Your question was deemed too stupid for No Stupid Questions

That article states they will be removed if convicted. The new ruling states that for anything considered “official”, the president can no longer be convicted. That’s the problem.

I’ve heard people (admittedly only online) advocating for surgery for trans minors, the main argument being that puberty has such a big impact that an earlier surgery often means a much more effective result.

(This is just from memory, I might be getting stuff wrong)

Advise sons too. If marriage is going to be weaponised then it should be denormalised.

To be fair, the first despicable me was decent imo. But the abominations which followed…

From twitter or like, from the human species?

A pro Po, bin ich, auch Arsch.

Yeah I agree, I wasn’t trying to support having women only museums, just making a point why mixing men and women safe spaces together doesn’t make much sense.

I think the intent behind a safe space is that it is separated from potential triggers. So people who were abused by a man may wish to be in a space with no men, since the sight of men might bring up past trauma. Same for people abused by women. Putting men and women together, even though they have all experienced abuse, may still be exposing them all to the same triggers they want to avoid.

Of course all these people have the same right to having safe spaces, but those spaces don’t have to be in the same place.

I didn’t read into this particular issue, but I know the museum in question, have been there a couple times, so some context:

• it was founded by some eccentric multi millionaire, who basically just does whatever he wants. The museum was originally free for everyone, until eventually he realised he was draining money really fast, so now it’s only free for locals.
• the museum changes it’s “theme” somewhat frequently. One time I was there the whole place looked like a grocery store, and the stairs to the actual museum was like hidden away in part of the store.
• the museum seems to thrive on getting strong reactions from people. Much of the art inside is quite shocking or provocative. They have an app where you can rate how much you like each artwork, and apparently they actively remove artworks which are too universally liked.

So it doesn’t surprise me at all that the museum is trying to be women only, but I really doubt it will be permanent, and I suspect that the strong public reactions is exactly the point.

I’m not trying to make a case for or against veganism, or hunting. My point is that “we are animals and animals sometimes do X” implying that makes it ok, is bad logic. Animals also sometimes eat their young, or murder or rape other creatures of the same species.

Now like I said, I’m not arguing against or for veganism here, I think there are good arguments for both sides, I just don’t think that the “we are animals” argument is one of them :)

I respect your viewpoint, but I wanted to point out that I think the argument of “animals do X, therefore it’s ok” isn’t a really good one, imo. In fact I think one of the features of being human is being able to rise above what other animals do, when we think it is a good idea. (Whether it’s a good idea here though, is another topic)

Calling a group of people condescending, then accusing them of having limited brain function is a little hypocritical doncha think?

I think part of the issue is people tend to conflate “does something immoral/less moral than an alternative” and “is a bad person”.

I think most meat eaters would acknowledge that meat is inherently worse for the environment, and also less moral due to more animal suffering, than not eating meat. Doing so does not make them bad people, just like owning an iPhone doesn’t make someone a bad person, etc. And yet when the topic of "meat is immoral " comes up, people very quickly seem to think it is an accusation of them being a bad person?

I’m not sure why you are making up imaginary arguments. Have you ever heard anyone ever accuse someone else of “not being vegan anymore” because they ate a non vegan product? I know quite a few vegans, I try to be vegan myself (but quite often cave, cheese is delicious), and all the vegans I know would be simply thrilled to know that someone was making an effort at all. Literally no one cares if you aren’t 100% vegan, basically no one is anyway. But if you decide once a week to eat a vegan meal instead of a steak, great!! That’s still helping the planet, better for the animals, etc.

But making up these ridiculous vegan cliches doesn’t help anyone, it just makes more people annoyed at each other.

But I mean, that’s literally what their ideas are, how else should they promote them? Are you mad that they aren’t just pretending that meat is good, for the benefit of the listeners?

Did you read the post? The point is using the status as very clear symbolism, bringing attention to the issue of sexual violence in society.

It’s a creative campaign to help people, not to try condemn the touching of statues.

I always read his name as Bankman-fraud

I wonder if GMs actually do use long opening lines as passwords. I would do it if I were smart.