This really didn’t need the big nose. Using antisemitic tropes in critique of Israel plays right into the hands of their propaganda. Those genociders want to be the victims, so any critique can be stamped as antisemitism. Don’t play their game.

Easy solution, only date bottoms

What I’m saying is that warp drives are well within the science-fiction category, and not really applicable to the meme. In a warp bubble, you’re never actually reaching a significant fraction of the speed of light. The meme specifically talks about time dilation, and so did my caveat

“The essence of my happiness is fighting for the happiness of others. It’s strange, why is it that in grammar, the word “happiness” can only be singular? That is counter to its meaning, after all. … If it turns necessary to die for the common happiness, then I’m braced to.”

What a badass.

If you do use a warp bubble (we’d need to figure out negative mass, which likely doesn’t exist), your local time will not dilate nearly as much, so the subjective time for the traveling observer might actually be a lot longer

And to time it right, you need to either not reach light speed, or have some external help to decelerate. Every clock or circuitry you bring with you also slows to a halt

I’m glad that my random physics friend group aren’t the only ones that call them lesbian integrals

Easy mistake to make, if you messed up your normalizations doing the same think again might give your √2π or 2π cats back, instead

you seem misinformed, ‘carnist’ and by extension ‘carnie’ has nothing to do with the carnivore diet, but with carnism:

Carnism is a concept used in discussions of humanity’s relation to other animals, defined as a prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat.[1] Carnism is presented as a dominant belief system supported by a variety of defense mechanisms and mostly unchallenged assumptions.[1][2][3][4]

I’m curious, how do you use a branch of philosophy, that’s concerned with the abstract theory of knowledge and the limits of human reasoning, in conversations?

it’s epistemology, btw

ethical vegans (and not people who eat plant-based for nutritional reasons, and often get conflated with people doing it for ethics reasons) generally agree on one very simple rule:

To reduce, as much as possible, the suffering inflicted upon animals.

That’s it.

Where that line is drawn of course depends on your personal circumstances. Some people require life-saving medicine that includes animal products, and are generally still considered vegan.

I’d like to see what about this confuses you and your epistomology [sic, and that word doesn’t mean what you think it means]