There’s no ethical way to kill someone that’s done nothing to you and doesn’t want to die, and that’s not just for humans.
I guess we could say “humane”, or “as quick and painless as possible”?
Bullshit. You wouldn’t call it ethical to kill a 5 year old you see in the street just because it is done quick and painless.
Murder doesn’t become ethical just because it’s not also torture.
Did I say “ethical”?
Tears of the Kingdom is a terrible game, it’s a mod of BOTW but with more ways to skip the exploration so you don’t get to memorize the map like in Elden Ring or Fallout.
I wouldn’t say terrible but mid possibly. It just took something that already worked well and added a little extra to it.
If “thing2: the sequel” attaches a something kinda neato to the revolutionary, gaming landscape changing “thing1:the thingining” that doesn’t mean thing2 is really better than something that significantly moved the bar.
This is why Fallout 3 is better than Fallout New Vegas and I will fight you all over it.
Fallout New Vegas has better writing than 3
I’m not sure I exactly agree. I feel like it would be a better game than botw if I hadn’t already played botw. Still suffered from most of the same problems.
Also the combat is so bad it encouraged you to avoid it whenever possible.
It’s definitely a glorified DLC that was stretched into a whole game. The new things are mostly good but 80% is just exactly the same.
Using windows os should be marked as crimes against humanity.
Places of religious worship and formal teaching (e.g. churches, and Sunday schools) should be treated like bars and porn. You need to be an adult to access bars and porn because children do not fully understand what is happening or the consequences of being there. Churches (etc) are the same and there should be a legal age limit.
It should also be socially unacceptable to talk about religious opinions in front of kids, just like most people don’t swear or talk dirty, etc.
I agree with schools teaching kids “about” religions, just like sex and drugs. Teaching facts is good, preaching (aka indoctrination) is not.
No one authentically hates the word moist. There’s no evidence then anyone disliked the word before Friends made an episode about it. Everyone since that has either been parroting that episode or someone who, in turn, parroted the episode.
Either these people saw it and decided it was an interesting facet to add to their personality, or it was the first time they’ve ever consciously thought about how a word feels and sounds and that shattered their ignorance and spoiled a perfectly good word.
Slurp is an infinitely worse word than moist.
Personally I dislike squelch, mulch, ask, just a ton of words, but I dislike them because they way they fell in my mouth. Either they’re hard to pronounce or they don’t feel nice in my mouth.
Turns out liquids of unusual viscosity is an excellent heuristic for things you shouldn’t put in your mouth.
There was a Friends episode about it?
I don’t remember a friends episode about this either. I do remember it being on how I met your mother though so possibly the person you’re replying to was thinking of that.
Yeah, I think that’s the one I meant. I didn’t watch either of them.
Here’s one I get a lot of flack for that I don’t bring up much
I think people trying to cook up gun control laws are targeting the wrong guns, in going after semi auto or military rifles, when they should be going after cheap handguns that have been available forever. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, and that’s almost always done with a hand gun, but even if you control for that the majority of homicides with guns are done with hand guns.
Hand guns are usually relatively cheap. They are very easy to conceal. Its very common for people to walk into a bar with a holstered hand gun and make a series of bad decisions. Its too common for people to get in road rage incidents that escalate into something tragic because of a handgun in the glove box. People leave them around their house and treat them as toys that kids end up finding.
AND I would argue that handguns are not in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. They are not fighting weapons. They are for fun, personal protection, or making people feel tough without having to do any real work. They have little range and lesser power. There are are no troops in the world that deploy with handguns as a primary weapon. US military officers get them but that’s more about tradition.
Yes, I’m aware that shooting incidents done with rifles would be more deadly, but the fact there would be much fewer of them at all would be a net benefit in a society that banned or severely restricted hand guns.
Problem is that most of your anti-gun folk aren’t crazy, or don’t want to appear as such, and so they placate the defenders of gun rights with phrases resembling “I believe we should be able to have handguns because self defense buuuuuut nobody should have semi auto rifles.” Of course, the second they do ban long guns (curbing a total of 500/60,000 gun deaths a year mind you), they’ll switch to “oh well clearly that didn’t work so now we’re taking the handguns too.” It’s literally by design, simply a tactic to fool those who won’t bother looking into that whole “only 500 killed with long guns/yr” stat, nor the fact that 5.56 only delivers about as much energy as a hot .357mag rnd, but the Barrett .50BMG which is bolt action and therefore totally fine delivers about 10,000 more ft-lbs of energy, etc.
Besides that, the 2a protects things “in common use” according to Heller and “must have a historical precedent for bans,” according to Bruen therefore handguns do fall quite under the scope of the 2a and a ban would be ruled unconstitutional immediately.
Besides that, self defense is important, and unless you suggest people start open carrying ARs, the best way to do it is to CCW a compact 9mm handgun.
Furthermore “guns shouldn’t be for the poor” would help to curb crime, but at what cost? That is pure T bona-fide classism and I don’t support it, personally.
This guy never saw John Wick.
Me tossing leftovers in the trash does not in any way interfere with hungry people getting food.
Especially if that’s food that’s going to negatively impact your own health, like junk food.
true. but next time, just buy/make less food.
Why?
If for no other reason, then in the name of your own bank account.
My bank account’s biggest limitation is my brain cycles.
because the excess is going to waste. why do you think ? sure, it doesnt directly affect hungry people, however:
- it is expensive
- it is increasing demand for food, raising the price
- if the food is still good, you can give it to someone who will appreciate it
is it so hard to simply buy an appropriate amount of food ? or just eating the leftovers ?
- Not even in the top ten list of choices I make leading to not enough money
- Perhaps on the shortest timescale, but increasing the market for food reduces prices long term
- Refutes my original claim without argument, so I disagree unless you’ve got more to back this up.
Lemmy is left leaning but downvotes anything that suggests poll numbers are slipping for Biden, or if people are unsatisfied with his performance. It’s news! Are y’all just downvoting it because you don’t like it?
“Pulling for Biden” is most certainly not ‘leaning left’, lmfao. Precisely two and a half instances actually lean left; the rest are typically as bad as if not worse than Reddit libbery on geopolitical takes.
Lemmy.world and Lemmy.ca tend to be right-leaning even if they have some Leftist comms. The fediverse still appeals to leftists, but liberals have their own enclaves.
Don’t you know, the downvote button is the dislike button, on pretty much every platform. Also, upvote is agree button. They have nothing to do with whether a comment is relevant to the topic or not.
The destruction of the library of Alexandria was a win.
How so?
Its legacy as this place potentially and magically fulfilling the hopes of having the answers to one’s questions far exceeds reasonability, especially given the ordinariness of its circumstances/contents, and combine that with the fact that what they were known for is performing human experimentation on live prisoners, all without the ability to understand these experiments enough to start forming a unified concept of medicine around it, since this is Ancient Greece/Egypt we’re talking about.
The Batman > The Dark Knight
Booooo
Children should not be exposed to advertising at a young age (below 11/12 years old)
Just say 11 months damn
that wouldnt account for leap days tho :/
You are bad at parenting if you give your child a smart phone or social media.
until what age ?
Its difficult to point number because context, but 13 y/o at leat
I guess till they become and adult because they are in charge of their decisions at that point.
so they cant use a phone even at 15-17 ? a lot of kids have jobs at that point.
Flip phone or non internet phone. We have a phone for the kids, but its not one that can get them to the internet or sending pictures.
unfortunately they will almost certainly get picked on. i dont think abstinence is the best idea here, better to educate them on the dangers and monitor/restrict what they are using the phone for. lest they hate you. but certainly for someone under 12-14 they do not need a phone.
I hear what you are saying, but I dont want my kids to fit in with those kids, and thus we have them in private schools now. One main issue is even if you teach them not to just start watching porn, they turn into one of those kids that is on their phone all the time and then transitions into an adult like that too.
you realize most kids will still find a way, even if you tell them not to ? its better to actually educate them. which is the point of parenting; not just to restrict what they are allowed to do.
The doomsday argument is correct, and becomes more obviously correct with each passing day.
@TehBamski Most entertainment is produced in abusive environments, promotes positively evil people to become famous, and twists the legal system through in such a way that it enables surveillance and erodes ownership rights. But barely anyone is willing to boycott it.
Gun laws are ineffective. There is zero correlation between gun deaths and strictness of gun laws. Despite limits and bans of short barreled rifles, “assault weapons”, machine guns, etc, gun deaths have continually increased.
Gun bans are only effective where there already isn’t violence, at which point it’s redundant.
I believe the culprits behind widespread American violence are high rates of youth delinquency and gang related criminal activity.
The culprits are an extremely broken social safety net, crumbling education infrastructure and institutional racism.
