How could I agree or disagree if I have no reasoning for your position? You made the claim that veganism is amoral, that's an uncommon and interesting position. I'm curious about your reasoning.
The top two stick to the back of the phone and provide a rubber cover for the USB c port. Everything else either scrapes away debris or wipes the port clean with isopropyl alcohol. Bottom right appears to be fashioned from a zip tie and probably didn't come in the kit.
Help me out here then. You said being vegan and not being vegan are both ethical choices, like the trolley problem.
In the trolley problem, an ethical case can be made for pulling the lever or not, so I thought you were saying an ethical argument could be made for both being vegan and not being vegan. I was curious to hear your argument for the latter.
Curious to hear your explanation for how being non-vegan can be more ethical than being vegan. I've heard some people make interesting cases for this, by the way, but I've yet to see one that can be practically applied as an alternative to our current food system.
I'm actually ok with him taking the time to sue the fuck out of Open AI. But let's be real here, I've given up any hope of the books being finished anyway.
I've been vegan for four years and honestly, while it was practically not difficult for me, there was a pretty big mental hurdle I had to get over. It sounds silly in retrospect, but I literally mourned foods that I thought I'd never be able to eat. Turns out I still eat all the foods I like, just with small adjustments to make them vegan. So glad I switched. Best decision I ever made.
I get where you're coming from, but I disagree on a couple points:
Game design relies heavily on finding uses for the player character's abilities. Imagine a metroidvania where you pick up a cool new grappling hook, only to realize there's no terrain that can be grappled, and most enemies aren't affected. What's the point?
In terms of good/bad game design in TTRPGs, my philosophy is pretty simple; If everyone at the table is having a good time, it's good game design. For my players, getting to use the abilities that they picked or earned throughout the game is super rewarding. For me as a GM, I can scale encounters a little higher knowing that they have a built-in edge.
In fact, my number one resource for game prep is my players' character sheets. Did someone pick an obscure language as part of their backstory? You'd better believe it's going to show up in the game! Dragonchess proficiency? Guess what the game of choice is at the local tavern?
Conversely, if an ability becomes the only thing a PC relies on, it can be interesting to add a foil to that ability. For example, one of my players built a Kensei Monk with a specialization in firearms. It was a fun character for him, but the sheer damage output he could do kind of overshadowed everyone else. My solution was to introduce a combat encounter where he could use the weapon, but doing so had a chance to attract more hostile creatures.
Anyway, all this to say that in my opinion, playing to your player characters' strengths is not only rewarding for them, it can help a GM create some really cool moments.
What comic run would you recommend that best illustrates this? My comment was more of a joke about ethical billionaires and capital worship, but I am genuinely interested in this angle if you have suggestions.
How could I agree or disagree if I have no reasoning for your position? You made the claim that veganism is amoral, that's an uncommon and interesting position. I'm curious about your reasoning.