You can't really compare real life people's proportions to a cartoon of an anthropomorphic animal. To me its clear there was no intention for this image to be sexual at all. And believe me, if a furry wanted to draw something suggestive, there would be no discussion as to its horny status. They aren't known for subtlety.

If you saw this and thought it was horny, that might just be a you thing.

Wood is definitely better than nothing, but I don't really see a situation in which this thing would need protection against small arms anyway. Unless something has already gone horribly wrong, those small arms are a significant distance from your artillery. At that range, they are already effectively worthless because their lack of rifling makes them horribly inaccurate.

If I had to guess, you would mainly be worried about union sharpshooters (maybe) and artillery. At that point the only real advantage of the wood is the obstruction of sight.

It doesn't look like it. They did sometimes use a kind of turntable to allow regular cannons to easily change direction, but I don't think the same was done with these.

Wood still wasn't strong enough to sustain a lot of fire even from those rifles. The confederacy just didn't have enough iron.

I'm no expert but I'm fairly certain its pregnant

I had that problem with half life, but they supposedly fixed it in the 25th anniversary update.

I don't have a strongly held belief regarding the existence of any gods.

The strongly held belief I'm referring to isn't a belief in a god or lack thereof, its a belief that religion is a net negative for society.

I'm surprised you're not aware of this.

To say I'm not aware of this is again to argue in bad faith. I have mentioned myself that religious indoctrination of course still exists, and is a problem.

As for the assessment of benefits, there's a great deal of research into what people do with their lives and why.

Yes there is research into how religion affects society, but it isn't very useful for this purpose for multiple reasons. There is no instance of a society without religion, so the difference between a religious and non-religious society can't be studied. There can be no consensus on what is beneficial and what isn't, as morality itself isn't objective.

There is not and there never will be definitive evidence as to whether or not religion is beneficial for society.

There is nothing to suggest we need religion for any of the benefits that religious people say they obtain from it,

There is also nothing to suggest the opposite, because this can't really be determined. You would have to so create a set of all the benefits religious people claim to get, which in and of itself would be a monumental task. Then, you would have to demonstrate that nonreligious people can achieve all of the exact same benefits.

This is why I've come to the conclusion that this argument is pointless, and neither of us know anything beyond our personal experience.

I stand by what I said and painting it as absolutes is arguing in bad faith.

This I agree with. Looking back, you were more careful than I thought you were to specify you were not talking in absolutes.

I will however double down that you are still making a fundamental assumption that your option is the correct one, and you make it more clear by arguing that all benefits of religion are possible without religion. If all benefits of religion can be attained without risking the detriment, then religion is the worse option by far.

However, thinking of this made me realize I'm just making the opposite assumption. Just like you, I've constructed a strongly held belief about religion based on my life experiences, which are entirely anecdotal and effectively meaningless.

How would you even get evidence that most people are manipulated into becoming religious? How would you get evidence that most people don't? How would you get evidence that religion does or doesn't benefit people? How would you even define benefit in the first place?

This argument is meaningless.

That makes more sense to me. Although, I would contend that people in real life can also just put on a role to varying degrees of success depending on the exact circumstances. Presumably when you said "personally" though, you meant people you already knew well enough to verify their claims to some extent.

Maybe you're right, that sounds possible. I would think if that's their intention they wouldn't have written that "everyone" is everything, and would instead say "someone" or something to that effect. At that point I'm probably just overanalyzing though.

They are drawing that distinction for a reason. They literally said everyone is everything on the internet. I don't how else you could possibly read that.

What about the internet makes this easier to lie about? I could tell you the same thing to your face and you still couldn't fact check it.

Your understanding of their reasoning comes from a fundamental assumption that your choice is the correct choice for every person. They willingly made the wrong decision, therefore they must have been manipulated into doing so.

Many people do just become religious without outside influence. On a large scale, every society will create its own version of religion without fail. Clearly, they have something to gain psychologically by doing so.

While religious indoctrination obviously exists and obviously is a problem, it doesn't discount the actual benefits that religion seems to have, and by extension the reasoning with which some people become religious.

We all do.

When I said "start", it was in reference to the process of changing your religious identity, not your life as a whole.

Never personally met an atheist that had found religion or heard about one

Well congratulations, now you have. It isn't quite as rare as you might think.

The fact that some people start as atheists and later become religious demonstrates there has to be more reasons than just that.

They need to just pick an age and stick with it

Even if someone called me a "male" constantly it would kind of freak me out. They are theoretically interchangeable, but male or female just comes off less "human" I guess. If they choose to only ever say male or female then it makes you wonder if they literally perceive you as inhuman.

It probably gets annoying as a bystander, but I don't have a lot of opportunities to bring aviation into the rest of my life. Especially in a way that's mildly funny.

How am I supposed to just stop using this word?? How else is the plane supposed to tell me to put thrust at idle during landing? This is ridiculous.