There is a certified tape of him saying “grab them by the pussy” and lots of other extremely problematic behaviour that has been readily admitted to or else clearly indicated with verified evidence. Some things only have circumstantial or hearsay evidence—but it sure as hell ain’t everything. By muddying the waters you are helping to weaken the case against him.

What did you switch to?

“zero factors that could effect that degradation”

So in other words, only a completely unrealistic estimate can be made? After all, our sun is not going to be the same in 5 billion years, so unless the material comes along with a solution to maintain the material’s temperature (as per the manufacturer’s website the longevity is temperature-dependent) then 14 billion years sounds rather unlikely.

France may not participate directly in imperialism these days, but it sure as hell has neocolonial and exploitative structures in place. E.g. see this Jacobin article.

Open weights is not open source…

This is the cultural highlight of the century. Thank you for your sacrifice OP.

…but then why did she cry in response to the stranger’s comment? Logic doesn’t seem to be adding up.

I think the pun is that “Sick Man Died” sounds vaguely like / rhymes with Dick van Dyke.

Spoiler: it’s not a very good pun.

I would argue that your point applies to every use case for AI. AI isn’t responsible for any of the bad shit it’s associated with, blame lies with humans 100% of the time.

I originally claimed that he is a “murderer or at least took part in mass murder.” I have not edited or moved the goalposts. Please read closer :-)

edit: nice to see that Lemmings are simping for the US military’s illegal invasions though!

Yes I can objectively say that he was involved in mass murder. Could you please explain how the killing of hundreds of civilians, unprovoked and without warning, doesn’t constitute murder? Judged as a “flagrant violation of international law” by the UN, Bush disgustingly claimed that Panama had declared a state of war against the US, even though what really happened is that Panama declared that US had already invoked war against Panama through psychological and military harrassment (which was accurate). And then sent thousands of soldiers to invade and ultimately kill innocent civilians.

I’m not saying this individual chose to personally kill these people. But was he involved? By his own admission, yes.

If you were Panamanian I don’t think you’d have much trouble calling the men who came and killed innocent civilians in 1989 a murderer. That being the case, can you say objectively that this person isn’t a murderer or at least took part in mass murder?

So let’s be clear then—it’s not that other countries cannot influence this conflict, it’s that they choose not to. And even that is not quite right: Modi’s meeting Putin right now and their active trade with them does have an influence on the conflict, just not in Ukraine’s favour.

It is not clear if there are other countries other than the EU that can influence the situation(aside the US and Russia).

I’ll be the first to admit I am very ignorant about the geopolitics of this war, but how can this possibly be true? India could stop trade relations with Russia; China could invade Russia; the global south could conscript and send armies to support Ukraine. I’m not saying these countries would or even should do these things, but isn’t an analysis self-defeating if we just assume only EU & US have any influence?

Sir, that is the definition of a rhetorical question.

Genuine question since I am not knowledgable about this: could you expand on how HRW is Zionist? Wikipedia notes that HRW has been criticised for being overly biased against Israel, and I read through a rather awful article on Sapir (which appears to be quite unapologetically Zionist) which indeed makes this claim. Is there evidence to the contrary?

Haha I have a lot of love and joy in my life, do you really need to resort to baseless ad hominems for your argument?

And why exactly do I not have a claim? I cited scripture which directly contradicts your point and provided a clear argument. I could be very easily “talked out” of my position if you simply presented any scripture where Jesus shows support for trans rights. Thus far you have not done that.

Apart from fringe activist groups, who thinks of politics as something they have to make happen on a daily basis?

Lots of people actually. The comparison you’re making between many people being generally uninterested in politics vs mental illness being criminalized by the state is, frankly, ridiculous.

Those ads are annoying af

Jesus literally contradicted those passages, both in His most famous teaching (Matthew 22:34-40) and in the “why we can eat bacon cheeseburgers” post-resurrection vision in Acts 10.

I’m looking at the NIV translation of these verses and am entirely unconvinced. Saying some nice platitudes which are in no way specific to transphobia does nothing to undo the transphobic tradition that he is perpetuating.

The most straightforward reconciliation of this is to posit that the pre-Christian israelites either did not preserve God’s law as recorded by Moses after breaking the original tablets, or that Moses himself introduced errors when he carved the second set.

Strongly disagree again. The most straightforward reconciliation of this is to posit that Jesus as well as Moses were mere humans and none of this originates from God. Either way, it doesn’t really matter. If Jesus and/or the author’s of the Gospels had issues with the words transcribed from Moses, they should have addressed those specifically and advocated for trans people instead of staying silent and letting transphobism fester.

Most Jews and Christians don’t require their cloaks to have tassels or religiously mandate fields of monoculture crops or demand that men and women have entirely separate fashion. And even if you did, the most common form of trans-gender expression is to adopt the clothes of said gender, so mere transgenderism doesn’t violate Deuteronomy 22:5 (or 23:2, which is either abelsim or ethnic bigotry and doesn’t even apply to bottom-surgery transexuals.)

What modern religious people practice has little to do with what Jesus said, which is the subject of your original claim. Jesus’ words reified the transphobic tradition of the Old Testament, and without explicit acceptance of trans people and rejection of those original words, I see a very clear case that Jesus was (or at least perpetuated being) transphobic.

(It’s between you and God if you believe in Him or not, FWIW. Im happy to answer any other questions you’d like to ask.)

No I don’t have any questions; I have a claim with substantial evidence that Jesus perpetuated anti-trans beliefs and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.