putting on blackface to "own the transes" is a whole new level of transphobia lmao

not even trying to hide how fucking ridiculous and bigoted she is

As expected

K

?

As you have asked for, i have provided:

• My definitive stance, in simple bullet points so you don't get confused
• My understanding of your stance, in the same format
• A list of direct questions (the ones with ? on the end)

Most of the questions are asking for citations from you, which has not been your strong suit so far, but I’m ready to be surprised.

Feel free to respond to them or continue deflecting, your call.

I really don't know how you misinterpret what I'm saying.

I use a word and then I give you numerous sentences to define exactly how I'm using that word.

Like a circus like a clown. Like a synthetic thing. Like a man-made thing. Which is the opposite of natural.

Is English not your first language?

Are you some kind of weird AI?

As expected

I don't have the interest for this.

You need a therapist. 🤔

You’re not responding to me in good faith. Are you just incapable of doing so?

If you want to make a claim , provide examples, even a single example works.

All of my replies have been in direct response to your statements, with quotations to match, if you think one of those responses was in bad faith, point it out.

You can do this in real time, instead of waiting to vaguely accuse me of something without pointing to an example.

I have responded in good faith to you. Your questions aren’t really clear (many seem rhetorical) and you keep referencing things that you don’t really seem to have brought up in any real tangible, palpable meaningful way.

You have responded..sort of, yes, good faith is debatable

My questions are clear, there are a lot of statements because I’m providing context and/or my stance something to support my claims and/or follow up questions.

Again, citation on the "reference to something not previously brought up" ?

You just kind of glaze over them. And I’m really not sure what you’re getting at.

Again, citation? literally any example you wish to point at, i will address.

I've been responding almost line by line, pick any example of when that response was vague, it's not a test, i genuinely want an example.

And I’ve told you this so much over and over again and you really don’t explain yourself while I have explained myself to quite a lengthy extent which you don’t really seem to appreciate and instead insult.

There are copious examples of me explaining myself and my positions, if you want i can provide a list, or you could...just read the history.

You have explained some things and i have responded to them, again, line by line mostly.

Most of my responses have been to try and get clarification on the apparent contradictions in your explained positions.

The only vaguely insulting thing i can from my side was the last reply in the previous response and it was in response to a literal nonsense reply from your side.

And again… I can explain things to you but I can’t understand them for you. Real understanding takes a mutual dedication to try to alleviate ambiguities and not reinforce them and entrench inside of them.

If there was something you explained and i then replied with the same question again, please point it out.

Like, I’m pretty sure everyone reading this knows where my stance is but I have no fucking clue what yours is. Maybe just a clueless contrarian?

If by contrarian you mean i disagree with many of your stances, then yes, otherwise my positions have been consistent.

I've stated why i disagree, if you wish to discuss , reference an example.

For clarification my stance is:

• God's design (which you didn't mean?, so that's fine) and what is "natural" are a poor foundation for a shared framework of morals and ethics because they are subjective.
• Harm reduction includes psychological harm, to exclude that is poor reasoning.
• It's possible to use body modification as an expression of self without having an underlying mental illness or psychological issue.
• Counting Crows big yellow taxi is superior musically but Joni Mitchell’s original is better for the feels.
• Providing a whole-ass book, or series of ideologies instead of an actual position is poor conversational technique, especially if you don't even specify if it represents your position.

Your stance in general is clear, has been from the beginning, it's when I’m asking for clarification that things get contradictory or vague.

Here is a summary (of my understanding) :

• You seem to have close to fundamentalist ^0^ (in my opinion) beliefs about what people should and shouldn't be doing wrt body modifications. ^1^
• Your stance is that you don’t push this on others ^2^
• You stated "I don’t think you’re going to improve on God’s design." with no other context clues but later ( a few replies later ) said that isn't what you meant. ^3^
• You think a lot of body modifications are due to underlying mental illness or psychological issues.
• Your boundary is restoring medical function/harm reduction is fine, anything else is not.
  • When asked if psychological harm reduction counts, you have provided no actual position except for a reference to a book.
• You have your opinions on what constitutes "natural", when asked about a contradiction in clarification your response was:
  • Cite a definition with no explanation as to why it was needed
  • Ignore the contradiction entirely
  • Claim i was using a special definition without specifying what you thought it was.

`

• ^0^ See the previous reply about the definition of fundamentalism I’m using here
• ^1^ Note the words in bold, they are important.
• ^2^ I don't necessarily believe that but I’d have no way to prove anything either way, so my beliefs are irrelevant.
• ^3^ Same as ^2^

You're not responding to me in good faith. Are you just incapable of doing so?

I have responded in good faith to you. Your questions aren't really clear (many seem rhetorical) and you keep referencing things that you don't really seem to have brought up in any real tangible, palpable meaningful way. You just kind of glaze over them. And I'm really not sure what you're getting at. And I've told you this so much over and over again and you really don't explain yourself while I have explained myself to quite a lengthy extent which you don't really seem to appreciate and instead insult.

And again... I can explain things to you but I can't understand them for you. Real understanding takes a mutual dedication to try to alleviate ambiguities and not reinforce them and entrench inside of them.

Like, I'm pretty sure everyone reading this knows where my stance is but I have no fucking clue what yours is. Maybe just a clueless contrarian?

You asked for an example, i gave you one.

If you need some clarification, just point at the bit that's confusing and i'll see what i can do.

.....

Yeah, ignore all the below stuff, i'll leave it there for posterity but i just a had a quick look through your history and i want nothing to do with any of that.

ok, i know i probably shouldn't feed the trolls, but I’m genuinely interested how you got from "here is the example you asked for" to

> How is it other people’s fault. Nobody made you guys discriminante against black people and only eat junk food

No blame was assigned, no discrimination was mentioned, nor any specific ethnicities, the only thing i explicitly mentioned was poverty and starvation, low quality food was sort of mentioned, referentially.

The necessities of poverty is a bigger discussion and given how you did with this small one , i'll just save us both time and just skip that entirely.

I'm also wondering who you mean by "you guys" who is it you think i am ?

Also also, in case it's relevant, i picked the mainland US because you sounded like you thought it was only remote regions that had this problem, but Food Security is an issue in many places.

How is it other people's fault. Nobody made you guys discriminante against black people and only eat junk food

I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.

I have directly responded to almost all of your replies, line by line, if that's what you consider cherry-picking your standards as significantly higher than mine.

i mean, if you're going to pick a deflection to disengage because you have no responses at least pick one that isn't easily disprovable by just looking at the chain.

Or you could just say you don't want to continue, without an excuse, like an adult?

Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?

As with most of your responses you're going to need to be a bit more specific if you want an actual answer, the vague deflections with no specifics can only get you so far.

Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?

See , now this is better, no pretence of sense to counter, just straight up, entirely absent-of-context sentences. Not much i can do with that.

I mean, you still haven't actually answered anything directly so far, but at this point It's more impressive than anything.

It's absolute garbage as rhetoric, but who says art has to conform to reason or expectations?

I don't have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.

Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?

Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn't understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?

oh damn, we can sigh? i didn't realise that was on the table, i've been missing a trick this whole time.

ok, here i go.

based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.

I'm glad you agree, none of those definitions imply an objective "natural" exists, so having them quoted helps, thanks.

It’s funny you claim a limited, special definition that’s more semantics than substance.

definition of what ? citation ?

Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue.

Yes and i stated my reasons why.

And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.

I do, again, my reasons are stated.

but seeing as were are doing definitions now:

3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you’re made in God’s image nonsense but I genuinely don’t believe that. I’m more a deist than any kind of theist.

sigh (this is fun) , so let me get this straight, you considered replying with a straight up lie ?

For any particular reason..or ?

Also i didn’t mean religious fundamentalism, though it is on me that i didn’t specify.

Thanks though, the definitions thing is super useful:

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that’s a good look into harm reduction.

I will have a read, does it outright reject the idea that psychological harm exists?

but this is relying on a number that is from poore-nemecek 2018, a study with dubious methodology.

the beef number comes from poore-nemecek 2018, which is not good science.

Sigh. From the dictionary:

1. based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.

It's funny you claim a limited, special definition that's more semantics than substance. Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue. And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.

Sounds like a merry go round.

Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you're made in God's image nonsense but I genuinely don't believe that. I'm more a deist than any kind of theist.

Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that's a good look into harm reduction.

So all the data centers they've covered the country with aren't burning electricity and water and generating waste?

What if you eat beef on the plane itself

Dont worry about training it's done by kenyans for half a buck a day and they only eat manioc

Yes. Just use torrent wtf

TL;DR;

Any place people can/do starve to death, but might potentially have easier physical access to processed(ultraprocesed ?) foods or potentially, local animals.

See below for specifics.

Mainland US?

There are plenty of people living at or below the poverty line, the nature of the food industry as it stands means that easy and affordable access to a non-meat diet isn't always viable.

There are people dying of lack of access to food in general, let alone non-meat food, but let's focus on the latter for now.

Let's take the outdated atomic family, 2 adults 2.4 children.

Both adults working more than full time, kids in school full time.

Local access to enough viable non-meat foodstuffs isn't always feasible within budgetary and time constraints see : Food Deserts

I mentioned caloric and nutritional for a reason, it's possible to get enough calories and not be nutritionally sound in the medium to long term.

You eat what you can afford and by afford i mean in terms of both fiscal and time constraints.

There are of course vegetarian and vegan options for meals, rice, beans, lentils, vegetables etc.

Assuming you can get a hold of those things in enough quantities, all the time, forever.

I'm not saying it's everyone all the time, I’m saying extreme poverty exists, people starve and starving people don't always have the luxury of taking the moral high-ground.

Should society be like this? fuck no.

Is it , in some places? absolutely.

Does the Venn diagram of these people and the people complaining about AI being worse than the meat industry line up? i doubt it, but my point was :

Necessity is relative and contextual, there are legitimately places where eating meat is required because the caloric and nutritional consequences of not eating meat are life threatening.

Necessity is relative and contextual, there are legitimately places where eating meat is required because the caloric and nutritional consequences of not eating meat are life threatening.

Name one. The gobi desert?