Hi, thanks for the response.

Similar to posts, when selecting the options for an individual comment in the official lemmy-ui, as a moderator you can 1) check the modlog history of that user, 2) remove the comment, 3) ban the author of the the comment from the community, and 4) appoint the author as a new moderator of that community.

It would be great to see all of these features added to Thunder, but as a priority I would say that removing the comment and banning the author are the top two most important for moderators.

And every time, the taxpayer foots the bill. Until the funds start coming from police pensions, nothing is going to change.

Sorry, as per the rules of this community you're not allowed to see them as human.

*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.

Lol you're right about this giving native English speakers a headache. I'm not sure the subjunctive is the correct explanation here, though.

The subjunctive mood in English primarily uses the past tense form of verbs ("were," "were to," etc.) to convey wishes or counterfactuality. E.g. 'I wish you wouldn't drink so much coffee', or 'If I were you, I wouldn't..."

However, 'would you like a coffee?' is a direct question of preference, which means it technically is using the indicative mood rather than the subjunctive. Here, 'would' functions as a model verb to soften the request and make it more polite.

That's what fascism is, yes. The point being made, I think, is that Democrats are claiming to be anti-fascist while also supporting a fascist government in Israel.

Now there's an idea.

Ah yeah, I see what you mean. Fair point.

True.

On what basis doesn't it work, though? I'm still not sure I understand what the problem is with your example.

You would be hand picking less qualified men to compete with the women just to fill it up.

Another way of looking at it is that we would in fact be widening the criteria of who would be considered "qualified".

I would say the opposite, in fact.

Eugenics is the belief and practices that aim to "improve" the genetic quality of a human population to meet an idealized optimal standard. Under my proposed system, you could argue it would allow for a greater diversity of individuals that would be able to compete, and therefore would lower the necessity of having the optimal physical traits required in order to take part in each sport.

But like I said, that's fine. The point is that we would then be categorizing people not according to their gender but by factors that directly affect their athletic performance.

Another benefit would also be that it would allow a wider range of people to participate at the national and international level, seeing as it would not remove all but those women and men who possess the optimal physical traits required for that particular sport.

That's why they would need to take more into account than simply weight. Surely multiple physical and hormonal factors could also be measured and an aggregate total value be applied to each athlete.

In general, sure, but not all men are more muscular and stronger than all women.

Furthermore, even if, say 90% (or even 100%) of the heavyweight category were men, it would still be fairer for everyone.

For a while I've been thinking that all sports should get rid of gendered male/female competitions and replace them with weight categories that take into account physiological characteristics like muscle mass, testosterone levels, weight, height, etc. This would result in, say, three to four categories ranging from lightweight to heavyweight.

Why wouldn't this work?

Yeah, I know that gnostic atheism is a theoretical position to hold, but I've never actually met an atheist that holds that view. The vast, vast majority of atheists ascribe to a scientific world view that is based around the concepts of evidence and burden or proof. As such, trying to argue belief in the non-existence of a non-existent being (i.e. "I firmly believe that God definitely doesn't exist") is not compatible with that logic, whereas "I don't believe in God, because there isn't enough evidence" is.

When it comes to explaining atheism to religious friends and family members, I've found the best approach to be this: Ask them if they believe in any other Gods except their own (Zeus, Ganesh, The Yellow Emperor, etc.) When they say no, you say "Ok, so my list of Gods I Don't Believe In is one longer than yours."

there's no wyantonrpove the existence of A god, atheists must believe that that's the truth.

What you're describing here is agnosticism, not atheism. Agnostics claim that the existence of God is either 1) not known, but certainly possible, or 2) unknowable to begin with.

Atheism, on the other hand,

is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Source

IMO, the first statement is half-stupid, the second one is half-overcomplicated :)

Welcome to English, my friend. No one ever claimed that it wasn't a pain in the arse to learn :)

It's more than that; they don't understand the difference between belief and non-belief.

Lol well teaching this professionally surely makes me some form of authority (albeit of course not the authority!) on this subject.

To clarify, your original point sounded like you were making a distinction between metaphorical mirrors and actual mirrors:

"in the mirror" tends to more often refer to a metaphorical "mirror", typically when discussing self-reflection

• "I took a look in the mirror and decided to change my ways."

"in a mirror" tends to refer most often to actual mirrors that exist in reality, not metaphorically

• "I looked into a mirror to fix my eyeliner."

This incorrect distinction is what I was objecting to, because of course we can use both the indefinite and definite articles to refer to either literal or figurative mirrors.

Nope, as I explained in my other comment, it's standard usage.

In English, we often use the definite article when speaking in general about a specific activity or action that involves a non-specific object. E.g. "go to the bathroom" or "catch the bus", or "read the newspaper". It's not poor form at all.