"“Harris also wrote that she supported taxpayer funding of gender transition surgeries for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.
Harris was asked if, as president, she would use “executive authority to ensure that transgender and non-binary people who rely on the state for medical care – including those in prison and immigration detention – will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care.”
Harris replied, “Yes.””
Alien and prison, taxpayer paid surgeries are on the menu, boys. Break in illegally or commit a crime, and your next surgery is free!
If you’re in prison for life, and you want to kill yourself because of gender dysphoria, providing you the medical care to avoid that is the humane thing to do. Period.
If you are an immigrant detained for 6-12 months before deportation, the the odds of this applying to detained immigrants is near 0, but let’s say 1% it does, this would be tailored at ensuring they can have the drugs they require.
Keeping people from shooting out the back of their fucking heads or swallowing a bottle of painkillers to end it all is always the humane choice.
Don’t worry, we could fund it all by just not administering a few death penalties (those are more expensive than life imprisonment).
This is rage bait. How many times a year would this happen? Two? Three? There are more important things to talk about. That’s why they’re taking about this
Celsius and Fahrenheit agree on -40, but since they're scales that scale at different rates there's bound to be some value where they intersect rather than some meaningful number like Kelvin and Rankine being zeroed to Absolute Zero
Also Rankine, being an absolute scale, theoretically shouldn’t be in ° anything, and it’s only some weird historical quirk that is the reason it usually is called degrees.
I am not sure I follow that. The scale is always relative right? It’s just the zero that’s absolute. But that’s also the case with measuring angles where we do use the degree symbol.
This screenshot is a little bit hard to see, but from what I can tell:
°RA is pointing at °R and °C °C is pointing at K and °F
K is pointing at °R and at °F °R is pointing at °F (and the other gun isn’t aimed at anyone in particular)
°F is pointing at K and at °C
Emphasis disproves your claims, sadly. Perhaps there was another way to label them to make it fit, but that’s not what was done here.
Depends how you look at it. If you keep raising off-shoots from cuttings, you are essentially producing extensions of the very same plant and you can do that indefinitely. Think about it like cloning: an individual plant will eventually die, but it’s clone will survive and can still propagate.
Plants are not biologically immortal like some lobsters for example.
Chromosomes are essentially packages of DNA and each end of a chromosome is extended by a protein called telomere, essentially sequences of “junk data” that protect the actual data (the DNA) from degradation or randomly fusing with other chromosomes. When cells split to renew, these telomeres are not fully copied to the new cell and thus shorten with each split. When they get too short, cells cannot split anymore, so there is a natural end to the renewal process (the so-called Hayflick limit).
Lobsters possess an enzyme called telomerase which can repair telomeres and thus their cells can, in theory, divide indefinitely. They will still die naturally tho due to diseases or growing too large to sustain their body size and die of malnutrition, but they don’t age the way we do.
I love chicken, pork, and beef. I have tried the meat alternatives and I like most of what I have tried. I would be vegetarian if it honestly wasn’t so expensive sometimes. Not to say meat isn’t also expensive.
I work with a guy who is a vegan and honestly. I don’t get the hate towards the life style. Guy is as healthy as they get and morally more sound in the area of food than I am.
What am I missing on Vegan hate or even vegetarian hate. No one imposes on me. Honestly, I feel like they have something figured out I dont.
They are a small, harmless minority. Isn’t that enough? Maybe it’s made worse by the fact that they are perceived as non-violent and effeminate, because of their strong opposition to suffering, even when the victims are helpless, like animals. There is no personal risk in bullying them. It’s like the hate for environmental activists, trans-women, or liberals in general. I wouldn’t know that vegans aggressively proselytize their life-style if people didn’t aggressively tell me so; something that they share with “the gays”. Of course, people wouldn’t mind if they didn’t shove it in their faces all the time. Where have I heard that before?
Well, it’s what they believe. What exactly is the problem there? I have never been called a murderer. There just aren’t that many vegans around. I don’t know in what kind of circles this would be a common occurrence.
At first, I was confused. Isn’t the fact that you believe something the only justification for saying something? I mean, otherwise you’d be lying. But you’re saying you disagree with the belief in the first place, right?
No, I’m making the same point as @redisdead. Everyone says things because they believe them. That doesn’t make what they say correct/valid/etc just because of that belief. I actually think that veganism is a morally good position, but the justification of that position being “because I believe it” means literally nothing.
Ok, so that’s why you’re not making any sense. You have no idea what’s going on.
Look, it’s very simple. Vegans are a small, harmless minority. So some people bully them. Of course, it’s their own fault. They wouldn’t mind them if they weren’t “out and proud”. It’s always the same story. There’s almost no variation.
I thought you were saying that it’s ok to bully them because they believe the wrong thing. That’s what @redisdead is saying. He compares them to “right wing cunts” when they speak their beliefs. Fascis get bashis. Just like vegans, I guess.
I believe he was making a comparison to show how dumb “because they believe it” is as a justification.
You have no idea what’s going on.
Ironic coming from the guy who doesn’t understand an extremely simple concept that two people have patiently tried to explain over the course of five comments. Of course instead of just listening to what we have to say, you insist on accusing me of things that have no basis in reality. Your insistence to categorize people has led you to mischaracterize me, and I doubt I’m the first one. I’m going to assume you frequently have these sorts of arguments, so please step back and take this opportunity to analyze why they keep ending up this way. I will not respond further, I’ve spent too much time on this already; if you’re still confused, reread the thread. Goodbye.
Vegans believe that animals have the same rights to live as humans. A nazi believes that the “others” do not have the same right to live as “his people”.
I don’t think you’ll be able to convince me that these are morally or ethically equivalent positions. But I see the point. They both believe the wrong thing. The out-group sucks. Yes, I know how humans tick.
So what you’re saying is, their belief in their position doesn’t make it right/wrong. It’s the position itself that makes it right/wrong. That’s what we’ve been trying to say.
Sure, but maybe they would, if you instead of liking ate their body parts and would pay an industry to kill them for that purpose? We can only speculate.
Yes, I’m quite aware vegans have a reason to be upset. Unfortunately, equating eating meat or drinking milk to personally murderering and torturing animals is not going to earn them any fans, and will in fact push people away from their just cause out of spite.
That’s not at all relevant to the comment I was responding to, though.
I mean, you are paying someone else to do those things for you. Or if you want to quibble over verbs, paying someone else to cause harm to animals for you.
If it’s not currently possible for you to eat a less harmful diet, that’s one thing. There’s a ton of ways that our lifestyles can cause harm, and it’s perfectly fine if you’re just not in a good place to change one particular aspect of it. Refusing to acknowledge the harm that you are causing is frankly much more concerning. From understanding comes action, after all.
I mean, you are paying someone else to do those things for you.
That’s not exactly what’s going on. I believe a more apt way to describe it would be paying somebody that has harmed animals. This may sound like a distinction without a difference, but I don’t believe it is. Whether I buy pork at a grocery store or not, they aren’t going to kill any fewer pigs because of it. It’s not like the slaughterhouse is going to butcher exactly one less pig because I stopped buying meat. If I decide not to buy pork chop the next time I go to a store, either somebody else buys the pork, it’s donated to a food bank right before expiry, or it’s just thrown away. The pig is already dead, and the meat goes somewhere regardless.
Unless you’re the type of person that eats meat every day, there is very little change you can make at an individual level. Of course, much like voting, change starts to happen once you get a lot of people to make that individual choice. Get 20 people to stop buying pork, and the store might order less. But at that point, I would argue it is far more of a societal issue. So while we are directly responsible for what happens to farm animals, I don’t think it’s at the level of us literally killing them ourselves.
Pardon me for fighting you on this, but I believe you are incorrect. You’re abdicating your responsibility, in assuming that those animals will always be killed.
Put it this way. If you lived next to a chicken farm, and drove over there any time you needed a chicken, and watched them kill it for you, would you have any qualms about saying it was killed for you? Why does having it go through a grocery store first somehow change this? However you get your meat, those animals were still killed for your benefit.
The average American eats about 250 pounds of meat in a year. That’s a bit over half a cow, or about one and a half pigs, or somewhere north of a hundred chickens. That’s the butcher’s bill, directly attributable to the average American. So to take your own words - yes, if you stop eating meat, exactly one pig will not be killed every year. Around one and half, actually.
Believing that animals are just like us s hardly and outlandish belief, on the facts. We’re evolutionarily closely related. We have basically the same skeleton. Skull, spine, rib cage, hips, 4 extremities. Arms and legs go: 1 big bone, 2 smaller bones, and lotsa little bones. It looks to be the same with the brain.
We expect vegans not to blow up slaughterhouses or such. Fair enough. But expecting them to shut up about their beliefs is a bit much, no? Expecting them not to tell people how they feel, not to kiss in public, or hold a pride para… Sorry, wrong prosecuted minority.
I’ve heard these takes about vegans for literal decades now, and not once has an actual vegan popped up to tell me that I’m a murderer.
Okay? The ONLY thing I mentioned was them calling people murderers. Glad you haven’t, but I have had that happen. Another thing I’ve seen that I have issue with is vegans pushing their diets on their carnivorous pets. Like cats. But I have literally no problem with 99% of vegans expressing their beliefs.
Yes, I’m quite aware vegans have a reason to be upset.
their just cause
Like I said. I even think they’re usually in the right. While I’m not a vegan for my own personal reasons, I hope they eventually make a positive change in the world.
There is a small vocal minority that essentially equates anyone who keeps eating meat regardless of circumstances, preference or nuance, [to killers, murderers, etc]. Honestly a large amount of people would take a vegan option if it tasted the same, had the same texture, was as cheap or cheaper than meat, was as accessible, and didn’t require learning a new skill set. There’s also the availability when eating out.
Antagonizing people like that is a good way to have them disagree out of spite, and the militant vegans always have a way of inserting themselves into every conversation. I had to block people on lemmy because I just didnt want to deal with that here.
Unfortunately a vegan who is a good person isn’t alwayd out there proselytizing at every chance they get in a non intrusive manner, so people rarely if ever see vegans who are reasonable people relative to vegan extremists.
Unfortunately a vegan who is a good person isn’t alwayd out there proselytizing at every chance they get in a non intrusive manner,
That’s the thing imo, if a vegan is alwayd out there proselytizing at every chance they get then they are by default not a good person even if they do it in a supposed non intrusive manner and are by default vegan extremists imo. Proselytizing is in and of itself intrusive by definition imo, like ads.
Honestly a large amount of people would take a vegan option if it tasted the same, had the same texture, was as cheap or cheaper than meat, was as accessible, and didn’t require learning a new skill set.
And businesses would stop burning fossil fuels if renewables had the same portability, same output, were cheaper, available everywhere, and didn’t require learning a new skill set. They can still be criticised for doing so, I’m not sure what your point here is?
Here specifically or in general? In general, nothing. Most well adjusted people don’t form negative opinions about others based on their dietary choices.
On Lemmy specifically, the Vegan sub was promoting the idea that feeding obligate carnivores (cats) a strictly vegan diet is a totally rad thing to do. It’s not. They’re going to kill their damn cats.
Everyone who keeps posting this ignores that there has been vegan cat food for years, supplemented with necessary vitamins etc and backed up with scientific research. They didn’t make it up out of thin air as you seem to be implying. Sceptism or disagreement is fine. Painting the other side as lunatics is not.
Everything from it being very hard to balance the nutrients in these foods, in a production sense, to veterinary science not being complete on what is needed for proper diet. The foods available aren’t great, and making it yourself is generally worse. Most of the reports of the animals being perfectly fine, when allowed to be closely monitored by experts, show that, while they appear fine, they likely to suffer long term consequences to their health, and often die of them. however it takes a long time, so regardless of the average lifespan decrease, which is abstract, and hard for a general pet owner to quantify, since the cats lived for years, people assumed it was fine. There is also a lot of mis/disinformation from the pro side on the actual QOL of the animals, both because they aren’t experts to know, and, to a lesser extent, data gets fudged to support their goals. This is not to say that the same can’t be said of the con side.
Sure, and good information for the discussion. This was my point: everyone was acting like vegans are actively delusional in feeding cats vegan food. While there are very much valid criticisms you can have, most people are not engaging with the facts, or with even a modicum of respect. Thank you for not being a part of that.
Oh yeah, for every vegan that just beats everyone around them, over the head, with their veganism, there are 100, or more, people who go out of their way to insult, and offend, vegans. I have seen far more people do things like try to slip animal products in food, secretly, to make vegans eat it, go out of their way to over indulge in meat because there is a vegan there, and just talk shit, than any vegan proselytizing.
Ultimately I just think that, as it currently stands, allowing animals to have meat, if they are natural carnivores, is better than alternatives. When they get good enough, sure, move on with it.
I do think veganism has had their representation taken over by the loudest, and most obnoxious, elements, but that can be said about nearly every lifestyle, or belief system. This, to a lesser extent, and other things, to a greater extent, is why I hope being able to synthetically produce animal products, will come to fruition. I honestly do not believe most of society can be convinced to be vegan. If the end of humanity isn’t a convincing argument… well I don’t know what is.
I don’t hate vegans in general. I hate it when they prostelytize at me and try to shame me into being vegan. And this it the problem many people have. There is a vocal minority of vegans that will attack others for not sharing their lifestyle (I’m looking at you, PETA). I have no interest in giving up meat. I will pick more sustanable meat sources sure, but i will not be attacked for my choices.
Don’t come after me, I won’t come after you. I likely will even try to bring a vegan option to a pot luck for you.
I mean, that’s kind of saying you’re going to delibrately drive a Hummer because it ‘fits your lifestyle’, and then getting annoyed when people point out it’s incredibly wasteful and dangerous. There’s a certain point where you have to acknowledge reality, yah?
Reality is you are not going to convince the entire world to turn to a vegan lifestyle. Period. And if you attack people for not wanting to change, you are going to make them resist that change more.
We don’t have the economics for everyone to suddenly become vegan - it’s fucking expensive. We also don’t have the nutritional education for everyone to suddenly become vegan. People have to be willing to research that in order to not malnourish themselves. And most people are simply too lazy to do that.
Not to mention the massive amounts of food deserts in the country that would make finding vegan options for a fully vegan diet impossible.
Asking everyone in the world to live off vegetables and supplements is insane. We are not there as a society yet. And I have no intention of driving a hummer. It’s too damn expensive.
Just like eating a proper vegan diet is if you’re actually trying to meet all your nutrients.
Again, if you view reality - in this case, that vegan diets are better for the environment and for animal welfare - as an ‘attack’… well I really don’t know what to tell you. It really seems like something you need to handle on your own? Don’t get mad at people for pointing out that the sky is blue and the grass is green.
I will take issue with the idea that vegan diets are more expensive. This is largely an artifact of Americans thinking you need to eat the overpriced ‘fake meat’ - really, fake beef, as they never seem to include mock duck. You don’t. It’s not even slightly necessary. As someone who has been vegetarian for years, I always roll my eyes a little bit when people talk about it.
I can make chili out of a few cans of beans, some onion and bell pepper, and chili powder. Or tacos from black beans, roasted sweet potatoes, and pico de gallo. Or stir fry with mock duck from a can and frozen vegetables. Or curry with tofu and curry powder. Or a huge number of other things that are all very cheap.
As for supplements…B12. A bottle of 100 pills is about 5 bucks. That’s it.
To address your point about inavailablity…I have to laugh. Historically, meat has always been harder to obtain. A lot of vegan foods are vegan simply because people weren’t able to get meat. If you’re talking about prepared food like fast food, etc - sure, a lot of places don’t even bother to have vegan options. But again, if you’re trying to live off of takeout, you’re really shooting yourself in the foot as far as cost goes. Just make some chili with cornbread and chill.
I’m gonna release a AAAAA game. It’ll cost $95 and when you install it, it’ll just be a romhack of Super Mario World changing all the enemy sprites into butts. There’ll be a link to file complaints that just points to a terrible image made in ms paint that says “lol f u”.
I’ll only support this if I can pre-order it for double the price, and have an option at launch to pay an additional $50 to make the butt sprites into dickbutt instead
The $50 dickbutt DLC isn’t scheduled to be released until a month after the launch, but for an extra $70 you can get the limited edition collectors edition at launch, that comes with a cheaply made Mario-with-a-butt-instead-of-a-head limited edition figurine.
And for $40 you can also purchase the “getting started” pack–that includes a save file where we beat the game, so you don’t even have to play it. Your name, email address, and SSN will be on our first-to-finish list!
And for $70 more you can play it 2 days early! For why? No fucking reason other than to flex! Gotta flex on those poors by getting it earlier than them amirite?? This ensures you will be invested in our product from the very start and you are the type of person who we can do no wrong.
And for $30 there’s 2 extra skins that are just the worst looking piles of shit. But again if you don’t have them how will you flex on the poors? This is lumped in with the earlier assurance that we can do no wrong in your eyes.
And the battle pass is $10 - every 30 days. It has nothing of value except at tier 150, which is a new flagrantly pay to win weapon. This ensures we own your time, every month.
But also we didn’t finish the game, instead we released a roadmap. We will scrap this roadmap a week and a half after the disastrous launch because the game sucks so my donkey dick we cannot possibly add content to the absolute bugfest of a game. This is an abuse of loyalty to our brand, but you’ve stated you don’t care as long as you get to play it.
Now that the game is out for a month, we’ve added a cash shop. This flies in the face of regulation on the box not indicating gambling elements, but fuck those stooges standing in the way of our profits! We can make a new box with the proper markings on them in a month. Surely you would like to buy a sword skin or character skin beyond looking like normal Mario right? Also there will be at least 1 skin that blends in with the background a little too well and attracts p2w allegations for the multiplayer mode. We don’t care and neither do you because you will buy it. You wanna be a winner right?
We noticed you’re already level 8, congratulations! We halved level reward drops, but increased rarity of those items by 30% but from here on we tripled enemy hp at every 10 levels to make sure the game is a slog, so you buy overpowered shit from the shop and battle pass.
You reached level 10 in only 5 hours? That’s amazing! How about a XP Booster? Like the above we actually made progression become ungodly slow after level 10 unless you pay us $35 for an XP booster - in a single player game. We will make sure this pops up every time you level up to remind you we intentionally slowed progression so you make this purchase.
Also we can’t help but notice you picked up a Fancy Locked Box. You can divert from the main quest to grind the crafting materials and it will take 6 hours to craft, OR you can buy a key for ONLY $5! This will pop up EVERY time you pick up a Locked Box with the option to go to the shop, and be SUPER disruptive, to get you to cave.
And lastly, a “donate” button on the main menu where you just give us money for nothing, because at this point why not right?
Don’t forget the meta where a new paid DLC weapon is super unbalanced and great for two weeks until the devs nerf it into the ground and everyone goes back to the default weapons that are just ok.
Oh shoot I knew I missed one! The battle pass is weapon is op and then we will nerf it just before the next battle pass drops, to ensure an OP/Nerf cycle to enforce you always have the newest battle pass and buy tiers and have more time than filthy grinders to abuse it’s OPness
but imagine you’ve just gotten use to living on a moss planet over the past 40 million years, and now all of a sudden you walk outside and all the moss is gone
Language requires intelligent design from intelligent people sometimes. When needed, prescriptivists in legion can make a literate civilization out of illiterate primitives.
The asinine and the arcane can both make learning unnecessarily difficult.
The English they think is perfectly correct proper English would make the language prescriptivist from a couple centuries ago puke and kick them in the groin
You don’t consider the simplification of Chinese “language”, nor the ordering of Nynorsk, or the creation of the Korean alphabet.
You don’t think the efforts of thousands of teachers across a nation teaching the language prescriptively according to the designs of the state constitutes language. You seem to consider it forceful meddling in a natural evolution that should be left to just do what it does, unrestrained and undisturbed by judgmental nerds.
People are taught how to write in an academic style in school.
There’s different applications for writing. Some examples in include but are not limited to academic, creative, and conversational/casual writing. Education tends to focus on academic(correct grammar, writing essays, doing research papers) followed by creative writing which is storytelling and poetry.
Expecting people to write academically in casual settings is weird. If I write a letter or email to my friend it’s going to include slang and have looser grammar.
Casual and academic writing have their place and time. Suggesting casual writing is inferior is just silly. If people always wrote everything like some formal essay it’d be fucking boring. No humor, no colorful language. Just boring ass academic writing everywhere.
Plus, believe it or not some of my most brilliant professors had a very casual way of speaking and writing. Academic use of language does not indicate intelligence. It just means they know how to write in an academic setting. Nothing more, nothing less.
There are some cases in history where academic writing (seen in government and religious documents) differs so greatly from the actual language of the people (which those very same government employees and clergy use when outside of their professional environments) that the two languages are more like distant cousins.
Of course, it’s the popular language which evolves into the language of today, while leaving the ancient, once “proper” language behind where it belongs.
And then, that region’s language prescriptivists of today say that the version they were taught is the right one, all over again 😅
oof, no. “in legion”? lol wtf, do you think this is Warhammer or something?
we started speaking way before we started writing. literacy had been irrelevant in the evolution of a language. and even today it barely matters; thanks to the the current ubiquity of media and communication, people can start using a new word, or start pronouncing a word a different way, or spelling something a new way, and it can spread faster than it ever did before. some dickwad insisting that this is “incorrect” is not going to change anything if most people disagree.
speaking of which, why are you not speaking or spelling the way Shakespeare did? what are these newfangled bullshit words and spellings you’re using like some illiterate primitive?
I mean writing systems are not a part of the real spoken language and how it evolved. I think it’s fine to be prescriptivist about writing systems as many did not evolve naturally anyway, and many could be made far easier to learn and use. You shouldn’t mess with spoken language as that’s the part that did evolve naturally and is still subject to evolution. The focus though should always be on making these writing systems simpler and a better reflection of the spoken language. Hangul is a great example of prescriptivism over writing systems.
I don’t think designing a writing system is prescriptivist – or at least if it’s any good then it isn’t.
Here’s a good and recent example, a new, unified, orthography for Low Saxon. The way they did it is to take Old Saxon, re-trace the sound changes in modern dialects phoneme by phoneme and then assign glyphs to everything, which may be realised differently depending on dialect, say “sk” can be pronounced (English orthography) sk, shk, or sh. Mergers etc. are preserved in the over-regional orthography, though there’s also a set of regular changes you can make to that universal orthography to get at dialect orthographies.
That is, what it’s doing is simply to try its best to do both the history and the present of the language justice, to preserve nuance while providing regularity. Situations such as “loose” vs “lose” are perfectly fine because you derive the spelling of the adjectives from their roots (at least I assume why it’s that way in English). Your dialect may, or may not, merge them in that situation the orthography doesn’t say that you should or shouldn’t do that – only that you should still distinguish it in writing because there’s people who don’t merge stuff like that. People don’t start to write “cot” and “caught” the same all of a sudden, either, they probably don’t even realise they’re pronouncing them the same.
Contrast that with the previous “standard” orthography (for the dialects within Germany, that is), Sass. It basically says “write it like you would write German” and that’s right-out disastrous as German orthography just can’t deal with the phonetics, merging and shifting especially vowels left and right away from what anyone is speaking. As such it was prescriptive by negligence, confusing many a learner.
Yes and no but mostly no. Prescriptivists are are great when you need to build a general structure of a language, but language can and will evolve without any intelligent design by the people using it.
The primary purpose of language is to communicate ideas and most of the times the linguistic rules are not necessary to convey an idea.
Internal inconsistencies fester and degrade a language if the changes people like you defend are not only left unshamed, but even encouraged as “creative”.
There are language that have lived for centuries without any lexical rules. Any value lost is only in the the eyes of the preceptivists. Language can and will easily live on with all the internal inconsistencies. In fact language rules are usually built around those inconsistencies because the language people speak is more important than whatever rules purists come up with.
kbin.life
Top