KombatWombat

Well said, and I'm sorry if I made you feel like you needed to go through that whole explanation. I can imagine objections someone intent on arguing could make, but I think it's fair to assume that since plants don't have nerves, they cannot suffer as animals can. Damage may impair their ability to live, but it doesn't cause actual displeasure. There could always be some secret unmeasurable pain mechanism that was developed with no evolutionary benefit, but it is so unlikely that it is not worth considering. If someone will not grant this assumption, I would then assume they are not engaging in good faith.

Yeah I realize it came across as critical unintentionally. The side plot episodes aren't bad, they provide balance.

PTB. Remembering someone and linking back to an earlier conversation is hardly stalking or harassment, particularly if it's on a similar topic. It's natural to start recognizing the usernames of people that engage in the same spaces as you on a platform as small as Lemmy. And as you pointed out, they replied to your comment, so if anything it would have been them following you around. And while I could see people finding this argument annoying, it's certainly still civil. No one should have been subject to mod action here imo.

In the pictured comment chain, the quote text asked OP to prove the absence of something (sentience in plants). Then Commie later admitted that it was impossible to do so. And from the start, the claim that plants are sentient is likely one that no one involved actually believes. I cannot think why you would make such an objection other than to exhaust someone and waste their time.

And even if plants were somehow sentient, it would still be less harmful to eat them directly than raising animals to eat due to the massive calorie loss from going up the food chain. Having animals be a middle man for humanity's consumption would result in more plants being killed, not fewer. OP touched on this briefly in their replies. Meaning that even if it was intended to object to veganism, the argument only adds an additional reason to adopt it.

OP did imply an objection to the plant sentience claim disproved it, which is the wrong response, but only because they should have rejected it out of hand as something unfalsifiable. Commie chose to be pedantic that it could still be true.

There's not enough here to judge Commie as a troll, but they did support a spurious argument much more than OP.

Yeah a lot of these shows started out with a monster-of-the-week format before focussing more on longer arcs over time. It makes sense to keep audiences invested, since otherwise things become predictable and low stakes. The detours from that kinda take the role of filler episodes.

Yeah, a bidet alone isn't enough to get you clean. It does most of the work, but it's going to leave remnants that need to be wiped. It's not a matter of water pressure either. Mine has a stream that will reach the other side of the bathroom at full power, but there's still going to be debris.

Tropes can easily become cliches if done poorly, but in essence they're just common concepts in storytelling. The idea of having a protagonist struggling with finding what lines they won't cross, and accepting what consequences result, can make for a really compelling internal conflict. And having a no-kill rule is often a practical one for longer series in particular.

Imagine if Batman's rogue gallery couldn't be re-used unless the writers had them always be able to get away when their plans are foiled. When Batman instead sends them to jail, they can be shelved for a while without making Batman look very selectively incompetent at actually catching criminals. Instead, it's justified as a principle that he upholds, while giving the writer opportunities to also show character growth for villains. And if you argue he should focus on the greater good by permanently eliminating threats, then it can be viewed as a character flaw that gives him depth.

It sounds like that comment chain is discussing two different things. First is the piefed default block list, which admins can edit as they please for their instance. Hexbear and lemmygrad are on there.

Second is the lemmy slur filter, which used to be applied across all of lemmy and was not configurable. That may have changed, but it isn't clear how. But regardless, that doesn't seem like a complaint about piefed, unless I am misunderstanding.

I am not sure where the "non-lethal" part is quoted from. The linked order form uses "less-lethal", which is more accurate. It feels like an intentional misquote.

It's more about stability. Yes, the piece of paper does not have any more authority than we choose to grant it, but giving credence to the law consistently lets people understand what to expect from society. They see it effectively determining people's behavior, and can feel safer so long as it looks out for their needs. In this way it acts as a stronger barrier to future bad behavior.

But when people are able to disregard the law when it doesn't seem like a big deal, it makes it easier for bad actors to circumvent it later on. A rule doesn't mean much when you just ignore it whenever it becomes inconvenient. One day it may just be slacking on a Miranda warning, but that can spiral into much larger trespasses on people's rights if the latter are no more illegal than the former. And so a threat to one part is a threat to the whole.

It's also worth pointing out that the law isn't expected to ever be perfect, or static. It should update to better reflect the values of society over time. And there are legal ways for people to avoid punishment even when they violate a law. A jury can refuse to convict a defendant. The president can pardon someone. Plea deals and prosecutor discretion can mean a charge is dropped. The convicted person can appeal a guilty verdict based on due process violations. A statute of limitations or other restriction can render them immune.

For Lincoln's blockade specifically, the Supreme Court ruled it as constitutional when it was challenged, and Congress later retroactively approved of it. So it was legal, based on the way we define what that means.

It needs more porn to really take off, just like what happened with the internet.