Lurker123 [he/him]

What? The reason I ask is to try to get a better understanding of the principal backing up the stance you took. I was trying to understand if it was life-maximizing with no qualifiers (i.e. irrespective of whose life was risked), which is how it read to me in your other responses in the thread. But I wasn’t sure, since you also said like 99.99% of the time, the burglar wouldn’t attack you if you announced, which could mean there was a heavily qualified principal.

So, I asked the hypothetical to try to figure out what your underlying motivating principal is here, as it filters out the noise of the 99.99% example. It was in no way meant to “entice fascist sentiment.”

Me personally? No, I would lock my door and call the police. I would not go out and try to confront the burglar, but I wouldn’t also call out to them and say “oh btw I’m here and armed.”

I think you are confusing yourself by thinking of a typical burglary - I.e. a burglary where the burglar has done what they can to make sure people aren’t home (e.g. struck during work hours, saw the mail piling up and came when the person was on vacation, etc.)

But that’s not the situation being contemplated here. The OP specified a nighttime break in. This is the opposite of your standard burglar - they’ve struck when people are the MOST likely to be home.

Of this subset, what percentage have doing something bad to you in mind? Or more to the point, at what % are you morally obligated to not take actions against them? Let’s say 49% of the time does the nighttime breakin burglar actually intend you physical harm. Do you have to eat it at those numbers? (I’m asking genuinely, since you seem to have a strong moral intuition here. From your other post, you said you couldn’t put a value on human life, so the only other value I have here is the resident’s life. In the 49/51 example, since it’s more likely than not that there’s no harm intended, this maximizes the amount of lives).

This saga is boring drama.

Here, let me link it to the previous drama: shouldn’t this be in the dredge tank? I think this is a violation of rule 8 to be posted here.

This is what happens when you name your game after a grape.

Why use that image of edgeworth to make your point? That’s edgeworth standing on the right side of the courtroom, where he’s always wrong.

The whole point of the ace attorney games is if you are on the left, you are good and correct. If you are on the right, you are evil and wrong. And if you are in the center, you are either a hopelessly confused idiot, or evil.

I don’t think descriptivist is really operating on a normative level. It is not taking the position people/society ought not try to shape the language. It is simply recognizing the reality that the meaning of a word in language is (*insert specific branch here - but often it is something like “common usage”).

Wow OP, you’re telling me that a rule that, per your Wikipedia article, originated in a 2019 paper, has had a “near” perfect record since 1970? That’s crazy!

The crazy part is, of course, that the record isn’t actually perfect.

The more you look at that door the worse it becomes. It’s actually a total mindfuck, because the zombie is reaching he hand around the outside of the door frame, which almost makes it seem like he’s reaching through a wall - but that same dead space he’s reaching through is part of the connecting wall in the hallway

Idk why the movies cut out the part where the empire sent semen retrieval droids to the wreckage of the Death Star.

Won’t landlords simply pass through this increased cost to tenants?

As somebody who was on the subreddit then here, the subreddit was quite different.

For starters, the subreddit was about a million times more active. You could read a whole front page of new threads (sorting by hot; not new), come back an hour later, and the whole front page would turned over. That amount of content is night and day different.

With that much increased activity, there was also a significantly greater amount of people who posted there, including a lot of chuds who walked in. This presence of chud posting allowed for easy dunk for people to rally around, and I think served as a lightning rod to deflect sectarianism. It’s that combination of obviously wrong posts deflecting dunks as well a moderation policy which allowed for dissent and questioning of some mod’s orthodoxy (which is something this hexbear’s moderation policy does not allow - hence why in spicy threads you will sometimes see heavily upbeared posts deleted) that I think fostered more interesting comments.

So yeah, idk about the rest of your post, but insofar as you’re questioning the differences between the subreddit and here, I’m a bit confused. They were definitely very different places with different vibes. Maybe you prefer the vibes and smaller posting culture here - fair enough. But it was quite different, so if somebody preferred those differences then pining for the good ol’ days makes sense.

That’s true, whether it is strawberry or raspberry milk answers the question.

Maybe - if the minimum wage law in question only applies to restaurant employees, or employees generally, as Uber eats drivers are independent contractors, not employees.

Is it a pink cow with blue spots, or a blue cow that is mostly covered in pink splotches?

Epic

I’m not sure there’s a person who really believes both of these. I think people who believe premise one actually believe this to be a generally true statement about people (or a generally true statement about some racial subset of people) rather than a statement about all people. This dovetails nicely with their love of billionaires due to them being “hard workers” because it shows the billionaire is somewhat unique and better than most people in that regard.

I feel like you had additional context to this question that you meant to add, but just totally forgot.

As it stands, yes of course. If your house in condemned or otherwise subject to eminent domain, if your house is seized to pay creditors for non-mortgage debt (in some states), if somebody else has superior title to your home and you aren’t protected by being a bonafide purchaser, etc.

Home made hummus and roasted veggies are to die for and it done right

Was China not a country prior to 1971, because Taiwan had the Chinese seat in the UN (it meets the international observers standard(?)) and the entirety of China was “disputed”?

As for recognized authority, isn’t it the case that for certain areas of Israel (e.g. certain areas within the 1948 UN partition plan, or 1967 borders) it meets the test you laid out? I.e. people living there agree that the Israeli government is the one that they identify with and international observers agree to recognize the Israeli government’s control over those areas? In that case, Israel would be a country with some disputed borders (I.e. everywhere outside that area with recognized authority).