Softened babies everywhere! When I was young, we used.to carry uranium which was called stiffeldazzle at the time in our lunchboxes to energize the half potato we got for lunch.
We carried that stone with pride through the snow when we walked uphill both to and from school!
I’d be some bloke telling everyone the same boring bullshit about some glass bottle or other, hanging about in a pokemon center dong absolutely fucking nothing. Seems to be a viable career option in the Pokemon universe given how many ppl pursue this line of work.
I will not tolerate any more net send messages about your armpits, Jeff! Stop it!
Okay, so either I’ve done something that I have reprimanded you for and thus am a hypocrite, or you are starting to do the old “moral high ground” chain of escalation that usually ends with someone mindlessly crying hypocrite just to win a super useless internet argument.
Let’s summarize: I made a mediocre throw away joke by making up a conversation to a meme that’d lead to a “makes you chuckle a little” punchline. I deliberately used comedic, very casual language.
You replied with a comment that started with sarcasm and suggested I wanted to invalidate the OP meme because of a made up situation.
I then remarked that you interpreted a statement that was not made into my words, claimed moral high ground and.went about it in a snarky way (sarcasm and all).
So, either you are trying to tell me that your reply to me was a joke as well, which would have the potential to make me a hypocrite, yet I’d like to add that there was neither a punchline not anything else that would qualify your statement as a joke, so how was this “joke” of your’s meant to play out?
Or you did exactly what I said, continued to freely interpret stuff that wasn’t said into my replies and then attacked those.
This “discussion” is completely irrelevant of course since again, I did not say anything that was grounds for discussion at all and didn’t intend to in an way shape or form, so I think this response should suffice to end it. You might want to ask yourself which of the possibilities described fits. You need not respond or anything, I’m not petty enough to need a win here or anything, but perhaps you can learn something about the way you communicate.
I wish you a pleasant day.
A very creative way to say “no u”, I must admit.
There is always this one person who tries to find an expression of opinion in everything that’s said (with a good helping of interpretation of course since there was no expression of opinion to begin with), then attacks that made up opinion in a snarky, moral high ground sort of way… Not everything people say is meant to start a serious discussion, folks!
What?! They are trying to save the source for their bizarre hoards of money?! Next you will tell me that the NRA isn’t trying to protect people from shootings but sell more explodey murder sticks to people! Outlandish! Seriously people, how is this news? Of course they will do that…
“you know that this job is for a brand new office we’re opening, right? Have you, like, read the job description?”
You dun goofed
Yep. All of them. Getting the weapons there was one thing, but moving the entire city to bring the stuff over was… Tiring.
I bet he won’t even have to use this power and prices will miraculously decline by themselves. During the energy crisis after Russia attacked Ukraine, our German power companies and oil refineries came under scrutiny as a (albeit badly drafted) government program to lower gas prices just didn’t lower prices at all. Our energy secretary then made an announcement that the government was checking if they could get the anti-trust-agency involved for price hiking and split up some companies if need be. The next day, die to “some lucky events on the world oil markets” prices for oil started to go down. It was a miracle!
Idk what the issue is:
Anybody else getting “I’m 14 and this is deep” vibes from this?
There is, though. The easiest one being that a sentient creature will react differently to it’s outside world, most importantly in an unpredictable manner. Think about a fish reacting to it’s surroundings and then picture a cat. One will very likely do the same thing given the same circumstances. The other won’t.
That’s one of those questions that’s all too often used for some cheap attempt at a trap. The question is what sort of proof is acceptable in which line of science. You can’t prove sentience in the absolute way physics can prove things. That’s just natural for scientific disciplines like psychology. Furthermore y you’d first have to define what constitutes sentience/sapience
First of all: please let us separate this. What one believes isn’t science. Science does not care for your (or a mollusc’s) feelings. It cars about what’s the provable truth (except when the science is psychology or behavioral biology, then it cares very much about your or the mollusc’s feelings). So if it can’t be proven, science will ignore it.
Secondly: there is something you need to take into account herey and that is cognitive abilities. It doesn’t matter how the behavioral response of an animal is, if said animal lacks the horsepower to interpret those feelings. Do you feel bad for a computer when it encounters an error? Of course not. Why would you? It lacks the cognitive ability to suffer from that error. Same goes for animals. Dies it feel compelled to be in a group? Maybe. But does that mean that inside the animal’s head it goes “oh, finally a group, I’m so safe now. I was really hurting being alone and all” or is there just a little mechanism that goes “Func_Search_Group exited with status code 0”?
We don’t know. All we know is that both exist. Dish forming swarms show more of the latter, while dogs display more of the first. if there is no psychological response to any given feeling, we can’t attribute emotions to it. Furthermore, all of this is only applicable if we assume that the way our mind works is the only way. Some animals might have a psyche that’s so far removed from ours that our metrics just don’t apply. We don’t know.
Of course there are tons of animal behaviors we wrongly Attribute to instinct or reflex when they are actually emotionally driven. Yet we don’t know what those are, so we cannot just run around and play pretend because it makes us feel cozy.
We humans are actually a good example of that. At birth, we are just a bundle of cobbled together reflexes that get replaced by cognitive ability over time.
I’m holding my three weeks old toddler in my arms right now and since he is actually a human,. observing his behavior is relatable to menand easy to interpret since he’s hard wired to communicate everything bad by crying immediately.
Yet, there is tons of behavior he shows that’s actually reflexes and his brain will not start the same reaction as a more developed human brain would.
Take shock as an example. He is literally impossible to upset by shock. If he feels like he’s falling or something else catches him by surprise, he’ll react by the so-called Moro reflex and try to grasp anything in his reach. It’s the same reflex we see in chimp babies. It’s meant to make the baby cling to it’s carrier’s fur. Yet, he himself doesn’t react at all. He looks midly irritated at best, if he doesn’t just continue sleeping and that’s all. His brain does not process this shock emotionally like we would, yet his body goes into full blown panic mode, desperately grasping around. No suffering, no anxiety, nothing in terms of emotions at all (and believe me, a baby will not hide those. He cries if his intestines are starting to digest the milk he just devoured)
If this kind of disconnect between behavior and psyche is common in humans, it is likely to be common in other species as well, especially when those species lack the ridiculous large and energy hungry brain humans have decided was a good idea?
Is it actually the scientist neglecting the mind of an animal or is it you wishing for a mind to be where there is none? The answer is somewhere in the middle.
Oh and the cat example: that’s a result of the very mistake you made: people have somehow collectively decided that cats lack any social behavior and thus anything they do that looks like socializing must be something else, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Cats absolutely do socialize just with less to no empathy for their friends. That’s why we can only call true what’s observable.
Don’t know about them, but I’m not arrogant enough to believe I’m not very, very much included.
Oi! You! Back into the matrix, you useless excuse for a AA cell!