How is pointing out a bunch of fascists showing their true colors by openly calling for racial retribution “mental gymnastics”? The fact that you are trying so hard to associate sanity and compassion with being a Trump supporter makes me think you are just a bot paid for by the “other team”. If you are a genuine Democrat then this is not a good look for your side and you should really do some self reflection because you are only going to lose your party votes with this rhetoric.

itt a bunch of scratched liberals

Sourdough with chunky peanut butter, ground mustard, and aioli.

That isn’t what trans means. To be trans is to reject the gender assigned to you, which was informed by biology but less objective than something like the term “biological male” implies.

I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

I never really made an argument, only said that I found the OPs argument strange without further context. I was probing OPs argument because they gave some reasoning for what they found different about killing a bear and killing a deer, but didn’t really elucidate the moral differences. Even if you take it for granted that OP is correct that people hunt deer specifically for food and bears specifically for sport, they didn’t really clarify why one was such an awful thing and the other was not.

Instead of clarifying things they just repeated themselves and hit me with the same irrelevant false dichotomy. Since I took for granted their theory of why people hunt certain animals it was irrelevant if I knew anything about hunting because I was not contesting anything about the practice of hunting. And whether I kill bears would also not be relevant to the discussion. This is why to me it doesn’t feel like they are having a good faith discussion.

I know the term speciesism but am not read up enough about it to say whether I would fit that perspective. Personally I don’t believe a human and a bear and a deer are equal, or even two humans are equal, just equal in certain ways that matter when discussing things like the right to their life.

And taking a life can be justified. But I personally would not take a life for food as there are other things to eat. Even if OP believes that neither deer nor bears have the right to life though, I’m curious what line of reasoning would bring someone to think the act of taking one’s life is monstrous and taking another’s noble. Surely to believe such a thing there must at least be some kind of great cost attributed to at the very least killing that bear, and I am curious why that cost would not be also an attribute of killing the deer or be neutralized by the boon of deer meat vs a trophy or the satisfaction of hunting (which the OP claims to be the only reasons someone would hunt a predator, but I can come up with more).

The morality of the situation is certainly an emotional subject for me. But in conversations like these I’m mostly approaching it out of curiosity as I acknowledge that most people find these things normal and am more interested about why they find these things normal or what justifications they come up with on the spot. I believe most people don’t really know why they find these things normal, I’m not sure I really knew why I found them normal before I was myself questioned.

That’s because your question doesn’t progress any argument. Unlike the question I asked you which was meant to probe your reasoning. it’s the kind of thing a troll would ask. It’s also a false dichotomy. I’m perfectly fine with you discontinuing as I frankly didn’t expect to get a reply that continued the discussion in good faith after your first reply.

Everything you say is based on convention and nature and opinion. You never addressed what I said and in your own words “rearticulated” (more like regurgitated) the same points that you have yet to give merit to.

So your argument is that it’s wasteful? And that food is a better justification for the waste than making a trophy?

You can make trophies out of things that aren’t bears and you can eat things that aren’t deer, so I’m not sure how they are much different unless your argument is that eating specifically deer is important somehow and making trophies out of bears is not.

What a fucking weird take. Hunting is fine but only some animals. Something about the natural order yadayada.

If they need money honestly Tencent is better than a lot of the alternatives who might be willing to invest.

Are we allowed to kink shame whatever this is?

generalization that must be made

No such generalization has to be made, what?

If you make a rule

Why does saying someone did the right thing require you to make a rule?

Technology is always progressing but nobody can say what the next big thing will be, if you really think you are that prescient you can make loads of cash predicting things. Companies are hungry for the next big thing though and will do everything to convince us that they have it, AI is an enticing grift because it’s so misunderstood. The next big thing wasn’t AR or VR or the metaverse, and I don’t think it’s going to be generative AI either, it’s already plateauing and not profitable, even with billions of dollars behind it.

Most politicians in the West don’t actually care about humanitarian issues in China. That has almost nothing to do with why we don’t play nice.

I wouldn’t advocate for someone eating palm oil simply for their own personal health. However if you want to talk about the environment way more land is cleared for livestock than oil palm, even if you just focus on the locations where oil palm is grown. And palm oil is usually replacing animal fats in cooking due to it’s saturated fat content, stuff like lard and ghee.

Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.

It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it’s kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn’t want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.

I’m not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.

I don’t see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it’s purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.

Those analogies don’t make any sense.

Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?