It feels more like he is Netanyahu’s attack dog and some of the tech oligarchs with dad issues treat him like one. The others just lick his ass for free pass to do whatever the fuck they want. Of course you may ask “aren’t these the only modes of friendship that exists in Trump’s life” and you may be right…
Eh he is funneling money from everything he deems unnecessary (health, science, nature preservation, education, progressing human rights etc) to pockets of his buddies, Netanyahu and tech oligarchs.
It seems that this may be just one step short of a complete dismantling
https://www.hatchmag.com/articles/trump-administration-orders-dismantling-us-forest-service/7716263
I wish they did the same for Nigel Farage
he has been dead silent as of late hasn’t he?
You would already be doing a great service to the world if you produced a really well tuned search engine / information digger with LLMs but no you had to periodically hype it as AGI because it can memorize entire text books with some accuracy. You did this to yourselves and if you fall it will be because of these expectations which are not met.
Later he would be heard giving talks about how LGBTQ is detrimental to psychology of minors.
everyone at that meeting should be barred from any sort of role in the educational sector + atleast a year long mandatory training on identifying & preventing sexual harassment.
I already got downvoted thrice for that comment. So yeah…
Agreed, I don’t think from that statement alone we can say Dino argued for hair not to be there, that I agree. For the same reason, we can’t argue that the woman claimed hair is better than no hair. Therefore logical fallacy here is of another nature and I think the intention here is to confuse the child by committing this fallacy (this I deduce from the tone of the post). I think most people are reacting negatively because they are strongly opposed to leg hair on women and any statement that is mildly less than how they feel is creating strong feelings of opposition.
In which way does my statement fall for naturalistic fallacy? Also in which sentence does the woman in question say leg hair is better than no leg hair because it is natural?
Seems to me that in both cases you are assuming things.
was it an .ml group
“anime racing horse girl genre”
I see alot of people claiming that the second comment identifies an “appeal to nature” fallacy. Imo, she is forming a tautology and commiting a “begging the question” fallacy to confuse the kid, roughly along the lines of “the hair is supposed to be there because that is where it normally grows”. She demonstrates no intention of proving that body hair is good because it is natural.
deleted by creator
What is inherent worth but what people attach to them. At some point in history someone went “ooh shiny” and we had gold.
I don’t understand how the fact she never said “body hair is good” does not matter when the very definition of “appeal to nature” requires it: “a thing is good because it is ‘natural’”.
I think tautology can be a form of begging the question if it is used as a means of proving a statement. Nevertheless I agree calling it a begging the question is better because that is the actual fallacy I was trying to get at.
I mean I can totally see kids choking on water while doing this too. Yes muscles but I am sure gravity helps too.