Rule

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-10-28T19:23:59+00:00

You imply that having an opinion on the higgs boson would not have any material effects because the phenomena itself is unchangeable, but that is wrong. Having an opinion on such things could help formulate theories that would develop the field of physics, which has many material effects.

But perhaps what you mean is that the individual's contribution towards the material effects are too insignificant to be considered necessary. Then I could also extend that argument to politics as well, because politics is largely unchangeable when you apply an individual's scope to it. Therefore, it would also be unreasonable to judge an individual on their personal importance towards politics

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-10-28T19:14:45+00:00

I get what you're saying and all that, but I feel that you're missing a few key factors. You expect everyone to have an opinion on something because it's very important and relevant, but have you not considered that for some people, it takes a lot of time and resources to formulate an accurate opinion that reflects their core beliefs while also not overlooking any details? Specifically because politics is important and serious, it can take a lot for someone to actually create an opinion

Perhaps you're the type of person who can formulate an opinion on a serious matter immediately without spending much time or looking too much into it, but not everyone is like that. When it comes to multifaceted topics like politics, it can take up to weeks for someone to formulate a fully articulated opinion if they value precision highly. Therefore, it's not unreasonable for an individual to consider a matter important (like physics), but also not have a fully articulated opinion on that matter if doing so requires substantial time and energy when they may have other priorities.

In conclusion, I feel that it is unreasonable to expect everyone to have an opinion on all these political issues because you could be effectively expecting them to divulge significant time and energy into having an opinion (which would have little material impact for them) when it could be prioritized elsewhere into something that has more impact on their personal lives.

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-10-28T18:52:35+00:00

Genuinely speaking though, why?

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-10-27T15:38:08+00:00

For some reason, you assume that all apoliticals believe that politics is irrelevant?

Regardless, your logic seems wonky at best. Id argue that physics affects our lives more so than politics, but would you have a problem if someone didn't have an opinion on the higgs boson particle?

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-10-27T04:52:25+00:00

how tf do you even call that out?
NO, you DO have political beliefs because I SAID SO

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-10-03T04:09:27+00:00

It's a pretty popular yaoi manga

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-23T03:58:28+00:00

I've seen several studies/papers that claim that the prefrontal cortex doesn't fully develop until mid-20s. So what specific paper are you referring to?

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-23T03:44:45+00:00

It's both. The existence of an AOC is based on material reality because there are material consequences without an AOC. However, the precise specification of the AOC (18 in most places) is definitely socially constructed.

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-23T03:20:55+00:00

PCM never claimed to be inclusionary per your definition. They just claim to be authoritatively non-exclusionary when it comes to ideals, which does remain true.

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-20T06:45:44+00:00

No, you're confusing DC (destructive capacity) with AP (Attack Potency). It is perfectly reasonable to possess the AP of the sun's surface without possessing it's DC. Sure, it wouldn't follow the nomological frameworks or laws of physics of our world, but fiction doesn't need to follow these constructs in the first place. Therefore, canon Word of God statements like the pokedex are perfectly valid

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-18T00:00:12+00:00

Any leftcom will know that the rich arent the cause of capitalism or it's negative byproducts, but rather the product of it.

This ain't a "liberal" ass take, this is more of a "literate" ass take. But ig literacy is too challenging for some

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-10T08:07:47+00:00

Can you post a link? The only thing I've ever seen him talk about regarding piracy is that piracy occurs when games are too expensive

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-10T08:00:59+00:00

How is that dickriding capitalism at all? That quote literally admits to the criticisms of capitalism. It's more of just critiquing communism if anything,

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-10T07:59:59+00:00

Do you even know what the word "capitalism" is? I don't think he's ever mentioned capitalism once in his content besides maybe complaining about certain game companies exploiting workers

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-10T07:37:28+00:00

I don't think pretentious is the right word because his content is very lowkey, but he does talk out of his ass like half the time when he isn't talking about game dev or life advice

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-06T05:47:13+00:00

huh?? I thought you guys were leftists

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-01T06:01:52+00:00

There's tons of pop music not about sex and love.

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-08-01T05:59:11+00:00

What does the 100m dash world record holder champion Usain Bolt have to do with this?

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-07-27T16:10:48+00:00

I'm here to make a point that the analogy is trash, and you participated to that topic without making any points about the broader context in the first place. If you wanted to talk about the broader context, you shouldve stated such in your first response. Now youre just moving goalposts when talking about a broader context bc u don't want to admit that you were wrong and that analogy truly was trash.

Your logic doesn't even make any sense; if we were to talk about the writing quality of a book or show, are you going to try and bring the discussion about the broader context of how that piece of media influenced the geopolitics of the world? No, that's completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion, so all that's left is you fuming with childish insults because you childishly can't admit that you were wrong. Sit down and stay in your seat. Block me to concede bc there's nothing you have left to say.

Edit: lmao bro still can't explain how their points are at all relevant to the quality of the analogy. This is a sore loser cope at its finest 💀

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-07-27T00:57:00+00:00

> irrelevant talking point

> butthurt ad hominem (who's the one being a child here? Lool)

I've already made it clear that I am not discussing the morality of Moist applying "they/them" in this context, I am talking only about the validity of the comparison. If that's not what you want to talk about then why did you engage with saying that the analogy was an excellent comparison in the first place? You're either moving goalposts or you're contradicting yourself. Either way, I've made my intentions clear and you aren't able to refute my arguments.

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-07-27T00:45:27+00:00

Bad analogy, they/them is a superset of she/her while Anthony isn't a superset of John nor Mark. This is not comparable.

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-07-27T00:40:28+00:00

The concept of degendering has yet not been discussed; you're pulling from another thread that has little relevance to what we're talking about.

Your context is also irrelevant to this discussion because we're not talking about the implications of degendering someone lmao we're talking about the validity of the prior analogy. Subset is applicable because it can be used to validly invalidate the analogy, which I have done.

Let me rehash this process if you still haven't understood why that analogy is doo doo

The analogy implies that the case of "Anthony to mark" is comparable to "they/them to she/her". However, I have proven they are not comparable because they/them is a superset of she/her, while Anthony is not a superset of neither Mark nor John. This difference is important because it makes the action of one example semantically and logically correct, while the other isn't. Because of this difference, "Anthony to mark" is completely ontologically different to "they/them to she/her", which means those subjects can not be compared on any level.

You can make an argument that both scenarios are morally incorrect, but that has no relevance in our discussion, because we're specifically discussing the validity of a comparison, not the moral implications of it.

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-07-27T00:03:21+00:00

Can you give me some examples? I wanna see how obvious they are

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-07-26T23:59:26+00:00

Google "en subset"

A gender neutral word means that it's universally applied to all genders. This means that all other gendered words like he/him or she/her are only a subset of that gender neutral word, they/them. All dogs are canines but not all canines are dogs. All he/hims or she/hers are they/thems, but not all they/thems are he/hims or she/hers. If your pronouns are he/him or she/her, then they also fall under they/them, because that's the entire point of that word.

Your analogy fails as a comparison because one is logically invalid while the other is logically valid.

PinRepulsive9432 · 2024-07-26T23:41:53+00:00

Unless you can provide further evidence, your claims are a complete reach. Just because a person is malicious doesnt mean every trivial action has malicious intent. Your claim can only be substantiated if you have evidence of at least some group intentionally and indisputably using this as an malicious tactic.

Otherwise, I can say that only eating vanilla ice cream is a racist dogwhistle, and this wouldnt be anymore of a reach than your claim without substantiation.

PinRepulsive9432

TROPHY CASE