Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)OP
Posts
6
Comments
2,322
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Oh I know about the garments, I'm ex-mo myself, but I've never heard of onesie garments. They're all basically #3 in the chart. I thought they were talking about something different

  • To be fair, that didn't become the motto until the 1950s, and (I had to Google this) it wasn't on any currency until almost a hundred years after the revolution. The founding fathers, for all their flaws, were pretty adamant about keeping the church separate from the state, most of them being either deists, naturalists, or atheists.

  • I don't think they're asking for justification of the comment, I'm pretty sure they're asking for the results of the experiment (you know tongue in cheek). Which is fair imo, not that I don't like mythbusters but I don't have time to sit down and watch it atm.

    Edit: Crazyslinkz understood the question

  • Now this photo is culturally significant! 🤗

    This building had to be destroyed for the photo to exist and become culturally significant, just as the lives and culture of the planter's slaves had to be destroyed for the building to exist and become culturally significant. Poetic, isn't it?

  • When my cast iron started flaking, it was because I was being too gentle with it. Once I began to suspect that that was the case, I decided that from now on if this layer of seasoning isn't strong enough to withstand my copper scrub pad, then it's not worthy to be the foundation for the next later of seasoning. I've had much better results with this approach.

  • This is a good one. The use of fallacies doesn't necessarily void an argument, it just fails to support it logically.

    For example, I could craft a perfect, clean, cold-cut argument so water-tight and beautiful that even ben-fucking-shapiro would have a come-to-jesus. Calling my opponent a "dickhead" at the end (ad hominem) doesn't prove anything, but it doesn't nullify the entire rest of the argument either. Plus it's fun.

  • This is it, you're not likely to convince the person you're arguing with (*), but you can convince lurkers.

    *You won't convince them then, they're too prideful and defensive to accept alternate ideas during the argument. But you might plant a seed of doubt. Overtime, it might grow and and be accompanied by other doubty plants from seeds planted by others along the way, and who knows? They might have a breakthrough someday, and that argument, perhaps from years ago, was a part of it. I've been on both sides of this dynamic myself online and in person.