simplecyphers

joined 2 years ago
[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Kinda? All energy will dissipate until everything is the same temperature. Idk what that temperature will be but it might be pretty cold. But heat won’t just, like, go away. It will homogenize.

[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I am ungovernable

[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Exactly. Encounter building/balancing doesn’t stop at initiative.

[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Technically you are “right” but you are also being obtuse (pun intended).

If you could bare to stretch your mind, and realize “not to scale” means “trust the numbers, not the graphic” you could in turn, realize that it is, in fact, 3 sided.

Every side of every shape is made up of infinite 180 degree angles and 2 angles that are different. Every. Single. One.

[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Mathematicians dont want to to know this one strange trick, hide a secret corner of 180 degrees in any triangle to instantly make it a quadrilateral, without even changing the shape!!

[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Upon reading this, i feel like an immeasurably large fool. I lost to my wife yesterday when IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED

[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I mean yes. She sued the school and lost. She then appealed and lost again. The judge was like “Hey, its a religious school that has their own standards of employment, that you signed, we cant do anything”

So, they didn’t explicitly justify her being fired because of her marriage, she just signed a contract and broke one of the terms.

In a public school she absolutely would have won. But it wasn’t.

[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Even in your examples you are treating animals as less than human. Why? Again, where is the line that involuntary trespassing is punishable by immediate death? If a person bit you, yeah you could fight them off and use force. But, to be compare fairly, you would have to kill the person that bit you. Even then this is still an unfair argument because

  1. That is not typical human behavior
  2. A human bite can do substantially more damage than a mosquito bite.

So tell me where you can treat animals ethically identically as humans, and where you can’t. Where is the line?

[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

They just overlap much more recently

[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I wouldnt completely agree. I think using something other than your conscience is somewhat disingenuous. For the most part, any inconsistencies have been from personal growth/change. I live my life so that i can sleep at night.

As far as stopping meat consumption. Yes that is something that i can do. I believe the moral implications of doing that are minimal, simply because animals and humans have different ethical considerations. But this is getting off topic.

I claimed there wasn’t much i could do to improve the morality of meat consumption (ie Ethical living conditions, reduced scale etc.) . It’s like i wanted to make cars more fuel efficient and you told me to ride a bike. It sidesteps the claim and proves a point i wasn’t arguing.

I as a single person, with limited time and limited funds can’t change how large companies mass butcher livestock, not without sacrificing other things i value more.

[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There is an assumption here that i don’t think of right and wrong. Which isn’t true, as evidenced by this entire comment chain. My morality is based off of my conscience, and it has a final say in how i act. But I still think and explore ethically difficult situations to determine what is right, wrong, or grayish.

I just didnt describe my entire ethical schema, because, as i said i am lazy. Lazy and self-aware enough to know that there is not much i can or will do to improve the morality of meat consumption. And honestly, that specific problem is pretty low on my list of ethical dilemmas. But it’s fun to talk about.

[–] simplecyphers@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Thank you for the definition. I think it is wrong. But i appreciate it nonetheless.

My reasoning is that, while it may have started as a theistic word, it isn’t anymore. When someone says it i don’t think “a creation of God” i just think of like, an animal. Definitions change over time.

view more: ‹ prev next ›