Falling3

8 ms·

61.
by Falling3 5y ago
Why do you draw the line there? And that means you're okay with things like torture of animals and bestiality?
62.
by Falling3 5y ago
There's absolutely nothing that needs to be interpreted here. The article - and even the specific sentence you quoted - make it clear that its discussing the response to a user's actions and not the actions themselves. I'm no
63.
by Falling3 5y ago
Unless you're locking these people up forever, giving them a timeout solves absolutely nothing. Evidence-based prevention and treatment are the clear answers. No one is claiming addiction isn't a problem. We just simple want to ac
64.
by Falling3 5y ago
Thanks - I was wondering why I remembered that information coming to light so much more recently.
65.
by Falling3 5y ago
Uhuh... which says absolutely nothing about what rules he broke. I'm not sure what part of that you're getting hung up on.
66.
by Falling3 5y ago
That does not say what you're claiming it does. The article is very clearly talking about the response to Trump: > correct response should be "consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform". Tha
67.
by Falling3 5y ago
The drugs used for microdosing are not considered to form physical dependence. Nor have I ever heard of anyone become addicted to psychedelics. Is there a reason your response hinges on addiction?
68.
by Falling3 5y ago
> It's quite obvious he broke no actual rules, but it's interesting that Facebook's oversight board is actually willing to say so. Where are you reading that? I see no reference to it in the linked article.
69.
by Falling3 5y ago
> Can a computer play chess? No. > They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one. This is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. The object
70.
by Falling3 5y ago
I felt very out of place in my college CS classes. I picked up programming my freshman year and switched to CS from my original major. I was completely green while so many other students - what felt like a majority - had been programming fo
71.
by Falling3 5y ago
How is that actually relevant though? Do your morals change when it comes to humans you cannot communicate with?
72.
by Falling3 5y ago
The problem is most people do not have a rational basis for the differences in the behaviors you outlined. The reasoning generally rests completely on logical fallacies.
73.
by Falling3 6y ago
Because of genetics or the fact that they were raised by religious parents?
74.
by Falling3 6y ago
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet is shelf-stability. Even if you love to cook, it's nice knowing you have a backup sitting in the pantry just in case you're feeling tired or don't have a chance to go shopping.
75.
by Falling3 6y ago
What country is that?
76.
by Falling3 6y ago
Sounds like a beautiful example of a false dichotomy.
77.
by Falling3 6y ago
At what point did the parent comment say how anyone should think? They presented counterarguments. Is that not allowed?
78.
by Falling3 6y ago
> [health problems are] why most people (84%) who adopts a vegan diet at some point in their lives, returns to eating meat and dairy again How did you come to that conclusion and what data do you have to support it? The overwhelming majo
79.
by Falling3 6y ago
It's completely disingenuous to categorize statements like "the US tax code is too complex" and "Jews are starting forest fires with space lasers" both as just 'political opinions'.
80.
by Falling3 6y ago
> Why hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold the animals" This cannot be how you approach morality. Animals routinely do horrific things to each other. Would you ever ask someone that question outside of a conversation on
81.
by Falling3 6y ago
The original logo came out before Bezos stepped down.
82.
by Falling3 6y ago
This had absolutely nothing to do with the French population of North America. I'd ask if you were trying to have a good faith discussion, but the fact that you pretended the original comment was actually talking about cancelling potat
83.
by Falling3 6y ago
This is an extremely uncharitable reply. Where did anyone try and equate the suffering of animals and humans? Accusing your opponents of anthropomorphizing because of concern about non-human suffering is a ridiculous response. The fact that
84.
by Falling3 6y ago
We have a mini pig that lives with us. I think the parent's comment is vastly underestimating pigs. They're very sweet, empathetic animals.
85.
by Falling3 6y ago
I hear this kind of reasoning often, but I don't believe anyone is willing to apply it outside of food. Yes, many non-human animals would eat you if given the opportunity. Some species of large cats might also kill you for amusement. D
86.
by Falling3 6y ago
The "fries" were not what were being canceled; the French were.
87.
by Falling3 6y ago
Then you're definitely old enough to remember them burning nikes and keurigs. How about their hatred of Starbucks for being inclusive with holiday greetings?
88.
by Falling3 6y ago
> The oaths made in a typical marriage are impossible > Life-long good marriages exists I'm sure you have this reconciled somehow, but it sounds contradictory to me.
89.
by Falling3 6y ago
Exactly.
90.
by Falling3 6y ago
> In the USA, all sides can call and rely on their own forensics. ... to the extent their financial resources allow.

More ›