In a pure debate sense, this would be true, even an unpopular or suspicious person is still capable of making a valid point. It should be considered, however, that internet arguments are not formal debates. They can at times use the form and language of them, but most people are not skilled in that kind of formalized arguing, and most people are not arguing in an actual attempt to use the debate to identify stronger vs inconsistent positions (rather than just trying to push people towards ones own ideas or to put down ideas one finds reprehensible).

Now, I dont personally tend to find much point in looking through profiles, it takes too much time for little benefit in my view, but it can sometimes tell you if an account is not worth the time and emotional investment to interact with, or if it has signs that it might not be. The nature of social media is such that there are always far more user’s trying to get your attention, than you have attention to spare. As such, if theres even a notable red-flag that an account isnt worth the time and potential frustration to engage with, it can make pragmatic sense to move on (depending on how much one is willing to put up with, I guess).

From that perspective, telling other people what it was that seemed like a red flag to you lets them consider if that thing makes that account worth their time or not, without them having to find it too, and therefore potentially does those other people a favor. That sounds a bit harsh (at least to me) because plenty of things others might consider suspect, like a new account, cant always be helped (everyone starts off new after all), and being ignored, or having other people call out that thing as a reason they might want to ignore you, is frustrating, but that’s just the nature of giving massive numbers of people the ability to talk to everyone else; most people wont want or have the time to listen to you, and you’re not entitled to their time, however unfair their reason for dismissing you might be.

It seems to me there are two scenarios: you’re burying a body legally somehow (the question never specifies a human body, so it could be a dead pet, and even if it is human, maybe that person had specific wishes and you’ve done whatever paperwork that might take, idk) in which case the answer is surely yes. Or, you’re doing it illegally, presumably to dispose of the body, in which case I have to question why you’d bury it somewhere that, if found, will immediately implicate you as a suspect.

I mean, that doesn’t really fix it if you have an actually omnipotent diety though, because that diety would be responsible for, well, everything, to include what the results of rejecting that diety would be.

Personally I’d say no, the government of mainland China has it’s well known authoritarian tendencies, but it’s still much better than a warzone or area under foreign military occupation would be, in the hypothetical case where the Taiwanese government gained the military capacity for this somehow, and Taiwan and the mainland have had decades for cultural divergence to occur, some extremely transformative decades at that, so close as they might still be, it would still be a foreign invasion for china at this point.

I sometimes find it interesting to contemplate how best to treat swear words. One the one hand, the thing that seems most obvious to me is to just say “theyre just words to express frustration or anger at something. Those are real and valid emotions, and its silly to treat expletives like theyre morally wrong to say somehow, or like its a bad thing if children learn them, etc.” On the other hand, part of the appeal to using them is that they feel at least a bit taboo, allowing a sentiment like “I feel so upset with this situation that I’m going to break this social rule to show it”. If theres no taboo at all, which you get when they’re used all the time and entirely casually, they no longer serve that purpose very well and people start looking for new things that feel a little bit transgressive to say. Which paradoxically implies that there isnt a point in saying them unless youre not “allowed” to say them, except they cant be too offensive to say either or they’ll feel disproportionate and rude.

So, what you’re talking about (the past and future appearing different to different observers) sounds like a different concept to what this comic was about; if im understanding your meaning, that’s something that comes up from relativity, and as such has a bit more grounding to it than any position on if other points in time exist somewhere else along a “time axis” already or if the future is truly unwritten. Either position on the nature of time will result in a universe that looks exactly the same from our perspective, and therefore can only be speculated on, but relativity makes physically testable predictions that can be experimentally verified. I can’t really explain it adequately as I only understand the basics myself (though from what I know, nobody ever actually observes the future, its more that different observers see the time between connected events compressed compared to others).

This sounds like an idea called “eternalism” or “block time”. I tend to suspect it might be the case just because it requires assuming fewer unique properties for the time dimension that aren’t shared by space dimensions, but obviously that’s not really evidence for it as such. It can be an interesting idea to think through the implications of though, whether true or not.

While I suspect a lot of lemmy would say yes just by virtue of having both socialist politics and an anti-AI stance, strictly speaking I don’t think AI inheritly has anything to do one way or the other with socialism (though the way and by whom it is owned probably would be different), so really that would depend more on how the culture of a given country treated that tech than it’s economic system.

not these days, I did once, but nowadays I have a lizard because they’re a bit more interactive for a scaly animal.

Wasnt really planning to draw tonight, but you know what, sure, Ill try something, Ive been needing something to distract me from my anxiety problems today anyway.

I would assume that, since humans sometimes pretend to not be human, that would simply be a subset of human behavior, and so what would make the comment make the most sense wouldn’t be “looking for behavior atypical for humans”, but rather " looking for behavior that humans arent able to engage in no matter how hard they try". What that would even be in a text based system though, I’m not sure. Typing impossibly fast maybe?

I thought that fire inheritly pushes things, and that all you needed to do to make a rocket, was to take a sizable flame, like a campfire or something, flip it upside down so that the flame pointed down instead of up somehow, and attach it to the bottom of something.

Id imagine its Trump himself they think theyre fooling there. Its a gesture that feeds his ego, in the hopes of getting favorable treatment later.

That might mean something if there were any realistic chance that this would result in something better and more democratic, but both given how Trump acts and how US intervention in Central and South America typically goes, odds are that whoever they find will just be a puppet dictator out to extract resources to the benefit of US companies.

This is the real reason all those rich AI company CEOs are building a ton of data centers to make your water more expensive: they know they’ll turn to dust like a marvel movie character if enough water passes between your lips.

It looks to me like he’s engaging in fallacies. Even if the people in question are hypocrites, being one doesnt make a statement the person made wrong, so using an accusation of hypocrisy as a comeback comes off as an attempt to shut down a line of thinking about a large scale issue by redirecting the conversation to one person’s moral failings, without actually addressing the statements his comebacks are a response to at all.

beyond that, even if it was bought new, its not like that person can, upon learning something about apple that they dont like, go back and retroactively un-buy their phone.

To be fair, when people that would otherwise have cause a detriment die before they can do so, one doesnt tend to notice them at all

I just think that dying is unethical in general and represents a maximal state of suffering (well, more a minimum of non-suffering, since you have no capacity to experience anything when you dont exist anymore, not maximal suffering in the “hell” sense. I know many or most people would disagree with me on that point, but its not something I feel like spelling out my reasons for at the moment.) I also do not believe in the concept of deserved suffering (that is to say, in my view suffering as punishment only has value in its capacity to rewire a person’s future behavior, and that once you have achieved that so as to cause them to live without continuing whatever harms have led to the punishment, anything more is wrong, no matter what they’ve done, even if they were literally the most heinous person of all time). If you’re actually in a position to execute them, then youre in a position to take their money and power too, pointing out that they rarely face justice isnt actually relevant to this, because if your legal system is too corrupted to hand out a jail sentence and make it stick, its also going to be too corrupted to hand out a death sentence and go through with it. These people arent wealthy because they’re inherently good at making money, they’re wealthy because wealth begets wealth and they either started with some or lucked out somewhere or have relations that have it, so if you both take their wealth and the wealth of their friends and relatives, how are they going to get it back?

Interesting, I wasn’t aware that Wales was historically disunited like that, but I suppose that other than the location, having a different language and one of the more interesting flags, I dont know a ton about it. I suppose I just assumed that it was a singular kingdom before being invaded by the English at some point.