lol

And twitter. And mastodon. And lemmy ffs, we’re not immune. (I’m doing it right now, in fact.)

Art doesn’t need to know this answer that badly. This fucking guy has taken

• dilaudid
• morphine
• opium
• nitrous
• pcp
• meth
• lighter fluid, by huffing
• cough syrup at a dose of “two bottles”

I don’t even know what a few of these things are, and I’m not going to look up and see how crazy the doses on everything else are, but based on the ones I do know I can only conclude that this guy is trying to kill himself.

And he’s succeeding, from the sound of it.

You’re asking this in a community that’s specifically about doing piracy. Pretty hard to take your question seriously in this context.

“Oh, I’m not a sapiosexual myself, but I am a know-it-ally.”

Am I wrong in thinking the original tweet was a joke? Adding the mac speech bubble is just saying “no, fuck your joke, this is my joke now”

Of course you understand some dog barks, you just don’t think about it because humans process language innately, we have specialized brain structures for it.

I’ll bet you can recognize “I see a threat” and 'I’m in pain" when you hear them. Maybe even distinguish them from “happy excitement”

and i figured you’d read what i actually wrote instead of arguing with someone who didn’t exist

Yes, I know all that. The argument I was replying to was that you run out of trees if you use them to make paper without recycling. That argument is false. You’re arguing with points I didn’t make.

No, this isn’t solved by having a whole forest available when you scale up the consumer side too.

You’re seriously underestimating how many trees there are. The only reason we’re losing forest is because of grazing land. That’s clearcutting, where you remove the tree and just destroy it or just burn the whole forest. As a vegetarian I’m obviously not here to defend grazing land, but if you look only at wood and paper production, we absolutely can replace the trees we use with enough time for them to regrow completely.

Doing so devastates ecosystems by turning them into monocultures, but you’re only talking about the replacement rate of trees. We don’t have to worry about the replacement rate of trees, we have to worry about greed for land and environmental impact.

After reading the caption I had to look at the picture several times to convince myself it was not, in fact, Ben Shapiro in a garfield costume

why not just let lose of this crippling desire to align ourselves with some historical identity

Fair enough. Counterpoint: It doesn’t freaking matter what word we use. No matter what the word is, the right will attempt to poison it and stir hatred of it and assign meanings to it that aren’t real. Look at what happened to “woke”. It will keep happening, because the modern right is Fascism, and poisoning language is a fascist tactic that goes back to the very beginning. You call yourself an Anarchist; where on Earth do you live that nobody has negative associations with “Anarchist”.

Use whatever word you want, just use it consistently. Don’t expect it to stay free of propaganda, because they do that to our words on purpose.

Not the plant you think, though.

That’s why they call me Dollar Bill. Because I have one.

No. Jesus. It doesn’t cause conequent and proximate injury. The rewards are not redeemed when the card is swiped, so it doesn’t meet the criterion of “proximate” because McDonalds still has many opportunities to void those points before they are used. Swiping a card is not injury. It also isn’t injury because someone would have received the benefit of those points either way, so no actual loss accrues to McDonalds.

Last but not least, their ToS stipulate a requirement that in any legal dispute the parties must participate in arbitration. You know what type of law arbitrators do not handle? Criminal law. Not a crime, even according to McDonalds. Not fraud.

Fuck’s sake, McDonald’s has an army of actual lawyers letting them think they can get away with putting up this fucked-up sign, they don’t need you jumping on the back to help convince everyone to just bend over and take it.

No it isn’t. Fraud requires loss caused by deception. Nobody’s losing anything here. It’s a terms of service violation.

You’re not allowed to do it by policy, but it isn’t theft, and it isn’t even a crime. At worst it’s a violation of the employee handbook, which in this particular franchise sounds like it could result in being fired. Still not a crime.

This is exactly how I’m tryna be (I live alone in my house with my dog and my $0.003M fortune)

I think it’s easy to get sidetracked on “magic” vs. “law”. It seems clear to me that both of these ideas are tied up in human interpretation, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to have a disagreement about them, we’d simply look up the correct meaning for “magical rules that govern vampires”.

I suspect that we have a fundamental disagreement that we’re not going to resolve with debate, but I’ll take one more shot anyway.

I appreciate that you’ve given a pretty succinct definition of your position: to summarize, you can only invite someone to a place where you live, although you can also invite someone into a place when you are already inside that place, regardless of whether you live there.

Can a person who lives on the street invite a vampire? If so, then a vampire is circumscribed from any outdoor location where a person lives (sans invitation); and if not, we see that “where a person lives” is not actually the deciding concept.

If you own multiple homes, which of them do you “live” in? Can a vampire enter all the others? Do you have to be in the home at the time of the invitation, or could you invite a vampire to use your summer house for a month while you’re in your winter home?

All of these things cloud the idea that “living in” a place is not actually all that straightforward, and still requires the interpretation of mankind to be meaningful to the vampire. Indeed, I think the magic relies on the consent of a human, not the literal words of an invitation, and consent is innately tied to interpretation by the person consenting.

However, if anyone in the home can make the invitation, then I think the way this plays out is: the vampire cop gets a warrant, one of the other cops goes inside, and then shouts at the vampire to come inside, and then you’re boned anyway.

Why should it care about the religion of man, then?

For that matter, why should it care about the invitation of man?

If there are rules a vampire must follow, and those rules can be satisfied through the agency of human beings, having been interpreted by human beings, then we have to consider what a human being means by invitation.

If a 4-year-old invites a vampire into his parents’ house, does that count? It’s not his house, either. If you think that a vampire can enter on the invitation of a 4-year-old then you must concede that people other than the owner can invite someone in. If you think that invitation is not valid, then you must concede that a vampire respects a hierarchy of rights.

I think that the state asserts a right to invite other people into your house which supersedes your right to prevent them. We call that overriding invitation a warrant.