This is the silliest shit I’ve ever discussed on the Internet. I will say kudos to you for keeping things mostly amicable. It’s been awhile since I’ve had an argument on topicality and it’s been entertaining for me. Thanks my friend, best wishes.
Velocity is not suggestive because it is defined as speed in a direction.
In your example you are only taking speed, assuming direction and stating velocity.
That’s not how legal systems work… Plenty of things are legal in one place and illegal in another. No Christians are worried about blasphemy against Zeus or Jupiter. Like wise a Zoroastrian is only concerned about blasphemy against Ahura Mazda and not Allah.
Okay… Which one? It’s pretty clear that decaffeinated coffee violates no religions that I’m aware of… And in fact for some religions would be the only allowable way to drink coffee. And if you argue that I just meant in general that it is a slight on to any God then how would you interpret that as anything other than humor or sarcasm?
Do you always feel like a victim or is it just when you aren’t caffeinated enough?
Opinions, such as “all methods of decaffeinating coffee are blasphemy” are subjective in their very nature. What makes this more obvious is that the definition of blasphemy is entirely subjective and can’t even begin to be assessed objectively until at very minimum a religious dogma is declared for the basis of evaluation.
That’s because words on their own all have definitions. The subjectivity is created contextually. I swear it feels like I’m talking to a bot.
How do you gather? You think there isn’t many ways to decaffeinate beans or that some of them aren’t gross? Or that most ways used to decaffeinate beans doesn’t make the coffee taste bad?
These are the very points James makes in the first 2/3rds of the video.
The only point that he and I might delaminate on was that all decaf is blasphemous, and that’s a stretch because he never talks about the religious criminality of drinking coffee?
Why do you think I would offer a video to people about decaf that I didn’t watch? Hint: I don’t hate decaf coffee.
Yikes this is getting drawn out and silly, eh. I’ll save us some time.
You win.
But one thing that I couldn’t help but chuckle at is your interpretation of the coffee capitol point.
You live in a hockey capitol. That doesn’t make you an expert, but I bet if you wanted to buy a hockey stick you would have a number of stores carrying top gear… If you wanted to see a game you probably have a number of hockey teams from pro to amateur you could go watch live.
I have direct access to three of the top 20 roasters in the country. I’m fortunate to have access to some of the best coffee in the world regardless if I’m an expert or not.
And this is sort of the point overall… You added so much of your own arguments to my position that you aren’t even arguing with me or the points that I’m making.
I’m not hiding behind subjectivity, I was the one who posted the video “negating” my so called “opinions”. You still think I did that as a mistake. Which I think is the second example that shows you are coming to this discussion in bad faith.
It’s no wonder you recommend introspection, given you have been arguing only with your interpretation of my opinion.
I’m a huge fan of James Hoffman… I don’t think anyone alive understands coffee better than he does.
I live in a US Coffee Capital…
I make brilliant decaf for my pregnant wife.
My preparation is flawless in drip and espresso
You guys really don’t understand subjectivity or sarcasm and are filling in a ton of the blanks.
No no, that was the only reasonable part. Everything else wrapping that was absurd though.
That’s the funny thing about subjectivity right?
That’s some top shelf stretching there.
There are many ways to decaffeinate a coffee bean… Some more gross than others… All of them blasphemy.
And yes most of them ruin the taste of coffee.
Also it’s obvious you have seen this already. https://youtu.be/yYTSdlOdkn0?si=6Z1RlexQCt2I4OI9
I mean you could always substitute a witch if you are unable to source the live duck…
I don’t think it’s bad at all… It’s a really interesting idea and could be really elevated thinking through the mechanics of it. I unfortunately have way too much time spent around combat machines so I can’t unknow what I already know.
Yeah please don’t stop refining the design… You could come up with some stabilizer mechanism or behavior for it… Like maybe it folds into a squat position for firing… Or perhaps there is some sort of staking mechanism that it deploys from its feet into the ground.
You could look at the tripod design used on mortar or artillery systems the feet on it basically use like a backwards hoof that uses the recoil from the weapon to embed in the ground and prevent push back.
Forward firing main battle guns like this are crazy powerful… There are sometimes a huge number of recoil absorbing designs incorporated into the main chassis of the vehicle as well.
Come up with a cool story for how it works and work through some of those details please… This guy is cool as shit and the actual art of it is great.
Lol this thing would fall over any time that main gun was fired…
At least give it a “tail” that it could use to stabilize itself for firing.
No dude… Nothing like that… Israel has made plenty of mistakes, especially in the past, and this is an extremely complex issue.
To answer your first question in terms of casualty counts. The very first thing is that casualty counts are very commonly over/under inflated, especially during times of conflict. There are many reasons you may want to over inflate or deflate your numbers. But honestly it is really difficult to take casualty rates at face value. Let’s say we take it for what it is and its skewed. Now we run straight into a philosophical conundrum that is probably much to big to effectively argue through on the internet.
Your philosophical position on about a dozen or so moralistic arguments are going to shape your ultimate decision on where you stand in terms of casualty imbalances.
So I will skip all that and give you some of the things that I believe would bring me to your side.
I understand where you are coming from, really… And I also appreciate the care that went into crafting your reply with the clear considerations to keep a neutral and rational tone, so I wish to extend the courtesy back.
The major contention I have with your position is that it is only easily justified if it were true that Israel is in fact indiscriminately bombing Palestinians. However the basis in reality to support the indiscriminate claim just doesn’t exist at the current point. In fact the specific video posted here is explicitly contradictory to that argument. Israel has developed military technology beyond nearly every other country in the world in order to precisely and discriminatorily be able to target enemy combatants in civilian dense urban areas. The roof knock bombs that IDF use prior to levelling a structure so that citizens can have time to flee the scene is a prime example as well.
And several times throughout the story you are forced into making some “decisions” about how to deal with stale memory registers.