Textbook DINO Fuckerman

Maybe it’s just cuz I’ve got a neurospicy bean who is AuDHD and PDA af, but I do not understand how people can have more than a couple kids. Hell, my wife is the oldest of 5 and it’s crazy how much abuse I now see they all endured (both neglect and actual SA abuse of the youngest ones that wasn’t brought to light until a few years ago).

Sure, they just also host various military bases that just so happen to have even more long range weaponry, and the other 2/3s of the nuclear triad.

Shit, I owe an apology to Karan Soni, because I was sure it was one of those 3 playing Dopinder until I looked it up.

Durrrr, no duh. I meant the slopification he did to the trilogy for the rerelease.

A plant is not an animal, and is also not a sentient creature. A bone is a part of an animal harvested and used as a tool, not the animal itself.

It’s a simple line to draw.

A dildo also isn’t able to consent. A carrot isn’t able to consent and is more alive than the roadkill (since it can still reproduce).

A dildo was never alive, and a carrot is not a sentient creature.

Ability to consent is something we require from conscious beings, but we generally don’t require it from objects, and corpses blur the line.

Why does a corpse blur the line? Or is this DnD logic and a corpse is just an object? A corpse should be treated like the person it was, so it still needs consent otherwise you’re still raping it.

but it isn’t actually that easy to come up with a consistent justification for that condemnation.

It absolutely is: a sentient (not even sapient, but sentient) being’s bodily autonomy is inviolable without their consent.

Extending your logic to make my point, if a corpse is blurring the line, what about brain dead coma patients, especially ones that are infertile? Are they ok to rape? They’re alive and can’t reproduce, so what’s the difference, right?

Sure, but I can also construct a moral framework in which it’s ok for me to murder anyone I don’t like because my not-mental-illness-sky-daddy said so.

Moral relativism is bullshit and can be used to justify anything.

The Bible includes passages that condone murdering a cheating wife, so maybe don’t use that as your yardstick.

Morally wrong? No.

Is it not? I’m not religious, but I still find it morally wrong to have sex with something that didn’t consent to it.

Whether the animal is alive or dead, it isn’t able to consent. And since the animal cannot consent, it is therefore rape, making it morally wrong.

Might be listed as a warning for those of us that prefer button interfaces

At that point, why not just read a real book??

My whole reason for using an ereader is to eliminate the parts of reading physical books that annoys me, why would I buy a subpar reader that makes me do or simulates doing the actions I want to avoid?

Quit being a baby.

Quit acting like a child that thinks everyone should think the way you do.

Your comment seems irrelevant to the discussion.

As opposed to your comment moving the goalposts from an AI doing something humans can’t, to them just being better than humans (which is absolutely arguable in most cases)?

That’s a MUCH different statement though, and not at all relevant to a claim that AI is able to do things humans CAN’T do.

If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like?

You just described adversarial training, something I’ve been hearing about for at least a few years now.

What about attempting to ChatGPT his own work decades before GPTs were a thing?

“Goes to the Dark Side”

Someone never saw the rerelease of the original series.

Lucas’ best work was under an editor, whenever he got the full reigns, the product suffered.

Is that like how every soft drink is a coke in the American south?

This is, unfortunately, what happens when you disconnect from electoral politics and let the dumbest among us determine our leader.

deleted by creator