Thanks, you've created a fan.

Wow wow, easy now haha. I don't think capitalism is good or necessary (although if things in general happen, it's part of nature in some way).

I only think it might have sped up innovation, which is also not per se good or bad. But there are probably more possible drivers / factors to that. I know for example that in a communist approach, innovation can be driven by giving the best performing team the lead on architectural decisions. Which is interesting.

My main point was though that nothing is necessary. I fully support human rights, but on a philosophical level they are not necessary. We just want them to be important, we call them necessary.

But nothing is actually necessary. It depends on what you want to achieve.

The speed of innovation might have gotten a big impulse by capitalism; I'm not sure if we'd technologically be where we are now otherwise. Of course one could argue that we do not need tech in its current form, which is fair.

Sounds like the file type verification on WhatsApp is not on mime-type but only on extension. Some receivers might have trouble opening these though.

No, that's a round. A coup is a French word that refers to a haircut style.

I'm open to any answer in this; but I think he misses the point here that every animal in itself would need a field of grass in food volume to survive.

No matter how you put it, it seems to me that adding an extra animal to the equation requires more food/water/space, not less.

I'm open to any answer in this; but I think he misses the point here that every animal in itself would need a field of grass in food volume to survive.

No matter how you put it, it seems to me that adding an extra animal to the equation requires more food/water/space, not less.

And let's face it, everyone is vulnerable to that shit in some way or the other. But being conscious of that vulnerability is the first step.

Why inefficient? I thought its structure would make it more efficient, or am I missing something.

Edit: I read about the intersections now, but if they act as roundabouts it should be able to work just fine right?

Maybe it recognizes sunglasses and skips this check while you wear them.

I.. might have been that co-worker.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group... - UN definition

Consensus on the matter seems complex and I'm not an expert, but what I believe is the issue is the exact definition. The grey area lies with the intent of Israel, as they state they are aiming at Hamas military targets while actually having (bizarre levels of) collateral damage.

But by this definition, one could mass murder any number of people at all times, as long as they have not spoken out their intent to do so. It's just word play at that point.

Dude, that's literally insane.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. It really does seem out of place to suddenly reference the suffering of Muslim women in this context.

He seems to elaborate in that he just thinks this case was an overreaction on the side of the woman who felt uneasy, but that of course is a different discussion. We're not comparing suffering here. I understand the negativity he seems to have brought up on himself better now.

I can imagine it is complex, but is it also complicated with these stupid inconsistencies as in English? Complexity is hard, but can be a good thing if it's just much logic. In English the logic has sadly been long lost as seen in the original post.

Do you have a source for that; what I could find in a quick Google about his statements on rape is his arguments on X is bad and Y is worse. Which is more of a logical argument, but this does not include "a Muslim would have done worse".

Quote by him: "Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think."

These statements are bound to be controversial as people might somehow interpret X is not bad as Y is worse. But I would disagree, this is more of a thought experiment in which you can always have a worse situation.

His wording is a bit harsh, but I don't think what he says should receive such a backlash. He expresses hard stances on religion as well, which can hurt people in a similar way as that's also part of their identity.

I think he's not entirely accurate here though, as there can really be biological mixes / nuances in the sex of people. Even if you exclude the gender discussion on top. It's all just a gradual thing I'd guess, even possibly inconsistent in 'percentage' on different parts of the body.

And all in all it's also dependent on our culture how we perceive some things as feminine and masculine.

I don't get why we can't agree that biologically people tend to be on a multidimensional spectrum, which sometimes is too ambiguous for the naked eye to pin a binary value on. Even scientifically it could be difficult to determine. Above all, on the gender side we indeed should have the courtesy to trust how someone feels and likes to be perceived in this world.

But we can also not blame people for expressing uneasiness if the biological sex and gender are too far apart in how we defined it culturally over thousands of years. One cannot avoid some conflict there.

Hopefully we can try to better ourselves and respect others, in both ways.

Sharing ideas can definitely be worth something when it leads to something actual original/concrete/useful, but on another level.

Most ideas these "creatives" come up with are neither of those + they are not willing to put in some effort to solidify the idea themselves.

It's the best. Caramelized or just with sugar.

Is that even worse? Care to give a (translated) example, I'm curious.