Pro choice like working overtime or starving.

Pro choice like having a cell phone or not having a job.

Pro choice like going back to prison or being homeless.

Great choices. The only way they could be more coerced is if someone held a gun to your head.

There are some Rs that they like, though:

• Revenue
• Republicans; and
• Registered trademarks

Poison the well by using AI-generated comments and answers. There isn't currently a way to reliably determine if content is human or AI-generated, and training AI on AI is the equivalent of inbreeding.

AI-generated content trained on LLMs is poison for training, so that's actually a good thing :)

Yup. Laws are only suggestions until you get caught.

Oh, look, now you get it!

A senile traitor, an ethically-dubious dinosaur, and a man with a hole in his brain walk into a bar—sorry, did I say bar? I meant poll.

I have one account. It's not my fault you can't interpret impersonal language correctly.

https://slrpnk.net/comment/8549592

You're right, that's unrealistic.

If those stall dividers were fully opaque with a one-way mirror acting as the wall behind them all, that would be more like it.

My phone can't play BluRay disks.
My computer can't natively play BluRay disks.
My iPad can't play them.

My only option is to pay for yet another HDMI device because of BluRay's DRM and sit down in front of a TV that I may not actually even own. That's both an additional waste of money and inconvient compared to watching an episode on my phone during lunch.

Or I can use software to crack the DRM and rip the disk to video files, which is a violation of the DMCA and brings us right back to being illegal.

Fuck streaming services, but also fuck DRM-encumbered pieces of plastic and foil. I'll buy the movie on a subscription-free service as a token gesture and pirate it.

TIL. Thank you

No offense intended to vegetarians, but it's a half measure if they're doing it for ethical or climate reasons.

I genuinely do not care about that website; all that matters is their receipts. I care that PETA are hypocrites who needlessly kill living creatures while preaching about the ethics or lack thereof of needlessly killing living creatures.

You know that "the other person" can be used in a general sense, right?

Aside, why would I engage in an ernest discussion with someone who doesn't appear willing to accept that the other person in the discussion holds any stance different than the one they are perceived as having.

It would be a waste of my time to take this seriously, and I'm already having fun playing fallacy bingo.

It's an ad hominem to assert that I hold an unethical belief and then use said assertion to bolster your point.

I said PETA are psychopaths for needlessly killing animals, yet you assume that I'm not equally against killing animals for personal pleasure and consumerism.

,If you can't answer questions that make you uncomfortable to answer, that's something you should reflect on.

Again, you're attacking the other person instead of their argument.

It doesn't make your point any stronger. It makes people unfamiliar with debates defensive from being personally attacked, and it makes those familiar with debates realize that they're wasting their time.

The Socratic method involves asking questions to lead on discussion and participation. You're trying to discourage discussion by putting contributors on the defensive with an ad hominem disguised as a (loaded) question.

So, in fact, you're doing neither.

Consider that any number more than "zero" pets kidnapped and killed by a private entity is too many.

If you had not plugged your metaphorical ears and doubled down on an ad hominem, you would have seen that some of those receipts are self-reported filings from PETA themselves to the government.

I would link the definition of "ad hominem" for you, but let's be real: you're not going to read that either.

>you think euthanizing sick animals is bad?
>PETA euthanizes more than sick animals
>you think PETA doesn't euthanize sick animals?

There isn't a single thing I can say to convince someone who isn't arguing in good faith.