![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Wait, are there cars with lights/wipers on a touch screen?
Wait, are there cars with lights/wipers on a touch screen?
I also hate SAGAs, and I also have to RMB trying to FIT. Agreed it’s RBA!
Seriously, we need to return to pre-internet console mentality. You put out an N64 game, it better be goddamn finished. Companies rely way too much on “ehh can just patch it”.
If they’re gonna be forced to be part of the UK, they can also enjoy the privilege of shitting on it like the rest do.
Usually this bot is great but this is a pretty big one to miss:
And the same week NASA’s report came out, Mexican lawmakers were shown by journalist Jaime Maussan two tiny, 1,000-year-old bodies that he claimed were the remains of “non-human” beings. Scientists have called this claim fraudulent and say the mummies may have been looted from gravesites in Peru.
You’re completely missing the point of an analogy. No one is comparing humans to animals. What’s similar is the thought process behind arriving at both conclusions. We could be talking about humans, animals, cars… the subject doesn’t matter, it’s the thought process that’s the same.
Not to say I agree with him but he didn’t compare those two things at all. He said it’s the same mentality that underlies racism and ‘breedism’ for lack of a better word.
I’m so confused… you responded to a comment about guns and made an analogy for gun control.
So then it wasn’t shallow and dismissive at all, you just didn’t appreciate the delivery. The points they made were perfectly valid and, ironically, calling them shallow and dismissing was itself shallow and dismissive. It just seems more like you used a bad analogy but can’t take the criticism.
Addressing any of the points being made to you would be a great start. The first comment that you called shallow was a pretty good summary of why people support strict gun control, even if it was said sarcastically.
What a shallow and dismissive thing to say
That’s not a great analogy though… you would have to add that, even though most people use it responsibly, banning digital encryption would cause a very dramatic reduction in harm caused by the people that don’t use it responsibly.
Furthermore digital encryption actually serves an inherent purpose so banning it would also cause some harm to society simultaneously. On the other hand, civilian gun ownership serves no inherent purpose so society wouldn’t be harmed by banning it, and we would only lose the risk.
…so you don’t have evidence.
Do you have any evidence to go against the tests in the article or are you just rambling?
Ethically I agree completely but this should only be done if you’re past your warranty (or don’t care about it).
“Oh uh… the cheque is in the mail!”