twitter page? Sounds like pedo cat call alright. Let us not forget how much evidence lined up. Hollywood is full of minors sex trafficking. Also its called Freudian Slip or speaking your sin.
    1
  1968. Just to point out no commodity, including gold and other precious metals, have no intrinsic value, let me give you a demonstration of this case: (and no I'm not defending UST or Luna, I'm just pointing out that is a fallacious assumption, that doesn't mean you don't act smart in regard to value, value is determined by subjective demand and the supply, that's what subjective value is, else you argue everything has an objective cost, in which case how do you define an objective cost that doesn't kill a few million Jews, 50+ million Chinese, hundreds of thousands of Indians, millions of Congolese, and a few million Cossacks and Ukrainians?) Imaging you are in the desert of a day, what are you gonna want? Water right? So if the only other person in the desert offers you gold and nothing else, what would say them? Probably something on the lines of "no, that's just gonna make my problem worse, I can't carry this gold when I can't even sustain myself", the value of water in the desert is higher then even gold because gold would service you nothing. Now lets do this again but this time you're in a temperate forest, finding fairly clean water to drink wouldn't be hard obviously, so now water is not a precious commodity and gold may be seen as more valuable then water. So long as it is perceived to have value to others that is. This is a pretty basic demonstration that value is neither intrinsic nor inherent but selective to each individual in accordance to their needs. Another simple case: If someone is well off, they're living comfortably without issue and are serviced well, they can afford to spend a lot of money on entertainment, but if he has none of this, most people would reserve their money and entertainment will tank.
    1
  1969.  @twntwrs  "lots of things that are simply wrong and/or unethical in the Bible" Does a historical document need to exclusively represent ethical acts? That is an irrational, inconsistent standard for historical documentation, it applies to absolutely nothing else. What document of Plato, Homer, Ceasar, Charlemange, or even Hitler and the Nazis or Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky and the Russian Communists is made exclusively of ethical contents? Should historical documentation only contain ethical acts? And beyond how do you know what is right and what is wrong? You can't even know what is right or wrong without God for you can't identify what right and wrong is without God's Word, else it is what you decide what is right and wrong and how does apply to anyone objectively and in truth. There is no right and wrong then. What do you have that you have not received? For even your life was granted to you as a gift, you do not own it, why do you boast as though you have not received it? (1 Corinthians 4:7)
    1
  1970.  @jesterfrombeyond1776  "You don't need god for objective truth" Yes you do, for nothing you have can be known without God's Word. "the concept can stand of its own" It does not. "atheists have a notion of objective truth without a need to reference god." They stand and steal from God and His followers worldview in order to say all they have. Nothing of their perspectives were built by atheists, they are thieves and robbers who have come to steal from God and claim it as their own, but what atheist does not stand on the shoulders of Christians? Science, Books, Industry, Liberty, and Objective Truth weren't defined or devised by atheists, and neither has a good thing come from atheists without foremost the Christians going before them. It is only at the behest of Christians that atheists have been even allowed to say anything they have.
    1
  1971.  @kayeassy  "That's your perspective" If we're fighting by opinion then there is nothing you can say to me that is objective. You can't argue for an objective truth unless you recognize a standard for objective truth, without the Bible there is none. You can't criticize by your view of the world, you don't get to steal from God's view of truth and claim to be speaking truth as though its objective and evident by a rejection of truth. "you need to liberate yourself from the narrow minded linear thinking as Jesus has always wanted." "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:39-47 "The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood." - John 7:18 "Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him." - John 18:37-38 "So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” - John 8:31-32 "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." - John 8:44 "Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you." - John 14:17 You do not know Jesus. "Without accepting others you can never attain objective truth." "You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." - Matthew 12:34 Jesus didn't accept everyone and neither accepted everything. He rejected anyone who did not worship Yahweh and who did not recognize the Word for which Moses wrote of. "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" - John 5:46-47 "Because limitations leads to bondage." Nope. "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void." - Luke 16:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus explicitly states that the Law established must be followed, not for salvation, but to demonstrate that you are in salvation. “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." - Matthew 7:12-13 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." - Matthew 7:15-20 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’" - Matthew 7:21-23 "It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave," - Matthew 20:26-27 Jesus was not "open minded" for anything and neither preached liberation from "limitations" but instead spoke to regulation onto the people that they will be compelled to follow Him and despise evil. In Matthew 20 He outright calls us to be servants and slaves for the sake of Him. He rejects many who claim His name and calls them workers of lawlessness. He also tells us that if you do not believe the words of Moses you can not be with Him. Let me repeat once again, you do not know anything about Jesus.
    1
  1972.  @ompatel7194  I have not read them as its not my area of study (as I do not often speak to Hindus) but my father has who I study from. (I am aware by the way that doesn't give me credence to speak well on the topic but much of what I will speak comes from his knowledge and experience)
    1
  1973.  @jesterfrombeyond1776  "convinced yourself you know to the Truth" "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6 "The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood." - John 7:18 "maybe not so good for the people around you" “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." - John 3:16 "Talk to heavenly tech-supor an angel can most likely fix your firewall, and hit up big G. he can give you an the new operating system with bias detection function + critical processing power." "For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do." - Galatians 5:17 "God bless you my friend, you really need it. ;-D" You're the one that responded making erroneous claims that were unsubstantiated and couldn't actually support anything you said.
    1
  1974.  @twntwrs  And yet you dare not actually present an argument.
    1
  1975. There was a second Jurassic World film? I don't know how to feel about the fact I only just learned of this.
    1
  1976. Legal migrants don't generally approve of illegals because they like the economic and social positives like Americans that illegals tend to detract.
    1
  1977.  @WorthlessWinner  Nobody broke the law in Waco, they tried to find them doing illegal stuff and when that failed they made up bogus allegations of child abuse that had no evidence, this resulted in them killing the children they claimed to have been abused who voluntarily stayed, everyone that died in Waco tried to save the children when the fire started but gas masks don't fit on the heads of children and they were some of the first ones to suffocate. There was never any evidence of illegal acts, they were so above board they had their own dedicated FFL guy who was very above board to such a degree that they sent a spy into the building and even after months he couldn't find anything on them, they didn't even build an explosive device like they claimed, they just claimed he could've and that's how the siege started.
    1
  1978.  @99mage99  What are you talking about? First off none of the children were old enough to have developed the capacity to reproduce yet, so impregnation couldn't have happened, secondly the closest bit of evidence the FBI had on this was a 14 year old when he was 23, that was decades before Waco ever existed and there was no evidence of that otherwise. Thirdly the children's parents were there and spoke out against those allegations being completely false and made up before that placed burned down, and the survivors don't report anything like that happening either. (And the only reports from "credible" sources otherwise were children separated from their parents and a lawyer who were being interrogated by the ones who also burned the place to the ground, and the kids never said much of anything specific when they did talk) It might have been a charismatic false religion they followed, but don't go spreading lies about what actually happened. Nothing illegal ever happened in Waco, there are too many first hand eyewitness accounts that agree with that and the evidence agrees with the eyewitnesses.
    1
  1979.  @aerfwefd7334  The reason I used "Golden Calf" is alluding to the idea that Lincoln and those who worship him are in league with Satan (as were those who made and worshiped the Golden Calf) and are putting themselves at odds with the moral standard that is given to Moses, which comes from God, hence why I also make mention of Moses.
    1
  1980.  @atomicTurtle000  "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." - Abraham Lincoln (January 12th 1848)
    1
  1981.  @atomicTurtle000  "What legal right did the South have to seize it?" It was Confederate land, Lincoln claimed to agree, as did Congress and the Senate, (and so too did numerous European observers) however Lincoln, instead of retracting troops as he promised, as had been done of numerous other forts and bases across the south, he expanded the troops with an armed escort, (and then told them to not fire even when fired upon) even when a Confederate peace commission was dispatched to secure a separate peace Lincoln ignored them, Alexis de Tocqueville independently offered to arbitrate a peace and was rebuffed by Lincoln. Lincoln ensured there would be no peace and says much that in his private letters to his compatriots like Gustavus Fox. "I have no idea why you think the North intended to give up the fort nor why you think changing their mind about it would be an act of aggression even if so." Because Lincoln said so and had done so to numerous previous forts and bases in the South, and the whole of the Northern government had at once agreed to the same, as did much of the Northern populations. Also because the American government went to war with Great Britain over this twice. "Mr Lincoln told newspapers for three weeks that Sumter was to be abandoned, now Mr Lincoln has found a way to author a civil war without appearing its aggressor" - Providence Daily Post
    1
  1982.  @atomicTurtle000  "it is an act of war to be prepared to respond if your soldiers (who are only defending their own fort, not attacking at all) or unarmed ships carrying food are attacked?" It is an act of war to keep forts in territory you don't own and have no right to, it is an act of war to say you'll retract troops and then reinforce and provision the troops instead of evacuating them, and it most certainly is an act of war to bring a warship to supply said soldiers in a hostile environment where tensions are high and you reject every offer of peaceful resolution even from external arbitrators. "So you're actually saying it is an act of war to let the other party know about your plans to respond if the ships you plan to send are attacked." When you reject literally every attempt at peaceful resolution, yes. I just named to you numerous times that Lincoln directly disregarded peaceful resolution with the South deliberately so. Fort Sumter doesn't happen if Alexis de Tocqueville or the Confederate peace commission peace attempts are even welcomed by Lincoln, both instead were deliberately and directly rejected despite previous claims to the contrary of de-escalation. "How many steps removed do we need to be before or wouldn't be an act of war for you?" When you accept peaceful dissolution for a legal expectation codified and reserved in the state documents, even in Virginia being part of the very state's very Constitution itself. When you accept you don't own land on a nation that you have no further business with and who has asked peacefully for resolution with you. When you don't send a military force to instigate a violent response only to play off being the victim because instead of seeking peace, you just wanted power and control. When every avenue of peaceful resolution is exhausted, and even the very judges themselves are imprisoned for opposing an unjust declaration from the ruling authority, put in place by God, there is no manner for which you were seeking for peace, you sought death, redemption would quickly be stripped from your heart, it is evident Lincoln never had salvation. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Matthew 5:9 "Why isn't the South's siege of the fort an act of war?" Because it is their land. "Seems much more direct and hostile to be the ones starving them than Lincoln saying we're sending food to the soldiers you guys are starving out." Soldiers who shouldn't have been there and for which Lincoln claimed he would remove from the fort, only to do the opposite. Personally I have no sympathy for the soldiers, it would've been better that they all been executed for intended violation of peace. As so to Lincoln, rest assured he is burning in Hell right now, I dare say mercy was never reserved for such a wicked man, and I share no sympathy for him. The toleration of his wife's wicked practices demonstrates his continuous and intentional hatred of Christ. "Even if you think the North was massing troops and weapons on Sumter (which we've now clarified you lied about) neither of the other wars mentioned started in similar ways." First off no we've not, you make false claims about the provisions on the ship, there is an armed contingent of warships escorting the provisions, (for which are also prepared to attack the Confederates, which is itself an act of war) and peace was routinely rejected by the North despite constant pleas from the South and also from Northern populations. Sounds more like you've never actually read into anything of Fort Sumter or its lead up.
    1
  1983.  @atomicTurtle000  "it is an act of war to be prepared to respond if your soldiers (who are only defending their own fort, not attacking at all) or unarmed ships carrying food are attacked?" It is an act of war to keep forts in territory you don't own and have no right to, it is an act of war to say you'll retract troops and then reinforce and provision the troops instead of evacuating them, and it most certainly is an act of war to bring a warship to supply said soldiers in a hostile environment where tensions are high and you reject every offer of peaceful resolution even from external arbitrators. "So you're actually saying it is an act of war to let the other party know about your plans to respond if the ships you plan to send are attacked." When you reject literally every attempt at peaceful resolution, yes. I just named to you numerous times that Lincoln directly disregarded peaceful resolution with the South deliberately so. Fort Sumter doesn't happen if Alexis de Tocqueville or the Confederate peace commission peace attempts are even welcomed by Lincoln, both instead were deliberately and directly rejected despite previous claims to the contrary of de-escalation. "How many steps removed do we need to be before or wouldn't be an act of war for you?" When you accept peaceful dissolution for a legal expectation codified and reserved in the state documents, even in Virginia being part of the very state's very Constitution itself. When you accept you don't own land on a nation that you have no further business with and who has asked peacefully for resolution with you. When you don't send a military force to instigate a violent response only to play off being the victim because instead of seeking peace, you just wanted power and control. When every avenue of peaceful resolution is exhausted, and even the very judges themselves are imprisoned for opposing an unjust declaration from the ruling authority, put in place by God, there is no manner for which you were seeking for peace, you sought death, redemption would quickly be stripped from your heart, it is evident Lincoln never had salvation. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Matthew 5:9 "Why isn't the South's siege of the fort an act of war?" Because it is their land. "Seems much more direct and hostile to be the ones starving them than Lincoln saying we're sending food to the soldiers you guys are starving out." Soldiers who shouldn't have been there and for which Lincoln claimed he would remove from the fort, only to do the opposite. Personally I have no sympathy for the soldiers, it would've been better that they all been executed for intended violation of peace. As so to Lincoln, rest assured he is burning in Hell right now, I dare say mercy was never reserved for such a wicked man, and I share no sympathy for him. The toleration of his wife's wicked practices demonstrates his continuous and intentional hatred of Christ. "Even if you think the North was massing troops and weapons on Sumter (which we've now clarified you lied about) neither of the other wars mentioned started in similar ways." First off no we've not, you make false claims about the provisions on the ship, there is an armed contingent of warships escorting the provisions, (for which are also prepared to attack the Confederates, which is itself an act of war) and peace was routinely rejected by the North despite constant pleas from the South and also from Northern populations. Sounds more like you've never actually read into anything of Fort Sumter or its lead up.
    1
  1984. ​ @atomicTurtle000  "it is an act of war to be prepared to respond if your soldiers (who are only defending their own fort, not attacking at all) or unarmed ships carrying food are attacked?" It is an act of war to keep forts in territory you don't own and have no right to, it is an act of war to say you'll retract troops and then reinforce and provision the troops instead of evacuating them, and it most certainly is an act of war to bring a warship to supply said soldiers in a hostile environment where tensions are high and you reject every offer of peaceful resolution even from external arbitrators. "So you're actually saying it is an act of war to let the other party know about your plans to respond if the ships you plan to send are attacked." When you reject literally every attempt at peaceful resolution, yes. I just named to you numerous times that Lincoln directly disregarded peaceful resolution with the South deliberately so. Fort Sumter doesn't happen if Alexis de Tocqueville or the Confederate peace commission peace attempts are even welcomed by Lincoln, both instead were deliberately and directly rejected despite previous claims to the contrary of de-escalation. "How many steps removed do we need to be before or wouldn't be an act of war for you?" When you accept peaceful dissolution for a legal expectation codified and reserved in the state documents, even in Virginia being part of the very state's very Constitution itself. When you accept you don't own land on a nation that you have no further business with and who has asked peacefully for resolution with you. When you don't send a military force to instigate a violent response only to play off being the victim because instead of seeking peace, you just wanted power and control. When every avenue of peaceful resolution is exhausted, and even the very judges themselves are imprisoned for opposing an unjust declaration from the ruling authority, put in place by God, there is no manner for which you were seeking for peace, you sought death, redemption would quickly be stripped from your heart, it is evident Lincoln never had salvation. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Matthew 5:9 "Why isn't the South's siege of the fort an act of war?" Because it is their land. "Seems much more direct and hostile to be the ones starving them than Lincoln saying we're sending food to the soldiers you guys are starving out." Soldiers who shouldn't have been there and for which Lincoln claimed he would remove from the fort, only to do the opposite. Personally I have no sympathy for the soldiers, it would've been better that they all been executed for intended violation of peace, they should've sta. As so to Lincoln, rest assured he is burning in Hell right now, I dare say mercy was never reserved for such a cursed man, and I share no sympathy for him. The toleration of his wife's practices demonstrates his continuous and intentional hatred of Christ. "Even if you think the North was massing troops and weapons on Sumter (which we've now clarified you lied about) neither of the other wars mentioned started in similar ways." First off no we've not, you make false claims about the provisions on the ship, there is an armed contingent of warships escorting the provisions, (for which are also prepared to attack the Confederates, which is itself an act of war) and peace was routinely rejected by the North despite constant pleas from the South and also from Northern populations. Sounds more like you've never actually read into anything of Fort Sumter or its lead up.
    1
  1985.  @atomicTurtle000  "it is an act of war to be prepared to respond if your soldiers (who are only defending their own fort, not attacking at all) or unarmed ships carrying food are attacked?" When you have no right nor ownership to the land and reject every peace offer and every peaceful resolution attempted by even third-parties, yes. It would be better that the soldiers be dead, they should've been starved, they were performing a military occupation on foreign soil in direct contradiction of the US Constitution itself. The fort was illegal, the mere keeping of the fort alone is an act of war. "And again they ATTACKED BEFORE THE SHIPS WERE THERE." Irrelevant. Keeping the fort alone is an act of war. "So you're actually saying it is an act of war to let the other party know about your plans to respond if the ships you plan to send are attacked." Now you're just being deliberate, if you can't read and instead continue to argue completely and intentionally in bad faith, there is no point considering you even intelligent, I've explained it to you multiple times now, I've given you numerous chances, you're simply indoctrinated, you don't refute a single point I make, you just keep insisting you're right without a substantiation of your claims. I don't have to make you believe, I don't care about you. "How many steps removed do we need to be before or wouldn't be an act of war for you?" Those who won't seek peace deserved to die, if you are an obstacle in way of peace, you should be crucified upside down. There is no compromise. "Why isn't the South's siege of the fort an act of war? Seems much more direct and hostile to be the ones starving them than Lincoln saying we're sending food to the soldiers you guys are starving out." Its their land idiot. You can't perform an act of war on your own land when foreign soldiers are occupying, attacking, and raiding your land.
    1
  1986. There isn't a single one of them that won't call you racist for saying "its okay to be white" nor answer "what is a woman" without a diatribe about it being a complex question instead of giving a simple definition. That is a pretty good litmus test for political bias. As an aside I've always gotten hardline right libertarian, I always end up further right and libertarian of Milton Friedman in every test I do.
    1
  1987. Nothing morally good came out of feminism, most especially because the women of the time that were forming feminism weren't being taught proper principles according to God's command so they intended to violate God's order by natural intent, they didn't respect their husbands nor their fathers and it became clear that the true root of feminism is a hate and disrespect of men and masculinity, as was the natural intent of that wicked ideology from the start. Men and women are not equal in anything but moral value, they share different roles and purposes and do not share traits that enable them to be proficient at the same tasks. Women can't even function appropriately without a masculine authority over them because they need a foundation, that being authority of a man, in order to live. They need a foundation of rock that the man provides and without it they degrade on the foundation of sand. Else they will be ruled by their nature which is fickle and fairly deceptive/manipulative. (this is not a case of saying that women are unique in their failures of their wicked nature but instead just this response being focused only women in particular, men suffer from aggressive and blunt behavior among other things and it is the job of women to help curb these things as they are uniquely designed to do just that in marriage just as it is the job of the men to [lovingly] curb the failures of women, this is complementarism) It is also the failure of men that did not love their women as they are called (by God) to do and did not provide the proper foundation for them causing feminism as well. As a result men have become feminized and subservient to their wives (how often do you hear "apologize to your wife even if you did nothing wrong" as a general principle, this is why) following the sin of Adam and Eve, for what did God say to Adam after he took of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;" - Genesis 3:17 (excerpt) The original sin was foremost in a man following the whims of his wife after he had already failed to protect her twice, for Adam was responsible to keep the serpent out of the garden and further he was responsible to keep the serpent from deceiving his wife, and then even in knowing his wife was deceived into eating of the fruit he listened to her violating the one command God had given him. Once again men have fallen back into this deception listening to what the women tell them to do and claim to want instead of considering what is good for them. Its also a shit test that men have failed to an extent for men are supposed to demonstrate that they will not be pushed around, not in a manner that's unloving to their women or that causes her scorn, but in a manner that demonstrates that he is the rock that will rest her life upon. In failing this charge (which women often are unaware of) they have been led into anything for they can not stand for anything as women are not designed to do such things. (and if they do which is an uncommon trait among the flesh of women it is condemnation upon the men, it does not demonstrate a capacity of women for she who does such a thing is rare enough and they should know the position is not meant for them and only given to them because the men have failed) In any case this all says that men and women have once again failed and made themselves enemies of God and feminism is another condemnation for such acts. It would be better for all that men would never compete with women and women never compete with men, for they will only drag each other down, making themselves at war with each other when they should be unified in one flesh. As for addressing women being at home, they would not have to be bored if not for the failures of both and for schooling to exist, for without public schooling there would be little for a housewife to not do, and even more she is meant to manage the whole of the house, that means that increasing in wealth requires that she be given more work to do, not to change her job, there are many avenues that never required her to leave the home, they were just too lazy or foolish, the men and the women, to commit to such things.
    1
  1988. lol suck it chromium users, your adblock privileges are to be revoked
    1
  1989. If freedesktop was more "authoritative" they probably wouldn't ever have been a de facto standard, had they not existed it would also otherwise be way worse, so I say they reside in the perfect position for their purpose, honestly better then a lot of the standards consortiums.
    1
  1990. I'm actually not only fine with stripping citizenship from the naturalized immigrants, I personally think even a lot of US citizens shouldn't have citizenship, personally I see it as a privilege that should be worked towards by everyone whether born or migrating here. Migrants should be reduced immensely even still. Also there should be no birth right citizenship. No communist or socialist person should be capable of even voting in our citizen, I think there is a certain standard of values that should be restricted from participation in government manipulation. Also once you commit a crime you submit your rights for the crime, if you do so not being born here, then you should be denaturalized and deported regardless of how long you spent here.
    1
  1991. God says let vengeance be His, and I agree as its what God said, but that doesn't mean justice should not be taken in a case of known violations of justice regarding the innocent, God's standard has rapists, molesters, and murder executed without a bar on any of it, cases of sexual groomings and other known sexual manipulation of a child should be at least castrated, I don't agree that someone should go out looking for people to do this too nor do I agree with going after someone post-conviction (least without evidence of those said violations and respective result for those crimes and a form of organization) but I don't say God disagrees with organized reasonable vigilante acts, most specifically to protect the innocent, when the governing authorities fail to do so. For government isn't the only authority regarded to us, and there is no establishment that opposes the formation of authority for the sake of justice and innocence, so long as it seeks to only ever absolutely punish the wicked, blood is on its hands if it enacts such acts on anyone that is innocent.
    1
  1992. @Edward G. Stone "bro I think you're too concerned about "philosophy" and thus too detached from reality" Its quite interesting that instead of actually combating what I say you assault nothing regarding the substance of my argument and instead make claims on my character. This is foremost defined as ad hominem attack and is fallacious, I have no need to even address this, but the basis is this, philosophy, methodology, they define worldview, which defines how you approach reality, everyone has one and if you don't adhere to a well defined one then you can't make reasonable claims nor decisions. Software is no different and to claim otherwise is foolishness, we have design patterns for this exact reason, except in that specific case its supposed to be a segregated tool you use in specific circumstance, (for which many people don't treat as tools and treat more as a cult in truth) Rust violates this principle and thus fails at a basic level at being well designed. "to realize that we as developers have real problems to solve" Rust is not unique in its capacity to solve said problems and you don't need a required package manager to do it, and a good philosophy would make you better and more capable to solve said problems. Rust is not the end all solution and treating it like it is unique on this is forming it more into a cult then treating it like a tool. And a tool which fails to adhere to decent principle. "and having Cargo around is just helpful" And having pacman is helpful, but guess what? I am not required to have pacman for my system to run, it makes my life easier but I can build my system without it, if I want to build on Linux using Boost, pacman (and aur package managers based on pacman) already has me covered, if I want to use Electron, pacman has me covered, if I need .NET, again I'm covered, Python, if not for the requirement of pip, it would also have me covered, especially if I use the aur. The fact of the matter is I like package managers, I don't like being required to use a specific one for my development environment, I have my own concerns and don't need my development environment breaking because I can't use a part of it that is not required to actually compile nor function, I don't need packages all the time, I can develop my own things for my system without them but I am not allowed this "privilege" on Rust as anything I do must include a functioning Cargo in order to accomplish anything. This is worthless, I don't need Cargo to compile anything but I'm not allowed to do that for no reason. "it solves a real problem and is miles ahead what we're used to having with C++." Worthless argument, already addressed, you don't get to perform whataboutism and misdirection just claim superiority, you still have no sustained an argument, you just make anecdotal claims almost religiously so without the consideration that there are people who aren't like you, why should I follow your system and mentality? Why should I subscribe to your requirements when I need none of them? Why should I be forced to be like everyone else when I and some like me and others perhaps not like me don't need what some others need but that everyone is required to equally have. I don't need everything Rust gives me, instead its unnecessary bloat, but I don't get a choice and I can't stop it. Why am I forced to live in such a condition where I get no choice over my own system? A better solution is to give me the tools I need and leave out the ones I don't languages and tools that do this are and will always be superior to those that don't and I will resent those who oppose this mentality as they don't bother to care about the needs of others. If you need a problem solved with a tool, use the right tool, don't force me to buy the entire toolbox just so you can have the screwdriver in the toolbox, if I just need a hammer and you need a screwdriver, let us keep the toolbox separate from the tools so that the some that need the toolbox may take advantage of it separately, all I wish is for control over the toolbox for which Rust does not ever allow.
    1
  1993.  @BSenta  "he's not saying your a bad person. But saying you value your philosophy too much and it's not realistic." You do not understand what ad hominem means by this, the claim of calling to question character and act instead of arguments is always by nature ad hominem fallacy regardless if I am or not called a "bad person" for which I had never a regard for. Do not misdirect the refutation of the fallacy. You both have shown complete and utter disregard for the argument as you instead resort to stating anecdotal claims (which I must add that anecdotes are neither proof nor evidence by rational argumentation, you can't use just personal experience alone to justify an argument) without it even being evidence and don't even make substance of your own claims just saying that it is and nothing more. That does not sustain an argument nor does it count as refutation. You neither addressed that which I have said and merely refuse to even point to a single thing I have said. Calling what I say unrealistic instead of addressing foremost what I say in its complete is at best a red herring in fallacy as it misdirects the argument away from any of my points to try and undermine my argument without address. This aside I have also already addressed the reason and qualification for why philosophy is important and necessary most especially regarding principle design, it doesn't matter if something works when it fails to superior to previous solutions, Rust being superior to C in any regard does not mean Cargo is superior to any of the other package managers, in all ways its just as bad if not worse. It is the philosophy that defined methodology which makes worldview which defines reality as far as approached, a language is designed by philosophy alone, not by practicality, no pragmatism and solution do not devise a language for even your outlook of what a problem is and how to approach it are by nature philosophy itself. All things that define both the problem and solution as well as that which adheres to such things is in all manner and sense philosophy, this is why philosophy regarding the subject is important and why I say Rust has failed. It has not failed in accomplishing an aspect of a goal, its inherent philosophy is massively and foolishly flawed by the bloat its philosophy adheres to. (separate from its syntax which I say the philosophy of is also flawed but not for even remotely the same reasons and for which is not relevant to points here so I shall bring it up no further) "If saying someone is idealistic is an attack on their character it's impossible to provide any kind of feedback." It is because it focuses on the character and undermining of one's character to override their argument and not in any regard their argument. That is why its a fallacy. If your "argument" does not address the argument in either refutation or reinterpretation then it is fallacious and instead trying to disconnect the argument from rational bounds. It seeks instead to win the argument not by reason but by pleads to irrationality so as to silence the opposition, whether one realizes this is the case or not is your own discretion, but the fact reminds its point is to silence opposition, in this case the criticism regarding Rust's lack of decent modularity in its build system violating the king making principles of good FOSS.
    1
  1994. @Edward G. Stone "I just think we should be more realistic and less pedantic with these things." Its neither pedantic nor lacking in realism, its a real solution that Rust failed thanks to its out philosophy on the subject. "I wasn't attacking you." Whether you intended or not, that's what your argumentation had done, calling what I say unrealistic wouldn't be an attack on me though it would be useless without good reason, but referring to me as being too philosophical and unrealistic is in fact an attack on character whether you realize it or not, referring to my outlooks, character, or such other personal things like philosophy and claiming I focus too much on them is in fact an attack on me and not a counter to my points, for I am not my points. That is why I called it ad hominem. I have nothing against countering and refuting what I say, (besides disagreement) but I will always take issue with coming onto me and pointing at my acts in an argument. If my acts had been actions that lack argumentation then criticism of me might be fine as it would be no argument, this is why I am willing to point such out your act to you in those statements, but I didn't justify my points nor undermine an argument by pointing to your character, whether you intended it or not however you in fact did this. "But it's just impractical, sometimes adhering to the UNIX/FOSS philosophy just makes things harder to deal with for no real world benefit." Actually no, it makes things easier, so long as you make it well designed, it is no more difficult to implement then any design pattern, using one design pattern has only ever been a problem for example when you already devoted and dedicated an entire project to another design pattern, the same applies to this mentality. Look at the Godot game engine, it devises a near perfect modularity and not only is it easy to use, simple as can be, easy to review, and quite performant and cross-platform, but it also can function with much of the binary stripped so its super tiny, fast on startup, and quite customizable to use case. Its so tiny that you can use the full binary as a WASM file and it'll still be more compressed then even a good deal of websites. It also isn't a problem if part of the engine fails or doesn't work as modules of the engine can be stripped from the binary. Now granted this is an interesting case and perhaps even a bit extreme but its got a lot of recyclable code for its build system that its extremely easy to manage and change the build system and to even tell from the commandline to build without certain modules or to build in a certain way. Its not exactly the same since the modules and dependencies are (for the most part) compiled into the game engine in that case whereas in I would rather not expect such from a development environment. But all that said it demonstrates my point perfectly even though only mostly through in compilation. It is neither unrealistic nor pedantic even for a language for which it demonstrates as the engine is not strictly reliant even on its custom language being implemented and functioning in the engine. "Imagine if Rust had 20 different build systems like C++." Build systems and package managers aren't the same thing, truth be told I prefer multiple build systems for distinct purposes and competition, but I also don't mind in the least a reference implementation at least but it must be simple and the most barebones demonstrative implementation in my opinion. I don't think it really should be the languages obligation to provide you anything beyond that (nor should it be the full feature implementation, much like how pacman itself is simple or how wayland is a bare basic standard with a reference imlementation) because otherwise you also lack competition and resolution to the standard. If the standard is well defined this doesn't become an issue and one metric will tend to rise to the top, in this case for C and C++ for a long while it was makefiles and then CMake. I would prefer to have something a bit less jank but as of now we have so many competing systems that I like having options for any problem. When someone thinks they have a singular qualified standard for everyone, and even further basically prohibits anyone from doing their own, that's when I have a problem. "Yeah, sure, you said it's "whataboutism", but that's how it's always been." That's not an excuse, my point stands whether C++ exists or not. "Rust is supposed so be a step-up from C++, and it's supposed to solve the problems we currently have as C++ developers, it's not meant to be perfect, not is it meant to be a silver bullet." Which I take issue with because it still fails on metrics where C++ and even C do better, biggest being those dependency issues. And it doesn't help when everyone acts like it is perfect and a silver bullet, I've criticized Rust often as I take many issues with it, as I do with a lot of C and C++ alternatives as I find they all fail to capture much of the justifications around those languages and focus exclusively on safety and security as if its the only thing that matters. I would not mind those as parts either but when that becomes the core of your argument regarding C and C++ and not addressing either all the many other things C and C++ do right or wrong, it annoys me that all the alternatives do almost the exact same thing, none of them try to resolve the issues in different ways as if they live all in an echo chamber, there becomes little difference nor justification to use the other languages including Rust because they all become the exact same tool with even the difference between syntax become small and minor, only being major when comparing its changes from ALGOL to C to C++. I don't see any of said languages serving a unique purpose. "Once Rust becomes mainstream, another language will come to try and solve its problems as well," If, Rust's not demonstrated to have mainstream appeal beyond a small subset of converters to it (especially with how vital C and C++ are to low level work) and truth be told it still doesn't retain the power of C++ nor the modularity of its build. This has tended in every case to reduce the effectiveness and usefulness of development software in every case. Let alone the general use case of software, it definitely harms its receptiveness, that being aside the religious claim that such a thing really is. Personally I don't hope for Rust, and I don't ever want to as I despise it. "and the cycle continues, because reality beats philosophy." See this isn't proven, in fact the opposite is quite often proven and beyond these "unrealistic" philosophies are reality, they make and sustain reality, the only way to know and perceive reality is by said philosophies but your ignorance and arrogance regarding separating reality from what you think will make solutions more impossible, to deny them is to be delusional, you have one, I have one, the Rust devs have one, if we do not approach it from the perspective of actually caring about them and resolving them in ways that actually make sense and reduce our work then we won't make solutions, we're at best just creating useless duplication of work and wasting our time, which already happened with a lot of C/C++ alternative languages to some extent, they all do the same thing and none of them show themselves to be better then each other. And none of them have the power of C++. I would love a C++ alternative that doesn't at least throw C++ entirely out with the bathwater but it seems that too has become totally wishful thinking because apparently everyone wants to kill C and C++ without understanding why they are so good and useful.
    1
  1995. @Edward G. Stone "Rust is just another tool in one's arsenal. Perhaps it's just not for you, then." Should be a tool unique and separate to the others, unfortunately with C and C++ alternatives, it does not do this, further still it neither functions independently, I know its not for me, I just want a C++ alternative that actually tries to do C++ better instead of stripping it of so many of its great features and its good syntax.
    1
  1996. Also just to point out, the reason the life expectancy was so low in the past has nothing to do with what you think is the average age of death, its an average age when you include everyone who ever lived, including children who died at the age of 0-5. Because child mortality (as in children below the age of 5) was so high, it dropped life expectancy down a lot. However if you exclude child mortality life expectancy of the time goes up to at least 75.
    1
  1997. This is tyrannical, I don't care about your practical results, the fact is it does not fix the issue, a reprieve is not a correction, it has been proven by God time and time again that peace is but an illusion of those who are enemies of God. If you do not regard truth, justice, righteousness, goodness, life, you are no different from a slave to Satan, you are beyond a witch, you are of the Anti-Christ. Bukele is of an Anti-Christ spirit. By the way you want to know the last big democratically elected dictator? It was Hitler.
    1
  1998. Isn't Jupiter a god of War, doesn't that mean he's calling himself a warmonger outright? France, you're "republic" bullshit screwed the rest of Europe and created the German Empires, and was the first development of Globalistic methods of thought, if you screw it up again you need to balkanize.
    1
  1999. Leave it to humans to decide the morals and ethics of creatures that have no capability of either. (I mean in general, not here) We are placed in dominion over the Earth so all things here are for our sake and our care.
    1
  2000. All those who sit on the rational pro-abortion side seem to only do so because they misunderstand the role of government. (and are unwilling to keep an objective morality usually, in the least one that they don't determined of relativism itself, which never made sense to me given we know some things are inherently and objectively immoral) Also I don't get how Tim can rationalize both life begins at conception and is against medical intervention in this singular case, (also how can you rationalize that and desire a mixed economy, that inherently requires government medical intervention) seems like a bit of cognitive dissonance tbh.
    1
  2001. Zechariah 11-12 makes it clear as well that God has no favor towards Israel either. Why should His people, only they who are of Christ, regard they who sold our Messiah for 30 pieces of silver as anything but Satan's Synagogue.
    1
  2002. Honestly, universal voting was the worst thing implemented since globalized banking, seriously it should be only the positive contributors to society that can vote. “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” - Ben Franklin Guess what, they can, the republic is dead Tim.
    1
  2003. Would love an ipv6 vid.
    1
  2004. Man, East Asia really is made of suicidal fools.
    1
  2005.  @BrodieRobertson  That's an excuse more than anything, there is no risk and doing it would not actually complicate the build process anymore, I honestly refuse to believe that the financial cost is all that relevant as its so small if it exists at all. An overwhelming majority of Proton users will never report issues to the developers so there is no reason not to make Proton easier.
    1
  2006. Better Amendment: Convicted violation of public office by the Constitution is a death sentence. Without the death sentence, the law has no bite, and it will always be eroded into nothing, nobody cares without a threat, and taxpayer provided welfare that you can't actually escape is not a punishment when you can't take any personal responsibility anyway. We're literally paying for their comfort, they don't even live miserably for breaking the law because that's "inhumane". Really?!? And murdering and raping children and women isn't inhumane? Criminals who commit heinous acts should have retribution on their head, a crime is not erased simply because you dislike intimidation and threat. Tim Pool is just like those stupid Cali-nuts who move to Texas because California is a trash-filled craphole of a state made of retards and run by pedophiles only to advocate for the exact laws that destroyed the state they left, when you advocate against the death sentence, the end result will always be Seattle, LA, New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Philly. That is the logical conclusion and they are following it to a tee. This is the fault of removing any consequence from the law, and it starts with removal of the death sentence, its a slippery slope you cannot stop. Let me ask you, what country has abolished state treason from being a death sentence? Name one country that doesn't give them full capability to torture and execute spies, terrorists, and traitors? I can tell you for a fact there isn't one. Why? Because they know the only way to intimidate this behavior is by the threat of death, hypocrites argue no death sentence because "We value human life" which you don't cause foremost a value for human life would seek retribution for unjustified human death, to value life you must seek just deaths, that is justice, but its also clear that you don't care about death sentence laws because you won't advocate the abolish of the state to kill anyone, in times of war, in times of peace, you have removed any justification to advocate for state sponsored deaths, no matter who it applies to. This is stupid.
    1
  2007. Bruh I don't think they're actual conservatives, true conservatives raised the classic country girl, shes more conservative then these cuckservative wannabes.
    1
  2008. All speculative markets are a scam, crypto was not designed to be a speculative market, but by using it as such you are playing yourself, those coins that rely on being treated as a speculative market are literal Ponzi schemes and will always scam you out of money.
    1
  2009. I have to respectfully disagree with a lot of what you say, foremost when you get hung up on a lot of Christian standards surrounding it, you only refer to the regular, usually nominal, joeschmoe Christians who can't even discuss the simplest concepts of faith because its majorly fake in their heart, its a paintjob not a lifestyle. If they can't argue apolgetics and theology then they aren't worth arguing faith over, everything they say about their facade half-assed religion is not worth considering, even if they are are a young Christian they should not be held accountable as a representative of any faith. And if they also can not argue and debate generally they also are unlikely to be considerable for discussion. In that case they're the embodiment of a strawman because they are about as useful a reference for debate as one. As for everything about it, circumcision from an theological worldview no longer means anything, we are not required by law any longer to be circumcised because the Holy Spirit has circumcised our hearts. Why Christian still performed circumcision is really dependent on the Christian, the Catholics were superstitious and would make up all sorts of tradition about it, (whatever they say now I'm unsure, but the the older ones likely still do much of that) however the Protestants would not, we instead come from the worldview instead that its merely a reflection on our house in marking after the faith much like it meant for Jews however it is nothing more then a reflection, it is neither actually for faith nor required for it, being circumcised has nothing on being saved. (those who believe it does are specifically condemned in fact by the Disciples and Paul) The other reason is hygiene, which yes it is objectively cleaner then lack of circumcision, its not just a lack of knowledge of cleaning, it is actually very much less hygienic. Now to rattle off some points that honestly strawmans on the argument: No, it does not protect anymore effectively against AIDs and nobody smart would argue that; No it does not decrease the inclination of masturbation nor harm sexual performance in any manner, again nobody with intellect would argue that; No we don't actually perform it to prevent some rather minor and likely insignificant case of a possible disease that is "worse." Anyone who makes these arguments is trying to rationalize it secularly, which is foolish because its not a secular argument and from a secular worldview it wouldn't make much sense. (though there are a few valid secular arguments to be had, it was never gonna outweigh the opposition the enemies of God anyway) And after all that the chance of complications caused or the claim of torture as a result are so minuscule as to be less then being hit by a vehicle while on a light traffic sidewalk, and the claims of torture are rather unfounded since recollection of the event is not possible at such an age. If you want to degrade the practice don't sell fallacies on the subject, if you want to come at this from your subjective standard, call it permanent physical damage, but torture is well beyond the line, by your logic on this case being born is torture. (by strict definition it is but I don't see a good argument for that sticking either) Who can you recall has been psychologically damaged thanks to a successful circumcision, who can make that claim if they couldn't clearly see their penis.
    1
  2010. Still find it stupid that the EU feels the need to once again interfere in the market, pushing everyone into a more centralized economy doesn't help anyone and telling businesses what they can and can't do just creates further monopolization by those who can in fact afford to control and manipulate the market and further squeeze the market using the monopoly of force to make their own monopolies.
    1
  2011.  @pillmuncher67  Your countries will burn, you are killing the world with your babied lives of sheltered bullcrap and hedonistic worthlessness and trying to drag everyone down with you into hell. Its not for the government to decide standards nor the market, its not the job of the government to interfere in business, they were never given this right, they took it tyrannically and it will kill people cause famine like socialism always does. Monopolies are only made at the behest of governments because they are the monopoly that enforces all monopolies to exist, ironic how everyone hates "monopolies" but only so long as its not the one that both has the power to kill you and actively exterminates life, hypocritically claiming to love life by said extermination, at will and uses its power to assault the common man in all walks of life. Corporatism is literal syndicalism, as in it is Marxist Socialism in play, which is only enforced and exists at the behest only of government which all of Europe has a beloved obsession thanks to their weak societies and people. Their interference in the market creates monopolies, government can't create value, they can't and don't compete in the market, and only rob those who do in order to provide for those who are at the top of the market who have bribes and more power waiting for the existing powers to use, its a repeating cycle, they are kings without a title so they don't need to be held responsible, they claim to harm them in one hand and then use them to benefit themselves in the other, its hypocrisy. You don't get to complain about data collection and then use the methods, infrastructure, and designs they made for you in order to do the same thing and act all innocent.
    1
  2012. The community is also toxic as hell and that's what really makes me wish Rust wouldn't get into the Kernel.
    1
  2013.  @billeterk  My issue is that if you critique Rust at all, like I've critiqued the build system and syntax quite deliberately and specifically a good few times now, they neither will ever accept it nor refute it reasonably, every time I've done it I was insulted and attacked for it without any refutation to what I actually said. I've been accused of not knowing anything, of being ignorant, and told I'm wrong and should be ignored without a refutation. It is for this reason more then any other I hate the Rust community. I don't like Rust and would never intend to use it, I do hate both its build system and syntax, but I would never have been so angrily opposed to it if not for this toxic fanaticism I've always experienced regarding it. And just to clarify, I have not ever gone out of my way to make these criticisms, I've made those comments in places where ever an independent topic of Rust came up, I never intentionally antagonized the community but every time I would end up attacked by Rust folks anyway, it is for this reason I see the Rust community as childish and full of children who shouldn't be left near Kernel development, partly out of spite, but only that for some reason this trendy new language attracts the exact people I don't want to see developing a kernel driver.
    1
  2014. From what I've heard from the occasional person who speaks about who lived in the state, as I don't live there and have never resided there, it suggests they're simply mentioning facts and leftists are just getting mad because the fact in their twisted mind "justifies slavery" most especially cause they just want to push "white man bad" myths.
    1
  2015. Bernie believes in zero-sum economics proving he doesn't know anything about economics, he has nothing valuable to say on the subject.
    1
  2016.  @ScavCitizen  I mean nothing says they can't be but that speculation goes a lot further then what can be proven, what we do know is they stay very silent about it so they're at least complicit like many occultist governments are.
    1
  2017.  @ScavCitizen  "Since you like pointing out fallacies so much, you should look up Special Pleading." You made no factual allegations nor evidence, you made claims but there's no evidence behind anything you said, also how the hell does anything I say have anything to do with special pleading and yet "you made no argument", that's an inherent contradiction. You can't accuse someone of making a fallacious argument that inherently requires his opposition (that being you, special pleading needs at least two opposing arguments) to make an argument. Are you trying to be a hypocrite? "And didn't, because I made no argument." You need to learn what an argument is then: "You know what else they stay very silent about? Unicorns, and pixies, and fairy dust." "You gotta pull yourself out of the conspiracy hole, brother." "Good luck in your magical quest against the demons, I guess. Just don't harm any flesh and blood humans on your delusional crusade." "(And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we must stop teaching religion to kids.)" Do you not understand these are all inherent arguments? Fallacious, but they all revolve around similar or related points to try and refute what I've said which were arguments, a counter-argument is still an argument even if its foolish, you hate religion and anything associated with religion, it should be stopped according to you. That is a point and you claim to support that argument by strawman, ad hominem, and deflection, not to mention you make an assumption of my position in any number of regards for which there is no manner to imply such. "There's simply no conversation we can have when I'm talking about the reality we can both see," No you're not. You never once resorted to refuting what I said by rational and reasonable argumentation. "and you're talking about a war between good and evil in the spirit realm, which exists only in your imagination (and the imagination of others with the same delusion)." And your support for that claim is what exactly? You do realize reiterating a point I made as though its ridiculous is not an argument against my point, you're supposed to, you know, actually refute the point. You just committed appeal to ridicule fallacy. "I have no interest in debating your thoughts on fictional characters like Satan, or demons, or supposedly occultist governments." Despite the fact you literally did so by using fallacy after fallacy (even attempting appeal to fallacy fallacy despite the fact your claim of fallacy was inherently invalid anyway) to make my arguments appear stupid and ridiculous not on the merits of said arguments but by undermining the intelligence of everyone who reads what I have said to you and suggesting I'm irrational. You're quite a rude and insulting individual especially to then claim you "made no argument" and "have no interest in debating" when that's literally been all you're doing to try and demonstrate me as a fool so as not to believe what I say. You could not be more of a liar if you had tried. I was at least hoping for something dissension so I could actually respond with reasonableness, unfortunate that you refused such. "This is what's called an impasse." You know had you been reasonable, it wouldn't have been, the blame is on you and we could've had a constructive discussion but you instead want to boost your ego, downplay it, and try to undermine me all at once. Thank God I don't care and don't take offense, for I know what is in your heart, that the hatred you have shown of me is not of me but of He who went before me and since I come of Him you have hated me. Had I spoken mistruth you could've shown me such, but you did not. Instead I spoke all I say not by the authority of myself for which I do not speak glory to myself, but by the authority of He who sent me and thus I speak the glory of He who sent me for which thus there be no falsehood in me. But you speak by your own authority and thus to your own glory and thus you fight opinion against truth.
    1
  2018.  @ScavCitizen  "And then George went Gish Galloping off into the sunset..." You do realize rejecting to argue with someone because of their beliefs is relying on ad hominem. Its inherently unreasonable, irrational, illogical, and downright malicious. You do know a fallacy is a refutation to argue reasonably against the oppositions argument. For which you didn't, you literally appealed to ridicule and strawmanned me in order to undermine what I've said without having the reason upon what I have said. You never presented a refutation nor a counter-point of anything I said. Refutation requires a unique response to the statement of claims for which addresses what's been said. You failed to even consider what I've said. "Like 90% of what you've said is practically the definition of Special Pleading. You expect me to provide rock solid evidence for my arguments, but you can't provide any for yours." "Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard." You never referenced a general principle nor evidence of a general principle, and there was no evidence presented for which to present an exception to a general principle. And that aside I neither presented an exception to a general principle and neither did I present a double standard. By what quote have I presented such? And where is your presentation of a general principle for which I also cited an exception too? Where even is the general principle? "You expect me to provide rock solid evidence for my arguments, but you can't provide any for yours." Burdens not on me because I didn't make a claim about my opposition for which evidence would be relevant to the point. And neither did I deflect from the argument at hand. If you had refuted what I said or actually asked for a demonstration of things when we were on topic, then I would've presented to them, but now that you've detracted the argument I'm not gonna be compliant with you to demonstrate anything regarding a point you don't show any regard for. And I'm not gonna present evidence on a subject for which I know you're inherently biased and blind to, one for which you have no understanding and have an inherent hatred for, for it would not help you, and that aside I don't make arguments for religion, least of all by evidence for reason can not save you and reason is not the foundation of truth, its a subject to it. To expect a subject to have authority over its foundation would be least of all foolish. "Look man. I know you're desperate to drag someone down into the mud and "debate me bro" on your terms." I'm not the one resorting to fallacies. "Seems like you have nothing better to do. I just lost interest the moment you revealed how much of a complete whackjob you are." If that were true you wouldn't have responded afterwards, so you're not only a manipulator and hypocrite, but an outright liar. "Yes, I made arguments BEFORE you revealed that." And once again, you lied and now you're backtracking realizing you can't reasonably support your claim. "After you showed your true colors, my job was essentially done." Except your position is neither inherent nor correct. Not to mention you didn't answer any of the questions I asked of you and neither have you actually responded to what I've said. You made claims, but none of them by reason. "I have no illusions of getting through to you on any level, but at least now other people can see what's really lying under the surface of most conspiracy theories these days." Yet you continue to come back. You lack self-control if you say one thing and do the exact opposite. You come back for reason, and I know why but you refuse to acknowledge. If you truly did not care you wouldn't have written this up. "I do not care about what you said" as a response to what I've said is inherently a contradiction for if you didn't care you wouldn't respond, you'd ignore my responses and would feel no need to continue responding. "For which thus thou hast therefore servethd thy purpose. Amen." Even though you didn't present a point, relied on fallacies, claimed I made a fallacy I can't possibly have made, and all while lacking a reasonable capacity to argue or support any of your points.
    1
  2019.  @ScavCitizen  "Gallop, gallop, gallop..." Adults don't talk like this. You need to learn to grow up and speak like an adult, stop speaking like a child who believes they are an intellectual. Adults can argue and discuss with those they vehemently disagree with, that's a large sign of adult mentality, but a child refuses to deal with anyone they get particular with. "Speaking of strawman, I didn't say I don't care about what you said. I said I don't care about trying to convince you of anything. That ship sailed and sunk long ago." Contradiction, you clearly care because you demonstrate a lack of capacity to not respond. If you didn't care you wouldn't even need self-control to stay away, least you could've feigned apathy if you didn't respond, but you made yourself the fool by responding with this. Also saying you don't care to convince me is intentionally trying to play the argument as though you have superiority. Which you don't, I shouldn't have to tell you this. "You're not the only person who might potentially read this exchange. When I was much younger, lurking on exchanges like this was very informative. Just trying to pay it forward." Your responses are vapid and worthless to any reader because you literally just keep repeating the same mantra acting superior, in order for value to be gleamed by an interaction you need to actually contribute. I'm still contributing by demonstrating how vapid and hollow your strategy to undermine your opposition is, but you provide nothing because you retreat yet refuse to let anyone get the final word because you are a child. If you had left the conversation off in a manner where you I couldn't respond with a contribution, you'd get the last word but because you insist upon getting the last word and refuse to humble yourself like the narcissist you are. You don't care about anyone else, you don't get to hide behind a manipulative facade as though you have the moral high ground especially when you contribute nothing and give up as soon as someone makes a claim you can't refute. "As for what you've said, I've barely skimmed it." I can tell with your response you haven't done more then take sections out and conjure your own conceptions of who and what I am based on speculation. "So in that sense, I care about what you're saying - I just don't care to subject myself to all of it." You can't do both, either you care and thus wish to intervene, in this case intervening, or you don't in which case you'd not have responded. "Same goes for white supremacists, homophobes, and bigots of all stripes." This is how you ensure evil proliferates, its a desire to kill and murder, its hatred and bigotry inherently. Those who do not see every man no matter their heart as that which is equal to you is naught but a murderer. When they die and you refused to address them, their death is also on your hands as is every single piece of murder, that being the hatred of the man, they distributed to the world. Had you refuted them you would not be held in contempt for evil acts because you would've stood in place for their sake and all who would be victimized by their hatred in Spirit and act. But because you refuse to stand against them by truth and boldness, you are equal to them in all metrics for you ensured their proliferation. You are responsible for the bloodguilt of their condemnation and will be condemned for that responsibility. You are indistinguishably just as wicked as them. But I would speak to all those would hate and seek death of even my enemies, for those even who had committed the worst acts by hand I do not wish them to the damnation of Hell I would go out of my way to save them, even if they had done such that I should desire vengeance. For I know just as you are, I would be just like you, just like them, wicked and depraved, hopeless and unrepentant. But it is because I know where I would be that I would seek their salvation whatever the cost. That does not mean that those commit evil heinous acts do not avoid execution, evil acts worth the price of life such as murder and rape should be payed in blood, but to the end of their life I will always follow God's salvation for them if I ever could speak it to them, to their dying breath. "(Note: this is NOT me calling you a bigot. But the fact that you value "god's law" over human life makes you equally destructive.)" You really shouldn't assume that just because I see someone talk about bigotry that I assume that I'm being accused, I wait for the directed attack before I would consider such things. (and context still being relevant may dissuade that thought still) But you really don't understand "God's Law" if you think I value the law more then life. For God's Law is to regard the value of human life second only to God Himself, for which there is no manner for which we can put God at risk which means there is no need to put anyone but yourself at risk in order to follow God's Law. "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." - 1 Corinthians 13 The most vital attribute being love, not of man's love, but of God's love, a love that seeks good, chastised wrongdoing, humbles itself and does not boast, that seeks for the good of and the preservation of its charge. It is patient and does not insist on its way, seeking only for the good of those it stands for, speaks for truth. When it says does not insist in its own way, it is not saying it does not believe a righteous path, but it does not force one to follow the righteous path but prays and hopes for adherence, to speak a correction that is received for the sake of all who hear it. It does not rejoice in wrongdoing. Do you know what that means? For it means God is not having any man wish death on anyone, for any who wish death on another are murderers discerning themselves from God further, he who hates another is likewise a murderer discerning himself from righteousness. You had assumed who I was and what I believed not by what I have said nor by what you could know of me but what you wanted me to be so that you could despise me. But I have done nothing wrong and said nothing of the sort to expect such a claim. For God's and His Law is what gives human life value and thus it is by the law we preserve human life for the sake of goodness. Those who offend the law thus are punished by the law, not because the law was violated, but because human life for which the law speaks of had been violated. For those who be against me I wish them not to die, I do not wish either that they'd have to die, but I know it is punishment that they die for sin. I also know that by the preservation of life there are that which retracts that preservation only when the preservation was inherently violated. For I so love life that those who would violate it must die, but those who do not such thing should receive no such thing. And of all of them, I seek to preach repentance to them, not for my sake, for it does not give me value to do such but because God wishes and commands of me to do such for which I have volunteered myself by His election to do. "I'm sure it all makes perfect sense in your mind, and you'll chalk this little encounter up in the "W" column." I don't look at any of this as a "W", I do not approach arguments that way and neither do I approach any form of preaching that way. Its foremost not mine to receive, and neither is it my purpose to win. My ambition is for your sake and the sake of those who see what I have to say. It does not benefit me either way. All I have received is meant to be given. "That's fine. Any reasonable person will just see what I see: the rambling diatribes of an unhinged lunatic." Appeal to ridicule. "My first two replies to you were the only ones where I thought we might actually have something to discuss. Everything after that is just me giving you opportunities to show your full crazy. And you're doing a great job!" Running around in circles doesn't demonstrate a point. "Is that ad hominem? If this was a debate, it would be." Fallacies don't apply to debates, they apply to arguments, an argument can be made without a debate. "But this is not a debate (no matter how much you desperately want it to be). It's a demonstration, and a public service announcement." That's quite a "holier than thou" attitude right there to call your claims and statements "public service announcements", that's arrogant and narcissistic. And you demonstrated nothing, you made claims and statements, but you didn't support them at all and gave up when you hit the slightest bit of resistance, even refusing to answer basic questions.
    1
  2020.  @ge2719  "And the idea that a person has a soul, and that soul can be a different sex from the body works perfectly with christianity." No it doesn't, the sex of your flesh is a reflection (even if imperfectly in some fleshly failure case, but it is a reflection in all case still) of the sex of your soul, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angels, and demons are all male, but as for man and his dominion there is a share of male and female, and while partiality will not be found between the Kingdom of Heaven, those distinctions do exist in Heaven, we will still refer to each other by the sexes we were assigned by God. For as Jesus said, God made them male and female, there is nothing of Scripture that denotes an overthrow of sex, in fact God Himself refers to Himself as Father, Aba, and inherently male, and our flesh will be made new and perfect in Heaven as so said in the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to John, thus our new flesh will still be male and female as our souls are only male and female.
    1
  2021. You know when I think of an 8 out of 10 woman, I'd expect her to live past 35.
    1
  2022. There is never a good reason to give any thought to diversity of genetics, race being the most prominent one.
    1
  2023.  @0xSingularity  Going from malware to malware with ads isn't much of an improvement.
    1
  2024. People who smack people for saying racist stuff deserve a boot on the neck, just sayin.
    1
  2025. Asmon making a bad take is always interesting, but I don't think he was considering that they were discussing why women did it, they were discussing the outlook responsible for causing it as inherently wrong, just because you can understand someone's mindset does not mean you should tolerate or consider it, I can understand a toddler throwing a tantrum when you take his toys away, that doesn't mean I should consider his tantrum as anything but wrong and punish him for it. Also individual responsibility says that the individual is completely responsible for every decision they make.
    1
  2026. You know the funny thing is there isn't a single civilization that affirms this behavior that lasts a hundred years, homosexuals actually die out in a poor or struggling society. Every civilization that had it in a wide underground last a bit long but eventually it becomes overt and then the collapse comes. Degenerate behaviors don't create lasting societies and no one will remember this period in history.
    1
  2027. I'm certain this spaz is just the patsy fall guy.
    1
  2028. You know I honestly wasn't expecting someone to drink rubbing alcohol or bleach without trying to kill themselves.
    1
  2029. "For, at that point, how distinct is Christianity from the other Abrahamic religions, or any other belief system for that matter?" Only a Christ-adherent culture could've devised a liberty mindset enabling the US, and its specifically because of that shared consciousness that Europe was able to even make an attempt at adopting those principles. (despite failing to) The only reason non-Christians were even able to get close to such an attempt was because they were emulating the United Kingdom. Look at Japan, Korea, Taiwan, or former Hong Kong. Literal historicity reasons they appear and feel "Western" is because Japan used the UK as a basis for its entire society after the Meji Restoration. (to which the US further accelerated when they took Korea and Japan) China doesn't feel "Western" despite everything because it did not adopt the Christ-awareness to do so. Every other non-Christian culture did not adopt such mannerisms to this day and will never do so. (India being much like China even despite being part of the British Empire) That aside what demonstrates distinction of Christianity from other Abrahamic religions (aside from it has an objective and moralistic worldview of justice and forgiveness that no other religion has, which is actually the most impportant) is things like the Reformation, which did not happen in Islam nor Judaism and could not have either. The results of the Reformation changed everything, and it happened because of the nature of Christianity. (being the fault of Christ alone) Where in Islam they burned dissenting accounts, and in Judaism they sheltered the dissent when it did exist, (and never copied it down) in Christianity it was continuously taught to preserve and spread dissent, copying and preserving every documentation they could even when they were wrong. We know more of both the adherents and heretics then of anyone else in history. This is why the Bible has so much extra surrounding it, its why Catholics and Orthodox (and beyond, even the Coptics have many things like that) have so many legends and documents that go beyond the Biblical text, its why we have non-canonical text, its why there are so many distinct yet recognizable translations, its why its the most widely published and sold work in the world, and its why we have so many denominations compared to Islam which only has a handful and Judaism which only has even fewer. Its also why we have the more definitive evidence of Christ's life and the life of his Disciples in comparison to pretty every other historical figure that came centuries after them. And not to mention only four Christian denominations (maybe five if you count it that way, I'll explain in a moment) have ever been in a seat of notable national governmental power. Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists are the four major denominations that's had more than one country of adherence that was at or near the status of being a great power. The Coptics in Egypt and Ethiopia or the Armenian Oriental Orthodox have never been significant or nationally adherent for long, and most especially did not contribute to common Christ-aware culture today. The only debatable case of the fifth Christian denomination is the Chalcedonian or Nicenean (they're basically the same, just Chalcedonian is more commonly accepted but further down the line in history) which is the precursor to pretty much every Christian denomination that currently exists and ruled over the Roman Empire since about the 2nd century. (and is the reason that Europe became Christian in the first place) The reason I say maybe is because its kinda inflating the numbers and could just as easily be separated into all the other prominent denominations mentioned. The fact you make an argument that "Western culture", or Christ-aware culture as it really is, is not well defined (despite every single European or European-inspired law being explicitly based on such) and has never existed is such an empty and foolish argument ignoring historical and sociopolitical fact its a wonder if you aren't just blind and deaf. You do realize the only necessity for cultures is a shared recognized consciousness right? The West shares a common outlook not shared anywhere else, which is why capitalism came to exist and individualism was held in high regard, also being the basis for any moral principle. To handwave everything as "its just a Red scare" (despite the fact being scared of going socialists is totally justified) is so disingenuous its a wonder how one could be taken seriously.
    1
  2030. Also separation of church and state is not a law, neither at the state nor federal level.
    1
  2031. Kinda feels like this be a lawsuit in the EU.
    1
  2032. Given she rejects the Bible, as she's a "bishop" (which makes her a heretic), she's probably never even read that.
    1
  2033. First off John the Apostle addresses Gnosticism many times and refuted it, even more they used an even more general term to refer to the religion that you call Gnostic, he called it Dualist, this is the term you're probably more so looking for. Calling John the Apostle a Gnostic is completely wrong, both Johns, Paul, and Peter all fought Gnostics, and Gnosticism was more then claims of prophesy, if you're gonna claim that the mere act of prophesy is Gnostic, (and John didn't have any other attribute of Gnosticism that you claimed here, he didn't agree with the demiurge, that Eve was corrupted by procreating with the demiurge, or that the Creator created man into a prison, John the Apostle didn't, as far as we know, even write the Gospel of John) then the entire Bible is completely Gnostic, Isaiah was Gnostic, Jesus was Gnostic, Moses was Gnostic, Abraham was Gnostic. There is no Abrahamic religion then, only Gnostic religions, cause even going back to the first books of the Muslims you will find prophesy. The Book of John (as in the Gospel of John, there isn't any other Book of John for which reside in the Biblical text, the next closest is the 1st and 2nd letters of John and Revelation which were from John the Apostle, where as you can suspect at least the Gospel of John to likely be an account of John the Baptist's) is also attested to by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. As for Revelation, nothing about it is a violation of the Old or New Testaments, they don't contradict, in which case you are required to call Abrahamic religions nothing more then Gnostic. Both Johns fought Dualism, they were an enemies of all Gnosticism, all the other Apostles and Disciples of Christ attested to this fact and agreed. TIK I really have to question if you've ever actually read the Biblical text, you certainly haven't read much of John, or 1 and 2 John if you're gonna claim this. Definitely not read it much the way through at all and certainly nothing of the Old Testament either. First off none of the claims in the Book of John (as in the Gospel) were anything more then the claims made in the other three Gospel books. (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) And Revelation (written by John the Apostle, same as 1st and 2nd John) still doesn't have any contradiction with the rest of the Bible as a whole, in fact the Abomination of Desolation happened in 70 AD, the Roman soldiers surrounded the city, where Jesus had told them to flee, this happens in Luke 21, starting at version 20. It was described by Daniel in Daniel (which made much the same form of prophesies) which was iterated by Jesus in Luke 19 and Matthew 24 as well. By this metric you just iterated that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all must be disregarded for being Gnostic. Also the Book of John (and neither John the Apostle) never once describes Satan having sex with Eve to produce the Fall, maybe that's a Cathar "translation" (which according to the original text in the Koine Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew, is easily refuted) but that's not what it says in John. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke it also directly addresses that angels don't partake in sex, and the demons were fallen angels, when the fallen angels are said to have children, its suspected that they needed a host but Satan as the serpent could not do this. Also Thomas refutes this idea of the "divine body" of Jesus when He appears to Thomas in John 20. It was refuted in the Gospel of John which John the Apostle not only did not refute but agreed with. (and even off my recollection, pretty sure he was right there when that happened) Nowhere in the Book of John does it describe Eve having sex with the serpent. If you're referring to John 8:44 (which wasn't written by John the Apostle) then you are completely ignoring what it is saying, nothing about that says that Eve had sex with the serpent, John the Apostle also refers to "Children of God" in 1 John 3:10, are we to then believe John is arguing that God also had sex with Eve and had children? Does that not mean that the children of Satan and the Children of God has always been fixed, how then can John communicate the his writings to anyone? No this is a nonsense interpretation, either its a literal interpretation which would contradict reason for writing the Gospel of John and separately 1st and 2nd John, or we must accept that this is not referring to a physical dynasty but of a spiritual one. Also good argument against Christians having any Gnosticism, until the Catholic split, Christians never destroyed books, its why we have so many records of the Biblical text, even some contradictory and heretic additions to the books, because they wanted to preserve the truth. Clearly this demonstrates that, with the support of the Book of John, it was not Gnostic. Also the problem with Revelation, the reason it was so regarded in opposition by many people is because of how uninteresting it tended to seem to Christians, they didn't understand what it was exactly saying, even now its hard to get much of a clear picture.. But just because John refers to a thousand year reign of God doesn't make him Gnostic. I agree with much of the things you say of Gnosticism, though I'd call it Dualist more then just Gnostic, which again as I said, both Johns constantly opposed, I am of Christ, I have dealt with my share of Gnostics, but its in calling John the Apostle a Gnostic where I absolutely cannot agree on the simple basis that he does not share any principal of Gnostics, he doesn't claim to be the Truth but merely attesting, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke did, to the Truth being beyond him and not defined by him. Gnostics love twisting reality to suit their needs. 1st and 2nd John were written by the John the Apostle (the one who wrote Revelation) and he was writing against the Gnostics directly. Also Christians of any decent theology have listened to Satanists, many theologians have directly addressed Satanism by dealing with and even debating Satanists. Its often the Satanists that back out of such debates. But there have been plenty who have argued against Gnostics by address, (which John the Apostle, or Saint John, had done so) Satanists, Atheists, and Pagans. I love you TIK, and I love all your talks on the topics that many Keynesians and Communists will never even consider to have, and while I agree with most of this, its that one point on John being a Gnostic that I have to argue as wrong, Augustine was a man as was Luther, both of them had problems (despite Luther also devising Sola Scriptura, or "By Scripture Alone" meaning not to devise anything beyond the Scripture, which the Book of John and the Book of Revelation are both Scripture thus that's a contradictory position) like Luther also having problems with James when James said "Faith without works is dead" (James 2) however this is because Luther, as many Christians have, misinterprets Paul and James to be opposed to one another but in reality what James is saying if you pay attention to the theological context is that those who do not demonstrate their faith in their works is demonstrating the fruits of lacking an element of being in the faith. James and Paul make it quite clear and Paul actually says much the same thing a few times but Luther, as Augustine, had a lot of blind spots. Like Augustine also believed women to be a specially wicked body and looked down on marriage, conflicting with the Old and New Testament, conflicting with what Jesus said. That is because his Gnostic religion ruined his outlook on women, he never had a good encounter with a noble and righteous woman, when he left his Gnostic hedonism, he segregated himself from women entirely, in part blaming them in his perspective for his sin. He was never able to overcome this. This does not mean that Christians thus should be opposed or look down on marriage and it most certainly shouldn't be that Christians approach women from a perspective of being especially wicked. Despite all the good that Augustine did too, he was quite blind in many ways too, all men have blind spots, the best of men is men at best.
    1
  2034. ​ @TheRealRealMClovin  And have you actually watched the context?
    1
  2035. Eh, the simple desire for a free and open alternative is enough, technical concerns are not the only selling point so long as its competent and can compete, its not like Mozilla or Safari are any better in that regard, the only real reason anyone uses them is their avoidance of direct Google tech.
    1
  2036. "And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?” - Matthew 8:27 Nice one, Jesus calming the storm with a word is quite classic in common recognition, and fits quite well here.
    1
  2037. Red Hat shouldn't have to go through a bunch of lawsuits to stop being racist.
    1
  2038. Look up disparate impact law and only then will you understand why it is legally required for companies like SBI to be used by western companies.
    1
  2039.  @Seelenschmiede  Long as its not in .22
    1
  2040. Its not even blood money, its quite stupid that people get offended over the selling of Mein Kampf.
    1
  2041. SWATing of public figures is trivially easy to prevent, the fact the government puts no effort into it is just a demonstration in who crap they are.
    1
  2042. It doesn't even make logical sense, even if Texas were preparing for a fight against the Federal government, they wouldn't be transporting mechanized troops to the border, Border Patrol doesn't have any mechanized equipment aside from Humvees and maybe trucks, if a military conflict were to break out it wouldn't be fighting a military force on the border, that's wasteful, and if you think the the illegal aliens have any mechanized troops you're insane, these vehicles would be absolutely useless on the border.
    1
  2043. She's not a pastor, she's just a heretic fool on a lectern.
    1
  2044.  @holy8782  The majority here already are voting for him, also majority doesn't win elections, the US is deliberately not a democracy. "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - John Adams "Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death." - James Madison "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." - Alexander Hamilton "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." - John Marshall "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived." - John Quincy Adams
    1
  2045. Damn, I weep for extra credits old manner, they used to be a pretty good channel of people who avoided any censorship or directive political positions, they used to just teach game design, my how the mighty have fallen.
    1
  2046.  @libuseviskova5006  For me this is actually pretty short. :P
    1
  2047.  @Dragaur17  No he is not, the KJV does not say any such things in it in the first place, and neither the NIV nor the ESV (being the two most popular conservative modern translations) either pull from the KJV, they pull from much older sources and mostly ignore the Textus Receptus. The only major translation that sources from the KJV is the NKJV.
    1
  2048.  @sandmangaara25  "God does insist that his people are still his. " Where? I can give you plenty where He doesn't and in fact says the opposite, Revelation 2:9, Revelation 3:9, Zechariah 11-12, half of Paul's epistles. Where in Scripture does it make this claim.
    1
  2049.  @sandmangaara25  "children of Abraham is still in effect and was not "canceled" by Christ's coming." And what about Matthew 3:9-10?
    1
  2050.  @sandmangaara25  "The Israeli people are still blessed by him for their heritage" Also the blessing is given to Abram alone before God changes his name and its only given to him for his faith, by the logic you're making, the Ishmaelites are equally blessed.
    1
  2051.  @Brokengamezone  "I thought it was written during the Great Tribulation that the people of Israel are commanded to flee to the mountains." This already happened in 70AD, that prophecy was fulfilled in the first century right before the destruction of the Temple by Rome, only the Christians survived and fled to the mountains, everyone else perished and suffering the Abomination of Desolation.
    1
  2052.  @CrusaderCrunch  "believe in the same God" They do not believe in Yahweh, for if they knew Our Father in Heaven, they would have loved the Son, so saith God.
    1
  2053. Valkyrie really wasn't a very good "strong female character" because she didn't have any reason to get it, she wasn't a leader nor was she actually very smart or wise nor was she good at any of the other stuff required to be a ruler. The only thing she was good at was killing people. Also remember that Hollywood are straight, white, and/or men haters.
    1
  2054.  @todydn  Eh, not really, a good governing authority cares and looks out for the rights of his people, that was what God gave governance for. But mankind always corrupts this for he hates good and loves evil, and thus he takes their rights for power, a good lord should be the governance that cares about his people's rights to the bitter end, willing to die for their sake for that was his divinely placed role, and the divine role of the men under him are to support him in that. All citizens are to support a just governance and a just governance protects the right of the citizens, even against itself. But when both sides are evil and corrupt as they are this does not happen and rights are lost. Woe to those who allowed these things, for judgement comes, and it comes to baptize us in fire.
    1
  2055.  @jazzy4830  They are still authorized and required by the law of God, not man, to oversee the people, and if a local militia was trained by a lord, that's God's doctrine being applied. It doesn't matter what the law tells them they can and can't do, they have authority regardless of what people want to claim. And if I had a lord such as that over me, I would be exceedingly loyal to him. If he's willing to do something to defend me and my community, I don't care about my country, my country can burn for the sake of my locality for all I care. Let all other men die if that be the case.
    1
  2056.  @jazzy4830  "My guy, drop the "divine right of kings" shtick. They weren't appointed by God because they were superior," Strawman argument, never once claimed they were superior. A superior can not reign on Earth for no man is good but all are wicked. "And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." - Mark 10:18 "All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” - Romans 3:12 God put the kings upon the Earth to do His judgement, to represent His righteousness. All kings have been anointed by God by their appointment. “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion. The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate. I have counsel and sound wisdom; I have insight; I have strength. By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me princes rule, and nobles, all who govern justly." - Proverbs 8:12-16 "Daniel answered and said: “Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might. He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;" - Daniel 2:20-21 "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me." - Matthew 28:18 "they were just lucky that their ancestors managed to claw their way into some power and hold on to it for enough generations." According to God that is not the case. For God put them there. And God kept them for that purpose and used them to judge the nations for which they ruled over. It is not for the kings that which made the problems upon the Earth but for the people who had done such evil for which the kings were sent to judge them. The kings shall be judged just the same but as it was said, even what we mean for evil God will use for good. "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." - Genesis 50:20 "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28 "At that point you'd be better off starting your own group but honestly the last thing this country needs is another group of belligerent armed nutjobs with a misplaced sense of righteousness." God gave us the right to our defense and weapons so that we may defend ourselves. Our lords were put over us so that we be given such a defense in the law just as we are to have one in the body. Instead we have made guilty the innocent, that motivation could be put guilt upon a man for which he must use evidence to oppose. This is not justice for God had told us just how to structure the court, that no man be laid blame unless there be no doubt in his guilt by evidence provided. It is then to the defense who only then would they be guilty before such evidence that they need to provide evidence to the contrary, only then. No man is to be convicted except by the account of two to three witnesses by the law of God. "And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” - Luke 22:35-38 And God requires that death be given to those who incite the law to judge them guilty of murder or rape. No judgement is to be given except for the absolute, there is no compromise amongst the law of God. "On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness." - Deuteronomy 17:6 "This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses." - 2 Corinthians 13:1 "Also pretty sure Jesus said to follow the law "Render unto Caesar" and all that." You don't get to perform eisegesis of the text. Your interpretation shall not be made for it is wrong. "And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar's.” Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him." - Mark 12:13-17 Does it not say quite clearly that the law established is the law to be followed? For Caesar's rule is to be Caesar's but God's law is to be in according to God. In this we are established to grant authority to those who rule upon us as they were established for our sake. But they are not God for they were established above God but below. To this a king is to be placed a judge upon the people and the people are to demand justice from him. Instead you demanded the death of your kings and trade them in for whatever was right in your own eyes. "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." - Judges 17:6 This is an affront to God for no justice can be had. A king is established over the people for the people, if a king does what is not his duty to punish the wicked and reward the righteous he is not to be overthrown but to be put before God so that he be replaced. For a king is to be set over the people. If he comes to take what is not given for him then you are to peacefully oppose him, if he sets violence upon you then you shall pray before you set out in defense of your property. In this we are to defend ourselves not to destroy the king and his kingdom. Instead we are to establish a new king for the old had lost the righteous will to rule. Just as Saul had lost the right to rule to David, so shall the kings of all ages who profane God be put out for those who will be righteous before Him. "Honestly if you are just looking for some to be a virtual cuckhold to an aristocratic in some feudalistic class-based role play, all power to do it on your own, Maybe you can get married just so that you can offer your lord the right of "prima nocta" in a bootlicking display of loyalty." That is not given to my Earthly lord, aristocracy is not a rule from God. But hierarchy is as is submission, I am not loyal to a man who does not defend me but the one who teaches to fight and live shall have my respect more than any man. This is what my father of Earth has done, and it is the will of my Father in Heaven. It is by this will that our lords are to do much the same. I will not bow before a king nor be made to disgrace myself before him for he is not superior. If he demands such things I shall rebel, foremost peacefully, but if attacked then violently, not to destroy him but so that a king that does represent God stands above me in Earthly lordship. All men are given their purpose and to each is put in his place for said purpose, to those who I stand below in rank and there shall be a day that there be those who stand below me in rank, to each I am to love them in all that I do, even in opposition.That is what God has given us to do. For love comes before all other values. "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." - 1 Corinthians 13
    1
  2057.  @hadmatter9240  Yeah, it just so happens that when the government gets really powerful and the citizen get really complacent and lazy they tend to abolish any concept of a militia or owning arms, only for the government to then start acting tyrannical and taking rights it previous observed of its citizens.
    1
  2058. I trust the US government as much as I trust Bill Gates.
    1
  2059.  @thecommoner2090  That's not even what it does, the Bill has nothing specific on curriculum requirements, it only prohibited specific CRT teachings, you're just an activist.
    1
  2060. Better fix, kill the NHS, government can't solve the problem, the free market will.
    1
  2061. Here's a good alternative, eliminate the institutions.
    1
  2062. ​ @dillonkeller4477  You know you demonstrate how much of a fraud and sychophant you are when you say "No thanks. I don't care what he has to say." while calling the person that you said you "don't care what he has to say" a liar. Almost makes you look like a fraud and childishly obsessed fan of Tim without any capacity to think critically at all.
    1
  2063. I've always found it silly that nihilists would even argue for anything given the whole point of their position is that nothing matters, taken to its logical conclusion they should either be apathetic to everything or hedonistic, because whether they do anything or not, it doesn't actually matter and nothing will change, especially if they're also fatalists which any consistent nihilist should be.
    1
  2064. Literal basic economics, few people would ever willing do work when they can afford not to, to prevent that you either need a contract that you can legally hold them to, or you need to not pay them enough to not work any longer.
    1
  2065. Sounds like Ocean Waco tbh, the only way to ensure you won't be encroached by tyranny of a government is to build up a military force able to at least make them relent. Personally I'd prefer trying to create a confederation of city states like Switzerland used to be, but it would need to be covert to pull it off.
    1
  2066. ​ Kerosin Fuchs  Actually no, law did not come into being requiring a victim, laws older then much of recorded history could be victimless and yet were still law, in fact it was common for victimless laws to exist, the Israelites and Persians, even the Babylonians, they all contained laws that didn't require victims in all cases, many of those laws were enforced separate from victim laws however that doesn't discount them as laws, and action was always taken towards them. The Romans and Egyptians also had victimless laws. (in fact the Greek Antiquity Egyptians were actually a practical socialist state before being invaded by the Romans, which does invalidate that claim even more) That aside its clear you aren't willing much to defend your ideas, you proposed no reasoning towards them and instead try to claim it hasn't been done before. (which isn't a good justification either, its on its own a form of fallacy in fact) And then you tried to drag my name through the mud as if I'm a forced "moralist" who never came to my own conclusions, again trying to fallaciously dissuade my side of the argument. My hands have never been clean, and I carry no more shame for that because it disgusts me to be unclean and I have been reborn. No one has made me pure in life, I'm pure because I have been Chosen by God as a servant being a Follower of Christ. And I in fact carry joy because of that. Now if you'd like to stop trying to shame me for something I'm beyond in mind, body, and soul I'd prefer you'd stop pulling fallacies to support your arguments.
    1
  2067.  Kerosin Fuchs  It hurts both society and the individual participating it, don't lie about reality and call it truth, we know what it does, refusal to face reality is ignorant delusion you willingly will take part in just to spoil yourself because you lack any discipline. And its clear how much it poisoned you given how much vile, fallacy, and weakness you've shown in this discussion. And consent doesn't fix the fact its encouraging pedophilia, I don't care if its behind closed doors or not, its evil thoughts which lead to evil actions. (whether you are conscious or aware of it, blindness does not fix a broken body and neither does it fix a broken mind) The only reason many people like you will defend free speech isn't because you care about what others say, its to protect your addiction, if you could figure a way to control the rolling scale I have no doubt in accordance with your actions already you would easily use it to silence opposition to anything, specifically degenerate behavior such as porn. You don't have the foreknowledge nor discipline to recognize anything beyond yourself and will refuse anything that shows you how wrong it is, it will never satisfy you and you will never stop hungering for a larger kick, there is nothing new under the sun, its all vanity, so don't you arrogantly think you've found something better. (we all try until we realize there is not but One Way, but you can try all you want to avoid it) You're so undisciplined you aren't even willing to accept your fallacious claims weren't valid arguments, instead trying to berate a messenger of truth because you can't stand the light.
    1
  2068.  @DonVigaDeFierro  Discernment of reality is not the issue, the issue is the encouragement of pedophile thought, lust is a stronger force to commit evil then any other behavior mankind can commit, most specifically because its hardwired and less regulated. (nothing is comparable) We are also able to push our sexual desires depending on what we consume and there comes no satisfaction nor end to that behavior whether it be conscious of subconscious. Drugs and violence don't even remotely have this effect, aren't hardwired at all, and have been overly regulated for generations. We can tolerate adult sexual behavior because lust towards adults is a natural desire humanistically, lust towards children on all accounts however is entirely pure evil no matter your standard. (unless you seek to encourage pedophilia) Don't bring up reductionist strawmans to try and distract from the subject you fool.
    1
  2069.  @Jeremy-yp8eh  A lot of German philosophy tends to be rife with insanity that makes you think you're the nutcase when its the damn Germans doing weird things again,
    1
  2070. While I do say that "anarcho-capitalism" would be preferable to what we have, I'm a libertarian/minarchist monarchist, referring to a leadership whose only authority and thus power is to preserve (not protect) the innocent and punish the wicked, nothing more, nothing less.
    1
  2071. Correlation also doesn't equate causation. Also those selecting sexualization may be more likely to commit such behavior, even if the study weren't flawed the only thing it even can conclude is that people do bad things to each other. The problem with the concept is how do we even separate behavior influence and behavior demonstrations? That doesn't even get to the question of is influencing the behavior of individuals ethical? The study is flawed not just because lack of control but by lack of ability to figure a conclusion specifically because of sociological/psychological reasons.
    1
  2072. Just gonna point out you don't need to regulate this at all, the problem started with government regulation and control, and of course that's where it collapses from. Nobody ever learns, government does not fix problems, that's not its job and you are a child if you think it should.
    1
  2073.  @Northman1963  You are not entitled to work, you don't have to work if you're feeling you're being exploited, that's an agreement between the employer and employee, also the law doesn't stop you from being exploited, there isn't even an objective definition of exploitation, and what about the government exploiting me? Why is the private market who I trust better not allowed to exploit me but all my taxes go to a social security fund I'll never have access to cause its constantly stolen from? To a healthcare tax I can't and will never use, and if I don't I get fined twice the tax over it? Why am I taxed and my savings inflated just to support geriatrics who never actually worked a day in their lives? Why do I have to work to pay off a deadbeat college kid who can only take minimum wage jobs because they went to a school for gender studies?
    1
  2074. There is no historical record of Muhammad's existence, look up Pfanderfilms.
    1
  2075. Funny thing about masculinity, one of its core traits is actually about not adhering to the desires of others, its standing independent of others, including of their opinions.
    1
  2076. Simple capitalistic solution to all safety concerns and laws without any government intervention in the market, if you are found liable without clear declarative knowledge by the consumer (either by inherent nature of product or service, or by clear demonstration of foreknowledge like a waiver or public declaration) of injuring or killing the consumer, everyone involved may be subject to capital punishment, possible maiming, and large sum subsidy out of pocket payout from all defendants to the surviving victim(s) including full pay of their medical bills, all in accordance with necessity to live comfortable in their crippled state. Capital punishment will be most threatened in the case of death but extreme maiming may often also result in swift execution without any plead if found guilty. What this means is that if a company is found responsible for maiming or killing someone their head is held to such an account that they may be swift killed both as a demonstration of justice and as a message of justice to not violate any principle of the right to life, all without interfering in the market allowing companies to solve the situation independent, quicker, more effectively, and with more flexibility and efficiency then government, they will mitigate risk in accordance to what they know won't get someone maimed or killed instead of the government trying to account for it. The free market has been and will always been more effective for this job if you merely build strict incentives to do said job, you don't need the government involved and the solution becomes inherently solved by adhering to the affirming of divinely gifted rights. Its a libertarian solution that once again, as always works more effective then the authoritarian solution ever could.
    1
  2077.  @andrewjohnson6716  I would say that interpretation is likely wrong since Jesus continually spoke about how the ways of man are not the ways of God, not to mention Jesus often spoke of a lack of distinction between a citizen and a slave except in their obligations. For it was said: "Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him." - Mark 12:17 "Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” - John 18:36 Thus Jesus never reveals an interpretation as such, and "he was a social justice warrior." is also interpreted wrong since Jesus never asks for social justice. Even though "Jesus was not a pacifist" is correct for He said: "He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one." - Luke 22:36 What you have said otherwise does not represent fact, or at least it does not show support among the scriptures.
    1
  2078.  @andrewjohnson6716  I neither believe in a "Republican Jesus" or any other philosophy of man, for it was said: "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8 There is no inheritance for the Kingdom of Heaven for those who treat Christ as actor of this world. Those who see Him as an actor within the world instead of being the Creator and Supremacy over it are blind to all truth. Jesus has never once had in His Book, that being the Bible, an argument for which He argued for fulfillment of a kingship nor a reign of this world, for it was said: "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” - Matthew 4:8-10 "We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." - 1 John 5:19 "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." - 2 Corinthians 4:4 "Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out." - John 12:31 "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." - Ephesians 2:1-3 Made clear here is that God, that being Jesus, does not reside of the world, nor within the world, but instead has dominion over a higher place. And to those of the elect He has brought out of the world not to be enslaved by it. For why would he have said John 18:36? No it is quite clear that we are merely stewards awaiting the better kingdom, and not called to demand authority by action. Quite clearly Jesus, who is the Triune Son, has shown us what we are to do and be, for it was said: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” - Romans 12:19 Clearly telling us not to hold ourselves as authority over anything, but to give our authority, most especially in justice, to God. We are merely asked to speak justice in love, beyond such we are given not charge. We are also continuously instructed not to cause another to stumble against God, for which even the authorities of this world themselves are within. In this we are given realm not to quarrel over the petty. “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you," - Luke 6:27 "To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." - Romans 12:20-21 "If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." - 1 John 4:20 Quite clearly we are not to be provoking people to wrath for that incites wickedness, stumbling, and disbelief. We are only charged with speaking truth, men must be left to provoke themselves else we will be held to blame as its said: "Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged." - Colossians 3:21 Which also speaks instruction in other respects as it also holds true. "And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." - 1 Corinthians 13:2 For which love is defined as: "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away." - 1 Corinthians 13:4-8
    1
  2079.  @andrewjohnson6716  I neither believe in a "Republican Jesus" or any other philosophy of man, for it was said: "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8 There is no inheritance for the Kingdom of Heaven for those who treat Christ as actor of this world. Those who see Him as an actor within the world instead of being the Creator and Supremacy over it are blind to all truth. Jesus has never once had in His Book, that being the Bible, an argument for which He argued for fulfillment of a kingship nor a reign of this world, for it was said: "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” - Matthew 4:8-10 "We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." - 1 John 5:19 "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." - 2 Corinthians 4:4 "Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out." - John 12:31 "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." - Ephesians 2:1-3 Made clear here is that God, that being Jesus, does not reside of the world, nor within the world, but instead has dominion over a higher place. And to those of the elect He has brought out of the world not to be enslaved by it. For why would he have said John 18:36? No it is quite clear that we are merely stewards awaiting the better kingdom, and not called to demand authority by action. Quite clearly Jesus, who is the Triune Son, has shown us what we are to do and be, for it was said: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” - Romans 12:19 Clearly telling us not to hold ourselves as authority over anything, but to give our authority, most especially in justice, to God. We are merely asked to speak justice in love, beyond such we are given not charge. We are also continuously instructed not to cause another to stumble against God, for which even the authorities of this world themselves are within. In this we are given realm not to quarrel over the petty. “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you," - Luke 6:27 "To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." - Romans 12:20-21 "If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." - 1 John 4:20 Quite clearly we are not to be provoking people to wrath for that incites wickedness, stumbling, and disbelief. We are only charged with speaking truth, men must be left to provoke themselves else we will be held to blame as its said: "Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged." - Colossians 3:21 Which also speaks instruction in other respects as it also holds true. "And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." - 1 Corinthians 13:2 For which love is defined as: "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away." - 1 Corinthians 13:4-8
    1
  2080. Decadence breeds social depravity, which breeds population suicide
    1
  2081. For the Count, take down the UK.
    1
  2082. What Greek specifically?
    1
  2083.  @pumpyronaldrump_4417  Abolishing the FDA is the only way to build competition in the drug market.
    1
  2084. Look up BRIDGE social impact, its a rebrand, not a removal.
    1
  2085. How much want to bet that China is straight gassing some of them? They already executed plenty of folks at the Square and that was half a century ago, and in the open.
    1
  2086. Lowkey the South German states should be part of Austria so they can all share in High German.
    1
  2087.  @DF-pr9iy  I'm not Austrian, also from what I know Austria's economy has been more stable then the German one, the biggest reason I said it is because Germany is still too big and hogs up its tyrannical control using its geographic and economic position. If the nations (which was based on nationality) built in the 20th century were logically consistent, Austria and the High German princedoms should've been integrated together. But the fact that's not the case just demonstrates that nations as we present them conceptually are a lie, there is no justification for the modern nation.
    1
  2088.  @DF-pr9iy  "Wages in Vienna are ridiculously low compared to Western Germany." This is a useless and honestly foolish metric to consider, people refer to wages but don't realize that without a reference to the cost of living that metric is literally worthless. If I'm making less money but I can better pay for everything I need, (which I will add disregards interest rates and inflation, its a more accurate ratio) I rather be making less money, the only people who have capability to care for money without a regard for the cost of living is the elites who already have a complete disregard for the lives of every regular person. And their opinions on the topic are literally worthless and stupid. (and considering only the cities for that metric is also not a good thing, it presents another false view as well) "The country relies more on tourism than actual production." Different economic values, I don't see how that changes anything, different regions share different economic values and thus creates different circumstances, if it decreases the nation cost of living or increases the QoL of the nation, can't really criticize the economic target. (not that I agree with any nation, state, or government making economic targets as a libertarian but whatever) "But my home State Baden-Württemberg which has more inhabitants outperforms in terms of economy and HDI Austria by a lot." That's inherently expected, that's not measuring economics compared to the population which at least gives a more accurate view, a larger population should be expected to regionally outperform a notably smaller population unless something significantly wrong is going on. With most Germanic populations that is usually not the case much like the Japanese populations, often being excessively productive societies. "Also we change now politically while Austria has a political crisis." Honestly a political crisis is in my eyes is to a respect a good thing since it means the people are not stagnant and have actual concerns and are willing to stand against the powers that be to correct it. The issue in those cases however is whether they'll choose liberty or slavery, which is a better judgement on them at least. "Many reforms have been already made." Reforms aren't universally good and the German government in my eyes is honestly irredeemable and has had no good reforms, but so is most of Europe to me. But further still progress and time are not the same thing and just because we progress in time does not mean we are bettering ourselves.
    1
  2089.  @DF-pr9iy  I am not a European and was pointing out your metrics were terrible for meaning anything. Also higher costs of living and lower wages doesn't make economic sense, you do realize cost of living is more than high taxes right? In fact the taxes are probably the least relevant of all the money sinks, so the price of food of the whole nation (not just Vienna, I'm talking about nationally so that we can equate it to a size of the German states) has to be many times more, the cost of either rent or real estate ownership must be higher, the cost of utilities and the market must be higher. Perhaps that be true, but you can't just claim that. Granted it makes sense being a foolish mixed economy instead of a free market but Germany is neither a free market so the difference is irrelevant.
    1
  2090.  @DF-pr9iy  But you didn't demonstrate a case of any significance since you relied on simplistic metrics in a localized city which I already told you was irrelevant. Rationally more then taxes and wages determine the value of a residing area, those do not feed into the cost of living all that much, or in the least they are only a tiny fraction of significance at best. You can not say what you said addresses any of what I said most especially when speaking the language is irrelevant to most of my points. (and honestly I take no care for the language I speak personally but the locality and community I reside in over my country, language, or even ethnicity, I would kill my own nation's soldiers should they threaten my community or state) Also why do you assume that in a world where Austria was banded with the other High German states that it would be the same as it is without them? Even if we did that this second the political, economic, and societal environment would instantly change. Regardless economics is also not the only relevant factor, in some manners its actually the least important factor, especially if the Austrian government is facing political crisis, which suggests a better society then other parts of Europe specifically because it is not a childish entitled society to the same degree as some other nations in Europe are. (whether that will mean something good we'll have to wait and see, but its the first step to it regardless)
    1
  2091.  @DF-pr9iy  If I was a politician I would not rely on the Austrian school of economics and would not give a regard for cost of living as being more than taxes and maybe wages. You don't want to listen to what I say and don't care to understand economics at all and merely assume what you want, you address none of what I say and instead accuse me of saying nothing with ipse dixit and honestly that was also a kind of form of a strawman. You're understanding of economics is either so primitive or you're deliberately trying to manipulate what I say to appear wrong so you can "win" the argument as if winning and undermining your opponent without caring about what he says means anything. You don't get to do that. Address my arguments as presented or shutup, you don't get to ignore what I say when I refute your arguments and metrics.
    1
  2092.  @DF-pr9iy  I'm not writing this just for you, you have made yourself the fool, I merely demonstrated that fact, by ignoring what I say you only make yourself look worse.
    1
  2093.  @DF-pr9iy  I lose no time when I talk, for you build and sharpen my arguments against others like you and expose the truths that I have been so humbly allowed to receive as a gift. There have been those who appreciate what I say and do even on this platform strange though I think it may sometimes seem. There have been those who minds have been changed not only when I speak but when I refine myself against those who oppose me. An opponent faced with reason who sharpens mine, regardless of the lack of theirs, that is always of value and something I do of my own volition. Plus I like speak with a high vocabulary of extensive prose, using such words is quite intriguing to me.
    1
  2094.  @DF-pr9iy  You respond to what I say, but you don't actually care to make a rational argument, its quite interesting how foolish you make yourself look doing this, by refuting none of what I say and yet trying to attack me anyhow you demonstrate that you have no response to it. Not to mention you claim I say nothing yet you either did not understand what I said or you're intentionally trying to manipulate the argument without evidence. In either case anyone who reads this far will not agree with your point since I have been quite clear and I point out the flaws in your argument which you refuse to address and then you insult me for it. If you really think I care to change your mind you have lost the point of argumentation, my reason is not just made for you.
    1
  2095.  @SicSemperTyrannis-333  Mormons are as Christian as the Nation of Islam is Muslim, its a direct comparison, the only reason anyone claims Mormons are Christians is because they care more about Malcom X and love focusing on social justice, despite the fact the LDS also did that first, Mormons were originally a white supremacist cult, (go read anything from Joesph Smith he was a rabid racist who was seeking to also exterminate the blacks) then they care about anything Christians actually say or believe, the Nation of Islam "believe" in Muhammad, they "believe" in the Quran, same as the LDS "believe" in Jesus and "believe" in the Bible, but they both add their own books, doctrines, and practices that have no historical or even doctrinal relation to their so claimed "source" religion. Only an idiot or an ignoramus would call the LDS Christian.
    1
  2096. I still am disappointed because its incapable of replicating the skill ceiling or engagement of older Star Wars games.
    1
  2097. Power for the politicians, good job being authoritarians, now we get to reap what we sow.
    1
  2098. Godot is in many ways easier than Unity, and its 3D is not even remotely that bad, console support is also coming.
    1
  2099. Sic Semper Tyrannis, their day shall come, and in those days they will be a convict to everything they've done.
    1
  2100.  @automaticninjaassaultcat3703  Where was he wrong about? Statistically and presently that's how the Nordic nations excluding Sweden have been for the past decade, high relative happiness indexes, high suicide rates, super abundant economy, excessive social programs, whether your anecdotal life fits statistical reality doesn't really disprove the statistics.
    1
  2101.  @automaticninjaassaultcat3703  He didn't argue against statistics not revealing truth though, and statistics speak heavily about what is happening.
    1
  2102. tbf, Gavin could only win because Reagan gave illegals amnesty turning California from a red to blue state overnight.
    1
  2103. George Carlin wouldn't have been able to give testimony in a court of law in front of any of the founding fathers, they would throw him out of the court room for his religious positions, they only considered Christians worthy of being reliable witnesses.
    1
  2104. George Carlin wouldn't have been a reliable witness in any court the founding fathers were in, they'd all throw him out as a witness.
    1
  2105.  @GoShwkk  The Commandments are the basis for the Constitution according to John Adams.
    1
  2106. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "Shall not be infringed" If its not clear, all gun laws are an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Background checks, criminal lawsuits against distributors and manufacturers for the misuse of firearms, red flag laws, the prohibition of age or capability, the requirement to ascertain permission, all of them are infringements. All firearms and all weapons are to be totally unregulated and managed by the free market. The free market is more capable to prevent tragedy anyway, so long as its aware of personal responsibility instead of giving it to the fed. A bad reputation costs more then any court case, fine, or imprisonment. A company's worth is over 50% based in reputation and name and mere association with a tragedy is punishment enough from the market to destroy them. Not to mention if the free market can freely decide, individuals can make the free choice to distrust and thus not sell to specific people purely based on nothing. That is the right of business.
    1
  2107. To be fair, all the non-grassroots open source institutions, those that were founded with ideological intent of devising and contributing to open source were inherently left wing, like Richard Stallman's actual positions are radically left wing, the GPL inherently requires IP law, its founders were mad when volunteers act without IP replicating its principals, IP is a violation of right wing economic principals.
    1
  2108. Not even EAC's fault here since it wasn't specifically deprecated and wasn't in the patch notes, so there was literally no way to know this was gonna happen, and the subject is already terribly documented.
    1
  2109. Problem: Cops take minutes where seconds matter, and may not even bother entering the building because they're scared Their Solution: Put guns on site to reduce the time it takes to stop the shooter and force the armed guards into a fight Our Solution: Never bother fixing the issue and blame the gun, making the cops do more work for less results and violating the rights of everyone who didn't break the law so they can be killed by the one guy who is actively breaking the law and violating everyone else's rights. Seriously if you think armed guards, or even armed teachers, present a threat to the children (or incite threat, even though the only time you can recall a shooter being from the same school was Columbine, which was during the Assault Weapons ban) you don't well understand the situation at all, this has been a tested method, going back to the 60s and 70s high schools had in school clubs for rifle shooting (and some rural towns had in school hunting clubs) and they didn't have any problem with shootings. Hoplophobia is only what it is now due to ignorance and lack of experience, and listening to the propaganda by the guys who don't want you to have a gun.
    1
  2110. Still waiting for Tim to cover the NFAC shooting itself in Louisville.
    1
  2111.  @T0m1s  "You comment can be viewed as not 100% honest, but you're probably just OOP-brainwashed." Well first off that's an ad hominem, but also that's just a stupid statement in general, like it was literally false that methods are inherently virtual in C++, that vtables will be made with virtual classes at all times, and that virtual function calls are guaranteed to have a performance penalty, (yes there are ways to make it functionally as fast as a function call in C) its also false to compare parameterless function calls with virtual function calls (which have an implicit this pointer parameter hidden in the function) because if you start putting parameters into your function you actually start to hit against one of the biggest elements of the performance hit that comes with the virtual function calls. Not the only one mind you, but its already unfair when you don't even compare them on the same level. "So what exactly is the problem here? In either paradigm you have to change the code. If you add a new operation, in the C++ code you must change EVERY class, including the base class, whereas in the C code you simply add a new function." Uh no, this is a completely stupid statement for anyone who should know C++. If you override the global new operator you are not required to change any class to suit it, (in fact the only expectation of new is allocating a block of memory) you can, but it is completely unnecessary, and that aside you can override every classes new operator specifically, (technically you are specializing the new function call to the class, but might as well call it the class's new operator) and you can actually accomplish a few different things with this. The same can be accomplished for the delete operator, so not only can you handle construction, but you can separately handle the malloc and free. This is actually quite useful for memory tracking purposes, something you simply can't without explicit calls and control over the infrastructure in C. I have seen libraries use this capability to report/log details of memory leaks without extra debugging tools, its just intrinsic to the program, and its fairly cheap to enable at runtime. "That aside, what's the problem with changing C's "central switch" and adding an enum value? Seriously. Just change it. You guys use IDEs, right? The year is 2023, you have more tools at your disposal than ever, what is the issue with adding a new enum value? C++ even offers enum classes for better type safety, it's not that difficult." Sure, the issue is more that its not a scalable solution in itself, its not a big deal, but its completely superfluous compared to any number of superior ways to deal with such behavior, like using variants and the visitor pattern. "For libraries, which of course you would bring up, you absolutely DO NOT need virtual functions, or C++ for that matter. These are just myths propagated by people who never wrote any serious procedural code." Virtual is a lot simpler and easier to intuit, it also carries a simpler interface to document and implement, and it actually can be made just as performant as regular calls if you actually knew anything about C++.
    1
  2112. Every release is obsolete, its only not obsolete when its experimental.
    1
  2113. The fact so many people are open to pro-war sentiments especially on the "right" pisses me off. And I'm socially conservative. Then again I'm also a libertarian.
    1
  2114. Man Asmon is so out of it, everyone who was in the capital got arrested for J6, even those who weren't even at the capitol building were arrested, the cops let them in, the cop show at them with rubber bullets out of nowhere, the Summer of Love had nobody arrested in Portland, LA, San Fran, New York City, Philadelphia, Detroit, Seattle, Baltimore, Boston, or any other city, the only arrests you saw were in republican states. The J6 guys who entered the building were 99% non-violent and yet they all got at least 6 months of solitary without trial, some of them got at much as 3 years of solitary without trial.
    1
  2115. I'm surprised how many people would forget she tried to kill a proven innocent man and suppressed the evidence he was innocent all to save face and the only reason he's was not killed was because she only just barely failed. He nearly died.
    1
  2116.  @Ultra289  "Ahmm browsing on Windows isnt rly that slow even on crappy pcs/laptops, so no incentive for those "normies" to switch to Linux" Average from my experience is around 30-40% difference for native programs, (in terms of performance) and that's discounting any registry screwups that are very common in Windows applications. The memory usage is generally down at least 50% if you really try. (say with one of the less hungry window managers like xfce and disable compositing, ect.) The drive access is actually way better and generally faster specifically because ext4 doesn't really fragment (least of all in a way that needs to be corrected every so often, its self-correcting) and there are plenty of little things you can do for Linux to squeeze out extra performance at the OS runtime before you try doing something you can't do as a normie. (much of which is literally one Google search away) Windows is incredibly slow and bloated inherently, one of the problems with it being that the window manager is handled on integral system threads, which means it interrupts you when reading inputs, which if you've ever been on a 4 or 8 gigs of ram with a 4 core 3 ghz CPU, you notice when none of your inputs go through while using Chrome. (or in being excessively delayed) That problem doesn't crop up in Linux, there is a different issue that can happen if you use up the CPU and memory you've got, and eventually your inputs will hang, but it won't be your window manager causing it when you're not using up even 50% of your system resources. Nobody I know hasn't had that problem when using Windows, but I've yet to see anyone get it on Linux. "Gaming on Windows is objectively better, yeah compatibility for Linux games have improved but the fps arent higher (even on native ports...) which is something to rly consider when you have a slow pc..." Eh, not really, if anything they're objectively the same, as Linux performance for non-native games (Proton and Wine) still tends to be superior to Windows on supported games and in many cases non-supported games. (its only when the game does uncommon graphical calls, usually in unconventional ways, in DirectX that you tend to see massive issues, [aside from DirectX12 specific things] only alternative is special driver calls, which are being improved in the Linux Kernel making that problem all but disappear, or deliberately search for ring 0 with DRM or anti-cheat, which are being worked on as well and may actually be fixed within a year or two) Native ports however are way superior than the Windows version so long as the game in question was already using OpenGL or Vulkan as it render API, which given basically every engine defaults to, there are very few cases where that doesn't happen. With CSGO for example, I get less system frame latency and more responsive inputs while using Linux, alongside having a higher frame count overall. The only games I know that suffer as a "native port" (which I'm just gonna say, calling them a "native port" is a damn lie and you know it, a native port does not run with a emulation suite overtop of it just to fake being run on Window from Linux) are those which were only DirectX and never had devoted developers actually port the game to OpenGL/Vulkan and Linux, outsourcing it to some other group. Arma 3 is a good example of that, even though they abandoned it like a year and a half ago. Under those cases however, its straight better to just use Proton or Wine in those cases anyway, you get more performance, and Windows only functionality, like running dynamic libraries built for Windows-only, doesn't get hampered as a result. Not to mention that you're more likely to find a problem that can be solved by Google using Proton/Wine with those type of games then by running them natively.
    1
  2117.  @Romulus-r6j  "And it might not be a problem for someone with a high-end pc, losing 20 fps out of 180 is not a big deal. But out of 60? Can be a deal breaker" I'm not really sure I've seen that crop up often in my experience, and that's not really how performance works, there is no strict loss of performance in every case, Proton is not nearly as consistent in causing those type of issues, what's usually consistent with Proton is either something doesn't work or a specific feature straight up fails. Even then the GE patch tends to fix a lot of those left over issues, and there's a few tweaks for most games to ensure they're playable even if that doesn't work. And now with the BattleEye runtime you can even play BattleEye games, though unless approved by the company you might get banned.
    1
  2118. I can tell you right now, Scripture is quite clear, hatred of one's parents is reserved for the most wicked of people.
    1
  2119. Just to point out, this gun cannot fire separate from the biometrics because the trigger has no connection to the firing pin, so you have to take it apart and replace the entire trigger group just to make a functional handgun (and that still wouldn't work yet because its not designed to have a drop-in replacement trigger group) separated from the biometrics, it was designed from the ground up to not work without the biometric electronics, and expecting any criminal to spend time and money trying to basically reconstruct the gun to shoot would probably be more productive just robbing someone else for a real gun. Also the camera is basically an infrared camera with a flash, so light conditions should not impact the camera's capability.
    1
  2120. The only thing that Billy did do wrong is trusting the government. (especially since they deliberately screwed him over at least 4 times before the Jesse Evans deal, that's some highly corrupt wild west bullcrap right there)
    1
  2121. eh, they should fit the narrative of the game, and it shouldn't give a definitive opinion but instead propose a question for the players to resolve individually, a lot of games talk about politics without shoving their ideals down people's throats.
    1
  2122. FDR was one of the worst Presidents in US history, right behind Woodrow Wilson, but at least he laxed the concept of prohibition.
    1
  2123.  @Beowulf31486  Especially stupid since her stream is specifically marked 18+ on twitch so she was literally following the twitch ToS regarding spicy content, twitch was just looking for an excuse to ban her for killing anal violence's career.
    1
  2124. Twitch is stupid, the "SRPD" is the German SRP, they have never gone by the acronym SRPD, it was a post-war neo-nazi party.
    1
  2125. See the joke is Biden can't win a fight with his bed.
    1
  2126. We need a people's Final Act.
    1
  2127. btw, us Americans are obligated to oppose the quarantine now, they have no right to control us this way, these tyrants must fall if we wish to have a free society.
    1
  2128.  @Jiromimi  If that were true Trump wouldn't have won the popular mandate, he had 97% negative coverage by the media and 100% negative coverage by the educational institutions. Its more like only 45% of America is brainwashed right now.
    1
  2129.  @justin-md4xm  If Trump were a fascist, Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr wouldn't be in his cabinet. Being great is a mindset, else you make yourself a slave.
    1
  2130.  @CrypticApathy  All of them, the US is the country of negative rights and its not remotely close, the Constitution established a standard both to enshrine negative rights and to expand negative rights, (positive rights are produced from the instatement of negative rights, the rate of economic growth is based around negative rights) the problem is that its still crap at negative rights because people are fools and have been convinced to give up rights to mooch off the government. Negative rights means keep the government out of my business except when I violate someone's rights, the CRA still violates that, the NFA still violates that, the New Deal violates that, but despite those every other country is way worse as a whole on that front, Japan and Korea may not have the CRA but they're worse then the NFA and New Deal, and all other western nations have something just as bad if not worse then the CRA alongside something worse then the NFA and New Deal and have had it for longer.
    1
  2131. Gold's usefulness doesn't define its value, its a fallacious association made. Value is not given by use, but by supply and demand, and demand is too subjective to give an objective value, intrinsic value would mean everything would be priced the same in accordance to wealth, that would mean it would never become impossible for an average person to buy bread at the store, but there are plenty of socialist and communist countries that demonstrate the exact opposite of that which Asmongold seems to forget.
    1
  2132. I've not been unsubscribed.
    1
  2133. The concern I take is the risk of relations between men and women in close proximity, well aside from the value of women makes them uniquely unqualified for combat on the simple basis that you're risking the degeneration of the society, but the bigger concern is the sexual tension between men and women in close proximity, which is especially a concern on a battlefield, even worse if she were to get pregnant. The worst however is that a man will be way more likely to sacrifice himself for the sake of a woman or many women even if it is strategically and tactically the worst decision for a better chance for their survival. This is innate built into men and its not something you can mold or break out of them, in fact the more masculine and domineering he be, a status common among successful soldiers, the more driven by this psycho-biological fact he will be. Tulsi may be generally reasonable on a political front, she is an experienced politician, but like all her kinds of people, she never bothers to actually consider the implications of her worldview and the end result. Even a "capable woman" for such a role should preferably never be in combat, its arguable whether they even should be regularly close by the same men for which they are not related to or otherwise married to.
    1
  2134. Why would the race matter? The company is Chinese and ran by a Chinese owned company, that's a completely irrelevant point.
    1
  2135. Asmon also don't understand anything about the country he lives in either. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams That moral and religious people John Adams is talking about is Christians. Also us Christians agree that public violations like that are sinful too.
    1
  2136. Thing is BLM hatred has nothing to do with racism, it was literally a Marxist plot and was built on a lie, does no one remember "hands up don't shoot" where Chris Brown tried to assault the cop and they claimed that's what he said instead. Dude was killed for attempting to kill a cop and all of a sudden protests and riots started up calling it a white on black hate crime that they insisted even after the court case concluded. And then they did it again and again until we got George Floyd where people can kind of argue it was unjust maybe but once again called it a white on black hate crime instead and started riots over a convicted felon who was pretty hopped up on fentanyl and other substances. (the fact he died given everything in his system honestly wouldn't be surprising without the hold, I know of larger people with a worse track record who died of that crap) Its like all these people think its still the 1960s where MLK was protesting Jim Crow laws (which everybody seems to forget it was the government, not the free market, that enforced that crap) and anti-segregationists were being nailed by firehoses. Only this time instead of peaceably assembling, they're taking Malcom X to the extreme and just attacking anyone that isn't repeating everything they say.
    1
  2137.  @TheKeule33  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCx_G_R0UmQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeXaYR4ed9c
    1
  2138.  @D7UN4Channel  Its both, Switzerland regulates and can subpoena them and the US strong-arms Switzerland to make them do it when the US wants.
    1
  2139. RPGs (as in RPG7s) don't have an arming distance and aren't especially directed, they were often used by anti-American militants to airbust on tanks and infantry, and they were fairly successful at that. A rocket (or recoiless rifle) may have an arming distance or may be a directed explosive for heavier armor but this does not apply at all to the RPG(7).
    1
  2140. I still don't trust anyone that claims themselves antifa because we've seen what happens when they sit next to anyone they disagree with, being entrenched with them seems just as likely to cause Charlottesville, especially with Northam trying to incite that exact circumstance again.
    1
  2141.  @RS3Boomer  Aren't they notorious for poor function? Arming people with arms doesn't mean anything if officially provided equipment cherry-picked by the manufacturer directly don't work at all, if I buy an officially supported mag and the firing pin basically breaks after two or three trips to the range, you know there is a massive problem. Not to mention that you can't even properly shoulder the gun without losing zero, no point carrying a gun if foremost it won't fire, even more worthless when it also won't hit anything because you can't actually aim the gun straight.
    1
  2142.  @RS3Boomer  Its not an opinion (you don't seem to understand what an opinion is, qualified demonstrable facts and evidence aren't opinion of anyone, they're absolute objective irrefutable fact, unless you're willing to say Garand Thumb was intentionally loading false ammo into the Hi-Point which is the only way the video would contain any non-fact in it) when the thing outright doesn't work for a company provided review, its a literal fact that the gun was either broke or did not work after being on the range for almost no time at all as far as a gun is concerned. One failure is a problem, it doesn't matter how many times it functions, one failure means death, a million successes are irrelevant if someone dies, if someone can demonstrate something clearly failing inside what should be a clearly working zone for which someone could be killed, I will always hyper focus on that failure because PEOPLE WILL DIE OVER IT. The quantity of success is irrelevant and the fact you show no regard for the human life that is sacrificed over even a single failure of what should be a perfectly working gun within expected specs that's not even supposed to be out of pristine condition on this type of failure is a problem. You can have a million successes but if there is even one failure, someone dies, that's why I care.
    1
  2143.  @brentvanwie1961  "that's cute you act like every other firearm doesn't have bad examples" That's at best a strawman, I never made this statement, in fact if you actually bothered to read what I wrote it be pretty clear that my opinion doesn't change just because its not Hi-Point, to paraphrase what I had literally said it was "if the gun has capacity to fail randomly and early it is worse in every way to a gun that straight up never worked in the first place" which if you even considered for a second you would see that such a generic statement doesn't just apply to Hi-Point and I would seek the execution of every company whose production firearms fails this test and gets someone killed. Its not cute, its consistency which you lack by ignoring anything that doesn't fit with your interpretation of things you couldn't have possibly seen because you make it up as you go. "that in no way means every colt is a piece of shit" Again, another strawman, I never said anything about every Hi-Point failing like this gun and neither would it have applied to any other company that doesn't commit the same problem. Thing is I don't care if any other gun succeeded, one capacity to randomly fail within a very legitimate normal range of expected use is a legitimate lethality problem for which should enable grounds for execution if someone dies over it. I'd apply this to every single product ever made, no need for safety regulations, no need for government quality assurance, no need for any government agencies and investigations by said agencies, all that needs to happen is for someone to say "if someone dies without an acknowledged certainly that they'd be very capable to die as a result of your service, product, or otherwise operation of property or former property, you and everyone involved will be executed and some of your funds may be extracted from your estate to pay for the victim's families". I'd say this to Colt just as much as Hi-Point, so you better absolutely make sure nobody dies or gets hurt by your product because if someone does you will have to pay and may even be executed for it. "that's just one that is publicly available to view many guns and parts fail you've just been trained bet you won't stand in front of one while the trigger is pulled" Failures should not be within normal operating procedures that lead a capability for someone to die, it should be expected by all products, in this case all guns, that if a part fails without clear pre-warning inside expected operating ranges every single drop of blood is on your hands and you should be strung up for that. No if, ands, or buts, justice says blood for blood so that vengeance may not be sought, that punishment may be swift and strict, that it would deter evil and keep man in check, without blood justice evil and lawlessness run rampant and death becomes the infatuation of society. Nobody should get away with negligence that gets people killed and you don't need an absolutist statist dictatorship to enforce that, its very basic to correct.
    1
  2144.  @brentfisher902  I don't get why you're asking since I just made it clear by what I said that I'm an individualist, but clearly the capability for individuals to make individual decisions independent of authority and control, unregulated by power or authority, that will always be superior to anything an authority can or should do. Individuals are responsible for themselves, even if they got themselves into debt though, they are still individuals responsible for themselves, should they suffer, it is only under the prerogative of individuals that help such a person, not to force help upon them and neither should a collective decide such. No force should be necessary. And government should not ever have capability to tell you how to run your lives when no right has been infringed, that includes the right to life and business, interference in the lives of right abiding individuals is an infringement of rights.
    1
  2145.  @brentfisher902  communism is inherently force-based, and is only anarchic in reference to black markets, only individuals exist and only individuals can operate, a government (of force, which is the only thing which government does, it is the monopoly of force after all) needs to exist for the good of its people, but only in the ensuring of the rights of the individual for liberty's sake, as the individual is required to ensure the government does not infringe said rights. No collectivism can achieve that.
    1
  2146.  @brentfisher902  If this is meant to be a satire, I wouldn't be able to tell since there are a lot of people that legit believe that. If its not a joke, let me just say mankind inherently evil and sinful, and as a result has caused the scarcity that requires striving and struggling to best, leaving only those most suited at the top and those least suited at the bottom, under a righteous morality (the being Christ) those at the top would assist those at the bottom and the bottom wouldn't resent them for not doing so. But most fail this, a rich man that seeks the pleasures of life and greed can never attain this, a poor man that resents those above him as well can not attain this. Those who look to the material realm will never be satisfied.
    1
  2147. This dude sounds like he's drinking the kool-aid of woke ideology, like Stallman is his own brand of whatever, (I don't want him gone though) but oh god if we're gonna go with the affirmative action bullcrap, I would goddman hope for the FSF to burn to the ground and die, I've seen this with DnD, Gaming, Anime Dubs, and Hollywood, we've already witnessed a few stupid cases of wokeness infecting FOSS projects, they've already tried to step into the Linux project and they already got to the Rust Foundation, (I may have always hated Rust, but I was at least willing to consider it before that) I get enough of this shit from corporations shoving it down my throat, for God's sake, keep this crap out, woke ideology needs to be gatekeeped out of everywhere and everyone who goes in with woke ideology needs to be shamed out of business, I'm sick and tired of this parasite robbing everything that's fun or good. Even if I agree with elements of a goal I will not let my enemy win just to spite and shame him. Whether I agree or not has already been lost, I will not give anyone with this mentality an inch, I will never compromise with them, I don't respect them.
    1
  2148. Brilliant move for the conservatives to, out of everyone to blame, start attacking Trump instead of the Liberals as soon as their lead fell away. How stupid do you have to be to treat Trump as the third party candidate in an election where the primary issue of your opposition is TDS?
    1
  2149. I'd suggest checking out C3 at some point too.
    1
  2150.  @Avenus112  What?
    1
  2151.  @The1RandomFool  A lot of them probably shouldn't, its the same as 927: "There are 14 competing standards" "why do we have all these standards, there should be one standard for everyone" "There are 15 competing standards"
    1
  2152.  @g.6991  How do you teach a lesson if there is no struggle for the lesson to be taught? Why would anyone sympathize with Sokka then? Are you a brainlet?
    1
  2153. We all need times where we should not crunch or push ourselves to absolute brink so continuously, just regular youtube viewer but I agree on not pushing too hard and "lower the quality" for more occasions so you can have a better quality of life, being personal, simpler, or shorter isn't so bad, I am totally on board with slowing down on the higher cost videos, whatever is better for you TIK. I'm interested in what you have to say anyway, not much interested in battlestorm, but I watch almost everything else completely. I would also bet that the length of your videos was definitely subtracting from your success, they're great, but Youtube is rarely receptive to content that's longer then 30-45 minutes, and even longer then that can be even worse, even though I love these long videos. I do wonder if you could cliffnotes them down and perhaps they'd be well more popular too, even uploading a cliffnotes version would probably get you a lot more success as well.
    1
  2154. Degrees really carry no value, especially when they're becoming just as common as the lack of degree, you have a lot more success with contributions and demonstrations and a good portfolio then you do with a degree. Its surprising how much one can hate someone just because they say they have a degree when it turns out they actually can't do crap. And that's the most common issue with regular folks who come out of college thinking they can land some high pay job.
    1
  2155. The Democrats are psychopathic murderers that are committing treason (and genocide), its pretty ironic that the people complaining about cops and wanting to defund the police are the democrats in democratic cities for decades.
    1
  2156.  @skylinefever  "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." - 1 Timothy 2:13-15 "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate." - Psalm 127:3-5 "And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” - Genesis 1:28 "Grandchildren are the crown of the aged, and the glory of children is their fathers." - Proverbs 17:6 "A fool despises his father's instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is prudent." - Proverbs 15:5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you." - Exodus 20:12 "The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice; he who fathers a wise son will be glad in him. Let your father and mother be glad; let her who bore you rejoice." - Proverbs 23:24-25 "Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate." - Psalm 127:4-5 "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." - Philippians 2:3-4 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." - Ephesians 5:1-2 "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." - James 1:2-4 "For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" - Matthew 7:8-11 God makes it quite clear women are designed to have and to take care of kids, the mother is in submission to the father, the children are in submission to both. Genesis 1:28 makes that quite clear, from the onset God demonstrates that women are directed foremost to mature and become full and filled by having children, most men are matured and become strong in their family with kids. Those who think they need none or claim to wish for none but are married understand nothing about themselves and ruin themselves against God's command. Who is the authority? God or man? Are you the authority? What makes you such? No, you can not claim authority for you are nothing compared to God, there is no strength, no good, no hope in you, but through God that is all given. Women are matured and understand the providence of God, men so too. Some men are given celibacy as a gift so says Paul but they are few: "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another." - 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 God's commands rather abhor the resistance to having a child quite clearly, there were many cases where avoiding having a child were seen as quite abominable throughout the Word. So God advocates for man to be with a woman to correct temptation and lack of self-control, as he does with woman to be with man, yet he also advocates against contraception, which means God is advocating that sex be used both for pleasure between husband and wife and to have children, not in exclusion to said actions. Those who cannot have said children are under God's directive control, perhaps he will have them adopt, or mayhaps they shall have kids later in life when they'll only have a few but that is between them and God. But to God the lack of children is only ever seen a harmful and punishing.
    1
  2157. Funniest thing about the diversity ploy: Successful societies are homogeneous, a society that's not homogeneous always collapses quickly.
    1
  2158. You can always tell someone doesn't understand economics when they say the rich should pay more taxes, you can't selectively tax people, those who pay taxes make profit by production of some kind, when you tax them you're artificially increasing demand and decrease supply. That increases prices, or if you halt price hikes then you get shortages and scalping. Taxes are paid by every participant in the market. (also yes if you see a shortage that lasts more then a few days in the market, there's a high probability its because the government is regulating a price cap on it, in a free market the price would equalize to prevent the shortage because of supply and demand)
    1
  2159. I keep hearing about how the main dev for app image is quite a fool, sounds like a major pain in the ass to work with.
    1
  2160. Big government autocrats are incompetent, gosh its almost like us small government non-progressive folks were right about another thing...
    1
  2161. You know the the sequels I actually want are the ones they'll never make, (not that I'd trust them with their current track record) Treasure Planet had a really sweet concept for a sequel but it was intentionally sabotaged by Disney and yet almost didn't flop anyway.
    1
  2162. Just gonna say I personally think the concept of IP in general is government overreach.
    1
  2163. God tells us that nothing is coincidence, that all things work for the sake of those who He calls, such things as this are warnings to listen before judgement and condemnation are brought down upon the people. "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28 To clarify, it says *ALL THINGS*, that includes bad and evil. Sometimes God speaks in clearly miraculous ways, whether subtle or not, it may not always appear miraculous but He has dominion over all realms and guides things such as this for His purposes. If you truly ask God to validate Himself with a pure heart and desire to know truth you will notice many miracles that confirm Him that are not able to be trivialized as coincidence. So long as you don't demand God answer you as though you stand above God, that you humbly and submissively request of Him with a pure heart, or even pray for answers, you will find He answers though not often how you wish or think He would. (an example being that story in Exodus that Jordon Peterson was talking about, the Hebrews asked of God to get rid of the snakes, instead they were told to put a bronze snake on a stick) As an example there is small story of a man that went into abortion clinic with his wife and baby in her womb, conflicted he asks God "Lord if I am doing the wrong thing, make that car be owned by this man" while there are Christian preachers and civil protestors outside, the man he asked about was one of them. This man goes up to the preacher and asks if that is his car for him to affirm such. He was then called by God to rush into the clinic, throw open the door for the room his child was to be aborted in, just before the child was to be aborted, and pulled his wife and child out of the clinic. These are not uncommon stories, Apologia Ministries and their End Abortion Now initiative have plenty of stories over this.
    1
  2164.  @jamesbowen2088  The unfortunate fact is he still knows more then 75% of Americans. Hell he has a better understanding of economics then a lot of employed economists, (as in employed to be an economist) and he still sucks at some of the basics.
    1
  2165. Another day another twitter nutjob self-reporting their projections and demonstrating once again leftism is incredibly racist.
    1
  2166. I don't care because all this is gonna do is force these artsy morons to either make unique eyecatching art that isn't pure spectacle and saturation or they lose their damn job. I am totally okay with these generic artists dying out.
    1
  2167.  @larphyus  That's my point, I'm totally fine with generic artists dying out thanks to AI, the only art I care to exist drawn by a human is creative art, if a man can't be creative and smart in making works of art then he should lose his income because he hasn't been earning his keep but resting on his laurels.
    1
  2168. I didn't like Tom Clancy for his political interventionist and intelligence perspectives, but even so he's probably rolling in his grave for what they're doing to his stories. Also Hollywood is probably a bubble if people were intelligent, but I don't have very high regard for people so maybe we're past the point of no return. In which case just let it burn, we'll stand on the ashes.
    1
  2169. iirc only the last few iterations of batwomen are lesbian. (the original batwoman for example was actually in a relationship with Bruce Wayne every so often)
    1
  2170. Demonstrating that you don't need IP laws if you create a good product, competition thrives without government enforced monopolies.
    1
  2171. I always find it interesting how people act like science is bigger then men, people use "science" as this ambiguous authority to mean "I know what's right and wrong" even though it says nothing on that subject and is entirely subject to incorrect conclusions before we consider liars and cheats. The original Christian discovery of science (as it was a gift to them) was not academic and wasn't academic outside the last 150 years, this is where the problem lies for academia is a bureaucratic circlejerk of insular and non-contentious thinking. Furthermore you do not get scientific discovery without the Christian theology, atheists, apatheists, agnostics (which were a bit different from how we think of them but they too did exist) all did exist before Christ (the Romans have records of persecuting and killing atheists and suspect atheists [which the Jews and Christians fell into because they didn't have idols to worship] explicitly) was born and they never devised a scientific basis, neither did the Greek or Roman philosophers, nor the Persians or Egyptians or Syrians or beyond. And neither did any religious belief before Christ. All the rest only devised theories they never had tested or could not test. Science is a uniquely Christian devised system first because it was the only conceptual recognition that reality had a purpose and capacity to be understood, and the reason it was to be understood was it brought them closer to understanding God who created all things.
    1
  2172.  @peeyansh  "actually the scientific method was developed all over asia and europe." But in what period? It wasn't found in Europe before the Medieval period, the Germanics, Celts, Greeks, and Romans all opposed experimental discoveries and never formed any hypothesis that could be proven under evidences. Similar stand for Asia, as their discoveries had nothing to do with use or function and did not perform tests based on a hypothesis, in fact rockets and gunpowder were considered nothing more then a toy for most of their knowledge, and it was only later that it was found out to be usable as a weapon, but that discovery has no association with the scientific method. "beginning with ancient egypt, mesopotamia, and india." This is an incorrect assumption, making a discovery or noticing trends and acts of nature does not constitute scientific discovery, none of these civilizations had ever made a discovery based on the scientific method, they were smart but they did not devise methods to perform science. This is evident by the lack of scientific chronology following their civilizations in records alongside a commonality of irrelevant theoretical considerations which was what most of their philosophizers performed, those who did such contributed nothing to discovery and the few who did had not done so follow any specific method of systematization and it was neither passed down for the sake of descending generations. "it was also helped along my aristotle" No, he did not help because most of his impact only came around well after Christ, and none of it had anything to do with the scientific method. That's reading into history. "and many others in the islamic world" Islam is a religion over 6 centuries after Christ's resurrection and science in its Christological form was already formulating by that point, and Muslims were not foremost responsible for that method in themselves evident by how theoretical they had been without so much of a proof. This is further demonstrated by their eventual growth to destroy all forms of discovery and knowledge because they did not have such, it was taken from another source. (as in they had no basis in their understanding to receive such knowledge) "and perfected by galilei" Who was still a Catholic despite everything, who grew up in a Catholic world, taught by Catholic doctrine, raised by Catholic parents, in a Catholic church, all centralized in Northern Italy where he never left. Nothing about what he discovered came about without the Christian background he had even if he had recounted his faith which there is no evidence of in spite of the suffering given to him by the Catholic Church. In fact what truly demonstrated his weak standing if he truly had any faith is the fact he recanted on truth and cooperated with the Catholic Church in being wrong who still made him suffer for all that, but weak to not standing in faith does not remove the grounds for which you built your intelligence and wisdom on. The foundation we find our modern western societies based on is Christian doctrine, yet we've abandoned them, but those doctrines do yet still leave massive remnants in being abandoned that don't make any sense without the reason those doctrines gave. You can't even have good reason to oppose murder or theft without that, the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Japanese, Persians, Egpytians, Germanics, Celtics, Slavs, Indians, Africans, and North and South American Indians all didn't and that's only a subset of the list. Our modern manner of considering murder as absolutely punishable in all cases do not exist on the basis of any of these, including atheists, thought, for none of those had ever devised an address outside the Hebrews and then later Christ who authorized proliferation of such an idea.
    1
  2173. The free market will correct this so long as the government gets out of business.
    1
  2174.  @beayn  I'm an American. Its also not just being jaded, I don't #BelieveAllWomen for the simple fact that I know women are massive liars especially when scorned and a woman who claims one thing and does another is someone to never be trusted. This is the traditional value system that she was supposedly advocating but that she never understood, a traditionalist knows "Hell hath no fury like a women scorned" which means I ain't believe crap from her, she's a scorned woman, she is not unique in that characteristic, she proves it with Crowder. Her position on the Crowder divorce was wrong and she has never been honest about it. I don't believe anyone, but I despise her because her character is crap, she's was always a false conservative, she's a millennial urbanite who believes in feminism claiming to be against it, but if she was against feminism she wouldn't have done any of the things she has done and she would've gotten family and friends involved in evaluating her marriage if she was a traditionalist. She's not, traditionalism is a value and methodological system, she was never a traditionalist, she doesn't share the value system and she's a purely nominal Christian at best, if she's even Christian at all. And I wouldn't believe the man inherently either but had I got his side I'd be more able to see how honest she really is, which from my experience is not at all, Lauren is a terrible person when it comes to anything she's personally involved in or has a personal relationship in. She has no capacity to self-reflect. She is just another NPC cuckservative.
    1
  2175.  @justsomeguywithnoeyes7303  Nah it does, it demonstrates how far our society has fallen, least hair metal and disco weren't by the book ripoffs, the popular ones all had great beats and hooks, they were just way overplayed. Swift was only ever overplayed, nothing redeeming, her voice isn't even that good.
    1
  2176. If you don't stand for anything you'll be swayed by everything, anyone who thinks anything in these things is acceptable are acting by wicked intent. This is weakness, stupidity, and immorality absolutely. The sodomites don't deserve bars from rebuke, sodomy must be opposed under all dictations.
    1
  2177. ​ @MI08SK  Yeah it won't be a problem in C++ unless you don't use the STL, unique_ptr and shared_ptr and the other pointer memory safety features we got since C++11 solved the memory problems, before that we had auto_ptr but it wasn't great but it did work, nowadays though unique_ptr pretty much handles most things we need through ownership, dynamically allocated arrays, dynamic dispatch, virtual interfaces, abstract classes, and regular heap allocated classes. There are other data types which can be checked either at runtime or compile time for buffer overflows, C++ is pretty safe as far as memory exploits go, proper type safety is majority of the reason why.
    1
  2178. Asmon is usually pretty alright when he isn't addressing woke invasion crap, except in cases like this, he seems to be blind to the invasion locally and only cares when it escapes the American realm.
    1
  2179. Doesn't help that most American grown wheat and grains are also full of poisons, (pesticides, herbicides, disease resistant chemicals) lack full proper crop rotations for which reinvigorate the soil and thus the grains with nutrients, and are all GMO for which we don't even remotely understand the short and long term effects of consumption of especially in all the genetic modulations we perform, (which too is barred in Europe and I would also suggest is unnatural for our bodies to digest as it violates the natural order) whereas in Europe this is not only common practice but much of it is legally regulated.
    1
  2180. Idiots voting like idiots produce dystopian nightmares and famine. We earned the incoming collapse, I no longer pity the voters for what they've done, this is why voting systems don't work. Citizens don't have capability to make or understand political decisions simply because they're are citizens of the state.
    1
  2181. Its time for a Crusade, purge the heathens, Deus Vult.
    1
  2182. Cause its militia violence supported tacitly by the DNC.
    1
  2183. Anyone who thinks us total pro-life people somehow don't support a procedure to preserve the life of the woman (as in the woman's life is threatened by the child's continuation) is absolutely using a strawman, that's not an argument any of us use, the only people who I've seen use that are the tiny slim of ignorant people who don't understand anything about biology and have no power to do anything, and they never argue with anyone, its like complaining you're getting death threats for criticism because one guy said kys. Every single abortion abolition bill, a bill of equal protection, still preserved the cases that a woman's life was under threat, then it becomes the prerogative of the father, mother, and potentially the family to decide whether it is legitimate to terminate the child. Also using incest as a justification separate from rape is dumb, rape already covers incestual rape and so consensual incest is the only thing left. (unless you don't consider penetration of a child, which is rape of a child, to be rape) There is no argument you can claim for consensual incest to be a justification for abortion, so the separation of incest as a justification makes no sense.
    1
  2184. Pagans before the Christian revolution tended to have a fairly consistent libertine and hedonistic expression of sexuality, (though it ebbed and flowed on how acceptable this behavior was) least in the upper classes, it was only secondarily useful for reproduction, it mostly serviced the purpose of giving them pleasure. Which has always been the purpose of homosexual behaviors, that's why they promote such figures, though they also do it in service to overthrow the anti-hedonist moral structures so they can dominate it themselves. (also hatred of Christ)
    1
  2185. That's still inherently high time preference behavior.
    1
  2186.  @robertmichel9904  Political theory is useless to the common man.
    1
  2187.  @ctrlaltdebug  There is no common dictionary that defines "state" by coercion. (and neither does any common man refer to a state by using the term coercion, it is an insular concept invented out of nowhere by someone who didn't bother to actually read a dictionary) And none of the elements of a state requires it either. People really seem to confuse the average means of a result with the term which is a fallacy problem, you don't define things by its mean.
    1
  2188. Just gonna point out a Christian that's politically active like that is almost guaranteed to be faking their faith. We are not asked to overthrow the establishment nor are we instructed to create an ideal society. We're not even actually suppose to be politically tribal, those who do so and don't understand the judgement and imperfection of our circumstance and accept it are not very good at following Christian doctrine, they're unlikely to be Christians. Preaching and teaching Christian doctrine and morals using Christ as the one and only foundation is the only way asked of us, there is no fixing human imperfection in reality.
    1
  2189.  @owenb8636  The religious freedom could not have happened if not for the HRE, neither could have the Reformation in any successful regard, also that would've just further alienated the Calvinists, Hussites, and some of the Lutherans if when they enforced a peace the rulers stuck to persecuting the common people, most of the reason any of them persecuted Catholic authority (which was rarely aimed at Catholics specifically) was because of corruption and persecution but even within that period that concept was already being weened out and being opposed by the point of the Religious Leagues, the war at that point mostly had to do with deciding who would rule the HRE, not in enforcing a lack of religious persecution which was already becoming a tenuous objective, too many people at that point for the Catholic Church to erase (and it would've just popped up anyway) and the Reformers were pretty dedicated to just being separate from Catholic rule and persecution. Also the Edict of Nantes failed where the Reformers were still persecuted and exiled.
    1
  2190. I don't agree with what Valve is doing here (mostly over nuanced reasoning) but I do agree that review brigading isn't about reviewing the game, its about complaining about off-topic publisher/developer crap. I wish this system was opt-in not opt-out, but otherwise I'm not actually that opposed to this, I honestly don't see much wrong with devaluing mob mentality if they're not actually be silenced, though considering EULA and DRM as off-topic is problematic for me because it really isn't. Also it would attract some devs and publishers but that's honestly not that significant.
    1
  2191. "And the data has always been clear that gun related deaths decreases after these nations made those decisions." Empirical evidence and statistics don't agree, there are some, not all, but some locations where banning guns reduced gun related death, there are in fact others where that did not happen or even the exact opposite happened. Simply put banning guns does not reduce guns in circulation effectively and does not in itself reduce gun related death absolutely or predictably. Aside from this banning guns does not reduce crime nor violent crime, in fact using gun death and gun related crime is a manipulated value, they do not represent any usable statistics anyway so relying on them is straight useless, the values we are watching for is violent crime and crime itself, neither which gun bans, restrictions, or other reduction in guns has ever accomplished. Empirical evidence in fact tells us that legal guns make a population more safe overall and in fact train people to better follow the law. It also says that violence and crime will not definitely decrease, it may even increase drastically depending on trends. This all says to me someone supporting the banning, restriction, or even slow removal of weapons from a populace is foolish in a practical sense. Now you miss the reason the US has guns in itself (being in a gun strict country I prefer not to place the blame on you being ignorant as a result of yourself to which I won't) compared to many other nations. Thing about the US isn't that its practical, practicality and use of weapons in practical circumstance became a bigger deal later on after automatic and pseudo-semi-automatic weapons became more practical for ownership, (btw, yes there were such weapons during the revolutionary war, however they were more expensive and a bit harder to reproduce, they however could in the hands of a psycho kill just as many back then as they could today, not all of them were stationary either, and many could be mounted) the big reason we have guns is for opposition of tyrants, whether that be domestic or external, this includes our own governments. The design in the US was for the government to fear the people lest the power of the government rule over the people with an iron fist. This means that Americans were suppose to have the same weaponry as the American government could, this includes artillery, (Madison talks about this and praises owners of artillery by the way) full automatic weapons, heavy weaponized vehicles, and even full on warships were legitimate. They in fact originally had civilians equipped with such weaponry walking around with no legislation. The only restrictions were criminality which is something we already do and would be even easier to crackdown on now, and yet you never hear of this stuff. Why haven't there been any non-military related mass shootings in the US back then? Its not because they didn't have the tech or weapons to do so, look up the puggle gun, that could've easily wiped out 30 people mounted on a carriage (and it was occasionally used on carriages when bought privately, it was never really used by a governments as far as we can tell) but yet there is little to no mention of this happening, let alone as commonly today. Its because nobody wanted to, mental health wasn't nearly as rampant an issue as it seems today for some reason, people don't kill themselves and 10 others randomly. This isn't a gun issue, if people want to kill themselves and others, its easy to do without guns, but a legal gun can stop them more effectively then anything and its more effective at preventing someone from doing so then any other way. After all psychopathic murders always say they like to shoot up a gun free zone because nobody can defend against it, there is nothing to stop them.
    1
  2192. Rock and Metal isn't dead yet, but they too are being killed by the system. So far I think the best way to combat this system of musical destruction is via crowdfunding, the only practical solution that I've heard so far to this problem. Like if you remember the 60s to the 90s, each decade had a period of crap music and a period of musical breakout, a movement would pop up almost out of nowhere. This explains at least in part why the movements have died. And I think recently we sort of had another one that never took off, like Megadeth, Anthrax, Avenged Sevenfold, Skillet and Deep Purple all seemed to have pushed a more progressive rock/metal tech sound, but it didn't seem to break out of anywhere, it wasn't coordinated or anything like that, and nobody new even broke the barrier and rose to prominence. Heavy music like that might not be dead yet, but if we don't start on a solution soon, it probably will be.
    1
  2193. I still am of the firm position that Metatron doesn't understand what a boycott is, its not cancel culture, its economic repayment for disagreement, nobody is obligated to give you money if they dislike it, whether its an organized movement or not is irrelevant, its necessary to have freedom of association which is the basis of any free market and of the 1st Amendment. Boycotts and economic canceling have nothing to do with speech, even then cancel culture is an economic factor, not a legal one, you can only be cancelled if you submit to the canceling.
    1
  2194.  @MikeHunt-zy3cn  No it doesn't, shared values does not mean exact same implementation.
    1
  2195.  @GodOfOrphans  Righteousness does not materially appear reasonable, but it is the only manner for good outcomes to actually happen, everything else is degeneration and leads to destruction.
    1
  2196.  @khosrowzare8301  You have no idea what a strawman argument is genius. What you called a strawman could've been an incomparable fallacy maybe but in this case it isn't because they're very comparable subjects and the evidence is laid out on that front. Let me define a strawman for you: a fallacious argument where the opposition portrays your point as extreme or irrational well beyond the bounds the argument that was being made for and then argues with that to make their argument look significantly more grounded and rational, as an example if I instead said "you're saying that white people are responsible for creating an environment of bland characters in baldur's gate 3 and its ruining the game" and tried to argue with that, that would be a strawman. (granted a pretty dumb one, but then all strawmans are stupid)
    1
  2197.  @khosrowzare8301  Its laid out by record, I'm not the one with the burden of proof, I'm just telling you that you have no idea what a strawman is, and honestly I'm not sure you understand what a fallacy is (foremost a fallacy does not actually influence whether your argument is correct or incorrect, it is logically neutral in any argument, at most you should become distrustful of the speaker of the position who used it, not the position itself) given what you said and acted like. But in this case the proof of the subject can be demonstrated for the argument and it would have credence even with only a shred of evidence, the burden of proof is excessively tiny, especially since the comparable subject for the argument is highly relatable.
    1
  2198.  @khosrowzare8301  "whatever, that does not prove his argument" Never said it did, if you read what I wrote, I literally told you fallacies are logically neutral, as in they don't change the argument at all. That was actually a strawman. "The name of the fallacy doesn't matter since at this point we will be arguing semantics." It very much does, the substance of the fallacy communicates how someone is to respond and to what degree misunderstandings of the subject are present, they also communicate possibility of incorrect perspective on the subject which is also useful for correction regarding the subject. This aside it was not a fallacy so its not semantics, (despite the fact it never was because two different fallacies can't be treated the same in most cases) it could be a direct demonstration of his argument so long as the proof exists, and he doesn't need much to do so. "He (the poster the initial responce was toward) claimed the devs are saying it's a joke after the fact just like Canada's PM." Which is pretty easy to prove if you retrieve the track record. This aside whether Justin Trudeau actually made a joke or not is irrelevant, the case of the matter is that it was politically infused, this is a reference to a capably similar (whether its actually similar is currently up for debate here, its capably similar, as in it could be comparable, this is not up for debate, hence why its not a fallacy) case. "They have a track record of making these types of jokes and the community knows it as well. Just look at the comments on this video and see how many people are bashing Jeremy for his, somehow superisingly, stupid take." A track record of these jokes does not change anything in the argument because the argument in this case has to do with whether the statement is politically charged. Even if the joke was accepted by the community positively that does not mean anything in regards to this argument, it also does not necessarily mean the specific case couldn't be politically charged, to a certain that has to be weighed by context, background, and environment, background as far as I see (not that it is, but that I have been revealed so far) doesn't say anything either way, environment says it is, (Belgium as an environment is ripe with left wing politics and game studios are excessively pandering to left wing politics as of these days) context I suppose could go either neutral or against that depending on the background. So far by these metrics I'd be hesitant to weigh in specifically on the argument itself, though personally I hate these type of jokes in every business and will always be biased against any business that does it regardless of desire or intent. By the way the comments of the community are irrelevant for the argument as well. "They never actually outright said it was a joke after the backlash..." Not really sure how that improves your argument and that aside it was all useless information, most especially to me, someone who doesn't actually care all that much. You'd be arguing with the wrong guy anyone since my position wouldn't be changed by the specific of the incident all that much and I didn't make the argument. Also that aside, this does not present any information on the related affiliation of the statement being debated over. "This complaint is very common in DnD community, specially by GMs..." Aside from not being an argument here still, a developer studio is not a DM/GM, as I said, I'd say it personally be disgraceful to act in that manner, but that's irrelevant. "first, the devs never claimed it was a joke after the fact when he said they did," Implicitly they did according to your later reasoning, so technically this is an outright lie, you can't have them joking with the players and then also not in behavior making a joke. (interpreted as claiming it to be a joke by implication) There isn't even any reason to bring this up in all honesty since whether its a joke or not isn't relevant to what people are taking issue of. "second, the devs have a track record of joking with players when he implied (through Canada PM's exmples) that they didn't." Actually no, this conclusion of discussion is wholly incorrect, whether either of them were a joke or not is not relevant, its whether the statement itself was politically charged, which you've done nothing to counter. This aside there's already inherent strikes against the studio implicitly, however it is true that the burden of proof is on your opponent of the debate, however it would not take much to prove it true. And I shouldn't have to correct on this but I feel my words will be taken out of their meaning if I don't, this does not mean I'm implying things either way, I am not saying that the proof that is burdened exists, I am merely saying he is required to demonstrate his claim evidentially in some manner, in the least for the sake of context or background which would show a track record or implying the relation to the subject.
    1
  2199.  @khosrowzare8301  "Now I'm just confused. Can retrieving the track record act as proof or not? you can't have it both ways." Because the jokes aren't relevant to the subject, its behavior, beliefs, ideals, and perspectives, which are also integrated in the projects they've developed and everything they've said, a joke doesn't incorporate context nor reasoning into the mindset in order to produce a conclusion. When I say track record, I'm not referring to one-offs and one-shots, its all about the track record of productions, most especially for what they're geared for or for what they speak to specifically on the subject. My context makes this clear, those two statements are not by each other and refer to completely different points under the same response. (its not an argument because I'm not arguing with you over a position I couldn't give less of a damn over) "Context clearly shows it was not political, they were just showcasing accumulated data they had nothing with creating (the result was not something they could predict anyway)." The context itself from what you gave doesn't clarify this either way which is why I told you its currently neutral. Speaking about data speaks nothing to nor against the subject at hand, making it argumentatively useless data as I said. "Background is related to their track record as a company which also shows them never making political statements before." Perhaps, but I don't see anything that should convince me either way. "Environment has nothing to do with Belgium as a country since it wasn't made there, but insread on a public, international froum for the game's commiunity which, again hasn't been politically charged." Larian is a Belgium company that developed and published the game, unless you're telling me that the majority of development for a Belgium studio does not take place within Belgium and the heads of the studio have no association with Belgium, this reasoning is wrong, that or you're telling me Larian doesn't own the rights to the third game, doesn't control the analytical data, likely did not develop the game at any point, and currently does not host the development's PR. Your refutation is the most pedantic manner in which you could be correct and yet it doesn't prove a single point about the environment of the company that owns the game, not where its development actually happened, which isn't actually relevant to this point. If you want to argue in a manner that doesn't make you seem unhinged, you really should learn to submit when your opposition is right, even despite the fact I'm not the opposition, I'm more comparable to a moderator at this point. "And making these kinds of statements is just them being close to the players. Most devs were like that in 1990s and early 2000s before the rise of big gaming publishers and then the whole US political BS of mid 2010s." I don't really care, a company is not a person, a studio is not a person, they should not act like one, and should not be treated as one. I despise that outlook, regardless, you are arguing with a vehement bias I have, you can't convince me against it, I didn't conclude this by rational argumentation and I don't care to discuss it with you, the only reason I brought it up was to make you aware of my perspective against studios that do it. It has no other bearing then to describe my bias against that specific subject, you really need to learn to limit your injection into topics that shouldn't be argued on, arguments are just as much clarification you can't or shouldn't argue as they are about opposing points defeating each other. (or in the least fighting it out) Only when the point is being made as a substance against the points at hand are they worth interacting with. "At this point any further argument is pointless anyway. This is the reason why such click-bait articles (both Kotaku's and this video) are stupid. They force their context on to matters and then you will have one hell of a time convinding anyone not in the know about the whole matter that they were just talking out of their asses." Either learn to deal with them properly or you should prefer silence, because you can only otherwise fail and harm yourself. "After all, it's not very possible to prove the lack of a political agenda." I feel like you saw what I posted, but read none of it, you understand nothing of what I wrote and decided to argue with the irrelevant stuff instead of making the case for your side, you tried to turn me into the enemy when I wasn't the one opposing you, I haven't argued once on the subject itself, if you actually read what I wrote, I haven't even tried to prove either side of the argument. "the worst part is, these articles never correct themselves which goes to show how much integrity they have while claiming the other side has none (takes one to know one I guess)." Who cares, its all vanity anyway, at that point better to enjoy yourself then regard those who make themselves suffer or to make you suffer. If people actually did this, negative clickbait wouldn't exist. I take joy in these (referring to this specific instance) type of things, teaching reason, making arguments, this form of intellectualism is a hobby of mine I partake in, outside of speaking my opinion on matters separately before I do such, this is the type of nerdist hobby I like to spread in understanding to others. And its why I love economics as well. (aside from the fact people need to learn basic reason and economics because nobody does, and its actually destroying society, but that's merely one justification)
    1
  2200.  @psychophilosopher3674  I'm not gonna debate you on something I explicitly said I have no interest in, I told everyone repeatedly I don't give a damn about this, that all I care about is making sure people stop flippantly screwing reason and logic to such a degree that it needs to be called out on, don't come at me because somebody said something stupid in regards to logic (regardless of whether they were logically accurate or not) that I called them out for, none of what I said has any relevance to the discussion cause I don't actually care, as I said I already have a bias anyway against Larian for the joke because I hate companies that try to act like people, and I always will.
    1
  2201. I really hope you changed on this position since a year ago, rape is not a justification to punish the child, the mother doesn't need to raise the kid for the kid to be born, plenty of Christian homes are waiting to adopt, there are plenty more women who can't have children or who have a hard time and wish for a child still.
    1
  2202.  @infinitemonkey917  "It sounded like you said he is not properly telling a story." Where have I ever said this? You don't need to understand a story to tell it nor have I assumed you did, you literally made this point up out of nowhere and then tried to refute me as if I said it. That's a strawman. "Yes, you have every obligation to demonstrate your claim about this author" I have no obligation to a strawman. "It's called burden of proof." I don't think you understand what burden of proof means either, but regardless I have no burden of proof on a strawman. "You have simply made blanket statements about mistakes you claim some authors make" Where have I said the author made a mistake? I never even brought up the author making objective mistakes, my entire point from the start, which I have been quite explicit about and you have been blatantly twisting away from is that he does not comprehend his story's intent and got it wrong making claims that are incorrect about it. That's a subjectivity mistake of his at best and was completely ignored by you. You never once bothered to address what I've said, you instead keep claim that I'm saying "he is not properly telling a story." which for the last damn time I have never said. Literally quote me word for word and tell me where I say this, I will not address such foolish claims any further without evidence. "while falsely accusing me of logic fallacies." Given you literally made a strawman on me and you've redirected the point to something that I never even substantiated nor have argued in any regard with, that's also a red herring. Never once were we arguing about this and you have completely lost the point. Its an irrelevant conclusion. "All you have managed to do is repeatedly make baseless, assertions and express opinions." But you haven't demonstrated that. I'm the only one quoting you statement by statement and making direct refutations that don't just accuse you, but walk you through what I accuse you of and explain to you why I do so. You don't get to see what you want in what I write and claim I'm saying things I never said. You've yet to argue against me, you've just been deflecting. "You clearly have nothing new to add. Later penultimate boy. I'm out." Says the guy who can't quote his opposition and has yet to actually refute what I've said, how about you actually show me where I make an opinion and baseless claims? I know you don't want to since it would undermine your deflection since you weren't even bothering to argue against me with your irrational position. I've already asked you this before and I'm still waiting.
    1
  2203. The CRA violates free association, discriminatory practices aren't market profitable because it excludes otherwise potential customers driving your revenue down. You don't need the CRA, all you need is free market forces. Even in an economy of racists, unless you have an overwhelming amount of racists that surveil your business, which is impossible anyway, it will always be the case that the economy has a natural anti-discriminatory bias. Also the CRA has no objective metric to measure discrimination, so if you think it is good, there is no way to enforce it except by subjective metrics, meaning you can't know when you're following the law, Tim needs to look up Disparate Impact.
    1
  2204. As a Christian, I love non-Christians calling it out that when you do explicitly anti-Christian things, you aren't a Christian.
    1
  2205. Better dead then Red, let the socialists burn.
    1
  2206. I'm just thinking if we compare this with the Sony rootkit, this took weeks to discover, that took years and to this day Sony still doesn't admit they did anything wrong nor if it could happen again or not. (though most probably it could)
    1
  2207.  @transcendtient  cultist
    1
  2208.  @mmstick  Keep whining, I really don't care, you just keep proving my disposition for the Rust community.
    1
  2209.  @mmstick  cool cool
    1
  2210.  @tinrab  I have numerous criticisms of Rust as a language and infrastructure that absolutely makes it a failure of a language, like for example the lack of ABI stability and the inability to support shared linkage, in fact you can't distribute Rust programs as linkable libraries at all because of that ABI stability problem, or how Cargo is a requirement to use Rust, or how the borrow checker syntax is absolutely trash, or how postfix type declarations ar a dumb design. I could go on and on about how Rust is not actually superior in all sorts of ways, but I can bet you that you won't admit to a single of these problems. If you can't see any of those as problems, then you're the cultists, as a C/C++ developer these are only some of the many reasons I can't use Rust at all, so to tout it as superior is a completely joke. The only reason anyone touts Rust even as superior is mostly because of the borrow checker anyway but a C-based language has already been proven to be able to support a borrow checker (look up the Circle Compiler) and C++ has a proposal to add one.
    1
  2211.  @tinrab  I have numerous criticisms of Rust as a language and infrastructure that absolutely makes it a failure of a language, like for example the lack of ABI stability and the inability to support shared linkage, in fact you can't distribute Rust programs as linkable libraries at all because of that ABI stability problem, (as in any linkable libraries within Rust, you can load them from C/C++ because it doesn't rely upon the Rust stdlib and vice versa, but that's not useful for a new language, also its an open and so far reported by the devs as an impossible problem to solve) or how Cargo is a requirement to use Rust, or how the borrow checker syntax is absolutely trash, or how postfix type declarations ar a dumb design. I could go on and on about how Rust is not actually superior in all sorts of ways, but I can bet you that you won't admit to a single of these problems. If you can't see any of those as problems, then you're the cultists, as a C/C++ developer these are only some of the many reasons I can't use Rust at all, so to tout it as superior is a completely joke. The Circle Compiler has already proven C++ can support a borrow checker and there is already a proposal to add it to C++.
    1
  2212.  @tinrab  I have numerous criticisms of Rust as a language and infrastructure that absolutely makes it a failure of a language, like for example the lack of ABI stability and the inability to support shared linkage, in fact you can't distribute Rust programs as linkable libraries at all because of that ABI stability problem, (as in any linkable libraries within Rust, you can load them from C/C++ because it doesn't rely upon the Rust stdlib and vice versa) or how Cargo is a requirement to use Rust, or how the borrow checker syntax is absolutely trash, or how postfix type declarations ar a dumb design. I could go on and on about how Rust is not actually superior in all sorts of ways, but I can bet you that you won't admit to a single of these problems. If you can't see any of those as problems, then you're the cultists, as a C/C++ developer these are only some of the many reasons I can't use Rust at all, so to tout it as superior is a completely joke. The Circle Compiler has already proven C++ can support a borrow checker and there is already a proposal to add it to C++.
    1
  2213.  @Henrik0x7F  Shared linkage is the basis for almost everything on Unix systems, and is essential to network infrastructure, both Linux and BSD rely on it so heavily that not supporting it is tantamount to abandoning support for both outright. (all common Unix package managers rely on dynamic linkage) And that aside every major C++ compiler is ABI compatible, GCC and Clang have interoperable ABI (I use both shared and static linked libraries with different build options between Clang and GCC and experienced no problems) and MSVC can do so if you disable the non-standard debug behavior and structured exceptions. (and tbf the non-standard debug behavior is mostly a library problem which if you ran in Clang, is still ABI compatible)
    1
  2214.  @mmstick  If you are incapable of understanding necessities for my work, there is no reason to bother with you, Rust will not work for my job, it cannot replace C/C++ for it, and it simply never will, and its not the only case. Whinge and whine all you want, I don't care, if you don't have ears to hear, I'm not giving them to you.
    1
  2215.  @mmstick  C++ doesn't rely on disabling its C name mangling to perform dynamic linkage, its inherently supported at all times. I literally told you reasons I can't use it, you don't care about those reasons, cool cool, I do, you will never be able to get me onboard when it literally can't do the things I need, I don't care if it works for you, go use it if you want, I really do not care at all, you don't get to claim it works as a C/C++ replacement when it can't do even such basic stuff that's integral to the use cases of C/C++ still. The fact you take everything I say as an attack instead of criticism is your fault not mine.
    1
  2216.  @Henrik0x7F  But its a legal one, getting potentially sued by the FSF is not something I want to go through.
    1
  2217.  @mmstick  No it doesn't, C++ supports dynamic linkage regardless of compiler versions, I can link a GCC 7 compiled library against a Clang 17 compiled project and vice versa. (done this plenty of times, never had an issue) Even for MSVC, if I disable the annoying non-standard debug features, I can do the same even from mingw or clang-cl. (MSVC is annoying because it violates the standard, it is still able to do it, its mostly a library issue, if your mingw pulls from the same library as MSVC, or is freestanding it does pretty much work) So long as it compiles on the same platform, conflicts just come down to referencing the wrong or different libraries. You clearly don't have much if even any experience in C++. Have you actually ever even used it? Also doesn't apply at all to C.
    1
  2218. I'd much prefer an American Explorers Day to recognize more then just Columbus (and to stop focusing all this shit on Columbus because he plenty of others deserved just as much or more praise them him for exploration and discovery)
    1
  2219. I'm pretty confident in saying the reported fertility rate in Eastern Germany was a complete front, those social programs have repeatedly demonstrated in literally every other case historically to only result in falling birth rates, and every former Soviet country following the collapse of the Iron Curtain was reported to have a lower fertility rate even when the policies hadn't yet changed.
    1
  2220. I feel like people who like that game don't actually exist or are faking it for virtue signaling points, because every time I look for them I hear crickets and never get a response, or the few times it was real they get triggered like an SJW.
    1
  2221. I'd like to know where Twitter was getting its money to justify losing millions, seem suspicious to me.
    1
  2222. Acting like its climate change that causes hurricanes when they've always been happening in Florida.
    1
  2223. tbf optical just refers to the physics of light, hard drive don't use optical because its way slower then magnetic storage, (also way more risky for damage) but it could technically exist.
    1
  2224.  @mrsatire9475  The most reliable evidence is multiple independent corroborating attesting eyewitness testimony from the same time as the event. Look at it this way, compare the person and events of Jesus to the events of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Muhammad, or Buddha. You won't find one that isn't at minimum 100 years after they lived aside from Jesus. Also I'm a computer scientist, I know way more about CS and its history then you do. (likely also know way more about history then you do as well, as its a passion of mine)
    1
  2225.  @mrsatire9475  The most reliable evidence is multiple independent corroborating attesting eyewitness testimony from the same time as the event. Look at it this way, compare the person and events of Jesus to the events of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Muhammad, or Buddha. You won't find one that isn't at minimum 100 years after they lived aside from Jesus. Also I'm a computer scientist, I know way more about CS and its history then you do. (likely also know way more about history then you do as well, as its a passion of mine)
    1
  2226. ​ @mrsatire9475  The most reliable evidence is multiple independent corroborating attesting eyewitness testimony from the same time as the event. Look at it this way, compare the person and events of Jesus to the events of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Muhammad, or Buddha. You won't find one that isn't at minimum 100 years after they lived aside from Jesus.
    1
  2227.  @mrsatire9475  The most reliable evidence is multiple independent corroborating attesting eyewitness testimony from the same time as the event.
    1
  2228.  @mrsatire9475  Scripture is the most reliable evidence.
    1
  2229. That's not what apologetics means, also that's an ad hominem.
    1
  2230. @Aditya Chavarkar And where do you pull that from? Christ specifically opposed political power and advocated peaceful opposition to the state in the occasion that it did not uphold righteousness and punish wickedness. And its not blind faith, we do not worship what we do not know, unlike every other peoples, but what we are given definite evidence and knowledge for. But that evidence does not suffice those who wish in their heart it was not so, and thus they can not see such truth. Hence why we preach to the spirit, for the mind is blinded by a darkened heart. Should a blind man be shown a sight that could convince him if he could see? What use would such attempts have? If I could show you answers you could understand, I'd give them to you readily, as God would deign me to, but these answers, though they not be hidden nor reserved, (as I could speak them to you, but you would not have a heart to understand) can not be shown to you. It is in this way I can only speak unto manners for which you can understand for your sake.
    1
  2231. @Aditya Chavarkar "Christianity has and is ( just like any other religion) used for political power." Has nothing to do with religion, its mankind, the nature of man is power, all men seek it cause they live in sin. Economics, politics, war, everything we do as a society is used for political power. That's a worthless complaint. You are literally conflating an issue that has nothing to do with the problem you're claiming, your personal interpretations of reality, your worldview, neither of these respect reality as it is. Its a bad anthropology you have learned. "And let's not talk high and mighty" Got nothing to do with being high and mighty, you are what you are, and you are blind to truth, so I can not reveal it to you if I tried. Those who can not handle truth also put themselves under others because of their shame and weakness instead of seeing that nobody is standing over you, it is yourself that is holding you down. "seeing you believe what you believe for the heck of it rather than any notion regarding evidence." Nope, not remotely true, I have seen the evidence and I believe because I have both proof and faith, evidence however did not give me faith, but the faith revealed to me the proof. But to those who have not the foundation are incapable of seeing the truth because the heart blinds them, and they follow the wickedness of the heart. That is your opposition, that is why you hate Him before me, and why you respond in such ways. Yet you also steal from my worldview, the bits of your worldview I see demonstrate you are not capable of founding any without Christ. If you truly were left without God, you would not care, you would not consider values or ideal, and would neither care about what I say or believe. For none of it contains value.
    1
  2232. Another question: Is a baby of rape or incest a human life? If your answer is yes then the rape and incest question is literally a worthless deflection. What did it do to be killed? How about this: Did you chose your parents? If the suggestion is that we get autonomy to chose our lives without responsibility thrust upon us, who gets to chose their financial circumstances when they're born? Do we get to chose the social contract we live by? That means do we get the chose every law we are gonna live under? No? Where is your self-autonomy there then? Or how about the time you live in? Do you get a choice of that? Again no. So lets ask the simplest question: If you are put into a responsibility that you did not voluntarily chose, are you required to be responsible for that? Say your kid runs out in front of a car and both his legs are irreparably busted, are you still responsible for taking care of the child despite being a much more massive burden you didn't chose? This question sounds silly to compare but its logically equal to rape and incest, your child took away your choice in the responsibility (and is in fact already being punished for it) and now must be taken care of, under rape a rapist also takes away your choice in the responsibility (obviously his punishment should be capital) but now you must take care of your child who you have been burdened with, least until you can put it up for adoption if you're incapable of taking care of it. (or you may not want it or feel it wouldn't live well with you, which for the latter I'll tell you now you are absolutely wrong but that's your choice then)
    1
  2233. Gun laws only exist to restrict law abiding gun owners, to ensure those who would follow the law will always be put in harms way so that they will never threaten those in power, background checks are the biggest scam of them all, as is restriction of fully automatic weapons, weaponized vehicles, and explosive (or "destructive") devices, its not there to protect the citizen because a citizen can't be protected by the government ever, that's not the government's job and it is incapable of ever doing so, fact it puts citizens at more risk and harm then a citizen ever could put another at. All the government can really do is clean up the mess, in the rare case it catches someone that it claims would've broken the law it can't actually irrefutably prove without a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty of a crime because the crime has yet to happen, it doesn't matter how implied the crime is, you can't prove a crime that has not been committed, pre-crime is not a crime. This is the core of "innocent until proven guilty", the devil's proof is not a capable argument to preserve innocence, but the inverse of the devil's proof is. It is up to the individuals and the community to protect one another and for the righteous threat of the law, not the act of the law, but threat of the law, to punish those who would seek to violate the law. The law must strike fear in those who'd become criminals and remove those who do not fear it from being a factor in the irreversible harm of others. A good government makes the guilty fear its punishment and the innocent love its justice. Any government that does not do this is tyrannical and must be exterminated. Also why is someone being tracked as a danger to society yet has total freedom to do anything so long as they just don't legally get a gun? Either they've served their time and thus are free of all requirements or they're still a danger in which case why the hell are they free? Background checks are a new invention, they're less than half a century old, all these mass shooters and criminality problems we have now are quite new, there is no association that an increase in gun laws decreases crime, violence, mass shooters, or gangs, in some cases the correlation has been quite the opposite, especially in recent years.
    1
  2234. NFTs will be great when grifters and jackwads crash the market again, then it'll become a "by necessity" use case and none of these stupid grifting asshats will be capable to get away with scamming people anymore. NFTs are useful for proof of ownership without a central authority for example but its been so poisoned by grifters and scammers that anyone who hears the term will run in fear. Its the same thing with the morons trying to turn crypto into a stock market, speculation economics is a freaking dumb profession and I won't feel an ounce of sympathy for those who burn in the economist's hell for screwing it over. A great technology that's increasing being infected by corporatist morons who think only about the quick buck, they're ruining it for all of us just so we are jailed with their absolutist state bullcrap. Our State Capitalism is neoliberal fascism and nobody cares, dumbass syndicalists think they can control the world and it'll become a utopia while they starve 95% of the population. I am so sick of the US government reinforcing and proliferating this dumbass behavior.
    1
  2235. While I don't actually disagree with the overall point, I do think this simplification of the subject is a little bit of a reduction of nuance, (he's also using the wrong actual word for a bit of clickbait) the concept of lustful desire (I wouldn't call it love, it was called lust in the 50s, the Greeks had 7 words for love and this one wasn't even related to it) is a strict necessity that requires being put in check, the systematic use of lust for new romantic partners is necessary for a post-arranged marriage free society but it requires self-control and discipline. The complaints thrown at the subject of lust is more of a side effect of the attack on discipline and self-control, its the same reason being gay is no longer considered a bad thing despite its physical, mental, and societal negative effects. Its a glorification for the lack of self-control and discipline and the glorification of depravity and self-destruction. Gotta lust how killing the King of Justice, Self-Control, and Morality created a society that lacks Justice, Self-Control, or Morality, but that's none of my business. sips tea (also when getting into a relationship, the rest of the family on both sides should be involved, unless you had to unFOO them for being horrifically bad at being a family, still should use your actual parental figures in that case tho regardless if you live with them or not)
    1
  2236. You know its quote interesting when they say everyone is born equal but upon any actual demonstration of that they must immediately drop it and call both success of efforts and failure by most metrics madness. You don't get to play the double standard unless you're a liar.
    1
  2237. She's not a pastor, as she's a woman, she's just a heretic who can't read the Bible.
    1
  2238. Wasn't Hooters also trying to do some strange DEI stuff? I swear I recall hearing something about that going on.
    1
  2239. Not to mention that the AMD open source drivers are virtually indistinguishable from the closed source drivers, with Nvidia if you want to do anything the OS drivers suck for anything but the most basic and useless of function, with AMD you never really gain anything going proprietary. Nvidia is also known to sabotage Linux when they can, they put less then no effort into it.
    1
  2240. Democracy is the god that failed.
    1
  2241. What annoys me the most about Europe (and to an extent even happens in the US, though states have more sovereignty here then there overall) is that the locals aren't ever allowed to self-determinate, every ruling in the EU (including leaving the fucking union) has to include the rest of the Union regardless of how local the ruling is. That aside from the secret ballot votes they perform leave me thinking Europe was tricked into another Soviet State, if a nation can't contain its own sovereignty and ability to function independently then its a failed nation state and has the right to fall, no power should be used keeping up a failing state. Not even to mention the original European project was a commercial trade based one, it wasn't about politics and it didn't hold up failing nation states, it grew into the problem it is today.
    1
  2242. Can they declare independence from the EU without any recognition from the EU in any respect? Because the current law specifically states two things: 1) majority of EU states have to recognize the vote 2) the EU has to consider whether it is valid, unless you can point me to a law that invalidates that in relation to article 50 I don't trust your claim. (I also see that as morally unjustifiable and logically tyrannical, a true nation state that cares for its people should respect the will of the people and allow succession, however the corporate and politicians don't want to lose their power and would be unwilling to relinquish such a position, I don't see any reason this would be allowed by the EU under alternative conditions)
    1
  2243. Disney is the king of milking and abuse, they do this every time, specifically when it comes to big name bought out properties.
    1
  2244.  @DylanMatthewTurner  Imposing decisions on developers is the worst solution, paradigms should not be imposed on a language, decisions and paradigms should be developer chosen, I can't stand Rust, I never want to use it, the syntax is crap, and the implementation makes low level control impossible without introducing bugs.
    1
  2245.  @ITSecNEO  You can't violate the borrow checker without inherently introducing bugs, that's a problem with the language. Rust does not let you violate its safety systems without it being inherently buggy because what Rust's safety systems do is overly complex and how its managed is specifically impossible for a human to follow.
    1
  2246. Borders, crime, and economy matter more and even the young and healthy democrats are fools, all of them just hate America.
    1
  2247. If you have arbitrary precision, then it would be equal, but the problem is that the current implementation almost certainly isn't an arbitrary precision.
    1
  2248. Honestly TLOU2 was a linchpin for respect, I have lost respect for someone to mark this as a 6/10, that means it was at worst only slightly underwhelming which doesn't remotely fit with the experience. Also I hate how people say "the graphics are great and the gameplay is good" as if its a valid statement for this game, if a game is primarily about being a game, then having good gameplay is what carries it, (underwhelming story or subpar graphics would then have literally no effect on how good a game it is) but that's not what carries TLOU, nobody gave a damn about the gameplay. As for graphics, there is never a reason to compliment graphics in a game and there is never a reason to improve a game's score over graphics excepting the case that maybe its a demonstration of advanced tech, which TLOU is not, its not Crysis, it does not demonstrate George Lucas innovation in the medium nor was it intended to, so that should not improve your outlook. I hate that people see a new game looking better then the games of last year, say "it looks pretty" and then modify their opinions based on that, if you don't expect such an improvement you're just plain stupid.
    1
  2249. Its because most sane languages presume masculine gender as also the neutral gender, that's a natural and in fact beneficial thing to the language, problem with these woktoid brainlet morons is that you can't admit that gender exists, it must by default not exist so we can groom your children and erase masculinity specifically, because its masculinity specifically that opposes this woke bullcrap.
    1
  2250. Take out the federal funding, also Asmon doesn't understand crap about free association nor economics, nor the incentives behind either. If only he'd stop advocating for such stupid ideas. Anyone want to tell him that every experiment of UBI has proven that it increases welfare reliance, increases unemployment, and decreases home ownership.
    1
  2251.  @danielespera8127  What?
    1
  2252.  @SeanMendicino-n3d  As a Christian apologist, you are correct, without a manner to theologically refute bad, the claim that suffering and death itself is bad becomes questionable, its a presupposition that life is good, that's already an argument from faith, but yet one does not understand the position of why life is good, it simply just is. Go any deeper and the only answers you can find must be theological in nature, because any nature for which you can resolve the question must push for a higher power that defines a value to life, that which exist as a limited life cannot define this value because it can't resolve a question in any manner objectively, it can only arrive to a subjective answer, that doesn't make it a universal truth. Common materialist logic simply cannot resolve a value to life, all it can say is the value of life itself is subjective, in which case there is no reason that anyone should agree to any value of life, this is why the nihilists and anti-natalists arrive to the answers they do, they remove the presupposition because they abandoned that foundation which presumes a meaning to life. A logically consistent position once you abandon all capacity for a true theological position.
    1
  2253. It still is, after all they still support BLM, MeToo, climate change rationing, and ACAB so long as its not turned around on them, they still profit with subsidies so long as they support "the message" and "the current thing".
    1
  2254. I don't get why Python3 had to change the Python2 APIs honestly, it was stupid to change both APIs and the language at the same time, I have never heard of a single language since the 90s aside from Python doing something stupid like this. If you want to update a language, update the language without other massive breaking changes, first off do what C++ did, deprecate that functionality in a way that minimize harm for existing projects, (then wait for use to become minimal) don't create breaking changes in the standard library, and only do it with a new version of each package module for that part of the standard library. (yes C++ didn't do that last one but only because the standard library is only one package that can't be segregated and doesn't yet have modules)
    1
  2255. If the police won't stop it, the only thing left is vigilante justice, media opinion be damned, I don't like war and death, but if they get in the way of the American Constitution, execution for treason is justified. We need a purge of the communists.
    1
  2256. Seems also a good demonstration of why you always should keep possible toxins only to be locally available near anything else at a non-lethal level and never trust that you're doing something right.
    1
  2257. Youtube needs to die. Use bitchute.
    1
  2258.  @goawqebt6931  You can't play most multiplayer games at all on Linux, so long as they have anti-cheat or non-Steam DRM.
    1
  2259.  @xaina222  Yes because in the desert, food and water will become more valuable in gold but in a temperate forest gold can be more valuable because you'd already have water and food. If one person is starving or dehydrated, they will value food or water more then other resources, but if they aren't starving or dehydrated, their evaluations will care less about food and water. This is subjective demand, people want what they want in accordance to their circumstance and desires, you can't tell them those desires are wrong under market standards, as a result they'd be willing to pay more for the things they want and less for the things they don't want. This goes for every single commodity and service in the market. This is what we call subjective value, for you can not define what people should need or want, and if you want a demonstration of what happens when you do that, look at Venezuela, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Communist China. How many did each of these regimes kill? If you believe something has intrinsic value, let me ask you, how much should a piece of bread cost in gold in a thousand years? You must evaluate that for every economic circumstance in all nations and of all peoples and it must be reliably be irrefutable. But you can't do that, for it something had intrinsic value, it could mean it is defined by an objective standard that doesn't fluctuate. But food, gold, water, resources, services, all these things fluctuate both in accordance to each other and through the wider markets and lower markets.
    1
  2260.  @FalconRS  Only if you're an atheist.
    1
  2261. I actually used to be addicted to gaming, and before loot boxes really existed, I would literally ignore everything that wasn't my console until I could barely stand it, I would avoid sleeping, drinking, eating, even going to the bathroom. Basically I have direct experience with the worst aspects of being addicted to gaming and to this day while I can now play in moderation, I still mess up a bit with chasing a dopamine high. I'm not entirely opposed to what Rogan said, even if he probably doesn't respect the industry. And funny enough, despite all that I still am pursing a career in game design and development.
    1
  2262. And Ronald Reagan ensured Newsom would happen unfortunately, that illegal amnesty crap destroyed California.
    1
  2263. Feminism is trash because men and women aren't the same and shouldn't be treated the same, beating a woman is way different (and causes different psychological harm) then beating a man. (disregarding the estrogen filled soybois who are a strange mix of the problems and none of the benefits of both) The only thing that is shared is the physical damage. Also most women don't have the capability to properly argue, even in the case that they have a foundation in logic, women don't take nearly as much thrill from risk taking as men which causes them to often abandon things like that early. (or mentally abandon it and stop listening)
    1
  2264. Misery loves company, and all ends justify how you gain that company. When you climb the mountain don't be surprised when people take potshots at you from their trailerpark trash because you can climb. They are crabs, they don't care what happens so long as they can drag you down. Be a good enemy to them, don't let them win, take them down through true strength, not by malice.
    1
  2265. Its not the state's job to have any regulation on parenting, that's the cultural and religious centers of the community, its part of the private and charity markets, not government. People are so babied, and we wonder where this retarded matriarchal welfare state comes from.
    1
  2266. Solution for C vulnerabilities: Use modern C++ People complain about C vulnerabilities, then claim "C++ has them too" except every example I know of where they claim this, they just use cstdlib, if you're an idiot using printf I don't know what the hell you were expecting, even if its slower you can't get those problems with iostreams, they're inherently safe, if you want something faster use std::format or fmt, literally faster, safer, and by default is compile-time checked. For pointers we have unique_ptr, shared_ptr, span, string_view, string depending on your specific needs, you'll never get an exploit if you use these.
    1
  2267. What doesn't make any sense to me is why we're still acting like sex doesn't exist despite biological reality, like first off most trans advocate crap will absolutely not argue biological sex, (mostly because they've tried that before and it failed to push the agenda because it was based on lies and opinion) that aside its a massive core of sexually dimorphic organisms. (humans being just one example of this) It really does seem like a system made up for political pandering, I wonder if these fools realize that acceptance hasn't ever reduced demographic suicide rates by the way. (interestingly enough suicide tends to be way lower under a minority persecution with immutable traits)
    1
  2268. Ethics Board:*Goes back to sleep*
    1
  2269. What's been the controversy with Gab?
    1
  2270. Think of it this way, you don't receive flak unless you're bombing over the target. I'm willing to bet he hit truth in what he said and they want to kill him for it. The evidence behind it was very suspect, I don't doubt that people died, (though how much you want to bet it was prepared by the government like every other case?) but I am willing to bet every "victim" we saw was never one and the ones they reported as being such were found otherwise not being victims.
    1
  2271. I know late comment but tbh, statistically mass shootings aren't worth even thinking about, you know what we should start considering? Human trafficking, gang murder, and violent crime caused by poverty in the most government regulated regions of the US where the rule of law means practically nothing.
    1
  2272. Look up BRIDGE social impact, its a rebrand, not a removal.
    1
  2273.  @Yesunfortunately-r1x  What?
    1
  2274.  @Yesunfortunately-r1x  That's a strawman, as its not even remotely what was said. Its also not a matter of opinion, the fact of the matter is that socialism is inherently evil and decrepit, it comes from a depraved and envious mind, one that is driven to insanity and has never been reasonable, it has never produced good fruit and inherently cannot in accordance to reason because it violates the natural rights at the claim of "entitled rights" for which no one has. The only rights you are "owed" are those you have alone on an island. Socialism is inherent envy given as a political and economic principal to control others. Nobody owes you anything and you don't have the right to demand of anyone anything, to say otherwise is also irrational and foolish. If I owe someone something, it be because I volunteered that which I owe to another, if they owe me, it should only be because they volunteered it, regardless of why or how, in such what is owed is all that matters. Your standard of good does not define another's standard of good, your standard of needs does not define another's standard of needs, what you have is what you shall have, what I have is what I shall have. Socialism inherently rejects this understanding and thus so too is it rationally invalid. TIK has presented arguments against socialism many times before, it is in these arguments that they have refused to refute (for those opposed have had no rational argument) I also state such things on.
    1
  2275.  @Yesunfortunately-r1x  ""as it's not even remotely what I said" "they're mentally ill, deranged"" Perhaps you should stop reading what you want out of things and quoting things out of context and perhaps you'd actually be able to devise an at least seemingly reasonable refutation. But this is not a refutation when you take things out of context. "and if Socialism is so evil and cruel, then so is democracy." Who said it was a moral good? Not I, this is an assumptive position foremost, one that is also trying to perform false associations. And my position on democracy doesn't matter because it had no relevance to topic, this is a fallacy of irrelevance and guilt by association. "Because Socialism doesn't encourage labor camps or genocide," Actually it does because it robs individualism from the individual to suit the needs of the collective which inherently means it must violate the rights of the individual to justify its authority over the collective. This includes genocide and enslavement of the innocent for they will suit the needs of the collective at the cost of their individual rights, thus individuals pay the price in accordance to what the leaders of the collective deem is necessary. "yet there were men like Stalin and Pol Pot," Socialism is founded in the principal of the abolishment of private property and the development of public property for the sake of the collective, private property is a right of the individual, all other rights are also forfeit for the sake of the collective for nothing is more important then the needs of the collective, which is at the cost of the individual. This is not determined by the individual whose rights are being robbed, thus even his life shall be forfeit for even his life is worth less then the needs of the collective. Hence why socialism always kills individuals to suit its collective needs and goals. "just like democracy doesn't encourage hate and rigging elections," Hatred is part of the nature of the human design, that's an incomparable fallacy. Rigging elections is a product of the human condition for the seeking of absolute power via corruption which by itself may not even be a moral quandary. Genocide and labor camps are not a natural result of human condition and require a condition of power, humans cannot perform genocide nor labor camps without immense power, most especially political, which socialism inherently requires absolutely alongside its destruction of individuals. As well genocide and labor camps (as in enslavement of the innocent) are violations of moral standards, hatred and election rigging are not inherent violations of morality. "yet there was hitler who almost became president with democracy" I don't really care either way, I don't care about democracy and neither do I believe in it anyway, so I wouldn't defend it if your claims even held any water in the first place. (but because it relies on incomparables it is inherently invalid either way) "in the first election he and the NAZI party ran in and the U.S that rigged Latin American elections for decades and smashed those who went against their Conservative view" I don't know why you assume we don't know this stuff, like you don't need to explain it, we know about it, the simple fact is that its irrelevant to the point, its intentional deflections to prevent actually answering the arguments and presenting even more faulty logic, its a form of bait and switch, funniest thing is I don't even care because I don't care about democracy in the first place and would never defend it anyhow.
    1
  2276.  @Yesunfortunately-r1x  "to say that the anti-private property stance of socialism calls for genocide and human rights violations" That is not what was said. Getting rid of property rights is a violation of individual rights which a collective system must always do, how they do this is not specifically called but it will always happen and shall eventually lead to violations of the rights of men. You cannot recognize rights as an individual principal if you collectivize a society for rights then are not individual and thus any individual must be sacrificed for the needs of the collective. Whether you can actually understand this basic fact doesn't matter to me. "is completely preposterous because in no way does that link together nor did Karl Marx say that's how it should go down." Men are liars and thieves, what a man says is not what reality is, what happens and what is rational is what is true and for this we know that what a man may say may be true. The fruits of a man's philosophy describe the truth of the man's heart and thus demonstrates who he really is. If a man speaks not by his own authority but the authority beyond him then it is true, but he who speaks on his authority seeks his own glory and does not speak by truth. Marx was not a moral figure to observe and the fruits of his labor were naught but evil, there is no value in what he has said, for reason was opposed to him. "Also you can't insult someone for their views" I can for I do not care for immoral and illogical views and an insult is not a violation of truth and reason. I am not obligated to change your mind and neither am I capable to save you from yourself, you have been given the warning, you shall suffer the consequences of your heart yourself, I can only demonstrate what is in your heart and the fruits of your labors. "and then say "Oh YoU tOoK iT oUt Of CoNtExT" but then continue to flame them for their views." Call it flaming all you want but you don't bother to refute, you decide instead to deflect. You did take my words out of context because had you actually used the context, it would have made your claims unsustainable. "Basically, you don't have an actual argument to call Socialism evil," I have many and I've presented some already to you, you have seen a lot more but you're indoctrinated and ignorant of truth for you have enslaved yourself to your ideology. Instead of seeking truth, you worship a god of your own making who declares to you what is right and wrong, what is true and false. You have made your own god to suit your evil heart. But I do not care for your idol of foolishness, for it does naught but delude and destroy. I do not seek to worship a man, nor do I seek to worship a fool, only truth is worthy of worship, and truth is reflected in only what is good, righteous, and brings about light. The fruits of the labor speak the truth, and thus shall our works present a light. "and everything else you said in your response does not back your argument up either" You didn't refute what I said and you declared many fallacies, your arguments were entirely invalid.
    1
  2277.  @Yesunfortunately-r1x  "saying that it would always lead to breaking human rights is like saying "I knew someone who was Macedonian, he got hit by a bus" as if it was because he was Macedonian." This demonstrates your blindness and ignorance. Its a requirement that rights be violated for the sake of a collective, you cannot collectivize a society without violating rights because you are inherently violating even the very concept of an individual for which all rights are a part of, you inherently despise the concept of the individual in order to collectivize, socialism is a collectivization of a society, it requires the taking of rights in order to exist. "If Karl Marx didn't say or hint towards violating human rights it is not his or Socialism's fault what happens." Marx is not and never was a god. He was never omniscient. Stop worshiping him. His name is worthless, truth is all that matters. If you only care about the names and philosophies of the ideologies you worship, your ideas are worthless, for there is nothing in you, no idea you have will be reflective of the truth. "Again, you're an idiot," I never cared what a fool thinks of me. Especially when who I am has nothing to do with my arguments so I feel nothing for this either way. In fact I would be quite happy to be despised by those who subscribe to evil for it shows that in the least I am not well liked by evil, that a light is being shown upon the wicked, and thus what I say must be speaking some element of truth. "and just because you say you provided many arguments as to why Socialism is bad doesn't make them any less idiotic" Calling said arguments idiotic is not a refutation, you intentionally avoid even addressing them, that instead suggests that you fear a wrongful conclusion according to your ideology. If they were truly poor arguments, they would've been easy to refute, you would've be delighted to hear them for they make light of truth and demonstrate a better argument. But you have gotten angry and called me names in order to undermine the arguments made, not in presentation of arguments made or in supplement to arguments made, but in order to undermine arguments made, that is also an ad hominem.
    1
  2278.  @Yesunfortunately-r1x  "a collective society isn't a human rights violation, because surprise surprise, just because you finally see something different that doesn't mean it's a sin" This is irrelevant. "just because everyone works for the greater good of their society rather than fuck over everyone else." How do you define greater good? Who defines this? What makes up the greater good? By what authority does anyone have the right to say this? And how does it "fuck over everyone else"? You are required to demonstrate these claims by logic, not by anecdote, and for which you didn't even have. "I don't think Karl Marx is a God nor have I ever said this," You treat his words as gospel and as if they are truth and right without question. If you do not question the words of any philosophy and names you subscribe to, if you do not contain any deviations in argumentation, or understanding in defense in argumentation, (which is called apologetics) you make yourself a liar to say you do not worship a man when you trust his words without question, he who just as worthless a man as we are. "which shows how you think other people's opinions are wrong all just because they're different" Assumptive position, I don't care what you label me as, its completely irrelevant, my character was never on the line, it does not change what I say nor the truth I speak. Truth is evident without man. Its foolish to attribute one's arguments in accordance to one's character. (in fact its fallacious, as in logically invalid)
    1
  2279.  @Yesunfortunately-r1x  "it kind of is" No it is not. "the greater good is a society where people work together rather than work for some corporation that takes water or oil out of Africa (hence fucking over others)" This is not a definition nor an argument, this is an emotional plea. You are just begging for sympathy points, but this is a fallacy so its logically invalid. You still cannot define it because it does not exist. "there you go again with the whole "my opinion right, you wrong" bs where you turn someone's argument into something else," I'm quoting you directly and fully and directly addressing each point you make. How can I be turning any argument into something else? "also I never quoted Karl Marx" "nor did Karl Marx say that's how it should go down." The requirement for this to be a valid argument is Karl Marx being omniscient, he must be a god, the only reason you'd assume this so is if you worshiped Karl Marx, else-wise its incapable to even be a decent fallacy because there is no way Marx as person has any value to any argument, what he said is worthless unless he is such. The only way for you to think that is if you think such. "or mentioned anything he has ever said" Well that's a lie because you directly exclaimed that socialism must be defined only by what Karl Marx would've defined as socialism, not that you can even define specifically what he would've defined it by, its what you think he would've defined it by, which is both irrelevant and your opinion, not objective fact. "so sorry not sorry" Arrogance and pride, they are not good things. "if the mere mention of the creator of a different viewpoint is too much for you to handle" He who makes a philosophy is irrelevant to validity of the philosophy. The outcomes of a philosophy speak to the heart of the philosophy and those who follow it, regardless of what those who follow it say, the fruits it bears is the only thing that matters to reason, for they are a result of the principals of the philosophy running according to its axioms. What one says about either of these is irrelevant, what happens is all that matters. What someone sought to achieve is irrelevant except to convict them of worse crime then those they have already committed.
    1
  2280. There are more pedophiles per person in the left wing politics then in right wing politics, also echo chambers tend to lean left, when you open free speech, social conservatism tends to become the norm, you can only ensure a leftist community with censorship.
    1
  2281. TIK, I'm just gonna point out, as someone experienced in the debate over the realm of consciousness and free will as a Reformed (as in Calvinist) Christian (which means I argue from a Double Predestination position) your address against fatalism (the belief in a predetermined reality) is poor, individualism and fatalism are not philosophically at odds themselves, and the capacity for the changing of one's mind does not exclude divergence from a previous belief, proving the capacity for change doesn't really prove anything as you can simply argue that such change itself was also predetermined to happen, that reality itself was fixed in such a way that any change was itself fixed too. It actually is quite difficult to refute fatalism generically as what you're arguing against is presuppositions they hold about reality and not inherently coherent positions. (nor do they have to be in their own mind) In order to disprove fatalism you'd need to demonstrate a violation of the religious precepts that they have to adhere to. Course a more effective measure is to perform an apologetic from a superior moral position, but since you can't do that since you don't have such, the best argument you can make is to prove hypocrisy within their fatalist belief.
    1
  2282. Every single poll with RFK shows Trump further in the lead, taking votes away from Biden, kinda seems like you don't pay any attention to aggregate polls, most polls are already mostly democrat sided meaning that if Trump is ahead in the polls, he's probably twice as far ahead in votes, for the aggregate that probably puts him at least 1.6 times his lead on the election, negating cheating and manipulative methods, which MAGA folks are participating more in this time around, (more specifically things like ballot harvesting which aren't illegal but usually a violation of the spirit) as well every state with reinforced election laws, especially blue states, becomes a near red or hard red state. I don't see any argument for Trump losing, RFK is a poison pill for democrats, and electing Chase Oliver as the candidate turned almost the entire Libertarian Party to Trump, at best it'll only take democrat votes away and its going to be irrelevant, aggregate polling also showed this, Trump got an even bigger lead after that.
    1
  2283. @ Even then, Africa and India were still not that low when you remove child mortality, sure it would be lower, but anyone who thinks it would be as low as 50 is either out of their mind or doesn't know any history.
    1
  2284. Its Revelation, not "Revelations" as its the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to John, there weren't multiple different revelations given by God, there was only one continuous Revelation, keeping the sacreligous issue aside, the grammar and semantics is wrong because its a book of a Revelation, the chapters have nothing to do with anything, they're just for ease of reference developed centuries after the Revelation was given, John did not write by them (as did no one else in the OT or NT) and the chapters don't align with the books in any determinate manner, it was an after the fact assignment, commonly to a theme of any specific section, again for ease of reference, it doesn't even follow a change in theme consistently, that's just the most common case. Hence there is one Revelation. On the case of Paul's address, that's misunderstanding the address, a Christian (of any theologically solid basis, as in one who is actually grounded in their face, not nominal) considers the Bible as one single book written by One Triune Author that being obviously God, which includes Jesus the Son, The Father, and The Holy Spirit. Instead what we say is that the books of the Bible were written by men inspired by God but every word written in every book was equally and simultaneously written by God Himself, specifically via the Holy Spirit working through the writers, and not via something like mediums and ghost writing unlike the heathenry beliefs, but through granted wisdom in prayer, they were fully in control and granted peace and joy that inspired their instruction to write. They were compelled by their own desire that the Holy Spirit gave them. This is why Bible is one book, it was the first book, as Christians consolidated it knowing it was one singular historical story with a singular theme and purpose written by one author. It is hard to understand how two beings could equally have 100% contribution to such a case just as its difficult to understand how there could be 3 persons in 1 being in the Trinity or how Jesus could both be 100% God and 100% Man. This is because God does not operate under man's preconcieved notions that only appeared as a result of the weak understanding man has gotten from interpreting the reality God made, we don't understand many parts of the Creation, let alone do we understand God's Hand on Creation other then His full guidance is put upon it for His Will in order to operate how it desires, which means reality operates according to its desires but is guided by God in to performing the tasks God has Declared to be performed as necessity for good.
    1
  2285. Asmon also don't understand anything about the country he lives in either. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams That moral and religious people John Adams is talking about is Christians.
    1
  2286. Except the wealthy don't horde money, 95% of their wealth isn't even liquid, so taxing it would just bankrupt them, that's why wealth taxes are stupid, you can't just convert non-liquid wealth into money, majority of that is market speculation.
    1
  2287.  @RomanAvdeevX  Did you even check how old that video is? It was over 12 years ago. And I do know more about language design and development and compilers then Linus does because its one of the things I spent most my life on non-stop and its not his field of study even remotely. I bought the purple dragon book a decade ago just for that. Kernel developers aren't compiler developers and they require very different things. I don't really care to convince you, I could speak entire theories and concepts that even CS PhDs would be incapable to understand (unless they spent the time in field or got their study in the field that is because its about the field, not the study, I've already confused people with college degrees of numerous levels on CS who work in defense and on video codecs because they didn't know the field at all) you clearly don't care to treat anyone in good faith and have very little knowledge on how to even read times and dates that are presented directly to you, so you're just a moron anyway.
    1
  2288. ​ @RomanAvdeevX  Did you even check how old that video is? It was over 12 years ago.
    1
  2289.  @RomanAvdeevX  And I do know more about language design and development and compilers then Linus does because its one of the things I spent most my life on non-stop and its not his field of study even remotely. I bought the purple dragon book a decade ago just for that. Kernel developers aren't compiler developers and they require very different things. I don't really care to convince you, I could speak entire theories and concepts that even CS PhDs would be incapable to understand (unless they spent the time in field or got their study in the field that is because its about the field, not the study, I've already confused people with college degrees of numerous levels on CS who work in defense and on video codecs because they didn't know the field at all) you clearly don't care to treat anyone in good faith and have very little knowledge on how to even read times and dates that are presented directly to you, so you're just a moron anyway.
    1
  2290.  @RomanAvdeevX  And I do know more about language design and development and compilers then Linus does because its one of the things I spent most my life on non-stop and its not his field of study even remotely. I bought the purple dragon book a decade ago just for that. Kernel developers aren't compiler developers and they require very different things.
    1
  2291.  @RomanAvdeevX  I don't really care to convince you, I could speak entire theories and concepts that even CS PhDs would be incapable to understand (unless they spent the time in field or got their study in the field that is because its about the field, not the study, I've already confused people with college degrees of numerous levels on CS who work in defense and on video codecs because they didn't know the field at all) you clearly don't care to treat anyone in good faith and have very little knowledge on how to even read times and dates that are presented directly to you, so you're just a moron anyway.
    1
  2292.  @RomanAvdeevX  I don't really care to convince you, I could speak entire theories and concepts that even CS PhDs would be incapable to understand. (unless they spent the time in field or got their study in the field that is because its about the field, not the study, I've already confused people with college degrees of numerous levels on CS who work in defense and on video codecs because they didn't know the field at all)
    1
  2293.  @RomanAvdeevX  You clearly don't care to treat anyone in good faith and have very little knowledge on how to even read times and dates that are presented directly to you.
    1
  2294.  @RomanAvdeevX  So you're just a moron anyway.
    1
  2295. ​ @RomanAvdeevX  "I wrote that you have a maximum amount of 5–10 years of experience in your field" First off that's not how maximums work; secondly that video has no relation to my capacity to program software; thirdly its 12 years old, not 5-10; fourthly even having 10 years experience in software and lets say even just 5 years (to give you benefit of the doubt for your argument) in parsers and compilers is more then Torvalds has on a field he has only tangentially experienced when he's frustrated or something goes wrong with the build, even 5 years of dedicated study is more then 30 years of occasional observation. Oh and lastly we're not comparing life times nor time spent programming, after a certain point that's irrelevant anyway because once you pass a certain point time has diminishing returns and becomes functionally irrelevant. (in my experience in fact due to lack of knowledge of modern paradigms and adaptability the older guys tend to reside in deprecated and obsolete things) Even then we're not comparing straight programming experience, at this point we're basically the same level of general developers because of the diminishing returns of study. Its similar to when you work out, when you first start you know nothing, but after say 5 years of dedicated study of bodybuilding you've pretty much achieved much of the general knowledge on the subject you could have.
    1
  2296.  @RomanAvdeevX  ​ "I wrote that you have a maximum amount of 5–10 years of experience in your field" First off that's not how maximums work; secondly that video has no relation to my capacity to program software; thirdly its 12 years old, not 5-10; fourthly even having 10 years experience in software and lets say even just 5 years (to give you benefit of the doubt for your argument) in parsers and compilers is more then Torvalds has on a field he has only tangentially experienced when he's frustrated or something goes wrong with the build, even 5 years of dedicated study is more then 30 years of occasional observation.
    1
  2297.  @RomanAvdeevX  Oh and lastly we're not comparing life times nor time spent programming, after a certain point that's irrelevant anyway because once you pass a certain point time has diminishing returns and becomes functionally irrelevant. (in my experience in fact due to lack of knowledge of modern paradigms and adaptability the older guys tend to reside in deprecated and obsolete things) Even then we're not comparing straight programming experience, at this point we're basically the same level of general developers because of the diminishing returns of study. Its similar to when you work out, when you first start you know nothing, but after say 5 years of dedicated study of bodybuilding you've pretty much achieved much of the general knowledge on the subject you could have.
    1
  2298.  @gusvanwes6192  Call it whatever you want, I don't care, the facts are true, I've experienced enough of the cultists, you can lie all you want, I don't care, doesn't refute the facts. I know all sorts of programming languages, I do know a bit of Rust, and hate the language as a result, but doesn't matter, all because I despise the Rust community for their harassment of anyone who doesn't agree with them, you accuse me of being a cultist, its not like I can't recognize the issues with C and C++ and recite them routinely for you, or that I could perhaps recognize that Rust has good ideas done poorly, no it must not be based on truth, but purely based on some random's delusions in his head that I hate and am part of a cult, it couldn't be that what I said about Rust fanbois is true.
    1
  2299.  @mmstick  "No one is pushing you to do anything." Then you have no experience in software development. "You are simply making up excuses to be part of a hateful bandwagon of people who are afraid of Rust." There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, (there are other reasons too, but why bother with you) you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work, so none of my work and associates are even able to use it even if we wanted to. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is its own realm of nasty bigots. "Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on." And as you just demonstrated, outright bigotry. I literally don't care what language you use, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust if you want, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I actually happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other crap I have to deal with because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism and attack literally everyone that points them out. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, I don't believe the language is perfect, but it is still better then the alternatives that exist. The only potential replacement for C is C3 which is still in alpha.
    1
  2300.  @mmstick  "No one is pushing you to do anything." Then you have no experience in software development. "You are simply making up excuses to be part of a hateful bandwagon of people who are afraid of Rust." There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, (there are other reasons too, but why bother with you) you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work, so none of my work and associates are even able to use it even if we wanted to. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is its own realm of nasty bigots. "Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on." And as you just demonstrated, outright bigotry. I literally don't care what language you use, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust if you want, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I actually happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other crap I have to deal with because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism and attack literally everyone that points them out. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, I don't believe the language is perfect.
    1
  2301. ​ @mmstick  Then you have no experience in software development. "You are simply making up excuses to be part of a hateful bandwagon of people who are afraid of Rust." There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work, so none of my work nor associates are even able to use it even if we wanted to. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is its own realm of nasty bigots. "Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on." And as you just demonstrated, bigotry. I literally don't care what language you use, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust if you want, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I actually happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other crap I have to deal with because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism and attack literally everyone that points them out. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, neither of them are perfect.
    1
  2302.  @mmstick  Then you have no experience in software development. There's literally no reason to be afraid of Rust, there are things it can't do compared to C/C++ and it will simply fail to replace either even just off those reasons alone, you claiming that those cases don't matter is pure ignorance, I need them for my work. My disposition for the language is completely academic and logistical, the community is full of bigots. "Your choice of language speaks for itself. I know what corner of the Internet you hang out on." And as you just demonstrated, bigotry. I literally don't care, I don't care what choices you make, use Rust or don't, just don't tell me to use it when I neither can nor want to. I literally could not care less of anything in regards to Rust, I happen to find some of its ideas neat and useful, but that doesn't excuse all the other stuff because it merely exists. Rust developers are never willing to hear any criticism. I could name for you a million C/C++ problems, neither of them are perfect.
    1
  2303.  @phonewithoutquestion80  Not the first time I've seen this behavior from the Rust community unfortunately, what this guy has called me is light compared to some of the horrific things they've said of me when I simply said I won't or can't use it, its these type of folks that make some of us so frustrated with Rust's mere existence, I really wish trend people would have no access to the internet, maybe then I could simply not care about Rust.
    1
  2304.  @dirlrido2522  One dude keeps responding back to me bashing me for making a milquetoast criticism of Rust, he didn't even bother to actually respond to the comment on this thread in the first place, I'm only in two comment threads on this video, and one of them is my own puny comment, and its the same guy responding to me in both threads most of the time, I only respond when I get the notification for someone whose tagging me. And I only posted because what I said was simple fact, I've never heard worse insults in software development then from Rust nuts, and just because you only have positive things to say does not inherently mean your position is valid, nobody even bothers to address the KDE side of this post because Rust fans are obsessed. No one bother to notice I said literally the same thing about the KDE antis here, I associated them together in this case. I also made a point that many complaints regarding Gnome that isn't on its management tend to be overblown, this comment was about more then just Rust. Also how am I bashing random users? They all responded to me by calling me a cultist first, I only called those specific people cultists afterwards. I don't see how having a problem with Rust cultism is bashing random users.
    1
  2305.  @dirlrido2522  I literally am only in two threads here, I literally haven't joined any others here, and I only posted this comment and posted one comment responding to someone complaining about C elitism where all I said was I've seen more vitriol from Rust fanbois. That was it, literally everything else since has been me responding to people tagging me, often when they first called me names, like the dude who randomly joined this thread, I attacked literally no one, I aggressed no one, I didn't attack Rust users in general, I didn't even particularly attack Rust. (even if you consider the criticisms I did make an attack on Rust, I didn't even say anything about them until after people insisted that I was a C cultist, in which Rust became the core topic) How am I being the aggressor? I didn't even start calling anyone outright Rust cultists until after I was called a C cultist. And of the people who didn't attack me, I haven't said anything negative to them at all despite them pointing out something related to Rust. I even openly stated I think some of the ideas of Rust are neat but that I despise the implementation. Am I not allowed to post comments on Youtube that just happen to include my experiences of the Rust nuts? This comment wasn't even focused on Rust, it was the Rust nut that turned it into that.
    1
  2306. While musket may possibly be correct enough, this be more accurate to call a Gauss Cannon (or a Small-Arms/Shoulder-Fired Gauss Cannon) as cannons don't traditionally use rifling and it has no bearing on whether it does have rifling or not.
    1
  2307. She's not a pastor because foremost she's a women, the Bible explicitly tells us she can't be one. She's also not a Christian as she's a heretic.
    1
  2308. Justifying things by DRM or anti-cheat is honestly extremely stupid when they aren't the core reason things wouldn't be put on Linux. Corporate cucks really need to learn honesty and transparency goes a lot further then being a sniveling lying cuck. As an aside anti-cheat doesn't need to be intrusive or ring 0, its a brute force tactic so more reasonable or smarter solutions don't have to be considered cause a lot of people stupidly think clever solutions cost more money even though that too is a stupid conclusion. Valve's anti-cheat is one of several manners that should be used to deal with hacks and cheats, most of would be behaviors and management solutions though.
    1
  2309. I'm pro-life even for rape and incest cases btw, not all of us are that simple. Its life regardless of circumstance, the only case for exception is if you can know with certainty that the mother and child won't survive, if the mother only is to die then its up to the father and mother both to decide.
    1
  2310. First off, the government contract these trains, they never once audited these trains, neither did they perform any test for DRM behaviors, (which yes can be easily tested for) and neither did the government make any contracts that made DRM a violation of said contracts. What the goddamn hell do you think is gonna happen when you do literally nothing, if you're so stupid that you don't perform anything to actively counteract this behavior, no amount of law will fix this, Louis Rossman you are a completely fool, the laws will not fix this issue, the problem is that people like you don't put any time into solving the problem through free market processes because you are children and need government handholding, keep your stupid New York sensibilities out of this, free market forces can and has absolutely fix this if you idiots stop being lazy ass morons who also supports IP law. Your position is complete bullcrap, it violates individual rights, you don't have a right to be provided for, you don't have a right to be given a product, you only have a right to elect the product you wish to have, if none fit, the free market will solve it, you just don't understand crap about basic economics, socialist policies do not work.
    1
  2311. Antifa had a similar thing, except in that case they literally tried to burn down the capital and the president and his family had to be rushed into a bunker, this happened before Jan6 and nobody covered it.
    1
  2312. "a bit"
    1
  2313. Kyle is a hero, also if more people did this, we wouldn't have these riots.
    1
  2314. Min wage only exists for the fools who can't actually work in a competitive environment and perform valuable service. How about we give the free market some actual fucking reign in how it runs itself, government getting involved in anything never makes it better.
    1
  2315. I don't morally agree with denying service on such basis, but the government does not exist to enforce moral opinions, disparate impact law is why DEI runs rampant, why they these things happen, the CRA should be abolished, the reason these people don't assimilate is because of the CRA, it protects them. This is a terrible economic take from Asmon once again. I wish he'd watch Mentiswave, free association is the only way to live.
    1
  2316. A a protestant, a lot of modern miracles tend to be stupid shams.
    1
  2317. Or perhaps abolish the concept of intellectual (how can you own a concept, it has no ownership and no right as property because its not property) property altogether, patents being one of them.
    1
  2318. I still don't understand the blasting of Breitbart, they've got a more honest track record then most other networks, and they don't hide their bias. I don't see how that's bad. Also how is Trump trying to own CNN? His entire focus since late June has been the riots, before that it was the Wuhan Virus for 3 months.
    1
  2319.  @PetraleiTanyl  What? Compatibility would have no problems, and you wouldn't be able to forbid it because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in that case. Like a binary spawned that way would appear indistinguishable which is already the case in some instances.
    1
  2320.  @l-const  "Rust can export cdylib using the C ABI so what are you are talking about?" Its not inbuilt into the language for one, and it still not ABI stable. Dynamic linkage needs to be inbuilt else its useless.
    1
  2321. When was that? History has always been filled with this problem for historians.
    1
  2322. Asmon doesn't understand her argument at all, it has nothing to do with consent, also consent is subjective, you can't make an objective statement regarding consent, everything we claim of consent has been built off the backs of making certain presumptions of reality. Presumptions I might that is robbing from the Christian worldview already. If Asmon thinks Christians want Sharia law, he should be put in a mental institution, dear Lord is he a brainlet, anyone gonna tell him that the US was made originally as a Christian theocratic republic? What did John Adams say about this? "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams You know what moral and religious people he was referring to? Christians. There is no Constitution, Bill of Rights, there is no concept of rights at all without the Christian worldview, most especially the Protestants following the Reformation, Blackstone's ratio is a Christian ideal based on Genesis 19 explicitly, and expanded further by the founding fathers from 10 guilty should be let go for 1 innocent to 100 guilty should be let go for 1 innocent. The US is a Christian country, it is wholly incapable of supporting anything else. English Common Law, the foundation for American Constitutional Law, is based explicitly on the Levitical Law in the Old Testament, specifically Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. (Genesis is more implied) Precedent in law is a Godly standard from the Ancient Hebrew and Christian view of the world, it was not a concept shared by other societies, any precedent set in those societies can be ignored at the whim of the ruler, only the Ancient Hebrews and then the Christians said this was unacceptable.
    1
  2323. I think that just demonstrates how superior the Christian worldview is given that its less likely to respond with violence then even many agnostic and atheist views.
    1
  2324. Alec Baldwin shot a woman after harassing gun owners for years about it being evil to own guns and no civilian is capable to own a gun, said "every production needs a cop on set to deal with the guns" when his armorer for his production that he is the executive producer of said she was scared of loading the guns and had no idea what she was doing as a 24 year old. And there was no cop on the set of the shooting. He then threatened the director and cinematographer for seeking another take and then shot the gun hitting both of them and killing the cinematographer.
    1
  2325.  @georgeporgy7568  Democrats: We have a solution to crime Us: By actually going after the criminals? Democrats: No silly, by not reporting that it happens.
    1
  2326. The only reason OOP sucks is because VMs like dotnet and the JVM are built under an obsessive religion for it, OOP is a nice paradigm if it can be only one of the tools you use. But languages like C# and Java don't let you do that, and even if you get a dotnet or JVM language that hides doing that like F#, its still doing it in the bytecode, wasting performance and costing you in abstraction understanding. There is no zero cost abstractions.
    1
  2327. From the moral rationality of the inspiration of The Law, not our law but The Law of God, innocent until proven guilty is a subject protecting the innocent from false accusations being capable to even capably convict. According to The Law of God that Jesus reinforced in his trial with Pontius Pilate He refuses to respond to accusation of guilt because it is not up to to accused to demonstrate their innocence before they are without a doubt guilty. God establishes in that case that the guilty should never be compelled (in order to demonstrate innocence) nor required in any matter of law to speak until they are held so far as to be without a doubt as guilty. Any law that does not follow this rule is an immoral law and is convicted as tyrannical by Christ. So there should never be a case that an accused be forced to demonstrate innocence of the accusation. Big problem I have with this entire case is that by making the assumption that Amber can say things that, were they enacted upon her, they'd be criminal, she would be foremost required to demonstrate by The Law that case. Refusal in such a case should be an admission of guilty accusation, which we could suggest as being a much lesser crime compared to malicious accusation which I'll explain in a moment. (after all she made a criminal accusation she refuses to back up, in which case she should be punished without the need of a case) Now personally I don't care about libel and slander because the free market unimpeded can solve this issue without government wrecking its way in it, but if we're gonna have that then this is a clear case where she has to demonstrate his guilt first, and failing that all that needs to be proven is that the result of her actions were malicious. As for guilty accusation vs. malicious accusation (as I'm defining them, perhaps there are better terms) guilty accusation would be an accusation that is unsupported and convicted as an admission of guilt upon themselves before a case could be brought up, resulting in less punishment for attempt to harm the accused maliciously. A malicious accusation would be a failed attempt to convict someone on an accusation that does not follow through with "guilty without a doubt" and was by intent or result of intent made to maliciously harm someone by a false conviction, in that case they are to receive the exact worst punishment they expected on the defendant. That includes all the prosecution subjects, if they desired money, they all owe money, if they were seeking a death sentence, they are sentenced to death, if they were seeking reparative enslavement or community service, they service it to the defense or at behest of the defense. After all God had laid doctrine down that if an accuser can not be settled with and has gone out with false accusations they should be punished on the crime they expected to convict the accused.
    1
  2328. I wanna know how he made it past the 90s.
    1
  2329. Making a decent mechanical game when the majority of the draw is the narrative is not a win when you trash the narrative.
    1
  2330.  @christianoberlin1996  That's not how persecution complex works, (and I know very well thanks to experience of living in her crazy) insanity like that rarely associates with abuse, that aside she has a sister that shares none of those insanity traits and neither her father nor mother was abusive. Also dogs don't have emotions, they don't relate to this issue at all. That aside she only ended up insane in the later parts of her life, well after her 20s.
    1
  2331. tbh I would've liked to come but can't afford it, I would like to checkout the likely protests that'll popup in Pitman (I about an hour away) but I probably can't.
    1
  2332. And this is where I can say absolutely that the Romans were evil, as are all modern men same as the ancient men, all men are born in inherent and total depravity and by their own choice are ever incapable of escaping such. They are wholly and entirely irredeemable and if served the justice wage of their crimes, they would be given a much worse and longer lasting suffering punishment of eternity that doesn't even compare to being blood eagled or crucified, or burned alive or broiled in a metal casket. For all men are wholly wicked, sexually depraved, liar, thieves, adulterers, murders, even if you have merely on thought these things, thought of a desire to own someone else's property, hated someone for even a moment, desired someone's body for even a second, even considered a lie or a theft, these things themselves alone make you convicted. And that's before we consider where morality comes from, that being the Triune God of the Bible, for which we hate and hence all our evil spawns, it is because we are enemies of God who hate Him that we do such things and are incapable of good. The Romans were just another people who shared this trait with both the modern and ancient man. And this is where the good news stands, that all this evil has been voluntarily lifted from us by He who defines what all moral principle. It is by a common grace restraining our hearts by the Imago Dei that we have any shared moral principle at all and its why we can even consider anything even in our depravity immoral. Without this however there is no immorality except that which would be moral for good shall be made evil and evil shall be made good. It is by the sacrifice of Christ that evil is washed from any of the wicked, that they may receive redemption. But it is by death that one is brought to life, morality does not come by a desire of life, but it comes by the devotion to love that produces hope in the promise, that which is known true but not yet given, which is what faith is. That is what morality is, this means that even should one die in the redemption it not necessarily be immoral should he be so saved, for he was always immoral, but by God he becomes capable of a moral redemption and thus is washed of his wickedness. The seeking to preserve life then becomes a byproduct of morality, by Christ however it is not the foremost goal, it merely is a desire for the sake of the goal.
    1
  2333. This just sounds like a global issue, especially among millennials and zoomers, I can't think of a single westernized country that doesn't suffer from this problem (granted Japan is one of the worst off, but literally none of the countries in Europe or the Americas have a sustainable fertility rate and their dating metrics are just as bad) from maybe the steppe countries in Central Asia, but of the countries that have a concept of "dating" there isn't a single country otherwise that maintains a functional "dating culture". Kinda makes you wonder if arranged marriages were the primary solution for a reason.
    1
  2334. Queen Victoria lived during the "first wave" and she openly called it out as toxic and degenerate. And none of them were ever able to criticize her for it.
    1
  2335. To be honest Diogenes is a bad example of humility or the lack of vanity because he had no self-respect or dignity. Soloman found this out and had it recorded in the OT "I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." - Ecclesiastes 1:14 It should be noted that Soloman later betrayed this sentiment and went out to marry hordes of women, however God did give him wisdom beyond any other man of life. This principle, while rarely followed by few, least before Christ, was spoken heavily in the Bible, it continuously speaks about this subject. "For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" - 1 Corinthians 4:7 In this manner I say Diogenes wasn't a genius nor a great man, he merely discovered one singular truth and became obsessed in following it. Whether he did all that is said of him, all the things claimed make him a fool in his own mind. This is what I'd say is the flaw of philosophy, taking itself more seriously then its worth paying.
    1
  2336. Its not the governments job to regulate business, that's a legitimate role of government. If you are fooled by sweet poison, you are the one that must pay the price, its a pity but don't be a fool and you won't be fooled, don't drink sweet poison and you will not be poisoned.
    1
  2337. Asmon probably should also pay attention to our own language as well, because these nutjobs are doing the same thing and trying to force everyone to comply, that's what the whole they/them bullcrap is about, it is actually legitimately bad English, it ruins the capacity to understand the subject of the pronoun, and it most certainly is not valid for a qualifying a specific individual, that's not its purpose.
    1
  2338. Seems like another region where the declaration "God has authority over all things" applies.
    1
  2339.  @valentinfeusi63  Ancoms empower the tankies by pushing for dumb ideas that were specifically designed to give the tankies power through deception, coercion, and manipulation. Ancoms are the useful idiots, and that's the point, often unwittingly openly handing all the power over to the tankies and yet they'll not even be intelligent enough to see this when those people get power and come to kill them off.
    1
  2340.  @arcioko2142  There has never been a single organization without hierarchy, neither principal nor ideals, nor even existence itself can itself reside without them, for the very nature of reality itself requires discrimination between itself, and this itself inherently makes hierarchies a requirement for reality, just as lions, bears, insects, lobsters, trees, and even bacteria retain conceptual hierarchy, so too does man, and he can never get rid of such. Man is not God, he has no authority over reality, merely that he resides in it. All moral systems, even the corrupt ones, are built on hierarchy, reason is hierarchy. If you can't even understand these basic facts then you don't even have enough intelligence to consider reasoning with because your delusions make everything you say worthless.
    1
  2341.  @arcioko2142  There has never been a single organization without hierarchy, neither principal nor ideals, nor even existence itself can itself reside without them, for the very nature of reality itself requires distinguishing between itself, and this itself inherently makes hierarchies a requirement for reality, just as lions, bears, insects, lobsters, trees, and even bacteria retain conceptual hierarchy, so too does man, and he can never get rid of such. Man is not God, he has no authority over reality, merely that he resides in it. All ethical systems, even the corrupt ones, are built on hierarchy, reason is hierarchy. If you can't even understand these basic facts then you don't even have enough intelligence to consider reasoning with because your delusions make everything you say worthless.
    1
  2342.  @arcioko2142  .
    1
  2343.  @Patson20  I doubt term limits on SCOTUS would be. I've never seen anyone actually argue for it.
    1
  2344.  @Patson20  The other issue is it degenerates the conservative nature of the court, every other branch already has an issue of anti-conservatism because of democracy issues, and it has already badly afflicted the courts with numerous judges now being opposed to any constitutionalist arguments, term limits on the court would turn it into a predictable puppet of the executive branch, as you'll always know when members of the court will be forced to resign and you'll be able to plan to replace them. Doesn't help the case that Trump happened to put in a bunch of younger justices which gives a higher chance for them to stick around beyond hypothetical term limit.
    1
  2345. "It needs that public financing..." So I imagined the last 250 years of technology advancement from private industry? (much of which didn't originally show much more then possible potential payout that wasn't ensured to pan out) Does anyone realize that this is kind of a strawman argument? Like free market capitalism is really good at advancing technology forward, and while it generally functions on the principle of making money research, there are two issues with saying that wouldn't lead to advancements like fusion energy: 1) any research that has the potential to provide huge (usually consistent enough) payouts is basically guaranteed to go as far as it possibly can 2) even in the case that doesn't happen or there is no financial incentive goal, with a free market people are able to develop their own labs for researching practically general worthless science, the only difference is its not funded by tax and the application of force. Also in the case of large reduction or utter absolution of taxes (and probably the removal of regulation) this would go from being somewhat common to constantly guaranteed. Why do people always have to strawman the free market into government pockets?
    1
  2346. Did you know, even before the Yemen civil war and all the Yemen chaos, they had practically no regulation on firearm ownership, you could own fully automatics with less government overreach then rifles in Texas. Also happened to be the second most armed populace behind the US, apparently now in Yemen you could easily purchase even explosives.
    1
  2347. The moral clearly is clear backblast and only use low grade explosive for your guns.
    1
  2348. The execution is how you can know that the Mexicans involved had no regard for the preservation of life, (I can't speak to the civil war beforehand but I can say you are not universally granted justification to execute governance even in wartime law) there is no point to killing someone you oust of power, it doesn't matter if someone was brought over to take over the country, unless they are responsible for the death of innocence in peacetime, there is no suitable case for execution, and he can't logically have been committing treason unless he was a recognized Mexican Citizen, in which case his trial shouldn't have included the death penalty for this anyway. Wartime is no justification for a lack of justice, I pray that those who sought such things repented of their acts, but given everything I have my doubts, its uncommon for post-war actors to seek forgiveness, they usually just carry the shame and guilt. (and the Catholicism is already bad enough with ignoring the forgiveness for guilt and shame)
    1
  2349. ​ @periclesperez103  You are not given just cause to kill for an idea, that gives credence to kill for opposing politics and disagreements alone, (which ironically makes the reformists and any opposer to violence as hypocrites) and not even to say all the murderers and psychopaths that justifies.
    1
  2350. Would've been easier to ask this very simple question: By what standard?
    1
  2351. She's not a Christian anyway, women can't be pastors, someone who refuses to the follow the rulebook doesn't get to claim allegiance to the principal of the rulebook.
    1
  2352. My issue with Objectivism is a moralistic one, its great that it appears to help you (and I can't really say whether its a cult in the fanatic sense , mayhaps just be those are the internet weirdos) but I find, aside from Ayn Rand's permitance of government interventionism and her opposition to Noblesse Oblige, that her moral framework fails to address ego and accosts the Christian foundation that it is in part built upon. There is no Objectivism except for what has been first founded in a Christian moral framework. A Christian has a hierarchy of responsibility that is completely voluntary, the self then the nuclear family then the larger family then the friends then the neighborhood then the community then the region then the nation, so on and so forth. One should not be expected to sacrifice beyond their means and especially not put themselves in the dirt for little gain. Anyone who sees their acts of altruism as an obligation will be condemned just the same, if you do not wish to perform such acts, don't. That should just as well apply to those who aren't Christians but it is advice from a Christian. Do righteousness as desired, oppose your own wickedness regardless of desire, that's all I'd advise of you. Rest and heal so that you may fulfill your purpose. It is part Torah for man to do "no work" one a week, man is given his time to work and his time to rest, being of a healthy mind is knowing when the right time for either is. Prayer also services well this time of rest, but that's because its deepening the relationship with God. Anyway hope for the best, I disagree with you a lot more often as of late and I find you make categorical mistakes regularly now but I definitely got profit out of what you said and have been grateful to the things you've discovered. I hope the best for you and that when you do return to videos you'll be excited and temper yourself from pushing too much.
    1
  2353. I always wondered why if they're gonna make helical mags why they don't have a mechanic to release the the crank under a certain amount of tension to prevent breakage, I know there's mechanical manners to do it, be more expensive to manufacture, but so is a damn helical mag in the first place, it idiot proofs the grunt equipment, obviously in not being simple it still doesn't work in high debris environments but that's never really the biggest concern, it can still be useful for armor and vehicle operators at least.
    1
  2354. Not to mention being traditional requires friends and family evaluating the relationship and taking responsibility for picking a bad man (especially one she had sex outside of wedlock with) so to call her stupid fling shotgun marriage traditional is like calling the Soviet Union the Libertarian paradise.
    1
  2355. Anyone gonna mention you can pass unique_ptr by reference? Unless you need raw pointer behavior too, with unique_ptr you should prefer passing a unique pointer by reference, if you need nullability otherwise use raw pointers, else use references.
    1
  2356. I find it extremely odd that it feels like I'm part of the few Christian groups (on the internet at least) that actually get into the nasty parts of the Bible that God is unapologetic about, as if people have become to cushy and sheltered from reality that when something even speaks about it they get hyper offended.
    1
  2357. I don't agree that there is a right to repair, (the only right in regards to business is to freely operate a business and own property that doesn't infringe inherent divine rights) but I do agree with the principle to repair, where a company should be praised and uplifted for implementing repairable features for their products. (market rewards, not legislative control) Though it be better to standardize interchangeable hardware and software for specific purposes and sell the results of said standards, non-standard parts and systems should only exist for one-off or experimental tech. This is a valid case for suckless/Unix principles, you do one simple thing well, effectively, and efficiently, and nothing more, don't add to existing things, build off its basis separately. If you can't build off it separately, add a simplified manner to build off it separately. (yes I know its not fully suckless, that's mostly Unix, but you should aim to be suckless but at minimum be Unix)
    1
  2358. We gamers truly are the most oppressed minority :P
    1
  2359. Another tangential point by the way is that its easier to design a game with high difficulty in mind then lower difficulty, a high difficulty games need less shortcuts to make the player feel good because the difficulty itself can and often does excuse the frustrations you can have, so long as it doesn't make it unbearable and unplayable, and too it is much easier to design a game that's difficult and tone it down then it is to design a game to be easy and tone it up. Removing difficulty is easier and more reliable then adding it after the fact.
    1
  2360. He should've had a prompt execution, God demands it, if execution is not made, may God have mercy on our souls.
    1
  2361. Interesting idea, but an IPad seems a bit expensive, two decent screens and cameras would probably be able to do the same..
    1
  2362.  @timtabutops  Still seems too expensive and risky to take two iPads out in public just to do that, those things are not very rugged or durable, and its super easy to pawn them off. Its not really that hard to do it with more basic equipment so long as you have two cameras and flat displays. Not even to mention you need to walk around with a wifi hotspot on you.
    1
  2363. Economically, the monopoly strategy is short term and assumes that nobody will be willing to compete when the price jumps back up, which can only be assumed in a corporate world, but falls apart when examined over a period of decades.
    1
  2364. Simple refutation against Asmon's economic claim at around 37:00 is that WoW's economy is a zero-sum game, real world economics is not a zero-sum game, you cannot generate wealth in WoW, as a result rigging the market is trivial because anyone who does not have has to approach someone who does have, competition cannot exist in these economies, the only wealth generation in WoW are finite and devised by the the developers, there is no independent innovation in products and services. And player services don't really exist as a mass market system in WoW at all, you don't contract people out, also there is no concept of reputation in most MMORPGs nor are you punished by social ostracization for bad market practices, in a real world free market, if you do something wrong in the market, you become a social pariah which means even just buying food becomes difficult, you very well could starve in a free market this way. Also economic interactions are also regulated foremost by the game, systems of trade and markets are not managed completely by players either.
    1
  2365. I agree with the bloat problem, but dear God why does everything have to be rust, its such an annoying language, some ideas are nice, but why couldn't someone just make a C++-like language with the nice features of rust, postfix type specifiers, traits, and generics are so annoying in Rust. (Generics are also a dumb solution to the C++ template error problem, concepts are an old id, only Java really has an excuse to use generics, just make a more robust version of that)
    1
  2366.  @mskiptr  You do know that generics are one form of parametric polymorphism right? Templates aren't really defined just by that, even though that was its purpose, its not even remotely the only thing it does. But they're defined as generics in Rust (and by technical definition) and in Rust they're functionally equal to generics found in every other language which has them. The variable generics act like type level constants, however they don't function in any respect like template constants in C++. And you can't specialize them or control them. (or least like in C++, I think I saw a few things about trying to implement a type of specialization, but its utterly neutered and there are a lot of things you can't do with it last I checked, and last I checked it was experimental and unstable)
    1
  2367. Prepare, be armed, if they're gonna start a fight they won't last long.
    1
  2368. In the US Constitution we don't have the right to ban it, however because we've already infringed the Constitution to the point that it is useless with copyright and trademark, gun regulations, drug regulations/bans, and the Patriot Act, and there are so many others, I say this argument has been made null and void. If we were upholding the Constitution principally I'd say pr0n shouldn't be banned, however because of our complete invalidation of the Constitution I say all rules regarding such are void and thus the only choice we have left is moralism, and moralism says we do ban it. Either we stick to the Constitution consistently and entirely or we abolish it and stick to some form of moralism, we need a idealistic ruleset to follow. This is one of the cases that separates me from the Libertarians, in an idealistic USA I'd say we shouldn't ban it, (tho I say its ruined both me and many other men and women) but its too late, we've already established we can ban for moralism, until we repeal every infringement of the Constitution absolutely, we act without as though it doesn't establish any rules on such laws.
    1
  2369. If they cared, they'd put money specifically into private schools and would sponsor people to get into them, not public schools, which are trash.
    1
  2370. A man right about many things is incorrect about the problem, technology being corrupted to destroy nature is merely a symptom of a wider problem and this is not the first time such things have happened, it is merely the latest and greatest period so far. (that we know of) The problem is the nature of man itself which is insidious, evil, corrupted, wicked, and destructive, it seeks nothing good and only wishes to do evil, it has no good intention for it is incapable of its own volition to make a choice of righteous or just act. (for which Ted has demonstrated himself for he is not a character of decent moral standing) In these things, it is mankind who has always been the problem, not that he is a problem that can be removed for that never produces good, but he is a problem because he is corrupted and corruptive to all he touches when he lacks a objective standard above himself, for when he values a higher purpose only then do such things become resolved but he is incapable of himself to do such this. For then what is to give us justification in our own flesh to have us resolve this? It is Christ, the Son of God, Jesus who hath sacrificed Himself for all those who would believe in Him. It is by Him that science and technology as we can ever understand of it that was gifted to us for the sake, originally, of understanding Him. Without Christ there be no reason to reason about the world in discovery, for the world itself is not to be understood and for which being understood achieves nothing of value. We know of these things for we seek purpose and meaning to our lives but for which there is none unless we knew what it is we are called to do, we worship but understand not why. This is in fact a suppression of the truth, for we know this truth in our hearts but we are unwilling to be convicted by it out of fear and hatred and thus drive ourselves insane against our Maker. This is a source of many evils, it is the source of ravenous opposition to God and the source of ravenous denial under the guise of ignorance. (whether it be conscious or not, it is known) All of Creation is the evidence of the Creator itself, as it cries out for Him, it demonstrates and speaks to His Glory, it is for that reason it was ever to be studied, for it demonstrates His Nature that we may build a relationship better with Him. But due the evolution of Lucifer's system accept by the sons of wickedness and the ignorant alike, atheism was given a rise, an ideology of faith that claims to reject faith and yet claims to retain the reasons for needing to understand the world for which the faith itself justified. It is such a strange idea, that one should desire to know and solve the world's problems but rejects a necessity in itself to do such a thing. That is what the system bred, starting in part with the creation of public schooling, for it separated the work that the mother must give to her children to raise them properly, and for the father to teach them with her properly. Without a mother taking care of her children and the house, she lost much purpose, with the expansion of schooling her children were robbed from her and she was made a practical childless widow by the grueling work that her children were no longer able to perform in assisting her. Then came the time when tooling made her job easy and she no longer had any purpose at home anymore and all of sudden she got ideas, despising her husband and children for the things they did, her children no longer being under her authority either, now she had little reason to live in this world for her husband did not care nor love her and her children no longer looked up to her. In this she was driven to find another meaning, and this is feminism, the growth of an rampantly dangerous ideology that promotes female domination over men (whether it claims otherwise, it despises man's authority and claims itself to be higher, violating God's order) and thus she entered the workforce and justified voting, but for such things which she is rather incapable to manage well for she can not even manage her own house. It is just as much the man's fault as it is the woman's but she is to blame for the thoughts that enter her head without regulation that bring her utter destruction. By all this came the many mentalities that have been produced today, while not all spawned from feminism, Marxism being the most relevant of this day, it is thanks to feminism that it has been given new life, for with feminism opened the door to the destruction of irrefutable sexual differences declared and praised by society that ever grows towards a progress of the anti-sex mentality. First came the destruction of feminine roles in society, (women can be and vote for leaders, and get jobs in society with men) then came the destruction of female submissiveness, (you will find single motherhood here) then came the destruction of femininity in whole, (abortion acceptance and motherhood are erased here) which opened the door to the first destructive act of homosexual social acceptance which opens the door to all forms of degeneracy which also includes transgender/transsexual mentality, which is itself an insanity that encroaches only further as it can never be sated. This is why you will notice that mankind ever moves towards "progress" madly without regulation even when we know the chaos it brings, some may be left but those who drive society are always held in the fold for they are the ones put into such positions.
    1
  2371. There is no "Trump" to stop these things and neither would a "Desantis" correct it, even perhaps they step on the brakes for a time, they don't disengage the car heading for the cliff, for they do not know the problem's root and believe in the root problem as if it were a religion still. Who amongst such figures has rejected feminism saying "women are to always be under the authority of a man, they should have no leadership over men"? None for they do not share good moral truths that would conflict with society who is ever pushing us towards this chaotic end. Would you wish for it to end you must be willing to abandon the notion that women and men should be treated as equal in all but moral value, women are to be treated as more precious, that they should be given more delicate consideration, men should provide a defense and stand not by the side of women but in front of their women that they should defend, guide, and love them. This does not say to make women a slave, nor does it say women are to be treated harshly nor in abuse, nor does it say to treat them as though they must be well sheltered from reality in its entirety, no these are not loving ways for which I am being guided to say. Instead what I say to you men is that in marriage that you give yourself in body as ownership to her as she will do to you, and in doing so you guide her away from wrong and wicked ways, that you inform her while you stand beside her so that she may not be tempted nor deceived. In this we must be better then Adam that we do not let our wives instruct us in what we must do but that we listen and reason for what she says whether it is a good idea, do not apologize for a lack of wrongs done to her, do not appease her for things that she is not correct on and do not conform to her instructions but reason what she requests. For she must request and respect you, she is not to make demands but must understand that she is under you, and you must understand that you are over her for her sake, so with this know that you must treat her lovingly and with a respect, do not be harsh that she would become discouraged or spiteful but treat her kindly and well. Know that you are more responsible then her for you have an authority over her for her sake so you must respect this authority you have been given. In all this she should be brought back as the wife to take care of the home and children and to promote and partially represent your family among the community, the children are not to be away from the house but to be in it under instruction, nor by a screen nor by a school but by the mother herself. If any education be necessary the mother foremost should be taught to instruct her children, not for the children to be forced upon by such a system for what instruction can a child receive if not by their parent? None for no other authority comes before a parent. In time the children will be given education, instruction, and introduction to the wider world by their father under experience, and through all this they need be taught the necessary skills by the parents to live. By this children will be promoted and the good life will become prominent among the elect so that they may become elect earlier and those not of the elect will benefit by being under a much familiar instruction that they should almost be like the elect. This would breed a healing in society and overthrow the corrupt Republicanism (not Republicans for which themselves are corrupt but I do not speak of the party when I say this) in part. (though not completely for a republican government may only be saved in blood and fire by its expedient execution) In all these things it will be found the right way to have society and all the problems of poverty, crime, and degeneracy would not be solved but greatly reduced to a degree regulated by moral men socially and not by government. For it is not the authority of the government but of the community itself. The first part however is from the men and women that they adhere to these practices, not that I say they would benefit well without God but should they fail ever to love God they may be less judged in this life. (however I warn not in the coming life, abandon everything to serve Christ else you will face a fate worse then Hell) I do not say this for the sake of saving society for I care not whether it lives or dies, I say this for the sake of your election that you may be brought to Christ and should that not be found, that you would in the least recognize Christ's instruction to you that you follow it well enough that perhaps one that it should be found in you. It is the only way to save the lives of this world from too much more of the horror.
    1
  2372. "as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” - Romans 3:10-18
    1
  2373. Also Asmon doesn't know crap about American history. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams That moral and religious people John Adams is talking about is Christians.
    1
  2374. ​ @raktimamchiforthe4thtime445  This is still self-refuting, either life isn't worth the suffering and thus you must cease yourself or life is worth it and thus you can't be anti-natalist.
    1
  2375. This feels like one of those cases of way more reckless endangerment then necessary, the ricochet was rather obviously gonna become unpredictable if the round didn't dissipate all its energy. Otherwise enjoyed tho.
    1
  2376.  @ps5hasnogames55  I severely doubt its Brodie doing it, you have been excessively toxic given how you speak so its probably Youtube smashing you for your attitude. Besides you've been factually, technically, and otherwise objectively wrong with all your reasoning and your argumentation stands on literal falsities and fallacies, it in the least deserves to be deleted by you for both how rude it is and for how ignorant it is. You don't even seem to remotely understand the concept of bloat and don't seem to understand even a minute detail of software development. You don't even have the state of mind to consider the impact of what you've said because by extraction you will inevitable suffer at the hands of your exact philosophy because there will always be a day where you must rely on software that's operating on what you called "bloat" when it does not remotely impact desktop users negatively at goddamn all. You likely already have, it is after all the reason Linux is so massively unstable, if you've been using Linux for even just 4 years you should've already experienced this pain on anything that isn't Debian.
    1
  2377. Also means that without a complete breakdown in the society, there is probably nothing that will otherwise prevent a Kamala-like presidency, Trump will simply be a stop gap for later collapse.
    1
  2378. Matt Walsh is pretty milquetoast even still.
    1
  2379. To be fair, Russians have this weird adherence to the idea of a "Russian Empire" no matter who it is, so while the commies not being nearly as sure on killing Slavs as the Germans was definitely a core contribution, I don't think its the only case here, even when the non-Russian Slavs like the Poles were fighting Russia in the early 1920s, many folks of White Russia joined with the Red Army if only so to preserve "a Russian Empire" even if it was crap. It seems to me just as much that Russians aren't very smart in who they serve either.
    1
  2380.  @HarmKaban  Oh so you'll actually refute me (despite the fact that over half the things I've said are from factual sources that I can pull up if you want, like Stalin's genocide of "non-Russian" Russians, Stalin's funny enough lack of actually being Russian, the line of the Romanov post-Elizabeth line being functionally indistinguishable from the Russian line by at least the grandchildren, or the fact that Russians are hyper-traditionalist and quite a superstitious people, especially in the 1920s?) or you'll just claim I'm wrong, say "I shouldn't have to refute you because you're so obviously wrong I can call you stupid and everyone will believe me", given your unsubstantiated claim and lack of refutation, I can only assume you love to partake in fallacies and can't actually argue.
    1
  2381. Unfortunately animal rehabs are full of this evil and toxic behavior, the "competition" for animal rehab charities has them constantly trying to turn the competition into killers just to stunt the donations and funding.
    1
  2382. tbh, still doesn't explain why not keep subscriptions as they were, there was no reason to change that.
    1
  2383. Still distrusting of the official story, too many things are fishy and it happened too perfectly at just the right time.
    1
  2384. Big thing about art in general is 90% of "high class self-important artists" are still pretty selective and exclusive about their subjective opinions about art, I have an objective standard for the concept of art and a ruleset for how I consider good art (which is a binary not a spectrum) so there is a consistent and not stupid manner to do all this, but when you devise a manner for support subjectivist and relativistic views of art like "view of the beholder" and the crap that makes modern art don't be stupid and surprised when you sensibilities of what is and is not art is violated by something you don't want to believe is art. Where were this morons for post-modern art? The rules don't get to apply only when you feel offended, either you have a standard that always applies or there is no standard.
    1
  2385. Maybe its the language and cultural barrier, but it kinda feels like a very weak message in regards to the church, too much hope put into worldly institutions and worldly thinking. This is not how a man of Christ should be speaking about Him. Yes, we do hope for these many good things to come about in our works, but not by our works, it is not by our works that nations are saved and people are reborn. Works without faith is also dead, many people misunderstand Luke in what he is saying in "faith without works is dead" as it already precursors that works without faith is dead. We do not hope for the nations to be saved, we do not hope for a better society or a cleaner society. We do not speak of these things as hopes because if they are within God's providence they will happen but if they are not they shall not. "He makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away. " - Job 12:23 "Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” - John 18:36 I'm not very sure that he's emphasizing the worthlessness of man and the greatness and mercy of Christ. Most especially since he points to the Apostles as being the ones to change the world, maybe that's poor translation or poor cultural understanding or such but if that was a perfect English understanding being translated that I warn makes for very horrible theology. They would be horrified if that was an accurate and proper understanding of what was said. Again I'm assuming that the translation is both accurate to both what is being literally said and being understood to an English speaker. I am fully willing to grant that I could be wrong in understanding him but what I do know is nothing here speaks about a hardline necessity of Jesus Christ, it really appears to have little Sola Fide in the message said here. And yeah, there isn't supposed to be quarrel in the church but if you are teaching unsound or what appears to be unsound doctrine it needs to be corrected and rebuked. (or otherwise explained) Men of Christ can not be silent if the doctrine isn't solid and proper, out of love for those who are or could be perishing and those who may be saved.
    1
  2386.  @ftniceberg874  Yeah, I would be pretty certain that he wouldn't deal with any cops had he been afronting the law.
    1
  2387. The asshats that got rid of the death penalty are absolutely going to be in hell with the bastards who let this happen, in the same suffering as these bastards. God's wrath is only so patient.
    1
  2388. TIK, I think you should look into Dualism, Gnosticism is a spawn of the Dualistic religion, for which has infected and spawned most especially from the East Asian religions, it seems to me Confucianism is a Dualist religion of this like that originated least in part in some pagan religion that was mostly overtaken by Dualist doctrine.
    1
  2389. Minimum wage is a scam, this proves it and yet you try to spin it as exploitation when they freely choose to have the wage and the business freely choose to give the wage. Minimum wage is a direct violation of basic property rights and liberty, it prevents market competition and harms the employment of less experienced workers, its an intentional diminishing of the supply of workers inflating the market and destroying low experience employment, they can't be paid less for being worth less which is a violation of the free market. This proves the idea is dumb and you are just too economically illiterate to notice how clearly it demonstrates it. And no I don't agree with the alien invasion, get them out, but just because they should all be kicked out does not mean the black market surrounding them wasn't justified by stupid economic policy, you don't have a right to get/keep a job or have a "living/fair" wage, to disagree is a violation of the economics of Adam Smith and literally every American Founder who directly addressed these type of issues explicitly.
    1
  2390. You know the funny thing is this will feed buyer's remorse for their vehicles and push them to other car dealers and manufacturers, the biggest deal for car companies is buyers remorse, where they need to justify buying the car, the regular car commercial was more designed for that buyer's remorse then to sell the car, this means they might be able to manipulate to the investors and such that their sales are up from this and thus continue it. (the ESG subsidy will also subsidize the cost thus they can hide the lose in profit behind the ESG claiming they made profit from it) The basic premise is they might very well have an uptick in dealer refunds from this, but they'll actually be capable to hide it and not go broke by going woke. This is the accounting manipulation the ESG can do in order to ensure that going woke doesn't necessarily goes broke, the ESG score is a literal conspiracy to promote social justice agenda without costing the investors, we need to exterminate the source of the ESG score before we can fix society and nobody is willing to exterminate the problem.
    1
  2391. Making a competent safe Step 1: DON'T GIVE IT A UNIVERSAL MASTERCODE! Step 2: Get completely screwed because you didn't listen to step 1.
    1
  2392. Its socialism, and its killed more people then any other ideology combined.
    1
  2393. Its almost like gun control doesn't work, I wonder who said that?
    1
  2394. Hans-Herman Hoppes explains it in Democracy: The God That Failed.
    1
  2395.  @captaincanada5139  "Trump’s ex-wife Ivana claimed in 1990 that he kept a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, in his bedside cabinet." Trump admits to having the book, but he doesn't admit to having it by his bedside, Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and the Vanity interview took that claim from her lawyer who was arguing for her divorce. Regardless I really couldn't care less about simply having a book of speeches, if that made him a Nazi, then every historian and 85% of world leaders are one, Mein Kampf is still a very widely sold book, doesn't make those who buy it a Nazi.
    1
  2396.  @captaincanada5139  If you refuse to admit that Hitler could've done anything good then you're irrational and a fool, was the expansion of the Autobahn bad? Was the Volkswagen bad? (personally I disagree with both, but I can't say they were bad by any objective metric) Like even Satan accomplished good works for the sake of God, even when he did not wish to, it is necessary to recognize that even evil can do good things, else you'll never even be able to recognize the evil within one's self, that's a cult brainwashing tactic, you're otherwise indistinguishable from the evil you complain about. Only through honest and genuine examination of history can we oppose the wickedness of the past. And that's before I take into account things used for bad that were good, like the development of the MG-42 which became the basis for almost every LMG since.
    1
  2397.  @captaincanada5139  Plenty of innocuous things are "Hitler quotes" because translations can be twisted to all sorts of shapes, being wrong and evil in speech is context dependent, (and plenty of things that Hitler said devoid of their context when he said them is not inherently evil) you are required to prove that Trump shared ideology with Nazis, mere "dogwhistles" are completely irrelevant because they aren't evidence of intent nor outlook, they are mere claims. You don't even try to presume good faith of the opposition, that anyone you disagree with could have made mistakes, everyone has to be entirely intending to do things that in your own opinion look bad. Not that you can even prove your opinion, you see these paranoid dogwhistles and it sends you into a schizophrenic rage.
    1
  2398. Honestly I don't think she should be warned on the simple basis that she is laying her own bed, you are responsible for your stupidity, degenerates will get paid their wages.
    1
  2399. I still think escapism is weakness, its the exact reason the progressives were able to take over the culture and pull this shit, apathy and escapism are still poisons.
    1
  2400. And this is why chrome is trash, not the first time they killed something everyone wanted because of corporate bullcrap, they do it all the time and care nothing for the consumers, Firefox has its stupid problems, but God least they actually act like a FOSS project.
    1
  2401. It is unfortunate that he completely disregards that Comte's definition of altruism that he uses would inherently make Christianity anti-altruistic which would undermine his dig at true Christian faith, it does work for Catholicism and works salvation churches though.
    1
  2402. Its almost like the ability to vote was itself the problem and this is merely the side effect, but that's just a theory.
    1
  2403. tbh throwing the original theme away and it left out the actual techno-punk noir atmosphere, I see it at best as worthless, especially when the original exist.
    1
  2404. Just to point out this was predicted by the regard of the developer of government devised public schooling, it was warned that it would become an indoctrination center where the Christian moral values will be annihilated and other-think will be exterminated in order to service the governing bodies propaganda. A good example is how they treated Malcom X who was excessively violent but even in the 1st grade we were taught that he was indistinguishable from MLK Jr. or how about McCarthyism where he was talking about all the communist plants and infiltrators both in the government and its bodies or other social bodies like school, entertainment, and news, only for him to be absolutely proven right and to not even have a conviction that harmed anyone who wasn't proven to be paid off by the USSR and China, he was proven right and every school I've ever been too called McCarthy a nutcase even though he predates the Cold War fears too, he didn't witch hunt anyone.
    1
  2405. Looking at his track record and his logic, and the source of all our modern historical interpretations surrounding Hitler's "insanity" (Halder) and the fact that source also has a massive record of successful manipulations, seems a bit one sided tbh.
    1
  2406. As Sun Tzu once said "All warfare is based"...Sun Tzu - martincitopants
    1
  2407. tbh, it be smart to intentionally put a blank in the glock, lift it up as you're giving your spiel and then fire it to get attention, and for a moment act like its unintentional.
    1
  2408.  @RGSMANIA  You're logically inconsistent by claiming there is a line, either you argue its not a life in which case you can't have a line, or you argue it is and the line is conception, there is no in between. The lefties are just following the logically (or more accurately hedonistically) valid position.
    1
  2409.  @shrekt864  Leviticus 18:21 and Psalm 139:13-14
    1
  2410.  @Oicurmtoyoy  In this specific case it would refer explicitly to the relations between women as unnatural, as far as I'm aware that specific text doesn't explicitly prohibit bestiality, (Paul has little reason say much on that here cause it was not as commonly considered) it could be implied but it wouldn't be the first thought of a Greek reader. As for what its specifically saying, Romans 1:26 and 27 are the literal only time χρῆσιν (chrēsin) shows up in Scripture in that form, and in that specific form it only refers to the use of a woman for sex.
    1
  2411.  @Oicurmtoyoy  As for what its specifically saying, Romans 1:26 and 27 are the literal only time χρῆσιν (chrēsin) shows up in Scripture in that form, and in that specific form it only refers to the use of a woman for sex.
    1
  2412.  @txdmsk  Most people don't realize that in Ancient Hebrew, a rule applied to men also meant it was equally applied to women, it would've been expected that if women were caught doing such a thing according to Torah they were to be stoned just the same. This aside Ancient Hebrew almost never distinguishes women in general, much of the Torah and even the Tanakh don't say anything about women at all except in cases where it would make no sense for the sentence to say men (like the prohibition on harming a pregnant woman's child at the cost of your own life in Exodus 21:22-25) it is thus otherwise presumed to mean man and woman. Every mention of the man and woman leaving their parents house and becoming one flesh is also an explicitly prohibition for anyone who knew Ancient Hebrew (as it means anyone who does not do this will die) but I don't mention it because it requires an explanation of Ancient Hebrew. If you read the Torah and see an instruction of the Law that says men, unless the specific rule would make no sense to apply to women as well it would also mean women, like most of the prohibitions on thievery and how its resolved specifically use the term man but the Law itself would apply equally to women, the same of the sexual sins.
    1
  2413.  @txdmsk  @txdmsk Most people don't realize that in Ancient Hebrew, a rule applied to men also meant it was equally applied to women, it would've been expected that if women were caught doing such a thing according to Torah they were to be stoned just the same.
    1
  2414.  @txdmsk  If you read the Torah and see an instruction of the Law that says men, unless the specific rule would make no sense to apply to women as well it would also mean women, like most of the prohibitions on thievery and how its resolved specifically use the term man but the Law itself would apply equally to women, the same of the sexual sins.
    1
  2415.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "Clear != explicit." First off, that means your point is irrelevant, secondly I literally can't find a single dictionary that doesn't use it as either a definition, synonym, or both.
    1
  2416.  @Oicurmtoyoy  That's worthless pedantry, like "Fully and clearly expressed" is literally the same thing as calling a statement clear. There's also "clear and exact", "very clear and complete : leaving no doubt about the meaning", "Something that is explicit is expressed or shown clearly and openly, without any attempt to hide anything", "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent" which is not invalidated either, there is nothing implied. Something that isn't literally stated does not make a statement non-explicit. By your claim there is literally no way for anything to be "explicit" in Japanese which is a ridiculous standard and don't find that honest or charitable of a position, the only reason to argue over the the concept of "explicit" is if it served a point of adding vague interpretation, which aside from being a worthless point, is literally not possible. Its arguing over the semantics of a word that changes literally nothing, and the semantic argument being made is not even correct.
    1
  2417.  @Oicurmtoyoy  ""Well at least your pretty" is clearly expressing that someone is stupid, to a native English speaker, but not fully, and thus it's not explicit." English is very low context sensitive language and that concept does not translate into high context sensitive languages at all, (else you're arguing that said languages literally cannot be explicit at all) most European languages in general tend to be low context sensitive, its what makes teaching said languages comparatively trivial, so something can be communicated in a way that isn't full expressed simply because its not the most reductive way to describe an idea. This does not apply to Japanese or Hebrew, where the most reductive and simplest way to explain things would clearly understand is by being "non-literal" (they would still interpret it as literal, if you describe a "literal statement" they would call it such, but translating it literally makes no sense) By being "explicit" in these languages it would neither be clear nor fully expressed according to any listener.
    1
  2418.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "Let's drop Japanese, and even Hebrew and Greek, for the moment, as its adding a needless layer of complexity." I was using Japanese as an example but you completely killed the point of the example to argue about the pedantry of explicit. Hebrew and Koine Greek is relevant when we talk about Scripture, the entire point of discussion is about the unambiguous nature of Scripture in describing things that aren't being fully translated when you read an English translation but would've been so plainly obvious to any reader that they would've called you a fool to debate over in such cases.
    1
  2419.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "But that phrase IS context sensitive. So how does it fail?" First off its not, its a common rhetorical contrast concept, (which is one of the most bare basic capacities of a language that supports rhetoric, which is most natural languages) it doesn't demonstrate any concept of context sensitivity because there is nothing in any culture of native English speaker nor their history, nor even of a relative context, which is necessary to understand the statement's meaning. Missing the meaning is completely irrelevant to English-speaking culture and even a non-native speaker can trivially pickup on the meaning. That aside you're completely missing the point of what I mean when I say English is low context because it means English comprehension has no relevance to a cultural or historical understanding. One merely needs to study the vocabulary and grammar of English and they can understand practically any statement. This is not true for context sensitive languages, knowing the vocabulary and grammar will not actually help you to understand much more then maybe a child-level conversation. (and for Ancient Hebrew it wouldn't even help you with that)
    1
  2420.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "You're saying that "Aishitemasu" would be confusing to a Japanese speaker? Because Anime and Manga, which is made to be easily understood is like that." That is irrelevant.
    1
  2421.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "Then Japanese truly is a bad example, as a large portion of Japanese comedy is about failure of Kuukiyomi; reading the room." Reading the room has no relevance to to language comprehension, while it communicates concepts, you cannot "read the room" of a written form except by using written context, thus making the entire context itself still explicit. The whole principal of "reading the room" is that it requires more then language comprehension, which while tangential, is irrelevant to my point because this behavior was not relevant to my use of it as an example. It was about communicating understanding, not drawing a one to one "they are the exact same".
    1
  2422.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "So you think that written language can only be explicit?" I didn't say that, the concept of "reading the room" doesn't apply in any situation that lacks body language and intonation, and its still irrelevant to Ancient Hebrew as they never had such a concept.
    1
  2423.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "It shows that the most reductive and simple way to explain things is by being direct in Japanese." I would disagree immensely, but that aside Japanese was an example for a very specific purpose that you completely missed and now are arguing over in irrelevance, this is what makes this entire part of the discussion irrelevant and pedantic.
    1
  2424.  @Oicurmtoyoy  First off none of the context changes the semantics, so saying "at least your pretty" is context independent, the subject is irrelevant, the environment is irrelevant, the phrase is always an backhanded complement, so the context is irrelevant to the statement. (thus its non-contextual) That aside your entire point is irrelevant because that's not linguistic context, referring to a language as high or low context sensitive is about the linguistics function, you're arguing over semantic context, where reading comprehension is based around dependency of related words modifying the semantics of a statement.
    1
  2425.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "I assume you have example of it being used outside of the Bible." That's specifically why its described that way. Every example of Koine Greek of the period we can find uses that form in that way. You do realize Koine Greek is not just the Bible right? It was the first known writing of Koine Greek following Latin overtaking it, but as we discovered more of Koine Greek, we've found Scripture uses normative words according to their common definition in every case that it doesn't have a newly devised word in it. (Paul does so a number of times, but every time is obviously clear of what he meant)
    1
  2426.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "Basically, how did you first come to the idea that this is the obvious interpretation, that you would be called a fool for arguing about?" Well rabbis already brought these topics up in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew, as well as early Christians who could read one of said languages and the conclusion has always been the same. Any attempt to reinterpret these texts otherwise specifically are applications of modern people ignoring the ancient manuscripts and evidence and looking to twist their own interpretations of reality into the text.
    1
  2427.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "In what way can written language be implicit, if reading the room is impossible?" Because context clues is not reading the room, "reading the room" pertains to non-descriptive intuition that has to be picked up, that doesn't exist if its described, reading it makes it a relevant description, it is impossible to express such purely by words. Like you can describe such expressions that contribute to an idea but that makes the context explicit to the written form even if the concept itself isn't completely explicit. Written forms are inherently limited in the substance of what they can contain and how they can communicate concepts.
    1
  2428.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "Secondly, you can convey those through text." Then its no longer reading the room, having contextual understanding is a distinct skill from social comprehension, and they don't even inherently translate in any sense, you can be good at one and be terrible at the other.
    1
  2429.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "What do you think is going through his head at this moment? If you can answer that with something I didn't say, then it's implicit, and you read the room." There is no way to describe what is going through his head as the statement you made gives nothing about that. A position is implied by semantic clues, but there is very little described about thoughts or even specific feelings. Its utterly vague and any conclusion you make would be objectively incorrect without more semantic information. You can make presumption of it all you want, doesn't mean you'll be correct, and making said presumptions is a fools errand.
    1
  2430.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "Sir, animals have this concept. Also:" Are you deliberately trying to play the fool? Because when I say "Ancient Hebrew never had such a concept", the language does not recognize a concept of reading the room, whatever people feel is irrelevant, words are not modified by their inflection in Ancient Hebrew nor does body language modulate the conceptual communication. That's not saying communication as a whole doesn't, but it is unnecessary to communication within the language. You're irrationally expanding the domain of the discussion and deflecting from any valid point.
    1
  2431.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "Proverbs 16:30 Genesis 4:5-6 Luke 17:16" None of these fit any concept of "reading the room".
    1
  2432.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "To show a contemporary example of a high context language, which you declared are more clear when speaking indirectly. What am I missing?" No that's completely missing the entire point of why I used it as an example, it was used as an example because it requires a cultural context to understand the language that isn't communicated in the vocabulary of the words themselves. This is not because its indirect speech but because the language itself is culturally dependent, most European languages don't do this, they have culturally relevant phrases you can memorize but the whole of the language does not require any of this knowledge, when you state in English "I love you", there is no context to that statement which makes you able to correctly interpret it, (except in the case of semantic modification, but that's expansion of the domain and not relevant to topic) most ancient languages don't do this, in said languages it would require understanding the culture of the language to understand the language.
    1
  2433.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "These are google's overview of the terms, and they both sound like your idea of semantic context." Semantic context is part of linguistic context in the normative sense, but in this specific case I'm making explicit distinction between semantic and non-semantic context because I'm referring to a catchall of linguistic context for everything that isn't semantic context, this meaning cultural relevant concepts that are required to interpret words and phrases which does not apply to semantic context. (or if we want to get pedantic the specific target is lexical semantic context, though compositional semantics still mostly apply) My point with the specific terms is explaining how Ancient Hebrew worked required you to understand the Hebrew faith and culture like someone who was raised up in it inn order to understand and communicate in the language.
    1
  2434.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "Cite them. We can start with just 1 or 2." παιδικη, Lucian, amor. 25; ὀρεξεις παρά τάς χρησεις, Plutarch, placit. philos. 5, 5; (cf. Isocrates, p. 386 c.; Plato, legg. 8, p. 841 a.; Aristotle, others) Those are a number of the citations which are used for Biblical comprehension according to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon
    1
  2435.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "Sir, do you have autism? Like, severe autism? Because this is something they would ask you in an autism assessment. It’s also Middle School level English." You're playing pedantry and then get mad when I point out the semantics of your claim is false, no you cannot know whats going on in his head, you can presume all you want, but that's not evidence of fact.
    1
  2436.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "Not if the context is social." That's psychologically proven false.
    1
  2437.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "How? You're telling me saying "I smiled" is more explicit than just smiling?" Yes, it is inherently so because you're instructing about important details in the mind of the writer without the ambiguity that social comprehension requires. If the writer gives you no other details you can only presume the writer is being as verbose as necessary to communicate the point he intends.
    1
  2438.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "This does not mean that English has no cultural context required for any of it’s phrases" This is not what I said nor is it relevant to my point.
    1
  2439.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "So no, that is not the case. It can be the case, but it is not inherently the case. Unless you’re suggesting that you’d have to non-literally ask me to pass the salt, if you asked in Hebrew." Perhaps a bit of an extreme example, but as far as an Ancient Hebrew would be concerned, it could communicate something very confusing if not outright wrong if you didn't instead state what would be the culturally relevant instruction in that case. In the least it won't produce the desired outcome by stating it with a literal vocabulary and they would not operate as understanding you by doing that. This is especially true with prescriptive things, and with wisdom teachers, they often would give you prescription with many simultaneous meanings (or contrasting meaning) specifically to get you to think and integrate the teaching. This is why there's a lot of odd to translate language in the Old Testament Proverbs and Rabbinic writings. (Jesus also taught that way)
    1
  2440.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "Now this is actually the conclusion, but I put it first, because I want you to read it first, as I find most of what you're saying to be frustrating copium." Its not but I don't care either way cause I find it suspect that you would leave open the parameters for many interpretations where there isn't any room to, like there are parts of Scripture where we can have vague interpretation, but the moral teachings, prescriptions, and prohibitions aren't one of those cases, they're very much only singularly correct in interpretation and there is literally no other form of interpretation you could make of it. Even among some "Christians" many make the claim of water-downed prescriptions in Scripture but that's absolutely not the case.
    1
  2441.  @Oicurmtoyoy  "the Jews didn’t really care." He wasn't talking to Jews, Romans was written to those places with nearly no Jewish Christians (nor was it received by a church with any notable amount of Jews) at the time so it wouldn't make any sense either for him to be addressing the Jews. So that would only really reinforce what he was saying. And that aside that would still violate the Torah, I'm not sure where anyone would get the idea that the Jews wouldn't care, they would persecute women more then men in every circumstance.
    1
  2442.  @punishanpika  No, the punishment is separation from God, its always a crime, if you actually read the Bible, you wouldn't have said something so insane, you're a heretic and committing false teaching and false witness, if you don't repent you will receive much worse then any other wretch.
    1
  2443.  @punishanpika  Then you don't know Scripture very well, for arsenkoites is never described as a punishment, it is a crime, that's literally what the term is required to mean in Greek, it can't be interpreted any other way.
    1
  2444.  @notaboutit3565  What? When did I say anything about real world use case? All I said was that C most certainly isn't safe outside a dev environment, and honestly even within one undefined behavior is most certainly still not safe, in which is the only case I was wrong on.
    1
  2445.  @notaboutit3565  Oh absolutely not, when I say its unsafe, I mean it doesn't have all that many systems to help keep the developer's work safe, in part because that was all C could afford to have at the time the systems it does have were as safe as one could make a good machine compiled language at the time, (most prominently being its typing system) unfortunately including UB as well. I don't fault it for its flaws and greatly appreciate it for what its done (without C we wouldn't have some of the best language syntaxs yet devised I'd say, that is C's fault entirely derived of ALGOL) and I know that it still has its uses to this day, (after all I know both C and C++ and have used them in many places before) though I would say I'd prefer a more suitable grandparent of C derived of C++ then to see C to still be the most prominently used, but I don't see any good ones that don't piss me off.
    1
  2446.  @felipec  When he's referring to boomer devs, he's probably referring to the folks that specifically did this, allowed this, or justify this after the fact, anyone who promotes not breaking userspace is likely exempt from being referred to as a boomer dev here.
    1
  2447.  @felipec  "they don't understand that the purpose of software is to be useful to the users." This is a common reference of boomer philosophy, not understanding purpose is often the reference for boomer identification, even if you are actually a boomer, if you don't adhere to that issue you're not gonna be called a boomer colloquially.
    1
  2448. Intellectual Property is a government myth used to control and manipulate the market, conceptions don't have proof of ownership and even if they were physically capable of ownership, they'd be fungible meaning you're incapable of distinguishing an original concept from an unoriginal one, there is no manner for the government to be capable of regulating that, DRM only makes this problem worse most especially because nobody holds them legally liable for deliberately damaging your property.
    1
  2449. Dispensationals like him never read Zechariah 11-12. They sold God for 30 pieces of silver, they will not know peace and the staff of Union and Favor have been broken for their breaking of the Covenant, they're not the chosen people, there is no such thing as such in Scripture.
    1
  2450. Nobody is entitled to a job. And yes I have had a job.
    1
  2451. It also needs to be said that there is a point where even upstanding citizens will stop obeying unjust and immoral laws, especially when it comes to firearms. Civil Disobedience was stated by the Founding Fathers as required for the necessity of a free people, and if they violently oppose us then we are to violently oppose our oppressors and overthrow them. We are asked to kill them if they continue this evil record. Also guns are just as well meant to oppose government tyranny and build civilian militias as to resist criminals. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
    1
  2452.  @justhasan8423  Communism fails on the simple basis that it completely rejects reality and basic reason, only an idiot would need evidence to demonstrate Communism is doomed to fail, all forms of socialism are inherently designed to need life support and steal from someone else because the economy itself is based purely on robbing and stealing, that's not a productive system, that's a parasitic system, its really basic logic.
    1
  2453. Its doubly funny when you know that in most languages masculine gender is also the neutral gender, but these woktoid idiots can't admit to the existence of gender because they're post-modernists that want to erase reality so they can enslave people.
    1
  2454.  @nesnahprotsdam  Likely since heat is a big problem and earthquakes are uncommon.
    1
  2455.  @Wolf-fighter  Its a bias effect, the more you bias the scales, the more prominent the incompetence of that specific bias has to become since you are simply looking for any compatible body to fill the slot, as a result it fuels the blaming of women which isn't even technically incorrect, the consequence of tipping the scales has a tendency to produce an opposite effect, the cobra effect in action. By the way a lot of the reason this happens is directly because of the Civil Rights Act.
    1
  2456. You don't need to be left to support people charitably, that's not even a left wing position, they just use government force (aka the monopoly of force) to force everyone else who they covet and resent (as they are more successful) so that they'll pay up money (not assistance, not effort or time, not emotional or physical support) to "help" the "downtrodden". Seriously that's not compassionate nor is that kind. We should not be forced into charity by the act of violence or threats of violence (as every act of government has to be enforced by such or it means nothing) cause then its fundamentally useless. Its not the act that matters but the thought, and that aside pushing people who are unwilling to help people (or to help people who don't want help) is inefficient and extremely ineffective. And even that aside, money does not help people, most people in the disadvantageous positions they are aren't there because they need money, its because they need a life guide, someone to show them truth and light, no amount of throwing money at them will save them. Government can't accomplish this and it never does, its not a legitimate role of government and to use it as such is government overreach that always becomes tyrannical. The government has already stolen too much personal property, giving up more rights and property is not the right method. The government's only proper role is to punish the wicked and uphold the righteous, which just to point out we've entirely stripped from our governance since we don't properly punish the wicked. We jail innocence, we kill the independent, and we steal their property all while the mobs, murderers, and thieves get off totally scotfree. There is practically no justice because those who have materialistically earned judgement are and will never be judged, and have even made it into positions of judge, jury, and executioner. Righteous, justice, liberty, truth, in this realm they are all lost. Honestly Tim I blame your ideology just as much because you still rationalize this injustice and still think its necessary to keep tyranny just so someone else doesn't need to suffer. That's despite the fact that the only way we can even "prevent" that suffering is by waiting for it to happen, it doesn't matter if its with or without government, we can't do jack until after its already happened so what is the point of government then?
    1
  2457. Just gonna point out the whole anti-gaming "right" was propaganda mostly fueled by the very rare actual neocons, who were mostly in positions of power, regular people are never actually neocons.
    1
  2458.  @akboyz1  Pretty sure they can't file in Houston for one, and that aside, a civil case doesn't go to a Supreme Court, also Crowder was quite careful, the most they can try to sue for is defamation and juries can't decide that, they can only decide punishment, state AGs generally have more control over that.
    1
  2459. The UN is an anti-Christ organization. Those who persecute Christians are filled with the spirit of the anti-Christ, those of Christ should stand so strong as to say "I rebuke your lord, Satan, for you are his children, and for he who does not repent, he shall be cast into the fire with your father"
    1
  2460. There is one man who was special, who was my better in every way, one who I could never compare to, and His name is Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, The Savior, The Messiah, The Son of God. Neither man nor woman could ever compare, also maybe it was because my mom was literally crazy and my sister as a child loved to unjustly blame me for many things, but I can never understand someone thinking women are this holier than thou thing. Also biggest issue for why us men won't take a chance I'm betting you is because the whole metoo era bullcrap, its very easy for a woman to throw men under the bus, call him a rapist, and get away with it. Getting rejected wouldn't be such an issue if women would help exterminate women who keep falsely accusing men, but too often women are either apathetic to it or they'll defend the women, and the justice system is inherently skewed against men, like in college, you ask a woman out, at any point the woman could merely feel scorned and decide to report you to the college's HR and get you kicked out. (not that college is worth anything, but its an example, same things happen in the corporate world as a low level grunt)
    1
  2461. When you sit on your thumbs all day, the only choice you have is killing everyone's ability to understand your UI...again.
    1
  2462. Just gonna say, creators are more comparable to contractors then employees, though in this case technically Google is the contractor and the creators and audience are the contractees, too bad nobody wants to act like it.
    1
  2463. *Designed from the start to do
    1
  2464. Honestly those who support BLM are invalids, either in the political discourse, or just mentally deficient.
    1
  2465. They're both responsible, feminism is a scourge, Queen Victoria was 100% correct about feminism that all it would produce is crap women everyone hates and for which they will become worthless and lonely. She says it would be better for them to be beaten then to continue in their ideological bullcrap that destroys women. Feminism has always been the problem and rejection of all feminism is the solution.
    1
  2466. Bruh the old games are still playable on modern hardware, all they had to do for the xbox or playstation ports was emulate them and redirect the servers in the emulator, that crap would've been stupid easy and cheap.
    1
  2467. "Right time for a child" is a goddamn myth and a half, and viciously toxic one at that, men need children and family to push themselves towards just and righteous ends, to think ahead and see the end goal of their desires. Women need children to keep them focused on whats right and to keep the balance between the relationship. They both need children to mature, relationships, commitment, and marriage are not capable of producing maturity and wisdom unless you have child, women need to have children (so says God) and most men are required to be in a relationship with a wife in order to keep them on the moral path and to look to the future. There are very few men who are gifted celibacy and they must by the point of realizing that know they don't feel an ounce of sexual temptation, absolutely no lust nor desire for sex or women, all those men must become married so says God. Marriage is just as much a mechanic to prevent sin as it is to promote prosperity, family, righteousness, and childbirth and childcare. Few men are ever capable of being an adult without having children and no woman is capable of such. (and granted even in having children you may still not be mature, but you are incapable of such without them, even if adopted though that be more of a secondary attempt instead of primary)
    1
  2468.  @florinivan6907  Dude the judge ruled in favor of Randy because entrapment by state agents is expressively and explicitly illegal and constitutional, are you dumb? The court case is a matter of public record, how can you be this braindead?
    1
  2469. Steam or Pirate, I ain't paying shit for this otherwise. Also success isn't measured by exclusives, that's a sustainment strategy, consoles still lost the master race war because of their inferiority. (in fact there is no historic success for exclusives so far and the logic behind the possibility is sparse and very shaky) Also tbh most of the games on the list look kinda trash in comparison to the games I get on Steam and until Epic can figure out a way to burn down my games on Steam they're not getting my business, I have plenty of accounts on multiple clients but I'm not putting any of my money into Epic for this and I hope they burn for it.
    1
  2470. Illegal immigration pollutes the supply of employees and thus drives down wages through basic market forces, (cause if demand remains the same but supply increases, prices drop, that's literally economics 101) even if they don't "take" the job, they drive down the wage of said job by purely existing. Not to mention since they would be hiring an illegal alien, they are more capable to cheat their wage driving wages down further, this is why minimum wage is stupid, let people work for their own decided agreed upon value between the business and employee, let people compete, freedom of association if the right of all men, its a violation of rights to restrict it.
    1
  2471.  @romany8125  What do mean by "Christian canon"?
    1
  2472.  @romany8125  You're using the word to mean something yet can't define it? That can mean any number of things, Protestants don't recognize such stuff as that as a "canon" whatever that means so that argument neither works, neither is their one tradition of Protestantism and Reformed.
    1
  2473.  @romany8125  That doesn't make any sense to Eastern Orthodox nor Protestants.
    1
  2474.  @romany8125  "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil." - Romans 16:17-19 "But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men." - 2 Timothy 3:1-9 "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." - Philippians 2:4
    1
  2475.  @romany8125  Read Romans 16:17-19, 2 Timothy 3:1-9, and Philippians 2:4
    1
  2476.  @romany8125  Read Romans 16:17-19, 2 Timothy 3:1-9, and Philippians 2:4
    1
  2477. You know what would've been a great twist? If Diana's preconceived notions were entirely wrong and mankind is just a bunch of assholes with evil and potential. (personally I prefer to leave it as only evil but you know Hollywood would never let that fly)
    1
  2478. He focused on porn, there was no actual addressing of masturbation, (and really only a simple definition of the objective our brains desire for sex itself and how it goes about it) porn has no positive effects for the brain, sex and masturbation can, however there are also caveats to those, for example its unwise (especially for women) to be sexually promiscuous (or in fact sexually bond and then break said bond) as it reduces the ability to pair bond and harms your ability to keep empathy and cherish close bonds (yes, including non-sexual ones) which is especially dangerous for women. There have been no studies on the positive effects of masturbation meaning we can only guess the effects, which tbh I'm not really sure what the positive or negative effects are. When we get some actual studies on the subject that actually focus on masturbation then perhaps said concepts can be discussed.
    1
  2479. A good example of why legally binding contracts are anti-capitalist, you can't have a free market if the government has to bind the market.
    1
  2480. Democracy: The God That Failed
    1
  2481. Still makes it high time preference behavior, also your perspective on kids is still dumb.
    1
  2482.  @odlfmariner470  Tomboys usually refers to a woman that doesn't enjoy feminine things and mostly only enjoys masculine things. It usually applies both as an adjective.
    1
  2483. Gnome sometimes really is just a cult. I swear 60% of the problems of Wayland is simply because of Gnome.
    1
  2484. Just another reason I pirate books, if I feel that I like the book a lot then I'll buy a physical copy, but I vehemently oppose IP law so I will willingly violate it anyway, but there's too many reasons in the modern era beside my moral and political reasons alone to never initially pay for books, especially digitally.
    1
  2485. Its almost like us Christians warned you, AND YOU STILL TOLERATE IT, thus you get what you deserve.
    1
  2486. Seizing property is an assault on the individual, an assault of force on an individual should be met with self-defense, they have a right to ownership of said triggers, if they start actually seizing triggers from private individuals and nobody threatens or does shoot them for it that is a problem. If a revolution does not spawn in that attempt, the 2nd Amendment will have objectively been failed.
    1
  2487. Just gonna say training doesn't do crap for soldiers in high adrenaline situations, burst fire is optimal and honestly all a regular rifleman needs in most cases cause you are not gonna be very effective using a rifle for suppressive fire beyond say 50 meters if that. And full auto practically useless in most small arms as its a waste of ammo and logistics and you lose a massive amount of accuracy and it will cause you to constantly reload. The only point of full auto is suppressive fire, something rifle doesn't need all that often and most certainly even less in say a squad or larger unit.
    1
  2488. @George Soros I prefer the inline declaration syntax that appears in C-like languages, I despise postfix type specifiers and find them one of the ugliest things of a lot of modern languages, (when possible, I will deliberately avoid languages that use them) I also despise Rust's type system and a find a lot of keywords and the numerical specifiers ugly. I'm also not really all that happy with the concept of generics as far as Rust is concerned, not that any language other C++ has anything as powerful, but I don't personally see a point creating generics as replacement for C++'s templates when we can't have compile time control over structures and functions (be especially nice to have it written inline) and specialization over specific cases. I generally take issue with generics because they're imho super limited in scope, and I already hate Rust's generic syntax. You will honestly never find me being capable of being happy with Rust's syntax because I find it so ugly and verbose, I have no reason to describe implicit behaviors that both me and the compiler are already aware of.
    1
  2489.  @wolfwolf3304  Zig doesn't address my biggest gripes regarding syntax, and I greatly prefer using C++, I'd probably still use C over Zig if I was required to pick one of the two. I don't really care for the replacements because they're improvements are overshadowed by chucking the baby out with the bathwater, not everything C and C++ did was wrong and the whole context shouldn't get burned because it was hard to manage, at most it should be optimized, not replaced.
    1
  2490. Agreed, government can't fix the problem government created, the entire reason monopolies can fundamentally exist is at behest of the government, not the market. They have no market reliance and can subvert all market forces by relying and performing backdeals with the governing authorities. (and even without the deals they can simply coast on government money) Tax credits, tax breaks, subsidies, regulations, legal code, they all decrease reliance on market forces immensely (and increase the barrier to entry for newcomers reducing competition) to the point that they aren't all that impacted by market forces as long as the tax money is pulled in. Government money doesn't compete, its given for mere existence and claims, (when you didn't earn the money, you have no obligation to spend it well) as a result those who can most legally demonstrate their claims wins the biggest cut. (and a few bribes can always buy you the rest) That's not to mention the assistance that government agencies give to those companies that gives them a political and economic edge over the competition further reducing their reliance on the market. A clear sign of a manipulated market is lack of competition despite poor treatment. This applies to all fields.
    1
  2491. Response to the points made (couldn't fit them next to point 5 and that one is the most important for fallacious arguments like this about Christ): 5. Science is not at odds with Christ, its the people who make up ideals and philosophies of the world about what science is that is at odds with Christ. They make themselves the authority and claim that those that oppose them violate any truth. In reality they are as many of Christ have said robbing from the Christian worldview to make their own. Saint Augustine never disagreed with literal interpretations of the Biblical text as you make it out to be and I don't see where Gregory of Tours did so, (and even if they did that wouldn't validate your claim either) his arguments do not stand as truth in regards to Origin in Genesis being six days but he never disagreed with God forming the world within that but instead that it was formed as it would be instantly which, if we're honest, is more ridiculous against what you say in your claims but whatever. He also claimed Adam and Eve as inherently mortal in their first form which is actually demonstrably untrue when God explains their punishment for the eating of the fruit, but that's not allegory. He also never refuted that Noah built the Ark. In all this neither of them demonstrated a case of allegorical interpretation as we say. And Jesus already spoke on this issue: "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:45-47 If Jesus is saying that Moses not only lived as a real person who spoke and gave commandments and you call him and his words, that being half of the Old Testament, as allegory then you must reject Jesus. You can't be of Christ unless you accept the OT as it was written. You are utterly wrong about what faith was for the sake of the people, Augustine most certainly wouldn't have agreed with that and I'm certain neither would Gregory of Tours. Lets see what the Bible says: "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? “Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’? “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place, that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it? It is changed like clay under the seal, and its features stand out like a garment. From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken. “Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this. “Where is the way to the dwelling of light, and where is the place of darkness, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home? You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great! “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war? What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth? “Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain and a way for the thunderbolt, to bring rain on a land where no man is, on the desert in which there is no man, to satisfy the waste and desolate land, and to make the ground sprout with grass? “Has the rain a father, or who has begotten the drops of dew? From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the frost of heaven? The waters become hard like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion? Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth? “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that a flood of waters may cover you? Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’? Who has put wisdom in the inward parts or given understanding to the mind? Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens, when the dust runs into a mass and the clods stick fast together? “Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in their thicket? Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?" - Job 38 Not one word of this allows allegorical interpretation, and even more it does not allow a moment of secret knowledge given to the "wise" as the first phrase God gave to Job "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" Such claims are violations to God. So are you suggesting that Augustine and Gregory never believed in Jesus? Are you to say that they trusted in the words of John, Paul, James, Luke, and Peter as fabricating Jesus and his resurrection for allegory? Despite having even evidences of the original text going back to the period when eyewitnesses and their disciples and children would've been alive? We have records of John that go back that far which do not divert. So is Jesus a liar then? Why call Him the Son of God, the Christ then? "Jesus literally says the kingdom of heaven is not of this world or plane of existence" no, He had said "Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” - John 18:36 This does not mean Jesus did not make truth claims, it is saying you are not to fight against Rome to save Him from persecution and death. You didn't even bother to read the text slightly close to correct (or at all) and made a wholly incorrect assumption on what it says. He literally says not to fight, He is not saying that His Kingdom is not come upon the world, it is not of this world. Let me show you what is said to demonstrate this. Why does Jesus tell you to literally believe in the words of Moses else you can't believe in Him? Read John 5:45-47 again. It is quite clear. "But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls. And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." - Luke 11:17-23 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” - Matthew 3:2 "Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” - Luke 17:20-21 "And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” - Mark 9:1 "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." - Matthew 6:10 You interpretation violates each of these as it does the the version you pulled it from.
    1
  2492. 1. From the Biblical perspective its called the Imago Dei, the Image of God, for which all men who do good will act out of some desire to follow God even as they hate Him. This does not make them good people, no one is, all are wicked and without righteousness, but instead it says that we are gifted temperance from that evil by the hand of God who reigns in wickedness in our hearts to certain degrees. Those who do not listen are over time left less and less restrained as they are given over to depravity, all men are thus willing and capable but few are so far as to perform the worst acts against another, often out of fears of reprisal. The demonstration of people doing good to others does not describe an inherent good of themselves but instead demonstrates an otherwise unjust desire to seek good, it does not speak to what is in the heart but what is from the Spirit. 2. Agreed, the "ism" problem is a terrible result of secularization when man is made to be a worshiping creature. As a result man is inherently driven insane when he has no religion as it violates his core function. The result of this is a searching for a replacement that most people come to political identity for, often idententarianism. The reason I am a quasi-libertarian alongside many other liberty positions is that I treat every single position I consider as an extension of the first position I gained goodness, love, justice, and righteousness from, that being the doctrine of Christ. As a result I could very well be capable to throw away my positions if so necessary if I had reason to, as God said "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8 As a result there is only one position that matters to me and the rest are mere extensions for that one, and not in a manner for which I boast over someone nor insist in my ways for God also told us "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;" - 1 Corinthians 13:4-5 With all this in mind Christ, and thus love and justice, come before any other identity I might have and thus I never feel threatened by opposition to my positions for I know them as not mine and I may not even be called to defend them but I do my best to perform apologetics in peace. As that is what I am called for, and everything is an extension of the source for that apologetics. It is in Christ I am granted both peace and wisdom. As an aside this also means I am humble enough to understand that what I know is limited by who I am and what I am and that I have a place not to be wrongly ambitious nor prideful, that others are above me just as there may be some below me, I am to learn from those above and give what I have received to those below. 3. Sort of, though I would say the understanding is distorted by a natural man's perspective and thus lacks capability to ever understand the wisdom. As it was said "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14 The result is your expected proposition would be incorrect as its directed at the wrong solution still, though closer then the conventional wisdom of men. 4. Protecting the downtrodden is only half the story, God never once describes mankind as inherently good, he says much the opposite, and most especially does not say a victim is innocent just because they're a victim. God's core grant to us is to love everyone, those above us and below us, those given wealth and power and those with neither, those who are violent enemies and dutiful friends. “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." - Leviticus 19:15 "My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory." - James 2:1 (up to verse 13 it speaks about no partiality to the rich or poor, which aligns with more then just those metrics) God speaks constantly about the preservation of life of the innocent, which may also include regulation and stunting those who are currently seen as innocent so as to protect themselves and others.
    1
  2493.  @Opachki69420  Its not a violation of rights even if when we disagree, free association and private property cannot be regulated like federal law, a place of business is entirely allowed to prohibit firearm carrying and an insurance company is entirely allowed to prohibit servicing those that permit firearms. That's the right of private property and free association protected by the Constitution, just the same as you may disagree with someone religiously and yet they can still believe as they wish.
    1
  2494. IDK, sounds more like incapability to follow the law more then anything, probably from a lack of fatherhood. Also I find it quite interesting how you ignore the politicians, especially when they set up state-wide cartels where they assassinate people in public with impunity.
    1
  2495.  @danielknapp3141  According to Torah it shouldn't, there are many true Torah Jews that despise it as a country because God according to Torah didn't give them any of the required signs to return nor has the state done any of the ritual requirements to acknowledge a promised return. They also are not nor ever were a chosen people (they were beloved only because they were preserved as people of Abraham by promise, but Scripture makes it clear that Abraham's offspring is not by blood, Rahab and Ruth weren't his offspring, only Abraham's children may inherit the land, thus Christians) and they have no right to the land for they are not followers of the faith. Only followers to the priesthood of Melchizedek have any right, which the Levites are below and are not part of. Not that they even know who the Levites are anymore, they're just Moabites now according to Torah, another reason they have no right to the land.
    1
  2496.  @danielknapp3141  Literally none of the signs of Yahweh were given.
    1
  2497.  @danielknapp3141  "The re-establishment of israel today is literally the fulfillment of quite a few old testament prophesies." That's not true, those interpretations are less then 150 years old. There is no Apostolic Father that affirms that nor any church father, and it was not found before the 1800s when the dispensational heresy was proliferated by Scofield and John Nelson Darby.
    1
  2498.  @danielknapp3141  Also no living Jews have any ancestral inheritance to Abraham because the Temple that recorded these claims was destroyed in 70AD and all records of ancestral ties were lost.
    1
  2499.  @danielknapp3141  Also if you reject replacement theology you are anti-christ.
    1
  2500.  @danielknapp3141  "I am referencing literal scripture. Like the valley of dried bones, and the promise to re-establish the nation of Israel during the exile to babylon." Both of these were fulfilled centuries before Jesus, the Valley of Dry Bones was fulfilled with David, and the Babylon Captivity only lasted 70 years and ended during the reign of Cyrus under direction of Ezra. Neither of these are applicable to anything following 300 BC, let alone anything after the coming of Jesus.
    1
  2501.  @danielknapp3141  It starts in Deuteronomy 30, so first they must follow and establish Torah, which they don't do, a nation that is not religious is not even capable of fulling the first requirement, mere ritual alone still violates the Commandments. Their hearts aren't circumcised, they don't follow the Torah statues and commandments, they also routinely choose against life in violation of that chapter. (they still practice abortion which is an explicit violation of Deuteronomy 30) These aren't even the signs, these are expectations before the signs may be given, they can't even fulfill that, nor do they believe in God alone violating the first Commandment. So how can they claim to be such a nation. They can't even demonstrate their ancestral inheritance that they claim, even the Jews in Babylon knew they were Hebrews and of the tribe they were from. The Son of David can't come without that and those records were destroyed in 70AD, they literally are incapable of validating any Messiah claim. Without the genealogy records, they have no right to call themselves Hebrews or Jews.
    1
  2502.  @danielknapp3141  The first signs of a return to the promised land is a Prophet raised up to speak Scripture. His words will be written as God's Word in the Tanakh. All returns were preceded by a Prophet who spoke the Word of God. If there is no Prophet, there is no nation. Next would come the signs for the restoration of the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem. This would also require all the necessities that also must be made for the Temple to be rebuilt and sanctified. (which follow from the Tabernacle) The nation cannot exist before this has come. With the Temple being reconstructed they must also restore the legal portions of the Torah. These are only a portion of the signs for the restoration of the Hebrews.
    1
  2503. The cost of freedom has always been an inability to stop many forms of evil, I am completely fine with this, its not the job of the government to stop evil anyway, only to uphold individual rights.
    1
  2504. That might work for some versions of the Joker (though he looks terrible) but this is supposed to be the Arkham Joker...not that the idea makes sense for Brainiac.
    1
  2505. There is no conceptual definition of public property, no state has a right to restrict what you may do in public because there is nothing that can be publicly owned, (ownership being the only authority for which restriction of anything may be levied after the Just Law) there is no definition of public ownership nor regulation for which you can define operating in the public space. The publica (which includes the state, but also organizations and corporations as well) does not have a right to a concept of property, that is reserved exclusively for the individual, this violates the individualist recognitions found in the Constitution documents. Personally I also say there is no recognition of publica at at all, this would violate the absolutist state incorporated from the Napoleonic era, (which the United States and its Constitution predates) however in the least the publica itself must be inherently limited by de-recognition before anyone is willing to abolish its existence.
    1
  2506.  @justanto  "i have no problem with nihilism or hedonism. You can not like it, but i don't care and it's absolutely not a negative." Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you don't understand anything about rationality nor definitions, so dealing with an NPC moron like you isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then, and if you can't be convinced I don't care to try further. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, not that it even makes any sense to convince anyone anyway because there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless, everyone who sees this conversation wasn't convinced by it, they were predetermined to every choice they made regardless of its existence, this entire conversation itself was predetermined and was predetermined to move us further into a void of empty and void chaos.
    1
  2507. ​ @justanto  Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you don't understand anything about rationality nor definitions, so dealing with an NPC moron like you isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then, and if you can't be convinced I don't care to try further. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, not that it even makes any sense to convince anyone anyway because there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless, everyone who sees this conversation wasn't convinced by it, they were predetermined to every choice they made regardless of its existence, this entire conversation itself was predetermined and was predetermined to move us further into a void of empty and void chaos. Also almost every 19th and early 20th century atheist philosopher saw nihilism and hedonism as a bad thing.
    1
  2508.  @justanto  Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you don't understand anything about rationality nor definitions, so dealing with an NPC moron like you isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then, and if you can't be convinced I don't care to try further. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, not that it even makes any sense to convince anyone anyway because there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless, everyone who sees this conversation wasn't convinced by it, they were predetermined to every choice they made regardless of its existence, this entire conversation itself was predetermined and was predetermined to move us further into a void of empty and void chaos.
    1
  2509.  @justanto  Also every 19th and early 20th century atheist philosopher saw nihilism and hedonism as a bad thing, if you don't have a problem with them, then you're an idiot. Such outlooks conclude a desire for the destruction of reality itself. That's why most mass shooters are in some way related to either nihilism or hedonism, all nihilists will eventually see the only goal of existence is its own destruction, a hedonist satisfies their pleasures to the complete disregard of any other element of reality which itself is also destructive to reality.
    1
  2510.  @justanto  Also every 19th and early 20th century atheist philosopher saw nihilism and hedonism as a bad thing, if you don't have a problem with them, then you're an idiot.
    1
  2511.  @justanto  Also every early atheist philosopher saw nihilism/hedonism as a bad thing.
    1
  2512.  @justanto  Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you don't understand anything about rationality nor definitions, so dealing with an NPC moron like you isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then, and if you can't be convinced I don't care to try further. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, not that it even makes any sense to convince anyone anyway because there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless, everyone who sees this conversation wasn't convinced by it, they were predetermined to every choice they made regardless of its existence, this entire conversation itself was predetermined and was predetermined to move us further into a void of empty and void chaos.
    1
  2513.  @justanto  Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless.
    1
  2514. gnome is the definition of the annoying special snowflake pain in the ass.
    1
  2515.  @pmritzen2597  "You’re full of it." You're the one promoting radical individualism over God's moral framework. Failure to inspire the full doctrine of God's truth in your children is parental failure. There is no respect to give to a parent that fails to inspire the good moral framework God gave us and then excuses his failures by saying "they think for themselves". Had you admitted otherwise I would have been instructed to say there is no fault among you but you have excused your failures to then get mad at me demonstrates who you really are. He who thinks for himself without the moral framework is acting in defiance to God and will be banished from Him if he does not repent, which means you have hated them, he who thinks on their own are dead in his sins, and carries nothing of worth among his values. "That’s the nice way I’ll put it." You blamed me for calling your failures out, that's not very nice. "You don’t know squat about my daughter." I know you definitely failed raising her because you excused yourself doing so. I also know that she has not a lick of rationality according to the foundations of her house nor a basis of the moral framework amongst her coming from you, and it is heavily implied she does not know of the necessary respect she should give to the authority of the men over her, which if true is a condemnation you put upon her. You have not shown her the necessary love, and your excusing of that says even that you are, whether knowingly or not, acting in hate for her. (Ezekiel 33:8) "And I don’t believe the same thing you do from the Bible." But what is true? I don't care for what anyone believes, he who believes his own truth leads only to death, never to life, for he can not be with Christ as he does not love even his own neighbor let alone his enemy. Christ requires acknowledgement of not "my truth" but of The Truth for He is. (John 14:6) If you can not accept that you can not be of Christ. Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, anything less gives no value to Christ but in fact worships that which is against Him, for it worships the self, its a worship of man, and will make you discerned from Him, given you do not repent out of your parental issues and treat your failures with excuse (that you lowkey admitted were failures) suggests that in the least you are not well versed among the theology necessary to understand what you believe in the first place. I do not care about your belief nor my own, I only care about what is true. Careful that you enter through the narrow door, for wide is the path to hell, for many take it. (Matthew 7:13) "I’ll leave it at that." These statements are a waste and insult to all good, not one good thing comes from such mentalities. All fights for the truth are to the death, no prisoners taken, no compromises made, for the Evil One makes compromise of God's Word to deceive us and drags into destruction, but Jesus does not allow a compromise. We the righteous children (not that we are righteous but have been made righteous by Christ's sacrifice) are behind enemy lines, we must tear down fortresses and strongholds to hold every thought captive to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5)
    1
  2516. Seems like calling it an essence is a valid description, a lot of animalism and less definitive paganism share much the same trait, its comparable to what would've probably happened had Rome started out as animalistic instead of Greek Pagans.
    1
  2517. Anyone who treats economics like a zero-sum game has literally nothing valuable to say about economics. Funny thing is that eliminates all government employed economists as well as politicians.
    1
  2518. Its also a very common emotional appeal against pro-life folks in my experience, usually they try to hide the extreme way of saying it, usually they try to say "you don't know what its like for a women to be raped that's why you're pro-life" which is absolutely bullcrap, but Beshear just took it to a whole new level.
    1
  2519. How I look at it is birthright citizenship was always a terrible idea, instead we should have inheritable citizenship at least, if you're parents acquired citizenship then you inherit that citizenship immediately, (or at least until you turn 16 or 18 or something) going down your descendants until one member of your family renounces their citizenship.
    1
  2520. Asmon is wrong about his claims of the "changing of the Bible", the Council of Nicaea has nothing to do with Scripture, ignoring the fact that the American founders were Christian Nationalists and based American Law on the Torah.
    1
  2521. These are the same retards that ignore biologic realities and claim women don't like being objectified. (despite the fact its a validation of their sexual strategies)
    1
  2522.  @Andersonzabuza  Nexus mods doesn't even ban explicit mods completely, crap like the ostim are hosted directly on the site.
    1
  2523. Don't forget Antifa tried to burn the capital as well, nobody opposed them when this happened, the president was instead rushed into a bunker with his family for it.
    1
  2524. Funny thing to point out, the evidence for anthropogenic (this means human-sourced or primarily human caused) climate change is really spotty, but if you simply question antropogenic climate change, you're still be called a climate denier regardless, no matter if you say "I think the climate does change, I just don't think humans are all that relevant". For example, look into the Earth magnetosphere's degradation over the past decade, there is not a single prominent climate change model by mainstream sources that accounts for the impact of the magnetosphere and very few of them consider the sun to have a massive impact on the Earth. And even if anthropogenic climate change were provable, which I might add it relies on a non-falsifiable prognosis in the current models, how are they then sure that its apocalyptic, they've made claims going back to the 80s of running out of food, running out of space, and majority of the population drowning. Does no one remember the crap Al Gore said? Its functionally just another form Malthusianism ignoring evidences that counter the claim and having little evidence that supports it. These people are brainlets.
    1
  2525. I'm willing to bet they only let this info out specifically to justify blaming foreign espionage in order to send us to war with them to keep Trump out of office.
    1
  2526. You need to keep in mind that historically C++ vtables were better on older systems then they are now, modern systems have made it harder to justify their current existence except when the inner elements of your virtual table functions is the hotpath. Also final pretty much makes them almost as fast as the function call because they get "devirtualized" by the compiler.
    1
  2527. Social security is such a stupid idea if you know anything about economics.
    1
  2528. We should Pinochet the leftists and cancel culture.
    1
  2529.  @terrydaktyllus1320  There's a lot of things that are broken with xorg, just because you don't feel a UX break doesn't mean it isn't broke, we don't define broken by what the user of the software feels is broken.
    1
  2530. I always find it interesting that Asmon knows government fraud and abuse as a massive problem, being an inherent product of government involvement because they're a monopoly, but then he supports things like UBI as if that wouldn't suffer routinely from the exact same issue, being a cynic doesn't mean anything if your entire entire philosophical worldview is still naive.
    1
  2531. ​ @Debonair.Aristocrat  Because the proliferation of mental derangement does not create a healthy society nor procreate an effective continuation of good, but instead only injustice and immorality, the exact reason we have all these social, mental, and even physical problems we have today is specifically because we opened the door to the tolerance of mental derangement and evil ideals. People are neither independent beings nor fully individual (neither are they fully units of a collective, they are both an individual and a unit, they are essential for the existence of both) this the balance of humanity, by subsidizing and proliferating degeneracy of a society (whether by absence of opposition or active promotion) you promote destruction of the society at large and in turn shall receive collapse, that is what we are currently experiencing, the capability to turn it around is purely based on the awareness and consciousness of the people who seem to be opposing it more and more, but I doubt that they're going far enough. The idea of the Constitution was not to let bygones be bygones for those of a lesser ideology, government dictation does not equate to citizen obligation, the latter of which is required to ensure the Constitution, which requires opposition to evil and the promotion of objective absolute good, which is founded on Christian ideals.
    1
  2532.  @DH-xw6jp  Yeah the problem is that Google, (and iirc now even DDG) will try to give you protected classes for "diversity reasons" which is funny since it only ever makes the presumption you are performing positive affirmation of the subject which is exceedingly stupid.
    1
  2533.  @JB121  That's not a separation of church and state. You do realize the English of the First Amendment is not modern English vocabulary, as with modern vocabulary the concept of "no law respecting an establishment of religion" would instead mean it lacks tolerance, but that's not what such would mean at the time, in fact at the time after ratification of the 1st Amendment even into the 1820s it was entirely legal (and some states in fact did) for states to establish state churches which the state could pay into. There has been no established law forbidding permitting of church intervention in the state, nor that the church cannot teach at public school, its the state that cannot interfere in the church, this is a limitation of the state, not the church. There is also no law stating that the state can't emphasize a church, only merely that it cannot restrict such, the 1st Amendment does not separate church and state and it never did. That's why Jefferson wrote about the separation of church and state, the letter he wrote being source of that phrase, years after the ratification of the 1st Amendment. If the 1st Amendment was all that was necessary, then the Supreme Court would deal with the issue once and Jefferson would've never wrote the letter and coined the phrase "separation of church and state".
    1
  2534. Holy Trinity vs. the United States, SCOTUS already ruled the opposite. Also John Adams disagrees "Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams (October 11, 1798)
    1
  2535. Its called disparate impact law, its legal so long as you're a minority.
    1
  2536. I'll never get the desire to "stable release" alpha and beta functionality.
    1
  2537. One'e liberty ends where another's begins, so unless you don't believe a fetus is human, its the same argument regarding murder, your legal argument about abortion doesn't make any sense unless you regard a child or a fetus as not worth considering in murder, which you can't consistently enforce even.
    1
  2538. Just to point out, there actually is very little historical or sociological case you can make for a heterogeneity, diversity kills most especially societies and cultural icons which inspire or derive any meaning from diversity are in fact poisoning society and killing themselves, societies which share a lack of homogeneity including in their cultural works in the end always historically collapse the fastest.
    1
  2539. This is basically the entire Republican party in Louisiana.
    1
  2540. I wouldn't ask for someone to be barred from it entirely because you can't regulate morality by any other metric beyond social, but women who do porn and reveal themselves to people publicly have a bunch of psychological, emotional, and social problems that were caused by doing so, even if they don't recognize these problems. It absolutely is true that women hurt themselves by partaking even in solo porn, many women do get psychologically addicted to it and it ruins their relationships constantly, they're behavior become completely unhinged, they often look down on the guy, or the guy gets jealous despite knowing this, it ruins him as well even if he doesn't recognize it, everyone suffers when a women does such things.
    1
  2541.  @ZARK0_  Why do you trust wikipedia here? Surely the English dictionaries would be more trustworthy then anything wikipedia puts out.
    1
  2542.  @softwarelivre2389  I find it reads backwards and adds unnecessary symbols, like the type is more important and you're defining the variable by the type, the only reason I can see to not follow ALGOL is if you have a typescript "needs to be a subset" problem, which is why I get so frustrated, it doesn't even follow the mathematic standard for typing either which is the only reasonable justification I can see anyone making for doing it.
    1
  2543.  @MaxNaumchik  "let (x, y, z) = fn_that_returns_tuple()" C# already does this (since C# 7) and C++ could already support this syntactically even if it currently doesn't. (C++ would need some way to define a tuple in the language, not just in the standard library) I don't see why you need that syntax to support it given I can already do var (x,y,z) = FuncThatReturnsTuple(); with C#. "That is if you do need to explicitly type those in the first place. I find this to be a very rare case." All library development requires it, every single library I've ever seen explicitly forbids the use of auto or any other implicit typing in its style guide, it becomes near impossible to read without an intellisense to render the information and plenty of contributors don't use a full IDE, and those projects aren't purely made by folks who use IDEs. Plus its a nightmare to do code review when you do that. "Also, I think that some older languages like C/C++ have the type going first because historically they just required the type definition (no `auto` for inferring the type)." No, multiple languages before C did it,some with a form of implicit type and some without, but C is based on ALGOL, which doesn't, that's the reason, it was intentionally developed in that manner. The position of the specifier has nothing to do with implicit typing, its based on a specific math syntax, but the problem is that types in math can't be implicit. And honestly the only reason anyone did it in more recent languages is because subset languages like Typescript did it because it was the only way to retain the subset, as an example you don't see the same thing pop up in Dart which despite trying to equal Typescript is not remotely close to a subset. The reason functional languages do it is because of the math syntax where functional programming is heavily inspired from. I still say that's stupid because the type is more important then the variable even in functional cases, and its less verbose, but apparently people don't care how things read still. We didn't back then and we're just doing it again. "So the syntax C/C++ come up with without any additional unnecessary keywords or symbols for the case worked just fine." While the keyword of auto was useless and obsolete, that was just a cleanup of the syntax, better to use up an existing keyword then to make a new one, and it describes what its doing in contextually. "But since in modern world the concept of auto-inferring is widely accepted and used," If you're not building a library or something that doesn't need to be well documented maybe, this is a generally foolish statement, there are too many good reasons not to imply types that forcing it and only adhocing an afterthought solution is retarded, especially when you have a cleaner, less verbose, integral declaration that does not take any more work on the parser. "modern languages have this style because all of them have the type declaration optional." If I saw Linux, Godot, or Blender constantly using type inference I would be angry and would the rip the developers a new one, you can't have a large project that relies on type inference and expect it to read decently at all. It only works decently for projects that don't leave your environment. And even in C# code formatters by default will tell you not to use type inference ever. "Having this `let` (or other keyword) allows to explicitly separate variable definitions from just simple assignments to the existing vars." And why does separating them matter? You never gave me a good reason to do that. Its a type declaration, why shouldn't it be associated with a type? "For consistency, `let` goes always first," For consistency the type goes first, how is let anymore consistent? And why does that matter? The parser doesn't need it and its a literal wasted symbol for the developer because it means nearly nothing to be read. "variable name goes always second and any optional stuff (like type or actual assignment) goes afterwards." Types are not optional though, even in dynamically/loose typed languages, the type is still of vital importance, and in library development its so vital that you will routinely get in trouble if you don't provide explicit types. And the only reason everyone hates explicit types in C++ has nothing to do with the types, (languages like Rust grossly misunderstood that problem and solved the actual issue anyway, it didn't need to implicit type anything to fix it) it has everything to do with how C++ includes work, you can't declare a using in header files without polluting every global scope that uses the header, C++ modules this issue dies entirely and just do what C# does with using. (which doesn't pollute the global scope because it ignores the concept of files entirely) Why the solution for that was consider implicit typing is beyond me, there were a lot simpler solutions for this. (you don't need the full modules system, just a subset of it corrects this issue entirely, its only because #include is a macro that expands its reference to a file that we even have this problem in C/C++)
    1
  2544. Narcissism, narcissistic personality disorder, and psychopathy aren't a beliefs or thoughts, its a personality defect, this is the mentality of a killer and I'm not even joking, she very well will justify murder so long as it benefits her.
    1
  2545. This won't work, problem is a corporation seeks financial safety and success and legislating it is not gonna correct anything, they'll just open a new (likely worse) hole. How many times does this methodology have to fail for people to see the truth? I said those that believe in government interventionism will never learned because they don't come to conclusions based on reason, facts, or evidence.
    1
  2546. Most of the time the Natives would generally act like tribal independent states (or the larger ones acted like empires) meaning the conquering would often be treated with respect by both sides as how soldiers tend to do, its not the soldier's fault that opposing sides are fighting, though the raiding coming from both sides certainly didn't help animosity by the raided folks on both sides, but the non-raiding soldier folks tended not to hold a grudge like in most wars, (though tbh that perspective has kinda started to die in the post-War era thanks to ideological propaganda) The majority of natives also likely didn't attribute the behavior of government policy to that of the civilian population especially since the individuals actually would often end up interacting with each other, even intermixing. (a lot of tribes full of second and third generation after meeting American culture tended to shrink as a result of most participants finding it easier to integrate as well which is another sign that they were destined to not last long)
    1
  2547. Its almost like someone in the SS and PD was in on it, almost like it was a deliberate to stop Trump.
    1
  2548. Its not New York, its rulers, politicians, and bureaucrats of this age, they are not your friends, they don't care about you, you can't vote in good people, they hate you and want to own you as slaves, if you want to fix the problem, the government must be replaced, a corrupt Republic can not be fixed, it can only be burned down and replaced with a moral one. It reflect your morals, the morals of the people. You want this fixed? Don't give the government power, stop giving them things they have no right to have, don't give them property, don't give them control over the economy, don't let them regulate healthcare, welfare, business, property, ownership, or anything else, they are not there for you to live better, they are there to restrain those who violate your rights. If you are stranded on an island, you have been given all the rights you could have, anything you don't have there is not a right, if some violates what you have then they have violated your rights, a right can not be violated if no one is there to violate it. This is why things like "right to repair" is a damn joke, its a socialist enslavement.
    1
  2549. Yeah, if you could own a gun, but guess what? There are 6 states in the US where it has been made practicality impossible to own a gun, (and if you get "red flagged" they can bust down your door and steal your gun if you even could get one in those states) even more none of them allows you to threaten nor oppose the state despite the explicit intent of the 2nd Amendment to be threatening tyrants. You want to make sure a cop doesn't abuse his power, just allow an un-infrined 2nd Amendment.
    1
  2550.  @DarkGhostHacker  I'm not gonna use it on cops that did nothing wrong to me, and I'm not gonna start violence on a cop simply for a slight abuse of power, but its been proven time and time again that when the people are armed, oppression among the citizens does not succeed. And I have direct experience with this, a cop will almost never fire at someone who is already armed and ready unless he knows the person is going to kill him regardless of what he does.
    1
  2551. @zxq_5 ABI stability, proper support for shared libraries, dynamic linkage, and static linkage that doesn't routinely break. There is no feasible reality for which any language should sacrifice ABI stability if its supposed to be stable, glibc causes enough issues in userspace when it breaks it, Linus gets routinely mad at them for this, (and if Rust is adopted, he'll be doubly mad at the Rust standard library because its even worse) the chaos of having an entire language library that is freestanding (which Rust also does not work with) which breaks ABI is an insurmountable problem. Just because we have a new fancy language does not mean we get to ignore the rest of software needs. There is never a justification to break ABI at any level of the standard library, any standard that doesn't comply with this will be worse then the C++ standard any serious software project.
    1
  2552. Honestly I still feel pity and sorrow for even the worst criminals, not because what they've done justifies them, but because every one of us is just as bad as them, the cops, the civilians, the people murdered, the politicians, literally every single person is at least a murderer and a thief, we are inherently and innately wicked and evil and we should not expected to receive a single count of mercy for our crimes, if I was ever put into such a position as these cops, foremost I already find the position abhorrent and inherently immoral, I don't care how many guilty men are found if it makes even one innocent suffer, but that aside if I was in said position under moral capacity I would likely still try to see the guilty saved and recused from their evil, to converse with them by the name of He who gave us conscience and morals even when they disregard it, that being our God and Savior Jesus Christ, then again for those absolutely convicted without a doubt there would be no life sentences that I'd respect, I would seek death of all murderers and rapists, while I would preach to them to their dying breath in the hope of repentance to The God that saved them, they must also suffer the consequence of execution, justice is eye for eye, blood for blood, tooth for tooth, justice must be paid so vengeance shall be stilled, for vengeance is the Lord's we are called to leave such to Him.
    1
  2553. Just gonna point out, reason I won't ever argue from a secular perspective as a Christian has to do with theological foundations, I honestly don't care about practical outcomes when the subject will still lead his way into hell, (I'll prefer a more aligned leadership that respects God even if they don't believe, but I'm not aiming to make a society that does that for it is theologically worthless to achieve) a nation which adopts the Christian model is what I'm concerned of and that's a movement given only from God who directs us to proselytize in such a way that if its meant to shall be effective to change the society. And any society that won't adopt Christ is in time to be condemned by its opposition to God, God brings them in, but it was they who rejected God.
    1
  2554. Gender neutral is itself a mentally ill position, if you have to force other people to speak only a certain way by force, you're most certainly mentally ill.
    1
  2555.  @Builderjim  Nobody is restricting collective bargaining, but it is not the government's job to interfere simply because you got laid off for it, that's your fault, go to a job that wants to pay for your work, not one that needs warm bodies. And if you can't do a skill worth being sought out and paid for then that's your fault for being low skill, not the business's.
    1
  2556.  @Builderjim  First off its not the government's job to do that, secondly the middle class thrived the most when it didn't create the monopolies, look up The Myth of Natural Monopoly from the Mises Institute, it has good references on that subject. Or look up The Myth of Middle Class from the Mises Institute, another good one.
    1
  2557.  @Builderjim  First off its not the government's job to do that, secondly the middle class thrived the most when it didn't create the monopolies, look up The Myth of Natural Monopoly and The Myth of Middle Class from the Mises Institute.
    1
  2558.  @Builderjim  Look up The Myth of Natural Monopoly and The Myth of Middle Class from the Mises Institute.
    1
  2559. You know its messed up when Americans know more about a subject, makes me question how bad our education really is.
    1
  2560. You don't need to imagine yourself as female to be invested in playing a true feminine female character in a game, most story-based games don't ask you to imagine yourself even as the character anyway.
    1
  2561.  @ferrisbueller9991  Just to point out, the 2nd Amendment literally forbids all gun laws, there's a reason whenever a gun law is brought before the supreme court it gets struck down as Unconstitutional, this is the reason the courts try so hard not to let anything get to SCOTUS because when it does you get things like the Bruen decision, which by de jure law gutted the ATF to be incapable of almost anything alongside both state and federal governments in general. Unfortunately the legislators and executive branches of the states and federal government have not actually bothered to follow the judicial ruling and are actively in contempt of the ruling, and continuous attempting to be in further contempt of the court, which means we may soon reach a point where SCOTUS rulings mean nothing because who is gonna enforce them. All thanks to gun control. That aside, you can't control guns, the expectation that even a former criminal can't own a gun is stupid because the point of jail is the idea that they served their time, why are they being let out if they haven't served their just punishment? Do we believe that they haven't been fully punished? Its hypocritical in this case for example to let them out of jail and then also restrict the rights they had which the Constitution doesn't give, it merely affirms.
    1
  2562. "Throughout the Bible there are contradictions" Really don't want to denigrate this into an attack, but that isn't a true statement, the Biblical text doesn't have contradictions, it does have faulty variants, translation errors, typos, textual holes, but those aren't contradictions, that was poor word to use there I'd say, I suggest looking up "how can we rely on the bible doctor white g3 wretched" if anyone legitimately believes that.
    1
  2563.  @dco1487  No its not, Jesus wrote the Old Testament as He also wrote the New, God has never changed, they are one in the same, why do you think all the Apostolic Fathers spoke exclusively from the Old Testament in performing Apologetics, (they don't reference any specific statement in the Gospels because they weren't widely spread as even references yet, some weren't even yet written, but they had eyewitness accounts of Jesus, which is what Paul and Peter do reference) I already gave you a historical reference to refutation of this claim. It is an explicitly and logically false claim. The same God that condemned the Canaanites and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was the one that died on the Cross, in fact Jesus was there and attests to that fact in the Apostolic Witness of the Gospels. Read John 5, especially verses 40-47 and show me a contradiction. Or how about Ruth being a Moabite yet she is an ancestor of the body of Jesus, Moabites were also a condemned people to Israel and yet God brought in a Moabite woman to be part of His work for the Blood of Salvation. What about Hosea and the Prostitute, once again a sign of God's patient and loving nature to His people, which are those in Christ, or how about Isaiah 53, which is so clear a prophecy of Jesus it is forbidden by the Jewish Rabbis to even read it?
    1
  2564.  @dco1487  No He doesn't, read Isaiah 53 again, read John 5 again. Actually read Ruth for once.
    1
  2565.  @dco1487  Show me where being Jewish was an issue and I'll show you numerous cases in the Old Testament where it wasn't relevant. I literally just referenced one in fact, there's an entire "book" over it.
    1
  2566.  @dco1487  "there's an entire book that was translated then copied and translated and copied between several languages and revisions." Then you don't know jack about Biblical history, this is not how any of it worked, there's only ever been three translations that everyone has copied from in history, one of them we absolutely and perfectly know for a perfect fact hasn't changed since before the 1st century, that being the Tanak, or Hebrew Old Testatment. (in fact we have records that go back to the 3rd century BC which are of Isaiah sharing the exact same text that we have now) The three texts that have been copied in history were the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Tanak. (the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim, the original Hebrew Old Testatment) These have, throughout all of history, been the only three texts that everyone has copied and translated from, not from language to language, its only been translated from one of these known consistent languages to local languages only. Hell the Vulgate itself is just a translation of the Septuagint itself, (all Koine Greek speakers would also know Latin very well and so the translation can still be checked to this day) so you could argue there are only two translations everyone uses, the only reason to qualify the third is because the Catholic Church ignored the Septuagint entirely (after about 700 or so) until the 1600s, where you saw Reformed writers relearning it from the East. However it was preserved in the East. Either way the Old Testament text of the Tanak has always been in reference because nobody ever lost the capacity to read Hebrew, only the West lost the capacity to read Koine Greek for a time. (the East did not lose any of these capacities and maintained the Septuagint until they came back West with the Fall of the Byzantines) This aside there are many copies of these text both found in the original language and the local languages, the differences of the original language copies is what we historians call a variant, that includes a typo or a false copy, now think, how many copies were made? Its uncountable, the lowest end requires hundreds of thousands of copies to have been made, in one of those original languages mind you, so Latin, Koine Greek, or Hebrew. Only these texts were ever used for Biblical copying as "original" and were not copied for the sake theology, all of them were also extremely well preserved. The result of this is that we have a nigh uncountable amount of copies with only slight typos in one place or another, never changing the semantic meaning of the text and even further communicating the same message over and over and over again. This was no "copy of a translation of a copy of a translation of a copy of a translation" it was only "a copy of the original text which is (maybe) a copy of the original text" and people did this for over thousand years voluntarily and independently of each other, what kind of fool would copy a translation when he has access to the original text for which he could translate or get a translator to translate himself? That's stupid. This is why the variants are so important, it demonstrates the reliability that among the variants we verifiably know the Scriptures were perfectly preserved, for scouring through all these variants we can know exactly what it said. You do not get that of any document in Antiquity, even into the Early Medieval period, you don't find almost anything comparable to the reliability of the Scriptures, the variants ensure the truth of what it says. "There is no possible way to know the original texts and all apologetic arguments are circular." Wrong, first off variants prove the reliability of the Bible, secondly Paul's epistles were for 1800 years used as the basis for rational argumentation, most rationality and logic you experience is in some regard also contributed to by Paul's epistles, especially Romans. "None of it matters just do what Jesus said to do and do good things." John 5 is quite clear, if you can't believe trust in the words that Mose wrote, (including Genesis 1-10) then you can't believe in Jesus. So even Jesus called this type of thinking out as false, so saith God. There are also cases like Matthew 5:17-20. Again you don't understand basic theology, nor basic church history, nor basic Biblical history, I have to wonder how you can have an assurance of Scripture when you reject the first elements of Scripture that speaks its authority.
    1
  2567.  @dco1487  Copies of John the Apostle's writings of Revelation have been carbon dated to around 110, perhaps a little earlier, (some say it goes as far as 90) that's only a few decades off when tradition says he wrote it. The oldest Biblical copies contained writings from Isaiah that were carbon dated to 300 sharing the exact same text we have now. Paul's epistles aren't even the ones I was referring to, I already gave you a historical reference to reliably know it is exactly what the New Testament writers wrote, look up "how can we rely on the bible doctor white g3 wretched" on Youtube, you'll get everything you need to know about the subject and the Bible's reliability if you just watch that.
    1
  2568.  @dco1487  "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:14-17 Paul is pretty clear that its not. You know the sacred writings refer to the Tanak right? They didn't have anything of a New Testament yet and Paul never calls his writings sacred, so what "sacred writings" could he be referring to? A Jew would only call one collection of writings sacred at this time, so is Paul uninspired then? Is he liar? If you cannot trust what Paul has wrote, how can you trust Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John? And yet Augustine, Clement of Rome, Athanasius, and Basil all refer to Paul as though he were inspired and speaking just these words. So I wonder who is right. Would you call Paul a liar, then you cannot have Jesus. "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:44-47 So is Jesus also a liar? “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:17-20 Once again, was Jesus a liar? Jesus held a higher view or Scripture then you clearly, as did Paul, not to mention Luke, James, Peter, and both Johns.
    1
  2569.  @dco1487  Works do not save, my assurances are not in works. "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment." - James 2:8-13 My assurances however are foremost in faith. "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." - Romans 3:21-31 If having right faith, only then can I do good works, which justifies me then among men, but before God I would still be convicted without faith, my endeavors do not relate to man, but to God, and so my works will be in accordance to faith before man. "But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?" - James 2:18-20 In so too my works, which do not justify me before the Lord nor have any salvation, they demonstrate my faith. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." - Matthew 7:15-20 It is by this we know one of the faith, for the fruits speak the heart. So what fruits then am I called to perform? For some it be feeding the homeless, taking care of the sick, volunteering to teach children, to counsel the unwise and the poor. In my way I study and speak truth, my works are in the words I speak and the theology I proclaim, to fight the ways of the world in all its wickedness to proclaim truth, I am not gifted with a capability to volunteer in many other ways, neither will I glorify myself and boast as to say "I have done more then thee" for who can boast? "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" - 1 Corinthians 4:6-7 So with this, I am not held to a standard to prove myself, if I am not a Christian, measure what I say by the Scriptures, if I speak so falsely by interpretation in the Holy Spirit, then I speak falsely, but such must be shown by the Holy Spirit, not just rejected, but my words must be addressed by the Holy Spirit. So lay this thought out, can you, independent of any doctrine, read the Scriptures by guidance of the Holy Spirit alone to condemn what I have said as false? I have done such this through the Scriptures, if any of that I say violates the Scriptures, by what measure is this found?
    1
  2570. Gnome is dumb anyway.
    1
  2571. I always find it interesting how socialists and leftist look down on marketeers despite them being the ones proclaiming utopia through theft and murder. The most covetous people are the arrogant ones who believe they're better then you and have the right to your property. Oh look government intervention.
    1
  2572. I don't drive, I'm not often on highways, I can count at least 4 times in the last 3 years I've seen this with Tesla drivers, in my experience if you see a Tesla on a highway, its become functionally a 50/50 chance the driver is sleeping. If you want to catch daytime sleepers you're guaranteed to find one if you can find a Tesla on the highway, its insane and stupid.
    1
  2573. Where is the source for this?
    1
  2574.  @zookgotti  The "young man" ran away naked after Jesus was arrested, he wasn't naked until the authorities seized him and so he ditch his clothes, and it doesn't describe a youth as in "young boy", it describes a young man as in young adult, this is also an eyewitness account from a believer. This all aside dressing that way was extremely common when you were sleeping. (which the dude was)
    1
  2575. ​ @Patricktheanticatholic  What Bible? All Greek Bibles are named, name the source, its definitely not the "first bible ever published" because that's the Codex Sinaiticus that claim is not in it.
    1
  2576. China sounds Fascist, not Communist, this is literally the rulelist of Mussolini's statism.
    1
  2577. While I agree with not killing over religious differences, its needs to be pointed out that under the principles of each religion, they do not worship the same God, the Jews (despite their disbelief in God generally) had worshiped a God of only order and justice (leaving very little room for mercy in their personal view of Him despite all the merciful things he did to both Gentiles and Jews), the Muslims worshiped a similar God however Muhammad was a pretty clear infringement of the doctrines of Christ or Jews and taught things generally considered abhorrent and contradictory to the basic tenants of both religions. The Christian God in this case was worshiped as both just and merciful, something that neither the Jews nor Muslims were responsible for. (despite the later well behavior of Muslims and Jews during the latter Caliphates) There is also a unique belief among Christianity that no amount of good behavior will redeem you and you are not inherently a good person which is most certainly not shared with Islam or Judaism. Abraham likely wouldn't have agreed with modern Jewish interpretations in the first place specifically because of the promise of grace and mercy he did receive, and he most certainly would've been opposed to Islam.
    1
  2578.  @dr.zoidberg8666  Seems your understanding of theology of different cultures and religions is majorly flawed, by that very claim all religions should share the same ideals and values, which would basically contradict the idea of distinct religions since that's what they're so different about. A religion which argues for a state-based war cult is not worshiping the same deity as those that worship a deity of mercy. The different values by its very nature means they're attributing entirely different characteristics of the deity, even in the case you try to reject religious values in general, this isn't a valid argument simply because of religious traits. Even many pagan religions that share traits don't share the same values because they worship different things. Even if you entirely reject the deity (which tbh a regular secular person still can't) the idol worship of specific behaviors by essence makes it different. Such claims otherwise are invalid interpretations of reality at best and a gross intentional manipulation of reality at worst. Greek Pagans and Roman Pagans for example were not remotely the same despite the fact Roman Mythos is 95% Greek anyway. (this is because the worship and values of those deities were distinct by design) It also doesn't make any sense to make this claim if any religion exists which is polytheistic (or atheistic) in which case they're not making worship to a so thought single deity that is recognized alone. So all Pagans are ignored, and we don't see any Hindus existing anywhere. This claim is just fallacious all over the place. "All people that believe have their own interpretations of what God is" This is universalism, and its a bad argument regarding it as well. It rejects distinct values of any religion simply because it can't comprehend that people could perceive reality in a way that lets them see or ignore things how they'd like to see or ignore them. We don't argue from subjective points of view of everyone sharing the same vision of reality somewhere (if you want to try to prove that, go argue reality with a schizophrenic bipolar off their meds) because it doesn't make any sense, if you're gonna go the subjective root of religion, you can't argue they're all the same entity. (especially when some religions don't even have any or have multiple or may not have the same type of recognition of a deity that could be treated such a way) That aside as a Christian I also don't worship the same God as anyone else because everyone else's gods are liars and fakes, dragging man and trying to reach God, seeking the glory of themselves and to glorify only themselves. There is only two types of people in this world, the living and the dead, and those who aren't born again can never wake. If you reject Jesus then there is no saving you, even if you accept Jesus, but you walk in opposition to Him, you are still no a Christian, if you are not of His values you are his enemy and will be burned for eternity. And no, the claims that Abraham or his descendants were Canaanites or of Canaanites and believed in the gods of the Canaanites is entirely developed out of many of the later Western Criticisms, as far as what is known, the God of the Bible was not among the Canaanites by the time of Abraham. Also its funny that we can only get into rejection and criticism of Jewish/Christian documentation these days, I wonder why nobody before could so handily reject the existence of said characters. I wonder...
    1
  2579.  @dr.zoidberg8666  Ah, so you assume by trying to learn only from the people who want a faith to fail thanks to inbuilt bias, and have no experience regarding that faith, you are willing to tell me you know it better then people who spent lifetimes understanding and explaining how the faith works. Mix that with materialism and of course the only thing you can think about is a dumbed down, self-centered, pseudo-intellectual analysis of the text. It couldn't be a result of arrogance or ignorance on your part, it has to entirely be because everyone is just worshiping the same thing. They must be wrong because I can't be. Yeah, you didn't learn jack about Christian theology in the least, and at best your Jewish theology is only weakly managed. If you did learn anything about Christian theology, you would be totally incapable of making the argument that the Trinitarian God is the same God as the Jewish or Islamic God, or is even comparable to any of the other Pagan or Eastern gods. And a formal philosophy class on religion isn't gonna help you with that, if the only history your taught is based out of those claims of philosophy and theology understanding that you showed, they don't appear to represent any form of reality. And what do you mean things you never said? You're the one that made the claim everyone worships the same deity and I countered you on that in both a rational and faith-based manner. Nothing I said was misrepresenting you, if any problem exists regarding its you explaining your OPINION badly.
    1
  2580. ​ @dr.zoidberg8666  1. I don't believe you when you make such irrational arguments. 2. You clearly didn't listen to anything that was being said by any decent theologians, so either you never actually met any or you're intentionally trying to manipulate or misunderstand them. 3. I don't care about religious men, a man of religion is worthless in faith, if he is not theologically grounded and founded in the truth, his words are worth nothing, they are but vain hypocrisy sprinkled to the wind. Christ does not appreciate the words of hollow and shallow men. 4. Don't try to cover your ass by claiming it was someone else that gave you these ideas, or that you have experience in something revolving faith, that's just an attempt to laud a plead to expertise where none exists. Its an excuse so you don't actually have to deal with the criticism of YOUR worldview. Its a fallacy in logical argumentation, and a red herring otherwise. Also it appears you neither actually discussed the topic of faith, and/or have such a broad exposure to religious philosophy that you learned nothing of them. And your philosophy claims clearly never came of someone of a Christian background, I can see that claim from a secular Jew, but it requires no conviction said by anyone else. No its not the same God, Islam believes in a God that lacks any mercy, peace, or love, the Jews believe in only the subservience of all non-Jews by God, lacking in compassion and faith, Christ does not represent what either of them seek. Christ embodied weakness because he strengthens the weak and does not fight of this world. The other religions desire restitution of this world and compared to this world. That's why they fight. But without Christ you don't get mercy and love as a strength, you don't find compassion as desirable. You don't seek forgiveness. Those traits distinguish Christ and the Father from all other religions because no other religion seeks both justice and mercy, grace and love. As for the Mormons, you really don't understand anything about Mormonism then. They don't believe in one god, they believe in a functional infinite amount of gods and the one they claim we look at is actually just one of 'us' that became a god. They actually reject most of the Jewish and Christian documents and traditions because they conflict so heavily with Mormonism, the only thing they don't outright reject is the one thing that they can't reject. That Jesus existed. But even Buddhists and Muslims think that. Like you can't deny his existence even if you want to deny everything he said and did, simply because of all the proofs that exist of Him. As for your claims of history, your arguments are not based in any empirical reality at least. The Muslims are a completely different branch of Abrahamic classification from Judaism and Christianity because they didn't extend from the any Abrahamic traditions or culture. They instead spawned from a rejection of Zoroastrianism by Muhammad. Christianity spawned from Judaism evolving as it did to suit the Israelites so the claim can at least be better rationalized from that, but the only reason you even try to make that claim is because most of its adoption was by semites and Muhammad claimed to be a theological descendant of Abraham. (which the only way to verify that by any measure is to analyze Abrahamic theology beforehand which Islam doesn't actually do a very well despite the fact they had a little over 5 centuries of two major theological roots to pull from excluding anything before Jesus because the destruction of the Temple soon after) There is no record that the Israelites were Canaanites, cause I know where you're making that claim from and its rather unsubstantiated to say the least. Its really easy to see the roots of the criticisms that tend to get leveled at Christian and Jewish history and it rarely ever comes out of more then one place these days. (in fact the only other place Christian criticisms ever comes from is from a handful of post-Christ Jewish philosophers , and usually it only revolves around the rejection of something regarding Jesus) Anyway, the Christians didn't inherit the God of the Jews, though some Jews did have a proper faith, but most of them didn't which is where the rejection of Jesus came from. If they shared the same God, they wouldn't have expected the Messiah to burn down the Roman Empire and build up a Jewish ruled planet. And the Muslims as I said didn't inherit the Christian God. (Muhammad didn't even have much much experience with Christians at the time, he had a relative that was in a church that he probably knew, which influenced mostly his perceptions of what Jesus was but outside that his values and ideals don't line up anymore with Christ then the Jews and that can just as easily be chalked up as a semite thing) "At no point in any of these theologies did they say "Stop worshiping the god you're worshiping! Switch over to this new guy." Jesus was all about the God of Abraham. So was Muhammad. It's only their understanding of that God that changed." Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” - John 14:6-7 Allah witnesses that there is no deity except Him, and [so do] the angels and those of knowledge - [that He is] maintaining [creation] in justice. There is no deity except Him, the Exalted in Might, the Wise. - Quran 3:18 I would say that's pretty explicitly stating in both that there is only one way. These aren't even half of what was said on the subject by either books. Jesus outright tells us only through him do we live. In the Quran it says only Allah matters, and they reject the crucifixion of Jesus and as a savior, they are mutually exclusive in every way by this simple part alone. And its not the only excerpts on the subject.
    1
  2581.  @ms_scribbles  And where exactly do I speak lies?
    1
  2582. She sounds like a tankie, and I'm willing to bet given her name that she is at minimum descended from former Soviet loyalists.
    1
  2583. Given the creepy stuff that's been released on the backend of this stuff and its been all over Hollywood and the political elite across the world, and its an open secret to everyone, Tim I will outright tell you that you're wrong, I am totally confident in saying Pizzagate was entirely fact and its a demonic cult.
    1
  2584. Statistically fully automatic weapons are way less effective at killing people then semi-automatic weapons, they work like mortar bombardment, extremely ineffective at causing damage, they work more effectively as suppression and instilling fear, if trained correctly. (which most civilians can't do themselves) However if you wanted to know what would stop a majority of mass shooters from being effective, no gunfree zones and allowing fully automatic weapons would likely do it. Also the right to bear arms applies to all military grade weaponry, its the right of the people to bear arms against the invaders and tyrants of the state, we are suppose to be allowed to own artillery and war machines so as to strike fear into our government to prevent them from infringing our rights. We aren't suppose to fear our government, they're suppose to fear us. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington all made statements in subject to soldiers and civilians being able to arm themselves comparably.
    1
  2585. Its interesting how the anti-binary crowd try to stand in the same place as the transgender crowd despite the fact they are completely polar opposite concepts, the anti-binary crowd rejects the concept of a gender binary, sometimes in their unhinged subjectivist state they even call it a sexual binary (which no slightly intelligent anti-binary would do because they know that's not an argument they can ever succeed in making without a rejecting of empiricism which they don't like doing and can't get away with) but in actuality that's them not understanding their position and assuming words on their position. On the other hand a transgender believes they align more with the opposing binary to their "sex", whether they believe it a spectrum or not, its still a binary for which they align themselves by, by rejecting the binary they instead would be saying it doesn't matter but clearly it does to them. Also they have nothing in common with the homosexuals and bisexuals. But what does it matter anyway, its all sodomy anyhow.
    1
  2586. "I am positive the young man is morally justified in his actions." Morally justified? What says that, such claims requires evidence. Even if legally justified, morally justified it is not, you don't have a right to kill someone for robbery or theft without some type of capacity for threat being present. There is no present threat demonstrate here and there was nothing about this being armed robbery, not that it be relevant unless they knew such information anyway. And just because something is not morally justified does not say you are morally responsible for unjust acts, but know that your condemnation does not look kind if you commit acts like this in negligence which morally this very could be and its not an excuse. "I believe any human has the right to bear arms." This is irrelevant to moral justification, and this aside a right to bear arms does not mean everyone should bear arms, a right is an allowance, an irrevocable divinely given and inspired privilege, you have a right to property, that doesn't mean you should have property, it means you are allowed property to have. Some people can't do that and thus by social and principle matters shouldn't. This is the same with a gun, not every human is capable to wield a gun, that means they might have the right but it does not mean that responsible people should allow them to. This is where the difference between the intervention by the state, which is only by right and law, and intervention by the community, which must be by principle and reasonableness.
    1
  2587. Linguistic interventionism and elitism is an annoying trait, though it is kinda strange how in Britian the Londoner-types are overly-strict and aggressive with English while in French its the Quebecois that are overly-strict and aggressive. Like who cares about adopting language traits, language is for our benefit, those who adhere to useless traditionalism just to keep themselves separate are being foolish.
    1
  2588.  @benholroyd5221  It is possible, it sort of existed before the Victorian age in areas with Merchant Republics and in England, however with the centralization of governments and the formation of government economic oversight following between the Renaissance to the Napoleonic wars, you started seeing more and more governments embracing a form of economic intervention, since then almost no government has been true laissez-faire, even when governments resorted to short-term laissez-faire-like policies, they did not abolish regulations and business interventions, they just cut back and toned them down to be hard to notice. The Pre-20s (generally starting from Andrew Jackson's presidency) US and the first half of Interwar Germany were perfect examples of half attempts at laissez-faire, however government systems and regulations did still exist, and the banks were still mostly operated at government discretion. A true permanent laissez-faire government would only barely operate in any regard on its own and would do very little at any time. (and would take decades to establish any capability to enforce its will upon the economy if it suddenly did go interventionist) They'd also probably have less "democratic" processes involved as giving people the ability to vote means they'll most certainly eventually vote for someone to print money for them.
    1
  2589.  @benholroyd5221  Well we didn't used to have economies with boom and bust and they were as far as even an extreme libertarian ideal was concerned absolutely free, but as the logistics and capable power of centralized authorities rose, (alongside raising decadence which also marginally accelerated the process) we lost the capability to call our economies free in a justified sense. (more akin to semi-free as we create governments and banks to handle the exchange which always became massive centralized monopolies) Also I tend to get a bit annoyed with the whole "No True Scotsman" concept as when it does apply to a fallacious argument you can straight up point to the fallacy and argue against the point without it, otherwise people use it as an unjustified whipping bat imo. In this case if it was a "No True Scotsman" at some point, I'd rather ask how we define a free economy first before we ask has there been any. (which the no true scotsman focuses way too hard on when a true argument imo shouldn't) If we define free as left to its own devices and operating independent of non-economic principles, then you can apply "free economy" in that manner without ever contemplating some no true scotsman line. Also I believe as far as economics go, we should give everyone the ability to do completely as they will (granted it does not infringe general rights endowed by God, which I mostly refer to the US Constitution for) and let economic and social pressures determine the success and failure of individuals, which includes breaking promises. The only case for government in my opinion is to punish the wicked acts we can persecute (as in post-crime, no pre-crime crap) and preserve the innocence that remains.
    1
  2590.  @benholroyd5221  That's not what they mean by boom and bust, economic cycles aren't that slow, the longest periods tend to be less then 20 years. (and even then it wouldn't last through an nation that collapses, its no longer cohesive economy)
    1
  2591.  @benholroyd5221  "That's my point. You are always going to get unexpected shocks, no matter how resilient or perfect the economy is, eventually one of those will tip the economy over the edge." This is an erroneous argument tho, a bust isn't just an downturn on the economy. You can't just apply terms that have similar enough meaning if they don't apply semantically, especially in scope. Also it doesn't tip the economy, the economy succeeds on its own despite the intervention in it, its self-correcting, "shocks" don't change that, instead they reveal the lies and holes that propped up the systems that don't work. It shines light on the infection of the system, not damages it, now that its visible it would be easier to clean if everyone wasn't so lazy and cowardly. "Things tended to move slower in ye olden days" They really don't, economies don't move slower as you go back in time, they decrease in scope, an economy in Rome for example wasn't consolidated and outside of the Roman government and infrastructure, (which mostly relied on specific massive cohesive economies to transfer its finances through) all economic systems were local. This applies to all economies regarding logistics beyond capable interactions, economies are fast and capable, they act independently. The same applies to market crashes, first off stock market crashes don't actually expand that far into the economy, everyone makes a bigger deal about them then they actually are, they most specifically don't even tend to effect small and intermediate businesses, especially when we talk about recessions, as explained in the video many private non-industrial businesses tend to make out better in a recession. The people who pay are the industrial businesses and employees and those who pay into the fear. (who are already partway stealing money via the government anyway) "so I have no problem believing that a recession could last 50?" I do because that never happened before and the first time it happened was only when the government stuck its hand into the businesses and destroyed the market, (keeping it down for decades) it took less then 2 years for the economy to recover from the 1921 economy, and the government wasn't even going full laissez-faire. Two years from the worst economy ever seen to the best. The next time it happened the government went full in and it lasted just over 15 years, and even then multiple other economies with less regulation made out better in a shorter time. And every time a recession hits its the same thing. "Fall of Rome?" The fall of Rome wasn't an economic failure, it was a socio-political one, it was corrupted and even then for near two centuries most people outside of the city didn't even notice, the economy most certainly didn't take a hit, it operated how it always had, they just had less regulative measures and less taxes going towards a large central government. (instead you had small dukes, kings, and counts which required way less money and couldn't enforce economic policy at all, least not before Charlemagne, and even then it was still less regulated then Rome) The economies didn't even really shrink since they were always local in the first place, as a result the only change was taxation and rules. (which in the end was better for the peasant folk anyway, even the merchants had it pretty good during the Medieval Era most of the time) I wouldn't even really call the Fall a downturn economically, let alone anything beyond that. "I picked the example out of my arse, I have no reason to believe the trajectory was straight down though. Its going to be bumpy, some good decades, with a sudden Visigoth invasion undoing all that and some." Yeah it really doesn't apply, historically the Fall of Rome is a retroactive thing, barely anybody noticed it at the time and it wasn't until centuries later when kingdoms started doing things even more independently did anyone consider that they were no longer part of the empire. This is why the Pope and Charlemagne formed the Carolingian Empire. (called the first Holy Roman Empire after the Roman Empire, despite the fact Byzantium called itself the Roman Empire, which it was generally treated as for another century or so outside of the HRE) But no it didn't undo most economic progress because it was majorly local and they didn't actually raid most of the Empire, only its capital and part of Lombardy. (which they took as the Kings of Lombardy funny enough)
    1
  2592.  @benholroyd5221  First off nobody refers to boom and bust as just general periods of economic growth and decline, (that's fundamentally wrong because its so nonspecific it might as well describe nothing) when you are using those terms you are referring to a period of economic growth and reduction found mostly in the 1900s, its not centuries long, and generally doesn't apply to nations without a central bank. (or some other centralized economic authority, which in most cases before 1830 never really existed) It does not apply to a period of economic growth over a period of half centuries or longer and or collapse or reduction afterwards, (which isn't really how it worked anyway) in fact that rarely ever happened in a noticeable form, economies weren't nearly that volatile and they did not generally collapse or go into recession. (least how we think of it, plenty of locals in a economic region would starve from crop harm and livestock death or such, that's about the worst economic situation and it was always localized outside of a pandemic, there was no such thing as an economic collapse or bust period without the massive logistics we carried from the 1800s on) "What would you describe as an economic system in Roman times v today?" All economic systems are just a collaboration of smaller economic systems going down to the bottom, like feudal Lords reaching down onto the household of each individual. (generally the economic factors breakdown a good bit when you try to apply them directly to individuals, this is where psychology is required and it changes how we perceive the environment) The less logistically capable a society is the more limited this stays, so instead of getting a Mediterranean sized economy during the eras of Rome, you got town/city localized economies mostly (with very few cases of any higher integrated interactions) which practically completely ignorant of all other economies surrounding them. As logistic capability rises, so too does the ability to integrate small economic systems into a larger one, so far we recognize that an economic system can be as big as the EU, (most nations however keep it to nation, not pan-national or international) so we currently don't know the limits of current logistics, however what can be said is that there is one, I would suggest with current globalization we probably aren't capable of a hypothesized pan-planetary economy, so planets are the current logistical limit. That is to say if we could reach other planets. "My example still works. Londonium was one day part of the Roman empire, the Romans withdrew and Londonium experienced a contraction because of that. And is was quicker than the Fall of Rome." It really doesn't, the Romans living there did not withdrawal, for the most part they assimilated, by that point the Romans that weren't living there were already gone, the Fall of Rome itself did not effect London and for the most part they did not know about the Fall of Rome nor did they really care. And that aside most of London's economy was still local, even more so then most of the continent actually, being so independent they barely had regard for the Empire. In most ways the area the Empire covered was more projection then control. "When I said move slower I mean thing like spices and silk on the silk road might take years to reach us, and technological advances might take centuries." This is wrong, those trades aren't part of a local economy and are nowhere near as economically significant as nor to local economies. It also wasn't the a representative of economic strength nor as an aspect of the majority of economic systems. (or really most of them, it was a select group of people, usually already wealthy and powerful people, who were involved in that economic system at all) The silk road is comparable more to the stock market, which is a completely separate economic system and generally operates in a complete disregard to most other economic systems. (not all mind you but tanking most economies would barely see a dent in the silk road and tanking the silk road would see no effect in most economies, you need to tank very specific, practically monopoly sized, powers to have seen massive impact, same as the stock market today) Using the silk road as an example of an economy is honestly a faulty starting point, you need to understand the bottom of the economic connections and where they go up to, trade at the size of nations and larger did not represent an economy regarding the size of the trade routes. (trade at that size generally had minimal impact on local economies tbh, even now they don't make up even a large segment of the economy in most cases) "Today we can transport anything anywhere in a matter of weeks, money and communication travel at the speed of light." However we don't have pan-national economies outside the EU, and no global economy because of logistic difficulty dealing with national interests. Trade may contribute a large part to more localized economic functions, it does not in itself represent an aspect of the economy, instead its at best an attachment to it. (excepting the cases where some aspect of an economy becomes reliant on that trade, but that's industry specific, not economy wide, so its debatable if that's really the case) "In 70 years we've gone from room sized computers, to networked super computers in our pocket, able to instantly access the worlds knowledge. Able to instantly communicate our ideas to the world. This message could potentially be read by billions of people! 50 years ago that was something only world leaders could expect, 100 years ago no one could." This is kinda pointless to point out, the basics of economics and logistics don't change from this, especially when a computer is still incapable of things like reading and understanding general law. (which it can't do on its own thus one of the reasons nations are localized economies still) When you intentionally limit economic integration, you're gonna keep the economies disjointed and disconnected, our economies haven't grown into each other still, (in a sense we've been logistically sitting at the Victorian Era for a while now because we're still partly running on Victorian political economics) they're probably not gonna change for a while. (least without a one world government or dissolution of nations, which btw I oppose) "Re 1929 and 1921 crashes. In 29 private parties attempted to step in, it didn't work. Whitney with some bankers attempted it, and the Rockefeller's also tried stepping in. The government had to step in because of the size. The 29 crash led to the Glass steagall act. Note how there weren't any of these massive banking crashes until after Glass Steagall was neutered. The regulation worked!" So the government just took over the failure of the banks and failed for another 12 years. You do realize that proves my point right? The banks failed to fix the economy for 4 years, then the government decided to step in and ended up failing for 12. They kept the economy broken until 1945 when it finally recovered. Compare to 1921 where it recovered in from the same problems in 18 months with practically no government intervention. Given how often government intervention in the economy doesn't work because politicians and bureaucrats don't understand basic economics, (especially when politics operates in the exact opposite manner of economics) it makes me even question why anyone would think giving economic control to a government would make any sense, they don't have obligations to the economy, they barely suffer if it goes bad. (if they even suffer that is)
    1
  2593. @ Its not hard to see when its one of the most unoriginal and routinely debunked statements regarding Christianity in regards to history.
    1
  2594.  @bluntforcetrauma6333  His knowledge of period correct common Greek seems inherently poor.
    1
  2595.  @TheWedgeWizard  Your history teacher didn't study Ancient Hebrew history or Ancient Church history then, nor did he have any knowledge on Ancient Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, or Hebrew. I can bet you your history teacher at most only read a dictionary of the words for the Greek in the 2nd century and gave no regard to their context. (ignoring also that the Koine Greek of the Bible is a 1st century Greek-Hebrew writing) Agreement from people who read a dictionary devoid of context does not a valid argument make, that's a linguistic fallacy.
    1
  2596.  @slavche  "Long story short, i just don't trust interpretations" Unless you can read the language yourself, this is a fallacious statement, you're always gonna trust someone else's interpretation, even learning the language you're likely to still arrive at the interpretation of others, its an inescapable fact that everything is about trusting the interpretation of others to some extent, that's why you have to arrive at interpretations by a consensus of argument and counterarguments, whoever makes the right rational not by reading a dictionary but by pointing out what is and is not right according to the language affirmed by others who independently agree by touting the same conclusions, this is how you can figure out a conclusion is correct for it has multiple independent eyewitness attestation corroborating it. A falsehood cannot have this. This is what Christians are called to do, non-Christians have nothing that holds them to account in order to do this for to follow Christ is to be convicted by truth by the Spirit, not by knowledge, without this faith there is nothing trustworthy hence why we read foremost not language, but by the Spirit we independently confirm what God has said. This is why I use multiple independent commentaries alongside strong concordance and multiple independent translations to corroborate what is said. Christians have a foundation to know truth for we know it as objective and judgemental, the non-Christian is his own arbiter of truth.
    1
  2597.  @bloodyknucklez1275  That's a linguistic fallacy, you can't translate using a dictionary.
    1
  2598. Tim didn't even say he wouldn't host Nick, that clip of Tim talking about Nick is him explaining how even just mentioning Nick's name causes massive problems, he then goes on to say he'd still do it and doesn't care, but that he can understand why some other folks wouldn't take the risk.
    1
  2599. Psalm 111:2, that's a great passage: "Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them."
    1
  2600. This is what government regulations do, they're made for this, its unfortunate that law abiding citizens have to be screwed, but New York/California rot is spreading throughout the US, especially with this current bullcrap.
    1
  2601.  @SimonFrack  Pretty simple definition actually: Adult human female. Now if we're gonna define each of these words, okay, but that wasn't the question.
    1
  2602. Degenerates should be purged by the edge of a sword, for the Holy Land, Deus Valt.
    1
  2603. I used to be an anarcho-capitalist but as a Christian I've since shifted to a free market Christian theocracy Monarchy view after reading through Scripture, I still however sympathize with the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist views and find them massively preferable to anything that the other side does, I don't even really all that much disagree with libertarians in most things, I just don't respect the concept of the NAP because the Levitical Law as moderated by the New Testament inherently can't recognize it, I'd still fight for a hyper laissez-faire economic system though, like I'm constantly arguing against trash like IP Law.
    1
  2604.  @Aneko_Tomo  The issue is that God's Law establishes a system of a feudal monarchy that is to be a free market, God's Law needs to always supersede any other perspective, and God doesn't establish a voluntary leadership in His Law, and I don't find anarcho-capitalist perspectives were inherently built with the Christological framework in mind, you need a hierarchical monarchy that Gods gives that was established in full accordance to God's Law foremost, only then can justice and righteous flourish from the Law, and in time there will be good kings and bad kings, but those who are faithful will always be blessed and the righteous land will flourish in prosperity.
    1
  2605.  @Aneko_Tomo  The problem is that God does not support any concept of voluntary government, in fact He constantly emphasizes that government is not voluntary and is only given from Him, and that wicked governments are given in judgement, King Saul is a perfect example of violating any anarcho-capitalist position on government, even in the New Testament he would still be righteously given by a Theonomist which is what I am pointing to, he was God's anointed, God's Law only permits resistance in purely the maximizing the preservation of human life and a fair authoritative standard of justice, the judges and kings are not decided by the people, they are raised up by God alone. Violence against the state for the sake of resistance is only done in preservation of all human life so that the wicked will be punished and the righteous will be commended, nothing more, nothing less.
    1
  2606.  @thomasgebert6119  There are plenty of other avenues easier.
    1
  2607.  @thomasgebert6119  Functionally any text modification behavior in a text editor can just as much be implemented as regex (specifically regex that supports position groups) and it'll be way more consistent of hitting the target over replicating behaviors that can fail because of incorrect targeting. If you really need anything more complex you shouldn't be relying on a text editor, if you have to avoid redrawing the text and merely want to process it, sticking to a text editor is stupid, bloat, and slow, relying on sed, grep, and other GNU programs will always be superior to anything Vim can do, better and more portable and reasonable then at that point to learn the Unix commands. Any program that does more then its supposed to for the sake of tiny niches instead of relying on the more sophisticated consistent behaviors is bloating both the binary and execution and aside from teaching bad habits, its also duplicating work poorly, by the time it can duplicate existing work it wasted its time trying to overcome something that's already intrinsically superior, better to rely on programs whose job it is to modify the text performantly and natively then ones that aren't native and by default will perform redraws. I don't touch python, I avoid it like the plague, I've only ever relied upon regex and GNU. (and only ever relied on bash-like behavior once to do anything similar, and that was a scrubbing web pages for download links and then forcibly downloading the files to a local drive, which isn't all that much similar after the web page scrubbing and it relied on curl anyway)
    1
  2608.  @thomasgebert6119  "it’s not an either-or situation." For software engineering it is, its a violation of KISS for multiple reasons. It also violates the Unix philosophy. And that's just on the surface, it also violates plenty of other reasonable philosophies that produce superior software. Every moment you spend developing and maintaining one thing means to detract from developing and maintaining another and requires other resources to otherwise do. And why waste time doing that when there is something better that you can't compete with. Even more why not contribute to that thing instead? If it could compete with it maybe I'd consider the competition, but it can't and fails to relate even closely to the other solutions. "You can (and should) learn several text processing techniques;" There is no reason to unless they were competing, which they are not, sed and awk are objectively superior for every instance for which regex isn't suited for text processing, and for scripting a shell script is itself superior. There is no reason to have multiple techniques when there are superior less bloated and consistent manners to get the same results with better performance. "knowing how to use vim macros is useful for some situations," In what case can any of the named systems not cover in a much superior, simpler, and more performant manner. Even in the case of being lazy, find and replace is simple, regex, then sed, awk, and then bash/fish/zsh. (or if you are feeling really experimental oil shell) "learning how to use sed and awk is useful for others." sed and awk are more portable and aren't editor specific, and if the editor supports calling to the terminal there isn't even an excuse to rely on terminal specific behavior. "Also, you are simply incorrect in saying that you can do anything that macros can do with regex." You completely ignored what I said. I said for anything for which is simple text processing, like that demonstrated in the video, regex will literally do it for you, for anything more then that, the GNU toolset already does it better and more efficiently, they've been specially optimized for that purpose. "Macros are slow, but infinitely flexible." So is bash, sed, and awk, macros are useless in the face of all the other toolsets, they don't do anything not done better and easier with other tools. "I get the impression that you’ve never actually used vim seriously." I don't rely on my text editor doing things for me, I have never once consistently used any specific editor and I don't have reason to, I rely on using the right, easiest, and fastest tools for the job for which doesn't require me to install anything more, for simple things I'll use my text editor's find and replace or regex functionality, for anything more, I'll rely on sed and awk, and for anything beyond that I need absolute control over the results anyway and will just write a script in bash/fish. I have never had a reason to bother with engaging with vim because Unix provides all the superior and easier to use text processing capabilities I need where I also can control and guide the outcome without fail. And all without costing me performance or excessive memory usage.
    1
  2609. @scorchedhaunter Turing complete does not inherently mean its a programming language, bash doesn't have any concept of a parser at all, it executes commands line by line regardless of how much sense they make which enables stupid mistakes. A programming language is parsed, bash is like assembly, its a dumb instruction set (and not dumb in the sense of calling it bad, I mean that it has no intelligence to how its executed) and is basically a stack of instructions.
    1
  2610.  Patriot Spring  This is incorrect, cops have a duty (even if the courts disagree) to protect and ensure the good of the public, as well as to reduce danger or threat to others or themselves, if a cop tells you to listen to simple commands under reasonable suspicion and you ignore him, he has the right to act violent and with some form of force, (this is the first point where someone could possibly die, as that force could certainly include lethal force) you continue to resist, act violent, or trigger a possible threat, (should he not have used lethal force) they are justified in putting the target down. People complaining about power abuse by cops are not pointing to cops that follow this type of procedure, but most do, most cops don't want to get in the way of citizens and civilians, but a few bad apples spoils the bunch.
    1
  2611. Do note Revelation refers to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the singular Revelation revealed to the elect, not a collective of revelations that appear, it is not plural for that implies multiple ways, not a singular Revealed Way. (hence why its called Revelation)
    1
  2612. Elon: Is buying Twitter The Left: Panik Elon: Is not buying Twitter The Left: Panik Elon: Is buying Twitter The Left: Panik
    1
  2613.  @JonMartinYXD  Sure but out of all major mainstream distros, Arch was the only one that applies to, systemd is part of mainstream Linux, its the fault of all the distros that the patch was done so Arch was the only one secure from this backdoor. And most distros even without systemd still do these kind of stupid stuff that can be backdoored or exploited, distros really need to stop patching the upstream unnecessarily.
    1
  2614. I agree with the conception that race doesn't really exist in a sense, though I disagree that there aren't clear lines of ethnicity to a certain respect. Obviously there is no case of pure ethnicity, all men are spawned from the same man and woman, there is no separation between men of different societies in the sense of being differently human, however the genetics of different non-pure ethnicities do come into play in some cases, most especially in the medical field and to a certain respect sociological and perhaps even possibly the psychological field. Human genetics does, to a certain extent, determine individuals to such a degree that it does effect social and psychological interactions and health consequences, to what degree is that true we don't know and probably never will, but this is the classic nurture vs. nature debate. Like for example, African-origin folks (who are usually black, but granted such genetics may not be reflected in skin tone) do have genetic advantages in building better muscle and being more physically capable while having some intelligent disadvantages compared to some of the other non-African ethnicities. I would probably argue the layman shouldn't bother to recognize this most of the time because of the division issue, people try to find issues to divide themselves on naturally, its human nature, but at least recognizing some genetics do have strict or clear advantages over others in specific tasks that are reflected on a general scale that appears in correlation with things like physical appearance is not something delusion or socially constructed. While conceptions of race that we have now are beyond any truth for they were devised principally as the best known genetic indicator in the late 1800s and early 1900s when nobody had any knowledge or education, it is best to be cautious with such things as this else the same problem will repeat itself again and stick around for generations.
    1
  2615. I don't see how you can despise the government and in the same breath treat them like some type of unbiased perfected god to worship, why would I want to fund such crap systems that restrict the liberty of me and my household? I've got a better idea, give me an unregulated 2nd Amendment instead.
    1
  2616. Just gonna say that my dad has never played the games, doesn't give a damn and only knows much about the games from me, he was able to tolerate episode 1 with questions and annoyances, he's already saying he's likely to drop it at episode 2, he really doesn't like it. My dad was literally the audience in a lot of ways even in hating any even slightly woke messages, he has such low standards that he doesn't even care anymore and they made him start to hate it. As an aside everything I've heard, seen, or learned about it has only made me hate it more.
    1
  2617.  @cseijifja  But the sociopolitical institutions and economic factors weren't autocratic.
    1
  2618.  @cseijifja  You're confusing aristocracy and autocratic institutions, they are not the same thing. The economics of the 1700s and 1800s were most certainly not autocratic, and many of the institutions by the 1800s could not be considered autocratic either.
    1
  2619. People really need to start admitting women are biologically and psychologically unfit for being combatants, its extremely rare for them to even be capable of pulling it off, and it pretty much always has to be justified be self-defense of themselves, their homes, or their children.
    1
  2620. Or the Sony rootkit.
    1
  2621.  @mouseprotector5081  Then you simply don't know anything about inner city blacks, even the FBI statistics actually back this up, not only is nationwide shootings against blacks from cops well below expected for the crime rate whereas with whites is much too high for the crime rate, but majority of even repeat offenders in inner cities never get arrested, I've routinely watched black folks completely ignore the law in Philadelphia never once get arrested, like driving ATVs on main roads into the city directly in front of cops, but if a white man is caught doing it he's pulled over and thrown into the back of a cruiser. ATVs are not road legal, but so long as the driver is black they can get away with anything. Cops don't even patrol the cities, go to Kensington in Philly and getting shot is highly likely especially if you're white, its full of inner city blacks where cops don't even dare go, drug sales happen on every corner, gang crime is a regular occurrence and city completely ignores it, and it expands beyond just Kensington. New York City also has a similar problem, its been a regular case that if you commit a crime, if you are black, you pretty much will be ignored. In California cities the burglary limit for crime is $1000, (as in legally you can steal anything from a store so long as its under $1000) and cops let most crimes even above that go, especially if you're black. I've been witness to entire riots of black kids just completely rampaging entire shopping areas in Philly for no reason even and the cops did nothing to stop any of them, none of them were arrested, all of them are still walking the streets right now, many of them still rob shops regularly and still don't get arrested. The AGs in most states with these cities have an explicit policy of never prosecuting black crimes, and the city governments also openly admit it, in LA and San Fran the mayors have openly said as much. All of the these things can be empirically proven right now, Youtube however bans links.
    1
  2622. Bad men produce bad women, good men protect and guide women and they become good, women can't fix men, for they are the lesser vessel, but men in most cases can fix women. Feminism is a product of bad men.
    1
  2623. Two things I'm always gonna be angry over, greedy companies trying to thieve every dollar from the market because they feel entitled to IP law. (it should not exist at all) If the systems were open we could fix this crap ourselves, perhaps even port this crap perfectly ourselves. Secondly anti-cheat as it is found in most games is still trash, BE is stupidly easy to fool, EAC is too, and even if you get banned its easy to circumvent the ban in any number of ways most especially when no regular user has a static IP. Mitigation strategies are necessary, not rootkits and invasive quasi-driver software, but corpos and company heads are utter retards and don't understand crap about technology nor innovation. They could legit earn more money and save more money (both of which has been demonstrated in every case these things have cropped up in) by not living in this dumbass box.
    1
  2624. To be honest, a distro is only a single distro until its installed on your computer, then its a totally new distro, 95% of a distro's distinction is the install script and package distribution host, and majority of those still at some point will or can redirect to the parent distro's package distribution, (Mint, Ubuntu, Manjaro) dumb thing is when a distro makes its own custom install systems that make it different in slight ways, like how Manjaro screws with all the popular packages on Arch for no reason which causes install breaks, even had programs utterly crash because I used the Manjaro packages, like what is the point of overriding the packages that already exist, could just addon to the package in the main package distribution host anyway.
    1
  2625. Honestly, as a Christian, still sounds like Rasputin was possessed, definitely makes me think a bunch of demons were certainly involved in his insane exploits.
    1
  2626. I subscribe to the concept of American Explorers day to celebrate and acknowledge the actual significant explorers of the Americas.
    1
  2627. After Brexit the British people then need to force their government to fix their local immigration importation problems and lack of liberty with their surveillance state and extreme government overreach, a Margret Thatcher of UKIP seems to be necessary after Brexit. Too bad Brits take too much pride in the NHS instead of individualism and privatization like they used to, I do hope llaissez-faire can have its political resurgence in the US and UK cause right now we are struggling bad without it.
    1
  2628. The consent argument isn't a valid argument to kill the child because consent is not a moral line, that's a presumptive argument and its a bad one to start from because the same argument applies to being born, nobody can consent to being born and existing, consent is not a standard for which to draw moral lines especially when it pertains to the life of someone else, it doesn't matter what your consent is you don't have a right to take someone else's life, and neither should you your own because your life is not your own. If you admit to a fetus being human from conception there is no argument you can make for consent to override that. That is why they do the "clump of cells" argument as they have in some form of their argument already realized ceding the "its a human" argument eliminates the rational capacity for elective decision without compromising a moral line. Also Tim doesn't understand that in case where the child's life endangers itself and/or the mother's, that is a specially elective position given to both the mother and father. Also why does anyone always include incest with rape, if the incest is rape then why call it incest but if its not then it doesn't even violate the "consent standard", there is no excuse for elective abortion of incest children even from your argument unless it is rape in which case why separate it?
    1
  2629. They are the Synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9, 3:9)
    1
  2630. The Staff of Favor and Union was broken for they sold the Lord for 30 pieces of silver. (Zechariah 11:7-14)
    1
  2631. "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off" - Bjarne Stroustrup
    1
  2632.  @ldov6373  It means that C++ has a lot of ways to avoid the problems common in C that blows up the programming, but when you do occasionally find one, its probably worse then what'd happen in C.
    1
  2633. Min wage is such a scam, anyone who knows economics knows this.
    1
  2634.  @ActuatedGear  Depends on which album, earlier albums were great, Swift never had that.
    1
  2635. Danvers Captain Marvel is absolute trash, Miss Marvel was fine, they didn't need to woke both her and the original Marvel Comics Captain Marvel, also screw Disney for the most true Captain Marvel (now known as Shazam) getting shafted without his proper name despite being developed only shortly after Superman. It's absolute bullcrap.
    1
  2636. Too bad this entire video is filled with false propaganda about American gun ownership, as usual.
    1
  2637. I swear to God Asmon has never been to the inner city streets nor been witness to cops dealing with an OD, cops on Floyd's arrest were way too generous, he just didn't want to be booked while he was ODing.
    1
  2638. Honestly, I prefer to say that localism isn't the solution, its upholding of Constitutional values, the Courts are suppose to rule on the Constitutionality of any act, not its legality, the point of our courts and systems was never in regards to legality, it was Constitutionality, the Federal government has the right to intervene to uphold Constitutionality per state, it doesn't have the right to uphold any law no matter the level, and the same applies to the state. If the Federal and state governments infringe this they are suppose to be threatened and overthrown peaceably, and should it not end, then they have become invalidated by justification of profaning justice and it is the obligation of individuals to violently overthrow the state. Unfortunately we have well passed that point and there is no recovering the Constitution, it is dead, and its Americans that killed it. Those who accept welfare and social programs, including tax credits and tax breaks, have no right any longer to complain about the removal of their rights as those systems supplant the Constitution and eliminate you from the private system, you become part of the state, and the state (being the governing body) itself has no rights, if you are part of the public system, you are not an individual, you are not subject to rights and have no right to seek a claim of rights.
    1
  2639. Beyond drastic, its excessive force that causes collateral damage, all they needed to do was smoke out the place.
    1
  2640. Any knowledgeable Christian would admonish you for wasting effort before helping yourself, you can't help others until you can foremost help yourself. Attributing it to self-hatred is silly, the socialists were chasing a God shaped hole claiming to be moral they became slaves to evil.
    1
  2641.  @tzaphkielconficturus7136  "You can shake your fist at God, and complain about that however much you want, but what "should be" and what "is" are not necessarily related." Its not a shaking of a fist at God, its a demand by God that you behave in such that way, else you are inherently immoral. In fact those who can't get past their trauma are constantly condemned throughout Scripture of their responsibility to get past it. Trauma does not matter. (for example, trauma over adultery is the reason for divorce, but should you marry again you are committing adultery and thus are condemned even by the Word of Jesus) "There isn't a way to not let trauma "influence your actions." Yes there is, this is an excuse. We are not the result of trauma, we are its master, you choose how you respond to everything, like I know I should have trauma, it does not effect my decisions and I have ensured such, you are responsible for everything, you are not a victim, you are a perpetrator, all of mankind are perpetrators, there are no victims. "You can "rise above it," but you don't do that by not letting the trauma influence you; you do that by learning from it." No, if you are above it, it does not afflict your actions, a wise man acts not in regards to trauma but has wisdom over all knowledge, the once existence of trauma becomes irrelevant. Trauma does not afflict you unless you make yourself a slave to it, thus you are victim. This is victimhood mentality. It is inexcusable and condemned. Those who commit it cannot have redemption. "The trauma is then still influencing you, but positively." No, it marks it as irrelevant. For my case, I have many things which should mark me with trauma, and at one time they had done so, but I have given up this entirely, and have since only recalled them as part of knowledge for which coincides with the rest of my knowledge that I use with wisdom, and for which I have never responded again in any regard differently. This is trivial to do, but not from a slave. "You can become a better person than you were before the trauma, but not the same person, except by retreating from it into your old patterns." Or you simply change as a person as you would without the trauma, this is a completely nonsense claim, people change regardless of the existence of trauma. There is no thing as being the same person on the simple basis that there is no repeating who you were yesterday, that has never required trauma and it never will, this is a complete nonargument and is thus completely irrelevant. "You say only "weak" men allow trauma to influence their actions, but how are you meant to escape weakness except by trauma?" Submission to faith and thus wisdom. "Some of the greatest people in history have been driven almost entirely by their trauma." And they were weak and condemned for it, those driven are very likely to be residing in Hell over it. For they did not make themselves servants to the right path, they made themselves slaves to evil, as most men do, searching for excuses to justify their actions instead of needing none. I need no justification, for it has already been given to me that what I do is just not because of myself but by what I have received. I am already counted justified, I have submitted to Jesus and so I am liberated from things such as trauma, from sin, and from the corruption for which spawn such things, as it frees me from the Fall. Just as I be free from addictions and immoral behaviors, I have changed not in regards to trauma, but that it has become irrelevant, all knowledge and wisdom are in service to me for it was service of my master. This is true strength, all other paths are weakness and excuses.
    1
  2642.  @emperorborgpalpatine  I've been through plenty of trauma already, schizophrenic bipolar mother, I was once a slave to that trauma, going through what I have and now being I am in Christ, trauma does not matter to me, it is insignificant to my character and is no more then any other form of information.
    1
  2643.  @emperorborgpalpatine  Then you simply don't know the experience.
    1
  2644. Don't restrict the 2nd Amendment and you don't get this problem, but it really does seem like 95% of the people who say this type of stuff in these types comment chains are also totally fine with weapon regulations.
    1
  2645. I've heard that not only is it on Epic exclusive, but its also actually fairly trash as a game. I don't partake in trash, that's why I was never gonna buy it, and now I'm doubly sure I was right.
    1
  2646. Tbh the claim of Mary Sue's being attributed to female fan inserts only really happens in fanfictions even to this day, most claims of Mary Sue writing have stopped explicitly caring about the sex of the character for a long while, most of the time its false attribution that the writer shouldn't be stupid enough to listen to and the concept of a Gary Stu has gotten enough traction to undermine the idea that it mostly or only applies to female characters. The reason it often rightly gets attributed to female characters when it does is because generally the female characters are wish fulfillment from the writer or they need to be made to be cool because nobody could like the female character otherwise because they're unlikely to be badass. (which often times the latter is true however they usually do this by degrading male characters, think Disney Star Wars) Its also often the case that there is a diversity quota in stories where skin and sex are the only things that matter and those diversity quotas can't be portrayed as bad or incompetent. (again look at Disney's Star Wars, this is the core of Rey's existence)
    1
  2647. Leftists don't understand the difference between culture and stereotypes, also stereotypes are collectively generally true, even if individuals you know are part of the outliers, its rare for stereotypes to be unjustified. Perhaps they should start complaining about their appropriation of English or American culture because many of them aren't English nor represent the American culture.
    1
  2648. Pretty sure no large society has shown to be absent of religion for a long period of time and not collapsed into tyranny and self-destruction. (the French Revolution, the Communists, ect.)
    1
  2649. James 1:17, how apt.
    1
  2650. While true financially, I'm gonna bet Harry's homelife and children weren't doing well. Dick's homelife would probably be less then joyous as well.
    1
  2651.  @poly9306  And how are those behaviors being introduced into the spec? Why does everyone have their own non-spec conforming implementation?
    1
  2652. Simple litmus test for whether someone actually cares about the environment is to ask what their opinion of nuclear power is, if they respond with hatred or opposition, they're a mere puppet to tyrants and psychopaths and don't even have a good intention. (not that good intentions mean anything, the road to hell is paved with good intentions after all)
    1
  2653. Just gonna point out as a Protestant, we tend to refute any voice of God speaking to people in this manner for the purposes expressed.
    1
  2654.  @leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498  God hasn't called warriors since the ancient Kingdom of Judea, with the birth and death of Christ we are not meant to actively fight as warriors, and no saint that actively does so and does not turn from their violent ways is a saint under the law reconstituted by the birth of Christ. For all brothers and sisters who do turn from wickedness are saints in the eyes of God. Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. - Mark 12:17 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. - Matthew 5:38-42 It has been made clear through the Word and through the doctrines of faith that war and battle no longer stand as a movement for God but in opposition to him. Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” - John 18:36 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. - Ephesians 6:12 It is made clear then that we are not asked to fight for the sake of Christ nor make the claim to. While we are not condemned for fighting or killing someone in a justifiable manner, say they threaten us with death or being conscripted into a military, we are asked not to justify ourselves by claiming it is God who has us fight for Him but man. The world being in God's hands everything that happens is done in his control, but neither are we justified in such behavior either. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:14-21
    1
  2655.  @leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498  No we can't, Joan of Arc voluntarily fought a war, she did not represent God doing it and claiming that God told her too is an afront to God and the doctrines of Christ, she was no more Christian then the Roman Empire ever was in fighting the war. It doesn't matter if it was a defensive war, Christ won't reject those who fight in a war but those claiming to fight a war in His name after His Coming He will reject because that is not who He is and that is not what He asks of us. Nations, cultures, societies, none of them matter in comparison to Christ even though they are put in place for our pleasure and judgement. God will not inspire men to kill men after the coming of Christ because we are all capable of being Children of God who know His Word. The Scripture I quoted stands for both, it speaks to the unrighteousness in seeking such meaningless the destruction of flesh for all realms as it means nothing in the eyes of God. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. - Romans 13:1-2 This speaks just as much to those who fight in war as those who live in peace, in fact speaking qualitatively to those who are losing or lost a war and to those who are civilians in a realm of war. While all things are held in the hand of God not all things done by man that produce the results for God were righteous for man to commit. In order to consider fighting these wars in the name of Christ Romans 13 must be never be considered.
    1
  2656. While it sucks that such punishment had to happen because man is wicked, and judgement will be wroth upon every single man for the blood of every single death, their damnation shall fall upon them and God will have the justice and vengeance that's owed for vengeance is mine so saith the Lord, I should say that God seems to have also punished the Branch-Davidians for their heresy.
    1
  2657. I wonder if anyone realizes that cannibalism in humans actually develops cognitive dysfunction and mental instability. It's kind of obvious that humans aren't suppose to eat each other because it doesn't create a stable environment, much akin to inbreeding.
    1
  2658. Shows they don't know anything about the founding fathers.
    1
  2659.  @GothPaoki  That's a post-Greek idea, Macedonia and Greece were distinct entities at the time, and no I don't mean the stupid Slavic Macedonia crap, Alexander wasn't Greek as in descending from the notable Greek city states, his empire was much too northern to be consider part of them.
    1
  2660. I'm excited to know the next list of disappointing things our favorite distro punching bag Manjaro is gonna screw its consumers over with again.
    1
  2661. I use Brave and Dissenter and I've got no issues.
    1
  2662. Government provided safety nets are unnecessary and foolish, any time you give power for the government to encroach upon a field it will expand until it encompasses said field, it will always grow and the only manner to prevent that is to never open that door. They will write regulations and laws alongside taxation for which the result will always be government manipulation of the market whether it be overt or subvert. Even in Scandinavia this is still the case, they follow western economic models (socialist models specifically) and they heavily regulate the medical field which does prevent competition. Just because the governments there are less corrupt (which if you correlate with a "smaller state" instead of a "small population" you don't understand history) then the Anglo governments (New Zealand's population is the only one smaller then Sweden's) does not constitute a validation of the position. After all Sweden's government still betrayed its native population starting with the immigrant crisis and ever since it has been a mixed bag to live in it. You can't have a free market if you believe in socialist policies, else you are an operating socialist economy. Market socialism is still an appropriate name for Scandinavia, and its anti-liberty and anti-free market. You don't need the government to provide any safety nets, that's not its job, that's the job of the church and community, which will always do it cheaper, more efficiently, and more effectively without regulation or through the use of force against anyone.
    1
  2663. Probably for a a goop many more years tbh, Wayland will take a lot longer then pipewire to functionally replace X11.
    1
  2664. This video is absolutely fire, hits every necessary point from black rock and vanguard to wikipedia to journos to the state and all with simply clear proof.
    1
  2665. They can't because disparate impact law is mandatory discrimination in preference for minorities, (if you don't do this, you'll be sued for it) this is what the Civil Rights Act did, and its why DEI took over the corporate world.
    1
  2666. Robot Rickshaw, Robot Rickshaw, Robot Rickshaw, its just so fun to say.
    1
  2667. Still believe in de-FOOing from trash people, if they only harm and are unwilling to change then they should be sectioned and quartered, excommunicated from life, SJWs and idiots who believe leftist trash are the exact type of people that excommunication is suppose to correct.
    1
  2668. Hedonism, gay sex, and castration doesn't produce a prosperous society, its always been demonstrated that such behaviors leech from society, Rome and Greece both demonstrated that, how many times are we gonna be taught this lesson.
    1
  2669. In the xz case, it took weeks to discover by accident, I know Windows exploits that could backdoor you that resided in it for years that nobody fixed.
    1
  2670. Just gonna say this since I don't have anything else to add, there are those of us who oppose any form of IP law including patents for moral reasons. The simple rationality behind this position is threefold, the first being that all IP law is quite literally a government enforced monopoly, the second being that no individual in the Middle and Lower classes is capable to take advantage of the legal avenue for IP law against any reasonable threat as they'd be unable to afford even the legal cost for a short time in all but the most exceptionally obvious of cases, and three intellectual "property" or conceptions are incapable of a proof of ownership inherent to their design and neither are they non-fungible. That last point means no individual can objectively demonstrate that they own an idea (as that requires proof of ownership capability) and once individual could independently devise their own conception that appears like another and be claimed against despite objectively committing nothing wrong. Economically they are discourage competition which is also a negative.
    1
  2671.  @FlorianZier  Part of the point of UB is specifically because some optimizations are platform, architecture, and compiler specific. Like for example integer overflow is UB because it allows you to eliminate certain checks that cost at runtime when the compiler or CPU knows those checks shouldn't run. What happens with overflow isn't specified so the compiler implementer can decide what is best for them, usually following the platform which is usually wrap around. This is actually why C/C++ UB is so powerful. C++ does this because the standard is focused on performance foremost, any runtime cost is always paid unless you add unsafe functionally, but there are realms in of safety in those "unsafe" cases in C++ that Rust can't naturally provide.
    1
  2672. Jordon Peterson I understand isn't all that invested in theological understanding and rational, but dear God do I despise the catholic doctrine here again, it is so damn easy to refute with a teleological argumentation that its not even funny. I should not be able to make a teleological argument that undermines your whole doctrine and faith. Baron so poorly misunderstands the nature of Christ and the theological doctrines of the fathers of the faith, to actually make a claim that an aspect of the Bible functions on the principle of allegory is quite literal blasphemy of the text so says Christ and His Word. (I shouldn't have to even mention Paul, nor anyone else but every single Biblical church father including Paul has already addressed this) "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." - Galatians 1:6-9 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." - James 1:17 "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." - Romans 12:2 "For I testify unto everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." - Revelation 22:18-19 The Bible is quite clear, especially in the NT as demonstrated, though it speaks even in the OT, not to rely upon man's interpretation of the Word nor change the Word as its spoken. The Word is breathed out from God, there is nothing that should not be taken as it was written. Saying that the Bible enables a non-literal interpretation that refers to a long period in a "theological interpreted" scope is well beyond twisting of the text. I'm fine with Jordon not understanding this nor making much note of it in the least from lack of theological understanding and doctrine, but Catholics don't get this excuse, yet their theology is so childish and weak its ridiculous. I'd like to hear Jordon Peterson speak with Dr. James White or Jeff Durbin, I'd actually pay money to see that happen to be honest, be nice to see a theologically sound mind, most specifically a Calvinist doctrine, being discussed with Jordon who I in the least appreciate for his psychological takes. I also really do wonder how Jordon would actually interact with Calvinist evangelical.
    1
  2673.  @xcersize8882  I wouldn't consider anyone that doesn't adhere to all my cultural and faithful values, and I wouldn't consider anyone who cheats, had kids out of wedlock, or was divorced. So that means if I found out they had kids or I knew they had kids I am not even bothering with the thot. And I'm pretty strict with considerations of faith, if I found they didn't give much a regard to faith, they don't ever read the Bible, they don't go to church, and they never consider any theology, they're not worth consideration and I drop them there. (lovingly of course, gotta avoid making them stumble as much as I can) I don't consider lust as a prime factor for choosing a relationship, its a factor for starting one perhaps, as it determines someone who is genetically valuable, however there is a limit to it and sex before marriage is completely wrong so it has to be tempered. (once married, there is no limit to lusting after your wife as long as you don't commit adultery or sodomy) Romantic love needs to be built over time and doesn't really exist at all in the beginning. (common love is suppose to but that's not capable of sustaining a romantic relationship) "People change, it's part of life" Righteous people don't change into wicked people, instead you just happen to be retarded and pick a wicked person and performed no evaluation to ensure they weren't wicked. That's you're fault and you deserve your judgement. If you don't have strict evaluations on people, then you are gonna fail at some point. "the concept of living with one person till "death to us part" is unrealistic" Majority of all populations have done it for millennia, marriage was a gift upon man to protect both parties from evil and sin. If you can't handle commitment and responsibility, that's your problem, not mine, and you will be corrupted by evil and destruction. The wages of sin is death. "goes against the natural biology of humans." I don't care what is "natural" if it contains evil, the world itself is out of its natural state, death is not a natural part of it as to mourn loss of life proves we find something wrong with death. We are destroyed ourselves in our sins and thus we have corrupted ourselves towards evil, it is only through Christ that we are able to oppose such. And it is declared and defined by God that marriage is a core tenet of living life free and joyful in our human nature when we lust, so that we lust in our marriage and thus shall never sin. That is the purpose of marriage. Those given a gift to not lust can choose a path for God alone and do not need marriage, but they are relatively rare and don't pertain to me for I don't have the gift.
    1
  2674.  @Darkendlezzz  MGTOW is just the men's version of feminism, its throwing a molotov cocktail at the one place that isn't burning down because they want to spite everyone. They'd rather not fix themselves and follow just principles, they just want everyone to leave them alone and jackoff in their bedrooms. Its just as destructive as feminism because it only insulates and infantizes people more. If you don't leave your headspace and spite the system by fighting it head on, you're letting them win and giving yourself over to evil. Its not a philosophy, its a cult, a cult of self-obsession and some twisted form of perfection monk asceticism. There is no perfect society, there is no perfect relationship, there never was, get the hell over yourself, or go die in a ditch, because anyone following MGTOW is a waste of human life. We are imperfect, worrying about that imperfection is only gonna make you bitter, you'll never become better.
    1
  2675. I can't tell if its the translation barrier or what, and I don't mean to accuse any brother or sister of any lacking in the faith without proof, but it seems like whenever I watch videos of Japanese Christians, they only say a few sparing words on Jesus and focus little on God, and they don't seem to often reference or speak of Scripture outside of vague statements, kinda feels like the Catholic problem.
    1
  2676.  @kontoculai6301  Its not a matter of passing a test, but that when our faith is overflowing as the Lord gives to us, it becomes impossible for us not to repeatedly point to where our hope and salvation is, that being Jesus, and to point to the source of how we know about our iniquity and salvation, which be the Scripture. When you sparsely mention Jesus and the Scripture, its generally a sign that there is little zeal behind that which you say, we should be zealous for His Word as He has shown us "My zeal consumes me, because my foes forget your words." - Psalm 119:139
    1
  2677. Really hoping this doesn't get you arrested, I know European, and especially Portuguese, laws are absolutely atrocious when it comes to any potential weapons, especially those that use even blanks.
    1
  2678. I'm still waiting on the explanation for why travel bans for reasons of disease are "a bad idea and don't work" given that we're in the least trying to slow the spread of disease. Like if we can prevent unknown infection or reduce unknown infection, precautions especially after the continuously useless failed quarantines we committed are definitely gonna have a positive effect on reducing infection.
    1
  2679. Its LDS, Lunduke Drangement Syndrome.
    1
  2680. The Frankfurt school literally brainwashed the west Germans into self-hatred, it was an American project initialized to squash post-war German dissent with the help of some rich and power anti-German Jews who wanted to turn Germany into a neo-communist puppet state. (obviously not all Jews, but very particular Zionists anti-Germans devised this project to cause all these modern abuses like transgenderism, multiculturalism, radical environmentalism, and the worshiping of the god of democracy, a number of modern problems are a result of the Frankfurt school) It might very well be that most of those who haven't woken up can only be terminated, it would take replacing an entire generation to fix. So Germany is practically dead.
    1
  2681.  @StarWarsExpert_  The Frankfurt school is a neomarxist postmodernist philosophical school of thought (its not a literal "school") that the US intelligence agencies co-opted in part to degenerate Germany into a neoliberal progressive puppet state via indoctrination. (this plan was originally intended to keep the West Germans docile and easy to control, and this is a matter of known public record) It was originally founded in 1923 in Frankfurt, but it only rose to prominence after WWII when the American-led German indoctrination started. (this was the plan of De-Nazification of West Germany, there were some who were fooled into letting it happened, while others deliberately implemented it for nefarious purposes) From there it was also used to proliferate postmodernist progressivism to other countries (as it makes controlling large populations much easier and reduces the chance of outright revolution against the status quo) including the US, most modern schools in western countries takes cues from something of the Frankfurt school, and its used for many nefarious purposes. Its core principal though is anti-humanism. The Frankfurt school was also a benefit to the Soviet Union and Communist China's attempts to infiltrate and destabilize the US however their plans were of secondary effect in comparison. Every progressive policy you can think of in the modern era is a Frankfurt-based development, and all of them are inherently self-destructive.
    1
  2682.  @StarWarsExpert_  The Frankfurt school is a neomarxist postmodernist philosophical school of thought (its not a literal "school") that the US intelligence agencies co-opted in part to degenerate Germany into a neoliberal progressive puppet state via indoctrination. (this plan was originally intended to keep the West Germans docile and easy to control, and this is a matter of known public record) It was originally founded in 1923 in Frankfurt, but it only rose to prominence after WWII when the American-led German indoctrination started. (this was the plan of De-Nazification of West Germany, there were some who were fooled into letting it happened, while others deliberately implemented it for nefarious purposes)
    1
  2683.  @StarWarsExpert_  From there it was also used to proliferate postmodernist progressivism to other countries (as it makes controlling large populations much easier and reduces the chance of outright revolution against the status quo) including the US, most modern schools in western countries takes cues from something of the Frankfurt school, and its used for many nefarious purposes. Its core principal though is anti-humanism. The Frankfurt school was also a benefit to the Soviet Union and Communist China's attempts to infiltrate and destabilize the US however their plans were of secondary effect in comparison. Every progressive policy you can think of in the modern era is a Frankfurt-based development, and all of them are inherently self-destructive.
    1
  2684. Look up BRIDGE social impact, its a rebrand, not a removal, they're not dragging their feat, they're faking the elimination of DEI.
    1
  2685.  @goatskin4487  Perhaps, but that's a recent phenomenon, and in fact inverse to post-Roman (as in Christian) Western history entirely. (reason I speak of post-Roman is because pre-Rome men and women in the pagan realm were often treated as sexually unequal, women were often expected to be pristine virgins while men were not)
    1
  2686.  @dannysummers4591  Patriarchy is the inherent natural result of human dimorphism. Its not even unique to humans, most mammals also do it naturally, in fact the natural behavior of the male in almost every single species that is dimorphic (and even some that aren't) is sacrificial for and/or protective of the female(s). That aside its just rational and inherently low time preference to be of such a state as women are actually biologically more valuable then men.
    1
  2687.  @dannysummers4591  Patriarchy is the inherent natural result of human dimorphism.
    1
  2688.  @dannysummers4591  Its not even unique to humans, most mammals also do it naturally, in fact the natural behavior of the male in almost every single species that is dimorphic (and even some that aren't) is sacrificial for and/or protective of the female(s).
    1
  2689.  @dannysummers4591  That aside its just rational and inherently low time preference to be of such a state as women are actually biologically more valuable then men.
    1
  2690. ​ @dannysummers4591  .
    1
  2691.  @dannysummers4591  Patriarchy of some kind is the natural result of dimorphism found through most sex divided creatures, especially pertaining to biological and psychological dimorphism.
    1
  2692.  @dannysummers4591  Blame nature and biology
    1
  2693. It always felt like Kurzgesagt was a fraud for propaganda, glad to know I was more right thinking then I ever could've been, I disagree with him politically, but to know his entire characterization in his videos doesn't even represent an honest opinion makes me feel quite justified.
    1
  2694. If rape and child molestation are proven, should've just been executed.
    1
  2695. Of course that outlook is father issues, and now she blames all men for something her father did and resents men, this is what we call androphobia, and every single experience where she thinks of men she blames the problems solely on the men. I feel both sad and indignant for what she's doing. I can tell you as a dude majority of men do want a relationship, some men aren't taught properly and thus don't reflect the right perspective, others are completely scared to approach or be approached by women, (specifically because of selfish behavior like this where we actively believe this is exactly what they're trying to do to us) but even the men that want sex, 75% of them still want a relationship. It doesn't help her perspective that aside from being a complete degenerate that she also destroyed her capability to pair bond, if she had a child, she would likely be incapable of loving it even if it was a girl, she'd become the abuse one to any child she spawns just like her father, she has become exactly like her father. I can tell you now she is gonna hate her 40s and 50s, she is going to be seen as the old spinster that everyone hates. Remember girls, your value only lasts into your early 40s if you're lucky, please for the love of God don't waste it being a bitch. As an aside, I know for a fact that she's not gonna be able to get away with as much, men will probably screw her over, justifiably so, she may very well be raped or murdered for this type of stuff in some places, folks from Japan generally aren't ever prepared for the true American experience where people do in fact beat you back. I can tell you now, her story will not be a happy ending likely before she hits her 40s.
    1
  2696. There are some things that weren't covered properly or you just stepped over that should've been emphasized instead of being ignored by the way: 1. Chattel slavery in reference to blacks becoming liberated specifically was an inherently Western thing, granted China did something about slavery but that insinuates that China had any impact on global Chattel slavery and were mainly responsible for it which wouldn't seem to be true. It should have been mentioned in the least that the West was the first major external reaching powers of the world to attempt to abolish it. And granted they've not done exactly that great of a job but slavery and chattel slavery was definitely not attacked on such a mass scale by any pre-Western civilizations. (before it started doing so anyway) I'm also gonna mention that its not about race or collectivism, however it should be mentioned that majority of those civilizations were still white and objectively it was still white people who had the power to grant the blacks some rights of individualist life. Its not like claiming the white race freed the slaves but it was majority of white people who fought the concept as well, I think you were construing one statement to equate to the other. 2. I'll have to look it back up, perhaps I messed it up on the sources, but I do recall blacks not being the sole receivers of nonservitude slavery even in the US. Whether it was a race or inherited slavery I'm not entirely sure but I am aware that they weren't purely black. 3. There were also a lot of cases of people who legally weren't allowed to not participate in slavery, few founding fathers spring to mind, Jefferson being the most pronounced, but there was a legal screw up that you could also be forced into owning slaves you must own and freeing them was illegal in its 4. Also free non-rich men of the South tended not to like slavery and didn't generally own slaves. IDK if that's very relevant but it wasn't uncommon for slavery to piss off poorer folks. Also just gonna point out Snopes is still suspect even with their references and on that reference you had of them they were belligerently throwing around opinionated pieces on the subject, I'm merely saying that had Snopes been a reference for information outside of qualifying the myths I would tell you they should be avoided, they are very much a left leaning propaganda organization who targets non-left claims to assert they are the defacto superior informant on the subject. They are well beyond political bias and have lied and twisted facts on the subject before just to push an agenda. Also just gonna mention that conspiracy theories aren't all that screwed up, the 9/11 truthers stuff is in the least suspicious because data and information on the situation doesn't line up and keeps getting stoned walled and too many convenient things happened just before it went down. Now granted there is a lot of mistruth on the subject as well but handwaving it as a joke just because it has a bad name is not evidence for lack of possibility or suspicion. Its a very similar case to other modern conspiracies that have less relevance to historians, some may be true and others not so much but however many conspiracies don't rely on fabricated details and secret truths, there are merely organizations spreading crap on that subject. Granted that does not equate to the historical conspiracies like you said but I'm just saying there needs to be a distinction made for modern and urban conspiracies and those of historic nature. Outside of that I mostly liked the video however there are still things I'm suspicious over and don't entirely trust, some of the sources don't cement my perspective in all the claims you made.
    1
  2697. The Bill of Rights and Constitution are explicitly Christian documents. (so says Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington) So if anything its the only consistent position to have the Commandments in schools.
    1
  2698.  @goblin6587  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence "WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution."- Pennsylvania Constitution, Preamble "We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property; afford opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; assure equality of rights; promote the health, safety, education, and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and justice to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution." - Louisiana Constitution, Preamble "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution." - California Constitution, Preamble There are 20 states that directly refer to God in their Constitutions, (and no it does not just include the preamble) 5 of which were part of the 13 colonies and thus were required to ratify the Federal Constitution. Historical record makes it quite clear, alongside George Washington and John Adams making explicit reference, as well as the Declaration of Independence, you have to delusional to reject these historical facts.
    1
  2699.  @goblin6587  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence "WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution."- Pennsylvania Constitution, Preamble "We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property; afford opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; assure equality of rights; promote the health, safety, education, and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and justice to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution." - Louisiana Constitution, Preamble "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution." - California Constitution, Preamble There are 20 states that directly refer to God in their Constitutions, (and no it does not just include the preamble) 5 of which were part of the 13 colonies and thus were required to ratify the Federal Constitution. Historical record makes it quite clear, alongside George Washington and John Adams making explicit reference, as well as the Declaration of Independence.
    1
  2700.  @goblin6587  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence "WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution."- Pennsylvania Constitution, Preamble "We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property; afford opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; assure equality of rights; promote the health, safety, education, and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and justice to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution." - Louisiana Constitution, Preamble "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution." - California Constitution, Preamble There are 20 states that directly refer to God in their Constitutions, (and no it does not just include the preamble) 5 of which were part of the 13 colonies and thus were required to ratify the Federal Constitution. Historical record makes it quite clear, alongside George Washington and John Adams making indisputable reference as Presidents, as well as the Declaration of Independence.
    1
  2701.  @goblin6587  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence "WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution."- Pennsylvania Constitution "We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property; afford opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; assure equality of rights; promote the health, safety, education, and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and justice to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution." - Louisiana Constitution "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution." - California Constitution There are 20 states that directly referred in their Constitutions, (and no it does not just include the preamble) 5 of which were part of the 13 colonies and thus were required to ratify the Federal Constitution. Historical record makes it quite clear, alongside George Washington and John Adams stating a requirement as Presidents, as well as the Declaration of Independence.
    1
  2702. ​ @goblin6587  "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," - Declaration of Independence "WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution."- Pennsylvania Constitution "We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property; afford opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; assure equality of rights; promote the health, safety, education, and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and justice to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution." - Louisiana Constitution "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution." - California Constitution There are 20 states that directly refer to Him in their Constitutions, 5 of which were part of the 13 colonies and thus were required to ratify the Federal Constitution. Historical record makes it quite clear, alongside George Washington and John Adams stating a requirement as Presidents, as well as the Declaration of Independence.
    1
  2703.  @goblin6587  "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," - Declaration of Independence "WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution."- Pennsylvania Constitution "We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property;..." - Louisiana Constitution "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution." - California Constitution There are 20 states that directly refer to Him in their Constitutions, 5 of which were part of the 13 colonies and thus were required to ratify the Federal Constitution. Historical record makes it quite clear, alongside George Washington and John Adams stating a requirement as Presidents, as well as the Declaration of Independence.
    1
  2704.  @goblin6587  "...that they are endowed by their Creator..." - Declaration of Independence "...grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance..."- Pennsylvania Constitution "...grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property;..." - Louisiana Constitution "...grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings..." - California Constitution There are 20 states that directly refer to Him in their Constitutions, 5 of which were part of the 13 colonies and thus were required to ratify the Federal Constitution. Historical record makes it quite clear, alongside George Washington and John Adams stating a requirement as Presidents, as well as the Declaration of Independence.
    1
  2705.  @goblin6587  "...that they are endowed by their Creator..." - Declaration of Independence Read the Constitutions of Pennsylvania, Georgia, New Jersey, Maine, and Massachusetts then. There are 20 states that directly refer to Him in their Constitutions, 5 of which were part of the 13 colonies and thus were required to ratify the Federal Constitution. Historical record makes it quite clear, alongside George Washington and John Adams stating a requirement as Presidents, as well as the Declaration of Independence.
    1
  2706. Christianity doesn't perceive the passing of time as progressive, the core of Christianity is you are irredeemable in and of yourself, so saying it says that mankind gains greater maturity and becomes worthy of love is outright wrong, in fact Jesus and the Bible argue against this, Jesus directly told the people of Rome that there will be war and rumors of war (both of which the Romans did not believe would happen at the time) because he was saying no hegemony will last next to God, and none will be left when He returns. Otherwise I am with you on everything you've said, just speaking truth outside the fact that I say that Christ's morality is the only objective morality that stands and everyone else bases themselves on it and pulls from it selectively.
    1
  2707. Modding is legally white in singleplayer or if it doesn't effect more then your owned device, (or devices, as long as each one has consent for the content) why has no one started legal action against these assholes?
    1
  2708.  @arthurmoore9488  Usually the case for which I'll consider array over vector is when doing constexpr/consteval stuff, as Apple's version of Clang still doesn't like allocations in constexpr/consteval even in C++20, template metaprogramming can get pretty gnarly with everything we have in C++20. (that's not entirely supported by any if not all the compilers) Course you need to never let allocations escape the constant eval environment regardless so you have to return fixed sized objects, but most of the time I just resort to vector if I need a contiguous container unless I need some type of stack advantage, its rarely been useful in my experience to deal with arrays aside from those cases.
    1
  2709.  @pokefreak2112  Pretty sure emscriptem has dlmalloc and emmalloc, so how would wasm not support malloc? Like guess you could set it to run without malloc, but that's not really the same as saying it does not support it, malloc is literally standard C, if it can't use malloc, its not standard C regardless, that's like saying well defined behavior does not need to follow the standard, then you're simply not using C, let alone C++. I can't think of a single platform that doesn't support malloc that can claim to support C.
    1
  2710. I find it funny how they want to complain about censorship now but didn't speak up much at all when they actually (and still do) censor regular speech on their text chat. (not to mention how erroneous their bans on TKing are that it might as well not even be part of the game) Also tbh, we really should stop pandering to the Chinese government, the people are submissive enough as it is, giving them more distractions just makes them easier to control. We could seriously weaken China's government if we embargo'ed their existence but no, it costs us too much money despite the fact we embargo plenty of other places, fuck it, if interventionism applies to some places but not others then its pretty clear how bullshit the system is.
    1
  2711. Got to be honest, I couldn't give less of a damn, like who the hell cares if someone is a racist if they even were? Goddamn cancel culture, man humanity is a damn plague now.
    1
  2712. Foolish thinkers often focus on the "well regulated militia" section disregarding that it has two commas that separate it from the sentence designating its context is clarification and not semantic value, (as it separates itself from the previous statement's subject and is otherwise disregarded after the other comma) so even if we disregarded this historical fact, the commas still serve the same purpose in our English speech so they don't enable you to treat that statement as under the same value as the rest of the statement.
    1
  2713. Meme magic is meme magic, it works.
    1
  2714.  @souldragon9130  Its a psychosis of delusions and hallucinations, hearing, thinking, feeling, even smelling and tasting (though smell and taste rarely matter) things often with the result of the one suffering believing in these delusions and hallucinations as being absolutely real. Some folks may be able to recognize elements of the fantasy but even they tend to fall for other parts of it without some kind of help.
    1
  2715. Truthfully I think Linus is a fool, my biggest issue with him is that all tools must be all or nothing, his software perspectives have a lot of stupid presumptions, like his perspective on C++ in the kernel was absolutely dumb, yes sure C++ exceptions and RTTI is a pain, there are definitely annoyances with C++03 and before, but you can disable both on every compiler, its an unfortunate requirement of the standard that both be supported (making them optional extensions would be a lot better) and you can use C++ without the standard library if necessary, plenty of FOSS projects already do, the only really big backing behind Linus having beef against C++ is because he's a C fanatic and was frustrated with C++03. (even though it was still better then C) RAII and simple span-like types were completely feasible even going back to C++98, and it would've saved a lot of headaches in the Linux kernel. C is a worse language then C++, Linus has never once made a valid complaint of C++ and I would love to say this to his face and call him out for being an idiot. Literally everything that can be written in C and be written in C++ almost exactly, you can even selectively disable name mangling in C++ when you need a C API, you don't need to use anything that bloats your compilation nor your binaries if you disable RTTI and exceptions.
    1
  2716.  @tomrhodes1629  Gnosticism is a form of Satanic religiosity, (often claiming to be above religion because it most appeals to prideful "intellectuals" and academics) spawned from Dualism. All Dualist philosophies are integrally linked with demon worship still.
    1
  2717.  @JoaoVitor-wp9zg  The appeal to tradition is a fallacy, God is not fallacious and does not agree with fallacy. What does the Scriptures say? Or are they not the Word of God? Well in that case you cannot believe in Jesus because He said that all of the Scriptures are God breathed as His Disciples also said, in which you'd make Him a liar and thus not God, for God cannot lie. So is John the Baptist a Gnostic? How about James? How about Paul? What about John the Apostle? Or what about Isaiah and Daniel? Was Moses? Tell me, what is a Gnostic then? And how is Augustine and Origen then not a Gnostic according to your claims? Have you not read Colossians? What about Romans? What about 1 and 2 Corinthians? What about 1 John or 1 Timothy? The practices of the Catholic Church are addressed directly by Paul and John constantly and so does Acts, yet to ignore when it forbids asceticism and monastery behavior, we are not to become monks and we are called to partake in marriage for our own sakes, and any religion which forbids this to be considered holy is blaspheming God and refuses the Scriptures. Read Colossians 2:18-19 again. He who worships saints and angels so till will be disqualified for refusing God. If you cannot trust the Scriptures before any church, you cannot receive the Scriptures. For when a church describes foremost what God says, it is not by the Holy Spirit and is instead by man's wisdom, and you are thus deceived. For God brought us faith by the Holy Spirit and He gave us wisdom by the Holy Spirit, but those who trust in men to give it to them, they do not receive the Holy Spirit. Peter was but a man, no more distinct to the truth that God gave Him then even a Gentile, for even he called himself another man like a Gentile and nothing more. But all who live in pride and arrogance, who make themselves an authority, they are condemned by God. No man is an authority over God, there is no intercession between God and man that is not Himself God, only Jesus as the Christ, there is no other. One who calls themselves Alter Christus themselves cannot be in Christ, for there is no other to Christ, man cannot be Christ and Christ does not share His glory with man and neither shall you represent man to Christ nor Christ to man, it is Christ or Chaos.
    1
  2718. Kinda reels like nobody read what OP actually said.
    1
  2719.  @loc4725  He's suggesting using memory safe libraries, there are a number of such that can have you avoid memory safety issues, like there are libraries that do runtime bounds checking (even the STL has this) or that ensure pointer/reference safety, there are some libraries that also do more complex stuff at compile time, constexpr has really expanded what we can do on this front at compile time, there are a number of memory protection libraries that operate at one of many levels and are quite effective at combating the issues instead of using the C defaults, even when it comes to heap memory. Really if you're using the unsafe C behavior when we all know its unsafe, with alternatives that are safe and performant, and yet still complain about using it, that's not exactly the language fault at that point. Like the standard library and STL do solve a lot of these issues already, people just refuse to actually use the features that would've helped them.
    1
  2720.  @loc4725  He's suggesting using memory safe libraries, there are a number of such that can have you avoid memory safety issues, like there are libraries that do runtime bounds checking (even the STL has this) or that ensure pointer/reference safety, there are some libraries that also do more complex stuff at compile time, constexpr has really expanded what we can do on this front at compile time, there are a number of memory protection libraries that operate at one of many levels and are quite effective at combating the issues instead of using the C defaults, even when it comes to heap memory.
    1
  2721. ​ @loc4725  He's suggesting using memory safe libraries, there are a number of such that can have you avoid memory safety issues, like there are libraries that do runtime bounds checking (even the STL has this) or that ensure pointer/reference safety.
    1
  2722.  @loc4725  There are some libraries that also do more complex stuff at compile time, constexpr has really expanded what we can do on this front at compile time, there are a number of memory protection libraries that operate at one of many levels and are quite effective at combating the issues instead of using the C defaults, even when it comes to heap memory.
    1
  2723.  @loc4725  Really if you're using the unsafe C behavior when we all know its unsafe, with alternatives that are safe and performant, and yet still complain about using it, that's not exactly the language fault at that point. Like the standard library and STL do solve a lot of these issues already, people just refuse to actually use the features that would've helped them.
    1
  2724. I agree with Ainjack, illegal migrants, regardless of age, don't have a right to the United States because they did not commit to the American way and the values of becoming an American properly. Their children neither have such rights because their parents devoted no time to appropriately becoming an American. They are thus defined and unfortunately marred by their parents and all blame is on their parents. That does not say I would have them deported as a priority, but if/when our focus on the more continuous criminal illegals is less immediate then they either need to conform and apply towards a proper legalization process or they need to be deported. The system can not support continuation of this unchecked. And America is being corrupted by an inflation of illegal populations supporting a democratic takeover of the United States. This needs to end in every manner feasible before the United States becomes the new Roman relic.
    1
  2725. ​ @big-t2060  First off it is a language problem because the privacy and security concerns of the browser spawned as a result of the desire to build a dynamic web without contemplation of what type of exploits that would allow nor any capability to counteract those exploits. Without Javascript on the browser, the exploits to the system are nearly non-existent and you would have nearly no privacy concerns by daily use. WASM can correct a bit of it, but I never said it would fix this problem, I didn't even imply, I just said we should've replaced JS before WASM which you assumed I said something I never did. This aside its clearly not a platform problem simply because pretty much every exploit being active on the client-side is Javascript specific. (there being very rare browser specific exploits anymore) And the protocol doesn't make a difference here since you could use the most secure protocol and still be exposed with Javascript. This is a Javscript problem before anything else. (also complaining about DNS "exploits" are stupid, your metric for what is relevant as an exploit is dumb, there is no such thing as perfect security nor privacy on the internet, good opsec behavior just calls it good enough, even in the most perfect developments you would never have this, that's called living in a fantasy) The specific problems you brought up by the way are not relevant to the video, this video talks about exploits in relation to JS, nearly nothing in the video refers to things you can do outside JS, and even then it will commonly be with JS regardless.
    1
  2726.  @hanro50  An IP address is trivial to hide and fake, if your argument for security resides on IP, you're just being dumb, user agents are developed out of the thinking that comes from Javascript, they did not originally exist, that type of information was not retrievable without a dynamic web, which started in integration with Javascript.
    1
  2727.  @big-t2060  I never said all security/privacy exploits were all Javascript in the browser, but a majority of them are, there are always gonna be some that are browser specific and then the few that would pass over Javascript, though there are always manners to secure against this if you try, but in the most extreme cases it can be a severe pain in the ass.
    1
  2728. Tim making another W take, Tim has been on a roll as of late.
    1
  2729. Nah, the founding fathers would've agreed with this, in fact Thomas Jefferson advocated similar things before, funny how the guy who coined the term advocated religious education, almost like nobody understands what separation of church and state actually is or means, or how it actually applies.
    1
  2730.  @2l84me8  First off that's not true, and secondly freedom of practice is a Christian doctrine.
    1
  2731.  @snipman8067  Also Holy Trinity vs. the United States has the Supreme Court explicitly state the United States is purely a Christian country with Christian institutions and that said Commandments are the basis for American Law.
    1
  2732.  @2l84me8  You shall have no other God before me? What are you talking about?
    1
  2733.  @2l84me8  Let us take it this way: "Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams (October 11, 1798) Seems instead to me that only a Christian people according to John Adams could have an American Constitution, and only by the Christian faith could they keep and maintain it. Almost seems like you're contradicting direct word of the founding fathers.
    1
  2734.  @2l84me8  I don't worship anyone other then Christ, God's Word is quite clear, I'm a Christian Nationalist, Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Christ is the King of all nations. And I would gladly deliver up to Him my own life and the life of every nation. The nation is to serve God, it submits to Him, not the other way around, only a heathen pagan would think such heresy.
    1
  2735.  @2l84me8  John Adams was a contributing member to the Constitution's development as were his contemporaries, also he wrote that in 1798 while residing in the US among his fellow American founders, Jefferson had agreed with the concept and there was no dissent on the subject well after the ratification of the Constitution, every founder, including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton agreed with the concept.
    1
  2736. And now its sitting 2mil dislikes to 1mil likes. Good job, ya played ya'self. I wonder if they know we know they hate us, and that we hate them right back.
    1
  2737. Chick-fil-A was already 60/40 donating to woke orgs anyway, they were as compromised as the Salvation Army on standing for nothing. They're damned regardless.
    1
  2738.  @mek101whatif7  Tell me you don't have any experience in writing parsers without telling me you have no experience in writing parsers.
    1
  2739.  @jacara1981  She's just as Irish as she is black, she's more Indian then she ever was black, both of her maternal grandparents were pure Indians who were betrothed in India at the age of 12.
    1
  2740. Its almost like allowing central authorities to run the web like a communist government was a bad idea...funny that.
    1
  2741.  @a.39886  We are entirely capable of choosing salvation in God, but we by nature can never do this for our nature is completely depraved and corrupted, its not that we can't choose God but that by nature we never will. God's knowledge also does not preclude any element of volition or free will on our part, He knowing and having a Will over our choice (not that He has tempted us to choose it but we of our free will which exists by the love of God we choose to be apart from God, and thus simultaneously God declares us apart from Him, not by our choice) does not violate our capacity to choose Him, but that our nature can never do this, only by God reigning back our nature does He bring us to Him and thus He brings us to Him. This is where irresistible grace is found. Is it to say God has decided? Well in some form yes, God has decided whose nature He will restrain and who will be elected among His grace, however those separate from His grace are condemned specifically because they would not, not that they could not by capacity, the free will they have specifically will never choose God. As for the purpose of our life? All our lives are to live for the love and praise of God, those condemned demonstrate His glory and justice, those who live with God while demonstrating and praising His glory also demonstrate His love and mercy, His grace, that there may be anyone who is saved is itself a miracle against justice. The purpose of every life is in the end to service the glory and majesty of God, and we are thus granted a love beyond all measure, for He loved us and we then are to love Him. As for what is moral, it is simply by that which is declared by He who defined good what is itself good, it is defined for our sake, but by itself it need not be resolved as simply being for our sake though it is, but that it is God who is the authority of justice and righteousness, and thus the author of morality, which had foremost defined it. God is the perfect judge and is perfectly just and so all that He decides is perfect in all ways.
    1
  2742.  @a.39886  "No amount of pleasure outweighs eternal suffering." This is a red herring, this is utilitarian morality which is completely irrelevant. You don't define morality so there is no reason to consider this, I don't exist to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering, both of them are completely irrelevant to morality. Christians are actually even called to willingly step into suffering just to demonstrate that point. "If you wish that your loved ones never experience eternal suffering. ( this will be in agreed and if not I guess you are fine with the idea that your children could end up experiencing eternal torture because you decided to bring them to the world)," Again, this is completely irrelevant, its just a red herring of the issue. I would desire everyone to come to God but I understand most will never do so, I was granted a grace I did not deserve, they too were allowed this but they rejected it, so they get what they deserve, they already deserved condemnation, as did I, but because they rejected God, they do not get to be with God. I do not desire anyone who would reject God to be with God, I rather see justice done if that must be the case. "if you insist that heaven is the maximum good and outweighs even a eternal torture on hell, then yoi should be happy for every children that dies as they are assure the maximum good, " Heaven is not "maximum good", God is the author of all good things, by Him all good things were made and nothing could be good. Heaven itself was given because God had made it so, as He made the Earth just the same, perfectly good, as so too was man, but man in his rebellion against God committed the Original Sin and it is by his hands that death entered the world and suffering was placed upon his back, and the Earth was thus corrupted. It is for this reason man is born condemned, because he had sinned against God, he deserved the death sentence but God's great mercy and love for us preserved us, His justice required our death, but His love and mercy did not immediately demand it, so we instead have a life that suffers and in time ends. Am I happy for the death of children? No, for God does not take pleasure in the death of a sinner and so too do I agree with God, but a sinner who dies has taken their path and God being the perfect judge and is the perfect justice will do what is right regardless. It is by this I have peace that what need be done shall be done, whatever is ultimately right shall be done by Him. What I would wish should always conform to God. "if you know your children will be rejecting the religion should you kill him as a child so he wins the maximum good on heaven?" I don't know anything about my children. If the implication you say is for God, that is not loving nor is it just, God knows what is right and He will do what is perfectly just, He gave life and so He is justified in taking it for it is borrowed from Him, no one has a right to life, and any who loves His life will lose it, but He who hates His life shall have eternal life, whoever lays down His life shall reside in eternity. I am not God, I can not make a choice based on knowledge I don't have, and I will not presume to understand the nature of God's choice of the elect. As well killing any children does not preserve them any more for righteousness because they were born in sin, they are born an enemy of God, they would not be preserved on the simple basis of being killed as such a time, they'd still be condemned.
    1
  2743. @ What belief has evidence that is not inherently self-refuting without further belief? Even evidence itself requires a belief, it does not sustain its rational to itself but must be believed. And why do you presume I have no evidence? I have much evidence, but you are unwilling to see for you suppress the Truth in unrighteousness, for there is no neutral man, why then should one presume himself to be above belief?
    1
  2744.  @Poldovico  Yeah but the big issue is that nobody questioned the binary files being included in the build process (regardless of the fact they were test files) even just for testing purposes, had that not been accepted, it wouldn't have been possible for that backdoor to even be made, any other backdoor would've required being written in the source code or somehow constructed completely from the build system, something that is more able to be validated by code review. (and at that point it often becomes impossible to distinguish between bugged code and malicious code)
    1
  2745.  @necoji4910  Okay cool, if you can't read what I wrote, there is no point dealing with you, this is a Youtube comment section not a bachelor thesis. Nobody cares about run on sentences.
    1
  2746. I'll be honest, something like this isn't unexpected, it was almost predictable to the point that it likely could've been easy to prevent, now saying that I'm just pointing out the left wing bent of Google and such generally going anti-gun generally ends up skewing events like this to happen, especially to them, that doesn't mean I'm saying they deserved it or anything but it is curious to see that it happened in such an environment as it has at such a time as it has. And I'm curious what this even will produce for Youtube and Google, would they start getting more fanatic in their decisions against things like guns? Will they become less fanatic? I have doubts it'll stay just the same but I suppose with such a large bureaucratic corporate that's possible, maybe it won't react. But it is a curious situation at the least.
    1
  2747. Its a projection because they're actually mentally ill and simply don't want to admit it.
    1
  2748. He ain't leaving because he's got free rent in the lefties' heads.
    1
  2749.  @run2cat4run  No she didn't, admitting that she choose a bad relationship after divorce is not admission of individual fault, its an irrefutable fact she can't ignore without looking delusional, but she never admits that she hurt her ex-husband, or child, or household, or family and neither speaks about working on the issues she has over it. She's impulsive and unthinking, she never spends a moment of actual self-reflection, she'd never have a happy marriage.
    1
  2750.  @run2cat4run  I don't believe victims are any more honest then those who cause them because victims are still fallible humans. And I'm neither sure she counts as a victim because I can't get to the honest truth, I only ever get to hear her side, and I am not gonna believe a woman simply because she has a vagina.
    1
  2751.  @run2cat4run  Whether she was a victim or not doesn't make her honest, a victim doesn't lose their responsibility nor are they faultless for things they do, someone who is abused is not infallible nor perfect nor do they get to claim they didn't hurt people including the one who abused them. Even if she is a victim, which only goes by her own hearsay with no evidence, that doesn't make what she says the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Being a victim doesn't make you immune from criticism for bullcrap either. And she's the only person who has gotten to speak up on the subject, and I'm not gonna believe a woman, especially a scorned woman who has already lied, simply because she has clams between her legs. She is a human being, and as they say if you understand crap about traditionalism "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
    1
  2752. ​ @run2cat4run  Whether she was a victim or not doesn't make her honest, a victim doesn't lose their responsibility nor are they faultless for things they do, someone who is abused is not infallible nor perfect nor do they get to claim they didn't hurt people including the one who abused them. Even if she is a victim, which only goes by her own hearsay with no evidence, that doesn't make what she says the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Being a victim doesn't make you immune from criticism for bullcrap either. And she's the only person who has gotten to speak up on the subject, and I'm not gonna believe a woman, especially a scorned woman who has already lied, simply because she has clams between her. She is a human being, and as they say if you understand anything about traditionalism "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
    1
  2753. @Sam97-oi4vc The woman wouldn't have been able to choose a husband that would abuse her and get trapped in a crap marriage because her family would've strictly evaluated and shit-tested the man well before he had a chance to marry her. That's what traditionalism would've done.
    1
  2754. @Sam97-oi4vc Such behavior has historically always been exceptionally rare, you're not even capable to support a claim of significance to this argument, by this same argument sex is a fabricated construct because there are "exceptions". You do not blame the rule for the exceptions to it, you're an ideologue that just wants to build a worldview regardless of its consequences and are simply looking for ways to live to your pleasures. I don't have to deal with that because I don't believe in the utopian view of temporal reality, I don't need a solution that perfectly solves the imperfect and fallible nature of man to every perfect degree because there is no solution to it and anyone claims to have one will inherently build a path of death and destruction. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I also don't need such a solution to solve every worldly problem for another reason as well, I am of Christ, He will handle all things perfectly in what is necessary, those who suffer are given what they need, so I don't need all encompassing solutions, I just need to listen to He who built and designed marriage and follow what He told us. And those who are faithful will never be led astray no matter their suffering. Let me ask you this, do you even know how many women have had no community, no church, no decent father, no brothers, no mother, and no friends in the 17th century who wouldn't ever consider evaluating her potential husbands before she married him? You would not be able to find one in the 17th century I can tell you that, and further back in history the more impossible that challenge will become. This is distinct from a woman who had some metric of these things and refused to consider what they said and married the man anyway. This has been every record of cases we could find before the 20th century. Only in the 20th and 21st century have we started to find such cases of women having no one to evaluate for them, that is the fault of the woman and her family who do nothing to devote themselves to what was once right tradition, they see sex and marriage as nothing more then for pleasure, such women are already cursed and will have what they deserved as will the men.
    1
  2755. @Sam97-oi4vc Such behavior has historically always been exceptionally rare, you're not even capable to support a claim of significance to this argument, by this same argument s ex is a fabricated construct because there are "exceptions". You do not blame the rule for the exceptions to it, you're an ide ologue that just wants to build a worldview regardless of its consequences and are simply looking for ways to live to your plea sures. I don't have to deal with that because I don't believe in the utopian view of temporal reality, I don't need a solution that perfectly solves the imperfect and fallible nature of man to every perfect degree because there is no solution to it and anyone claims to have one will inherently build a path of death and destruction. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I also don't need such a solution to solve every worldly problem for another reason as well, I am of Christ, He will handle all things perfectly in what is necessary, those who suffer are given what they need, so I don't need all encompassing solutions, I just need to listen to He who built and designed marriage and follow what He told us. And those who are faithful will never be led astray no matter their suffering. Let me ask you this, do you even know how many women have had no community, no church, no decent father, no brothers, no mother, and no friends in the 17th century who wouldn't ever consider evaluating her potential husbands before she married him? You would not be able to find one in the 17th century I can tell you that, and further back in history the more impossible that challenge will become. This is distinct from a woman who had some metric of these things and refused to consider what they said and married the man anyway. This has been every record of cases we could find before the 20th century. Only in the 20th and 21st century have we started to find such cases of women having no one to evaluate for them, that is the fault of the woman and her family who do nothing to devote themselves to what was once right tradition, they see sex and marriage as nothing more then for pleasure, such women are already cursed and will have what they deserved as will the men.
    1
  2756. @Sam97-oi4vc Such behavior has historically always been exceptionally rare, you're not even capable to support a claim of significance to this argument, by this same argument s e x is a fabricated construct because there are "exceptions". You do not blame the rule for the exceptions to it, you're an i d e ologue that just wants to build a worldview regardless of its consequences and are simply looking for ways to live to your p l e a sures. I don't have to deal with that because I don't believe in the utopian view of temporal reality, I don't need a solution that perfectly solves the imperfect and fallible nature of man to every perfect degree because there is no solution to it and anyone claims to have one will inherently build a path of death and destruction. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I also don't need such a solution to solve every worldly problem for another reason as well, I am of Chr ist, He will handle all things perfectly in what is necessary, those who suffer are given what they need, so I don't need all encompassing solutions, I just need to listen to He who built and designed marriage and follow what He told us. And those who are faithful will never be led astray no matter their suffering. Let me ask you this, do you even know how many women have had no community, no church, no decent father, no brothers, no mother, and no friends in the 17th century who wouldn't ever consider evaluating her potential husbands before she married him? You would not be able to find one in the 17th century I can tell you that, and further back in history the more impossible that challenge will become. This is distinct from a woman who had some metric of these things and refused to consider what they said and married the man anyway. This has been every record of cases we could find before the 20th century. Only in the 20th and 21st century have we started to find such cases of women having no one to evaluate for them, that is the fault of the woman and her family who do nothing to devote themselves to what was once right tradition, they see s e x and marriage as nothing more then for p l e a sure, such women are already cursed and will have what they deserved as will the men.
    1
  2757. @Sam97-oi4vc Such behavior has always been exceptionally rare, you're not even capable to support a claim of significance to this argument, by this same argument s(e)x is a fabricated construct because there are "exceptions". You do not blame the rule for the exceptions to it, you're an (ide)ologue that just wants to build a worldview regardless of its consequences and are simply looking for ways to live to your (plea)sures. I don't have to deal with that because I don't believe in the utopian view of temporal reality, I don't need a solution that perfectly solves the imperfect and fallible nature of man to every perfect degree because there is no solution to it and anyone claims to have one will inherently build a path of death and destruction. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I also don't need such a solution to solve every worldly problem for another reason as well, I am of Christ, He will handle all things perfectly in what is necessary, those who suffer are given what they need, so I don't need all encompassing solutions, I just need to listen to He who built and designed marriage and follow what He told us. And those who are faithful will never be led astray no matter their suffering. Let me ask you this, do you even know how many women have had no community, no church, no decent father, no brothers, no mother, and no friends in the 17th century who wouldn't ever consider evaluating her potential husbands before she married him? You would not be able to find one in the 17th century I can tell you that, and further back in history the more impossible that challenge will become. This is distinct from a woman who had some metric of these things and refused to consider what they said and married the man anyway. This has been every record of cases we could find before the 20th century. Only in the 20th and 21st century have we started to find such cases of women having no one to evaluate for them, that is the fault of the woman and her family who do nothing to devote themselves to what was once right tradition, they see s(e)x and marriage as nothing more then for p l e a sure, such women are already cursed and will have what they deserved as will the men.
    1
  2758. @Sam97-oi4vc Such behavior has always been exceptionally rare, you're not even capable to support a claim of significance to this argument, by this same argument s(e)x is a fabricated construct because there are "exceptions". You do not blame the rule for the exceptions to it, you're an (ide)ologue that just wants to build a worldview regardless of its consequences and are simply looking for ways to live to your (plea)sures. I don't have to deal with that because I don't believe in the utopian view of temporal reality, I don't need a solution that perfectly solves the imperfect and fallible nature of man to every perfect degree because there is no solution to it and anyone claims to have one will inherently build a path of death and destruction. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    1
  2759. @Sam97-oi4vc Such behavior has always been exceptionally rare, you're not even capable to support a claim of significance to this argument, by this same argument s(e)x is a fabricated construct because there are "exceptions". You do not blame the rule for the exceptions to it, you're an (ide)ologue
    1
  2760. ​@Sam97-oi4vc Such behavior has always been exceptionally rare, you're not even capable to support a claim of significance to this argument, by this same argument s(e)x is a fabricated construct because there are "exceptions". You do not blame the rule for the exceptions to it, you're an (ide)ologue that just wants to build a worldview regardless of its consequences and are simply looking for ways to live to your
    1
  2761. ​@Sam97-oi4vc Such behavior has always been exceptionally rare, you're not even capable to support a claim of significance to this argument, by this same argument s(e)x is a fabricated construct because there are "exceptions". You do not blame the rule for the exceptions to it, you're an
    1
  2762. ​@Sam97-oi4vc Such behavior has always been exceptionally rare, you're not even capable to support a claim of significance to this argument, by this same argument sax is a fabricated construct because there are "exceptions". You do not blame the rule for the exceptions to it, you're an idea-ologue that just wants to build a worldview regardless of its consequences and are simply looking for ways to live to your ple-sures. I don't have to deal with that because I don't believe in the utopian view of temporal reality, I don't need a solution that perfectly solves the imperfect and fallible nature of man to every perfect degree because there is no solution to it and anyone claims to have one will inherently build a path of death and destruction. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I also don't need such a solution to solve every worldly problem for another reason as well, I am of Christ, He will handle all things perfectly in what is necessary, those who suffer are given what they need, so I don't need all encompassing solutions, I just need to listen to He who built and designed marriage and follow what He told us. And those who are faithful will never be led astray no matter their suffering. Let me ask you this, do you even know how many women have had no community, no church, no decent father, no brothers, no mother, and no friends in the 17th century who wouldn't ever consider evaluating her potential husbands before she married him? You would not be able to find one in the 17th century I can tell you that, and further back in history the more impossible that challenge will become. This is distinct from a woman who had some metric of these things and refused to consider what they said and married the man anyway. This has been every record of cases we could find before the 20th century. Only in the 20th and 21st century have we started to find such cases of women having no one to evaluate for them, that is the fault of the woman and her family who do nothing to devote themselves to what was once right tradition, they see sax and marriage as nothing more then for ple-sure, such women are already cursed and will have what they deserved as will the men. I had to write it this stupid way because You-tube is cens-o-ring my posts and b-a-ns mention of the words that are quite strange.
    1
  2763. @Sam97-oi4vc Youtube literally won't let me reply to you, any real response gets shadowbanned.
    1
  2764. Just to point out, PayPal has been continuously caught attacking and shutting people down for disagreeing with them politically, you are in fact incorrect on saying PayPal doesn't intend that, PayPal has been targeting speech and opinions for at least 3 years, perhaps even longer and its only in recent times where they had the confidence to attack high profile cases, here is only the first public case of them openly charging people for disagreeing with them.
    1
  2765. He can't keep getting away with this!
    1
  2766. I say both, its about preserving life and rejecting dehumanization.
    1
  2767. tbf, the term socialist already does not connotate anything similar to fascist, however the concept of socialism is abhorrent for most people, specifically for those who appreciate private property, and many folks who do tend to get labeled as socialist are in fact adhering to the concept of socialism by proclaiming the devolvement of private property in via the formation of public (or state) property. In many ways fascists were actually practical socialists because they too would often proclaim such ideals, in fact in Nazi Germany this was explicitly the case so long as you disagreed with the state. (in which case the most lenient manner to call Nazism is pseudo-socialism for every piece of private property wasn't actually under the rule of being owned as long as it contributed to the value of the nation state, threat of losing property if said property opposed the state doesn't really constitute a form of private property I do not think, it already was a supreme erasure of the concept of ownership)
    1
  2768. @Luke Skywalker Nobody dogwhistles, those who claim people legit do that are retarded and without any education in anthropology. Then again only the socialists claim dogwhistling exists.
    1
  2769.  @lornduff6877  Because inseminated eggs are conceived humans, and all conceived humans are equal under God's Law. Thus freezing/unaliving them is equal in every moral sense to the same happening to you or me. (in God's Law capital punishment is reserved for taking of a life, whether unborn or born)
    1
  2770.  @Brisket187  You're insane, nobody that's against IVF outside of leftist nutjobs ever set explosives up anywhere.
    1
  2771.  @NoNoNoNopeNopeNopeNo  Any Christian that understands how it works is opposed to its current implementation, until they stop freezing and unaliving inseminated eggs, it will always be immoral according to Scripture. We are human from conception, the Biblical standard is explicitly clear about that.
    1
  2772. I pity Boogie in just the way that I'd call him out for being a fool who is entirely responsible for everything that's happened to him, if he says "I can't" I call bullcrap, if he says "I know but..." I call bullcrap, if he says "I want to but..." I call bullcrap, if you know and wanted to change getting help is trivial, if you truly want to get better the first thing you have to do is say "I got a problem" and then say "I need to get help" and then actually go and get help, not go out claiming you're getting help only to kick out everyone who does try to help you.
    1
  2773. Blame the Civil Rights Act, its called disparate outcome law, look it up, it requires by definition discrimination to function, if you don't you can be sued millions of dollars, that's where DEI comes from.
    1
  2774.  @CamaradaArdi  Its not entirely, its better, but it definitely still takes longer then not having one at all.
    1
  2775. The only reason anyone tends to dunk so hard on C++ is because most people are writing things the C (and never the C++) way or they're only maintaining a pre-C++11, probably even a pre-C++03, project. Most of the reason for why they can complain is specifically because its ubiquitous usage, the king's crown often makes a lot of angry and envious enemies. I could give you a list of crap wrong with C++ as a big C++ developer, none of which relate to safety because that is a solved problem in C++, and for which Rust literally cannot compare to and neither would anyone who goes to Rust would ever consider to complain about because they literally don't care for any other feature because its the only thing really going for Rust, elsewise Rust is one of many languages with similar features. Also the lack of a shared object ABI standard makes it exceedingly unsuitable for many applications, bad compilation times mixed with the lack of a universal ABI, which Rust seems unable to solve make it poorly suited. By the way Sean Baxter has proven with his Circle compiler that C++ can support an opt-in borrow checker, he's also about to submit a proposal to the ISO standard for a borrow checker to be added to the language, the issue on the papers github is 1984. (which is hilarious)
    1
  2776. Its called covetousness and they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
    1
  2777. librewolf masterrace
    1
  2778. Especially when the only people that will care about FUTO would've been mostly the fans of the OSI definition of open source, but by attacking the OSI definition and trying to make it more inclusive they are shooting themselves in the foot ensuring nobody will care about FUTO.
    1
  2779. Honestly probably better then bricking your system every other week when you need to use the AUR Manjaro, but you'll never have the AUR packages then, which sucks for all but the most basic of cases.
    1
  2780. A good Calvinist usually speaks truth to inspire Mormons and Witnesses out of their cult by the Holy Spirit. You don't go to someone's house being a weirdo to make up converts. Preaching on the street yeah, being an active public figure, but going to someone's house is creepy and wrong, its invading their privacy.
    1
  2781. To note, educated women are literally the worst relationship material, they are statistically the worst by every single metric, its quite telling that the societies that educate them are the ones with demographic collapse.
    1
  2782. If 9/11, Columbine, and Sandy Hook jokes can be made, Porygon is beyond fair game.
    1
  2783. Cool, once again free market demonstrating its superiority over government intervention.
    1
  2784.  @LyonsM  And that's a violation of human rights and economic prosperity.
    1
  2785.  @LyonsM  You can strike, but nobody is entitled to give you a second thought nor to employ you for doing so, the 1st Amendment is expression, not to be heard, nobody has the obligation to care about you, only not to regulate your free acts until you violate someone's rights, which includes free association.
    1
  2786.  @BillMartin-h2g  When you don't have "legal cause" to do so, also DEI practices are spawned from the Civil Rights Act where unequal outcomes always presume oppression of some sort, also known as the equity fallacy.
    1
  2787.  @MyCatsChannel841  That's my point, you don't own business if you need to get permission for it, if you're taxed on it, and if you can't control absolutely, having private property requires total control without any oversight. Anything else is renting, not owning.
    1
  2788. One thing you can say about modern America, the Jim Crow folks actually won in the end.
    1
  2789. Britain has never been free.
    1
  2790. Haven't been watching you too much lately, and while I definitely have some disagreements to make on tangential topics we could definitely discuss, I most certainly wouldn't disagree with your perspective regarding history even before knowing of it, how someone can believe that they know the objective reality without the objective reality being fully and plainly presented is beyond me, that should be basic logic that obviously we are limited, and thus subjective, to the history we have even in the best degree of information we have. And while we do try to reach as close to the objective truth as possible, yes it is impossible, like with science, for history to reach a finalized conclusion that we know as objective truth. How anyone can make the claim that we have objective truth from scatterings of subjective perspectives is just a foolish expectation.
    1
  2791. I always wonder how Hollywood, being the most lazy dumbass hacks in the world, can be given something on a silver platter, something that they can be 100% lazy with and grift off of to make a perfect film of without any work, and they still botch it so bad that you never want to even consider it as something under the moniker of "film".
    1
  2792. Some of these issues are functionally fabricated for twitter, like performance has nothing to do with Elon and the only way that would be relevant is if one of the other scenarios happens first, (especially moot since Elon was trying to fix long standing issues at twitter related to this and it didn't kill the platform) making it a moot point anyway since if one of the other scenarios that crashes the network or infrastructure happens, a slow app is the least of your damn problems, and as for moderation tools, those still exist regardless of the moderation team, and has nothing to do with the copyright system because it was automated anyway, they just broke the copyright detection. And there are plenty of things he did not mention that don't apply to twitter in a danger scenario despite applying to a tech conglomerate.
    1
  2793.  @ZontarDow  Its easy to lie, that's different from being able to twist, those who reject the Christian standard aren't Christians regardless of their claim, and it is simply provable with exegetical analysis.
    1
  2794. I do wonder if any of these corporate retards realize if they embrace the anti-BLM crowd, they'd sell way more. Hiring some more security is nothing compared to the money they'd make promoting against such evil ideas that everyone hates. Must be China's influence or their evil diversity departments.
    1
  2795. I wouldn't say its a foundation for culture, language is a product of culture, but by that degree rejection of this by natives demonstrates that they recognize the truth in their culture, that being that this type of thinking is actual mental illness worthy of sectioning.
    1
  2796.  @Brojeejaksonflaxinwaxin  Language is downstream from culture, a language is spawned by a culture first, the ideas of the language are devised by the cultural needs, languages are a result of culture, not a cause of it. You can't find an example of a language that is not a byproduct of the culture that language resides in. For example the Afrkianer language was a byproduct of the issues that produced the culture necessary for its development, it did not appear and produce a culture, the culture was developed by environmental means and the language developed around it, this is how all languages work. Even English demonstrates this fact.
    1
  2797. No its not, its basic economics, minimum wage is a scam, the aliens should be kicked out, but if you think cheap labor is exploitation you're an idiot that doesn't understand basic economics.
    1
  2798. Fascinating, I always considered Joan to be a significant factor of why the French won, being a big morale and psychological justification, but the fact she was also a fairly competent commander for the French armies is definitely interesting. I still am unsure if she would be a saint, as I reject the concept of organized sainthood, all those of Christ are but that depends on her heart, embodying the morality alone is not enough so chasing off prostitutes in zeal does not convince me for the Ancient Hebrew at times had done the same and some of those still condemned Jesus. I'm however fairly convinced of the idea that it was demonic forces appeared to Joan as it does not fit the nature of Yahweh to send saints down with an angel, the case of Samuel with Saul and the Medium was not Samuel, the only time this happened in Scripture was with Jesus. That suggests to me that she was at least tricked by the supernatural forces and her poor understanding of Scripture despite her zeal would've made it difficult for her to test the Scripture, as well as she lacked any guidance of a man upon her spiritual state meant she was very easy to trick, as Scripture also says. Even the French Catholic priests of the time were poor in their understanding of the application of Scripture (though so too were many of the English ones, Catholics priests had poor theology in the 1400s-1500s) Seems to me that the Holy Spirit was however likely not with her. (in which case I would be saying she was not saved)
    1
  2799. ​ @brandanimations3790 I don't care what the Catholic Church has to say, man does not decide saints and the pope has no authority, nor does any priest nor pastor, only God, and as it says in Scripture, the saints are all those who have faith in Christ, those who are filled with the Holy Spirit, and I cannot say whether she was for so did the Ancient Hebrews claim such things and they crucified Jesus, Judas believed himself a saint before his betrayal.
    1
  2800.  @brandanimations3790  The Catholic church has no authority given from God in accordance to Scripture. That's why they don't justify their authority based on Scripture, they base it on tradition, any tradition you use to read Scripture does not present Scripture, only your traditions.
    1
  2801.  @brandanimations3790  Not even Catholic priests before the 1800s agreed that it said Peter was the rock that the Church will be built on, in fact there was a study back in the 1600s France about this and an overwhelming majority (about 70%) of them said it was the faith that Peter demonstrated for which he would build his Church, (and of the rest only less than 10% said it was Peter himself) the idea that Peter would be the rock was historically only commonly believed in the mid-1800s, so that is a new tradition.
    1
  2802. Pretty sure Rust is still on Unity, where is your source for them getting off Unity?
    1
  2803. I don't trust the Roblox Corporation anymore then I trust the Discord Health and Safety team, and my account has already been deleted from discord once. There needs to be a FOSS alternative that doesn't suck, wish they'd also stop using web technologies for their desktop clients at least.
    1
  2804. There is no such thing as an "honest wage", its what is agreed upon by employer and employee, anything else is a violation of basic rights, both property rights and the right of free association. (which are in fact Constitutional and reinforced in the sayings and letters of the Founding Fathers) Aliens needing to be kicked out isn't the issue, (they need to but not because of this, this will only raise the prices if regular people can't service the job as the same price) people are just economically illiterate cause they don't understand that Gen-Z is "lazy" in part because of this elitist bullcrap. People look down on Gen-Z because they keep trying to keep them from actually getting employed, its almost like you're trying to kill the next generation.
    1