“Echoes” also quotes the Phantom of the Opera theme /s

May a moody baby doom a yam

A man, a plan, a canal, Panama

You’ll have to think through a few other philosophical questions first.

What about ailments that either cannot be detected prior to birth or which take onset after birth? By going forward with these uncertainties, you take a nonzero chance of subjecting the hypothetical potential progeny to the same fate.

Even without any chronic ailments inseparable from a person’s body or psyche, there are still external hazards. Is it not ok to force someone to suffer a stubbed toe, yet ok to force an offspring to be born to suffer the eventual certainty of stubbing their toe? I think it would be impossible to find a sentient life that did not experience even a modicum of suffering. What percentage of an offspring’s life do you consider acceptable to force them to suffer through and to what magnitude of suffering? Can you guarantee that these criteria are met throughout their life?

Who do you intend to benefit from making a child? Yourself, your partner, your parents, your religious leaders, your nation’s work force? I don’t expect people to answer “The child”, yet the child is the one who is most involved and the one who must live that life through. The child would not notice any detriment relative to birth if they were not born, and suffering can only be noticed by those who are born (which I would say is certain to happen), so in what way does it benefit any child to be born and shift from zero suffering to some suffering? To what extent does the boon for others that would be exploited from the child’s birth justify the non-zero suffering that the child would experience?

You shouldn’t assume that any demographic is categorically incorruptible from every form of ignorance or immorality. It is especially foolhardy to assume that oneself is categorically immune from these errors because one is of a particular demographic. It exudes big Redditor caricature energy to think that all on a particular site are necessarily smarter than those not on said site. You are of the masses, as is everybody.

You’ve used the term “alternative viewpoints” to whitewash objective falsehoods and bigoted malice. These can manifest actual material harm, and the normalization and tolerance for these notions being spread amplifies that harm.

You underestimate the masses’ susceptibility to be gradually grifted into believing increasingly worse falsehoods, bigotries, and self-destructive ideals.

A zero tolerance policy against zero tolerance policies against intolerance and mis/dis/malinformation? The explanation was a bit figurative language heavy.

On the backside of the box, there is microscopic branding for TripAdvisor on one of the cards. There is also a closeup photo of the cars that shows the TripAdvisor logo a couple of times across the board design. These could easily be missed by someone who wasn’t looking for them. The branding should have been more clear and the producer likely did mean to deceive. Always check the reviews before buying and take note of the manufacturer’s specific ID number or code for the product.

I’ve almost entirely stopped purchasing online unless I am familiar with the specific product or I have watched a thorough review of it. If you had the box in your hands, you’d be more likely to spot the branding on the back, and the side faces might have branding too.

There are fringe instances where the outward distinctions between manufactured products are so trivial that you’d really have to be in the know to differentiate between them. The only occurrence that I can think of which I’ve experienced is buying CDs that have the swear words censored vs. uncensored.

I agree that the other commenter’s analogy doesn’t make sense with the packaging/marketing context.

Georgia O’Keeffe’s cat

Generally, bakers are blue collar hardworkers who do not gluttonously hoard their resources and instead sell at prices necessary for sustainability with a modest to moderate level of profit margins; eliminating one baker would reduce the number of skilled workers who know how to produce goods/services critical to society. The same cannot be said about people in certain other positions whom the aforementioned hypothetical you might instead want to kill.

If the artist believes that bakers’ role in society is not comparable to certain parasitic roles, that subtext has been lost in the satiric trope inversion.

Edit: Apparently this is an old comic, so the inferred modern subtext is not the artist’s intent. I was trying to think of a better scenario for what the artist was trying to convey. You want to kill a child but the child has O- blood and is registered for organ donation upon death?

Your points about social bubbles and echo chambers are true, but experiencing the displeasure of having to routinely interact with rightwingers in person verifies that they have fully-fledged conviction in their “vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit”. They can’t have a reasonable exchange of ideas because they bring nothing reasonable or empathetic to the table.

It’s giving deep sea diver being imploded inside their old timey diving suit

We will still consider suggestions of jury nullification for crimes that have not (yet) happened as advocation for violence, which is violating our terms of service.

This is the Central Scrutinizer / It is my responsibility to enforce all the laws / That haven’t been passed yet. / It is also my responsibility to alert each and every one of you / To the potential consequences / Of various ordinary everyday activities / You might be performing which could eventually lead to / The death penalty - or affect your parents’ credit rating. / Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you / Who do wrong things…

That comment was an explanation of layered figurative language. It was given artistic flourish to convey the emotion and situation in experienced subjective depth rather than the objective and literal point of view of an outsider. I am more succinct and linear in settings for which I have to communicate professionally.

The thing is, once you’ve been stuck in it for so long everywhere, you don’t know how the few people whom you find judicious and honest and whose general input you respect and appreciate can also somehow be sane and in-touch if they are the anomalies who think the same of you. You question if praise and affirmation from them is just an overly polite way of hiding pity and disdain. Even if their analysis says all is good, does that really mean all is good? That’s why I described it as magical, because it’s internally contradictory and independent of social setting. Since I can’t even get to the interview stage, then the text of the resume as approved by others becomes a conduit for the aura to affect the potential employers simply because the resume is mine. That’s the conceit I mean when I say it’s like magic.

Microsoft Teams isn’t all bad! For example, it bogged down my work computer so much at start up that I would basically get an extra break.

Ok, just verifying that that fallacy wasn’t the crux of your argument

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

Are you implying that a negative categorically cannot be proven?

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

Let’s start with clarifying an element of the question:

Which characteristics define a god? Do these characteristics violate the laws of physics and/or internal logic? If these characteristics do not violate the laws of physics, then what aspects distinguish a god from a mundane or natural entity?

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

Skill issue

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance