Value for resources is also highly subjective.
If I have zero water and $50, but you have 50 waters and $0, I would value one of your waters more than one of my dollars and you would value one of my dollars more than one of your waters. And so we would trade, and both be happier for it.
Science is not a search for truth. It's a search for provable falsehoods and useful theories.
The beauty about actual science, as opposed to the fanfic and bragging that scientists need to publish to get paid, is that we can resolve contradictory theorems through experimentation
Massachusetts and NY raised taxes on the rich, and yet their revenues did not plummet.
Is there any contrary instance we can find where taxes were raised on the rich specifically and revenues dropped?
(And if so, get the academics back to refine their theories, make more predictions, and let's see who's more accurate!)
Jesus literally contradicted those passages, both in His most famous teaching (Matthew 22:34-40) and in the "why we can eat bacon cheeseburgers" post-resurrection vision in Acts 10.
The most straightforward reconciliation of this is to posit that the pre-Christian israelites either did not preserve God's law as recorded by Moses after breaking the original tablets, or that Moses himself introduced errors when he carved the second set.
Most Jews and Christians don't require their cloaks to have tassels or religiously mandate fields of monoculture crops or demand that men and women have entirely separate fashion. And even if you did, the most common form of trans-gender expression is to adopt the clothes of said gender, so mere transgenderism doesn't violate Deuteronomy 22:5 (or 23:2, which is either abelsim or ethnic bigotry and doesn't even apply to bottom-surgery transexuals.)
(It's between you and God if you believe in Him or not, FWIW. Im happy to answer any other questions you'd like to ask.)
Agreed completely.
There are folk for whom reductio ad absurdum is a personal attack, and those for whom it's a perfectly reasonable form of asking for refinement.
To pick an easy example -- if we support neo-genders, we absolutely should treat someone who claims to "identify as an attack helicopter" as such and strive to use their claimed neo-pronouns. (Thankfully, one doesn't need to support neo-genders to respect trans-gender and a-gender individuals or those unsure of their gender ).
It's inhumane to deny the humanity of inhumane humans.
English is a funny language.
Eww. It's a LLM travel agent.
So, the people in companies pushing and making this AI slop treat it like toxic waste, and the author thinks that they're the problem?
I suddenly want to look at his AI map thingy and see how bad it is.
The only almost exception is in response to sea-lioning, when the request for an explanation is made in bad faith
But that's what LMGTFY links are for.
This is why "I'm not going to explain it to you" is the biggest and reddest of all the red flags.
Ignorance is the natural state of all humans, and the whole point of language is so that you can help reduce that natural ignorance!
If we're talking re-enacting the way the folks who wear historish costumes and blank-fire muskets at each other mean it, then the cutoff is "whatever the last war was fought locally and then ended."
If you mean it the way the folks who wear even sillier costumes, drink, and walk around with swords mean it, then the cutoff is "whenever the clothes we want to wear were last plausibly worn."
If you mean it the way a TV reporter, producer, or academic might mean it, however, there's no cutoff beyond "isn't happening now.". (There's a famous story about someone who won the lottery after playing on a whim, was egged on by a reporter to re-enact buying the ticket, and won again.)
You don't have a "claim", you have an anti-christian (and anti-relgious) bias I suspect I couldn't talk you out of with a time-travelling phone box and a univerally-translating fish.
I hope whatever hurt you can't hurt you anymore, and that you find love and joy in your life.