Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)A

Atomic

@ Atomic @sh.itjust.works

Posts
1
Comments
649
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Smart move

    Jump

  • I know you think you're being very clever by creating a strawman and ridiculing said strawman, but everyone sees right through that and just rolls their eyes.

    Horses have it far better than most wild animals. It's not even close. You're either underestimating the living conditions of most Horses, or overestimating the living conditions of most wild animals. Probably both.

  • Life pro tip for friends of pharmacists

    Jump

  • As far as I'm concerned, "threatening" to use your own body in an attempt to raise antibiotic resistant bacteria, is self harm.

    You don't have to agree. That's fine.

  • Life pro tip for friends of pharmacists

    Jump

  • Yeah. So we agree that she's threatening self harm (minimum) to solicit a response from someone. Emotional manipulation.

    I'm glad we managed to argue our way to what we already concluded from the start.

  • Life pro tip for friends of pharmacists

    Jump

  • If you are promoting antibiotic resistant bacteria in your body, is that not self harm? I sure think it is.

    Not all self harm is cutting, starving, or suicide.

  • Life pro tip for friends of pharmacists

    Jump

  • What you just said, is that stopping the treatment early is detrimental to the human race. Did you perhaps mean the opposite?

    Otherwise I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me that one should fulfill their treatment plan. I already agree.

    I'm not attributing malice. I'm calling it for what it is. Emotional manipulation, intentional or not is beyond the point.

  • Smart move

    Jump

  • We came to the conclusion that keeping horses contained was a fantastic idea since they were an invaluable asset to our quality of life.

    They were a mean of transportation, plowing our fields, gathering our wood, conquering and defending our lands.

    The only part here is they lost their status as invaluable in the modernised world. Though their current status as "slaves" as you put it, isn't without benefit.

    Few animals get the medical care a horse does, I'd even argue the average horse have better access to Healthcare than the average human. Gone are the days where a horse with a broken leg has a death sentence, so their quality of life have only improved in the last 100 years. And they will never have to worry about predators, not even humans, since they've for the most part been taken off our menu.

    I'm not here to change your mind, I'm just saying, I think most animals would swap places with them in a heartbeat given the oppertunity.

  • Life pro tip for friends of pharmacists

    Jump

  • Just apply some casual emotional manipulation by suggesting self harm and watch the other person trying to ensure you don't harm yourself.

    Is exactly what "Jessica Fletcher" is suggesting. Please don't...

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • I would prefer a butcher over this surgeon. At least the butcher knows where to cut.

  • The whole "toilet seat up, toilet seat down" gender debate could be solved by everybody putting the seat and lid down.

    Jump

  • It could also be solved by everyone putting the seat and lid up, what's your point?

  • Who is an artist or public figure you still enjoy despite them being cancelled for bad behaviour?

    Jump

  • I'm still not going to argue with you about how you percieve the phrase "you do you". And why you so desperately want to double down on that tangent is beyond me.

    It's a new level of arrogance trying to tell me what I mean when I say "you do you". When i already explained what I mean with it after your initial confusion.

    You got 2 brain cells, both fighting for third place. God bless and good luck.

  • Who is an artist or public figure you still enjoy despite them being cancelled for bad behaviour?

    Jump

  • Who is an artist or public figure you still enjoy despite them being cancelled for bad behaviour?

    Jump

  • I don't know what you are smoking. But you need to stop. For your own good.

    You're trying to go into this massive tangent away from the topic and I'm just not going to follow.

    I've already told you clearly what I mean and what I don't mean. I'm not going to argue with you about how you personally percieve something. I'm sorry you feel that way.

    I love ice cream, but I would never order a banana split. So that means I judge those that do? That I see myself above those that like banana split? The answer is no. I just don't like banana split. You do you. Each to their own. Whatever floats your boat.

  • Who is an artist or public figure you still enjoy despite them being cancelled for bad behaviour?

    Jump

  • You're the one reading into it. We're talking about art. People like different art. And that's ok. I do not imply any form of superiority, moral or otherwise when I say "you do you". So you can scratch that off.

    I have loads of stuff around my place that honestly, are not particularly beautiful or amazing in any way. But the artist is very dear to me, for various reasons. So I like to have them on display.

    Why does it matter so much to you that some people would prefer to avoid artists due to their conduct? It doesn't affect you. You just want to make it about yourself, by thinking that we judge you for listening/watching/buying/whatever from the artist. The world doesn't revolve around you.

    I don't think you're a bad person for enjoying Chris Browns music. I don't think about you, at all.

  • Who is an artist or public figure you still enjoy despite them being cancelled for bad behaviour?

    Jump

  • First off, Nice strawman by the way.

    Second, It is FAR from the same thing. I'm not uncomfortable being near something some awful person have been near. People have walked on the street I walk on, for several hundreds of years. I have no doubt some truly terrible people have traversed that road.

    But I don't want their artwork at display in my house. What I put on display in my house, is a reflection of me and my taste. Which is why I don't want to have such artwork from such a person.

    If you're fine with it, good for you. I have not once said it would be wrong. I've not once said no one can or should have such things. Only that I personally, wouldn't want to.

    You not being able to differentiate what people are comfortable with in their own home, and what they tolerate in public, is the centerpiece of your argument. Not a particularly strong foundation since it's based on nothing but your own misconception

  • Who is an artist or public figure you still enjoy despite them being cancelled for bad behaviour?

    Jump

  • That is certainly a personal preference someone might have. But the point is, if you know the painting you have displayed, is made by a child molester. You might not feel particularly comfortable with having his painting. Despite it being an otherwise beautiful piece of art.

    I don't care if Hitlers paintings are worth lots of money today. I wouldn't want it anywhere near my place.

  • Who is an artist or public figure you still enjoy despite them being cancelled for bad behaviour?

    Jump

  • Imagine not being able to read the title correctly. It's not about your painter thinking differently or voting differently. It's about your painters actions.

    He made a beautiful, remarkable signed painting. It's the center piece in your living room. And then it comes out he was was abducting, raping, and killing women.

    The painting looks the same. 1 week later his name will fade and no one remembers. But you might feel a lot differently about it knowing it was his painting. I'm not gonna claim it's right or wrong whatever you decide. You do you. But im sure you can appreciate the potential moral dilemma.

  • Boiling lobsters alive to be banned in UK animal cruelty crackdown

    Jump

  • You freeze them.

  • Boiling lobsters alive to be banned in UK animal cruelty crackdown

    Jump

  • Probably. Being electrocuted can range anywhere from insanely painful to death in 0.1 seconds depending on the ampage

  • Boiling lobsters alive to be banned in UK animal cruelty crackdown

    Jump

  • What part of "don't torture an animal to death" is it you struggle with?

    You sound like one of those disturbed kids that pull legs off of bugs or slowly crush various body parts until it stops moving.

    If you're gonna kill something, give it a swift death with minimal suffering. It's really not that complicated.