I tried to watch it and kinda gave up. I tried to accept that it would be at most a reference to the book, but i still, just, couldnt.

https://www.thelamboy.com/comics/love-must-hate-evil

Crappy movie? Yes.

Come from? No.

Ironically, i watched the [REDACTED] before i read the books, so i enjoyed it. Then i read the books and felt really dumb for enjoying the [REDACTED] as much as i did.

They probably aren’t. But they are qualified to comment on a theoretical post about the subject.

OP is asking what each person would contribute, not that each person must contribute something that they are qualified to. Which, for the most of us, is nothing. So get off your “intellectual” high horse and contribute to the conversation or change your non-contributions to silence instead of pedantic bullcrap.

There are are obviously 6041776 centimeters in one good American inch. The “cent” comes from “sent” from how we sent the brits packing, twice.

Best for who? Depending on your answer, you are unequivocally right.

B, because position and speed are relative,

it would slow the train down equal to the momentum gained by the people.

Yeah. I like giving advantage/disadvantage because it tells the player: your roleplay positively/negatively impacted the outcome. Luckily i am blessed with good players that will play their characters even if it means a less than ideal outcome.

In my games the DM calls for a check. The player describes their intentions and then the DM calls for a check when appropriate. So if someone gives really good reasoning for an NPC to act a certain way, there might not be a persuasion roll, if the character says something dumb then the roll DC might increase. The point is, no one is allowed to say “i roll persuasion to get them to do X”

No no no. We FIXED them. Imagine being br*tish. Putting random “u”s in words. ColOur hOnoUr mOuLd. Imagine having a whole letter that only the 1%ers can even pronounce (its “t” pronounced like “s” but with a burst of air instead of a stream of air, and more pressure from the tongue onto the hard palate). We turned linguistic drift into linguistic power-slide.

Any time i hear a br*tish “person” talking, regardless of location or occasion, i rev my Ford f-450 supermax lifted truck (from which i removed the muffler) as hard as i can. This produces three strictly beneficial effects:

1 i can no longer hear the br*t “talking” 2 all of the smoke blocks sight of who is talking 3 the beautiful aroma that comes from the powerful black smoke reminds me of the most important things in life freedom, privatized healthcare, and tea in the ocean.

I am ungovernable

Technically you are “right” but you are also being obtuse (pun intended).

If you could bare to stretch your mind, and realize “not to scale” means “trust the numbers, not the graphic” you could in turn, realize that it is, in fact, 3 sided.

Every side of every shape is made up of infinite 180 degree angles and 2 angles that are different. Every. Single. One.

Mathematicians dont want to to know this one strange trick, hide a secret corner of 180 degrees in any triangle to instantly make it a quadrilateral, without even changing the shape!!

Thank you for the definition. I think it is wrong. But i appreciate it nonetheless.

My reasoning is that, while it may have started as a theistic word, it isn’t anymore. When someone says it i don’t think “a creation of God” i just think of like, an animal. Definitions change over time.

I understand that completely, death isn’t where the suffering usually occurs. This brings me to another question that i proposed in response to a different comment.

I had family that raised a cow to eventually become meat. It was named Tasty and lived up to its namesake. Tasty was treated well and killed quickly and cleanly. Is that, like, bad?

I mean, sometimes its ethical. Its kind of unnecessary (and therefore immoral) at the scale of modern meat farms. But on a more individual level with like subsistence hunting/livestock, i dont feel like there are any ethical problems. Like if you need food or you will die, animals lives are worth less than humans lives…

There’s is a popular school of thought that the diet‘s sole purpose to reduce suffering. If a living thing has no central nervous system (or brain), it has no thoughts and cannot experience pain or harm.

What about instant death? Like a farmer putting down a well-treated cow with a bullet to the head. In this scenario, the cow never suffered. In all likelihood it probably never even had much mental distress, let alone fear of death. Would that meat be ethical/vegan friendly?

So is this theory of veganism to not cause pain to an animal? If so what about ethically sourced meat. Like bullet to the head/decapitation. Most of those creatures feel nothing, they just end.

Or is it to not eat anything that comes from the an organism from the Animalia kingdom because harming animals is immoral?

After proofreading, these sound more aggressive/argumentative than i had intended but they get the point across.

How would you define creature?