I tried to watch it and kinda gave up. I tried to accept that it would be at most a reference to the book, but i still, just, couldnt.

https://www.thelamboy.com/comics/love-must-hate-evil

Crappy movie? Yes.

Come from? No.

Ironically, i watched the [REDACTED] before i read the books, so i enjoyed it. Then i read the books and felt really dumb for enjoying the [REDACTED] as much as i did.

They probably aren’t. But they are qualified to comment on a theoretical post about the subject.

OP is asking what each person would contribute, not that each person must contribute something that they are qualified to. Which, for the most of us, is nothing. So get off your “intellectual” high horse and contribute to the conversation or change your non-contributions to silence instead of pedantic bullcrap.

There are are obviously 6041776 centimeters in one good American inch. The “cent” comes from “sent” from how we sent the brits packing, twice.

B, because position and speed are relative,

it would slow the train down equal to the momentum gained by the people.

No no no. We FIXED them. Imagine being br*tish. Putting random “u”s in words. ColOur hOnoUr mOuLd. Imagine having a whole letter that only the 1%ers can even pronounce (its “t” pronounced like “s” but with a burst of air instead of a stream of air, and more pressure from the tongue onto the hard palate). We turned linguistic drift into linguistic power-slide.

Any time i hear a br*tish “person” talking, regardless of location or occasion, i rev my Ford f-450 supermax lifted truck (from which i removed the muffler) as hard as i can. This produces three strictly beneficial effects:

1 i can no longer hear the br*t “talking” 2 all of the smoke blocks sight of who is talking 3 the beautiful aroma that comes from the powerful black smoke reminds me of the most important things in life freedom, privatized healthcare, and tea in the ocean.

Isn’t that poisonous in large quantities?

Rabbit prison deer.

Cool. I don’t know if that aligns the the current theory and frankly, don’t care enough to research it.

But that doesn’t disprove my statement. Unless all matter juices itself into energy, heat will exist. heat is a property of matter unless said matter is at -273 C (which seems impossible that that is the temperature for the universe to settle on)

But… I’m not a theoretical physicist and you probably aren’t one either. So we are both out of our depth.

Heat - A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules

That would still exist. However a “concept” being defined as an idea, would not exist as there would be no living thing to think it up.

So heat would exist, the “concept of heat” wouldn’t. So your first statement is technically correct. Your second statement is wrong by the primary definition of heat.

Kinda? All energy will dissipate until everything is the same temperature. Idk what that temperature will be but it might be pretty cold. But heat won’t just, like, go away. It will homogenize.

I am ungovernable

Technically you are “right” but you are also being obtuse (pun intended).

If you could bare to stretch your mind, and realize “not to scale” means “trust the numbers, not the graphic” you could in turn, realize that it is, in fact, 3 sided.

Every side of every shape is made up of infinite 180 degree angles and 2 angles that are different. Every. Single. One.

Mathematicians dont want to to know this one strange trick, hide a secret corner of 180 degrees in any triangle to instantly make it a quadrilateral, without even changing the shape!!

Even in your examples you are treating animals as less than human. Why? Again, where is the line that involuntary trespassing is punishable by immediate death? If a person bit you, yeah you could fight them off and use force. But, to be compare fairly, you would have to kill the person that bit you. Even then this is still an unfair argument because

1. That is not typical human behavior
2. A human bite can do substantially more damage than a mosquito bite.

So tell me where you can treat animals ethically identically as humans, and where you can’t. Where is the line?

They just overlap much more recently

I wouldnt completely agree. I think using something other than your conscience is somewhat disingenuous. For the most part, any inconsistencies have been from personal growth/change. I live my life so that i can sleep at night.

As far as stopping meat consumption. Yes that is something that i can do. I believe the moral implications of doing that are minimal, simply because animals and humans have different ethical considerations. But this is getting off topic.

I claimed there wasn’t much i could do to improve the morality of meat consumption (ie Ethical living conditions, reduced scale etc.) . It’s like i wanted to make cars more fuel efficient and you told me to ride a bike. It sidesteps the claim and proves a point i wasn’t arguing.

I as a single person, with limited time and limited funds can’t change how large companies mass butcher livestock, not without sacrificing other things i value more.

There is an assumption here that i don’t think of right and wrong. Which isn’t true, as evidenced by this entire comment chain. My morality is based off of my conscience, and it has a final say in how i act. But I still think and explore ethically difficult situations to determine what is right, wrong, or grayish.

I just didnt describe my entire ethical schema, because, as i said i am lazy. Lazy and self-aware enough to know that there is not much i can or will do to improve the morality of meat consumption. And honestly, that specific problem is pretty low on my list of ethical dilemmas. But it’s fun to talk about.