So which sense do we use to interpret the rules set out on how to get/treat slaves? How is that interpreted? Is it a metaphor? And how do you know which is which?

What it sounds like is you have lots of leeway to account for what you choose to believe is truth or fiction to fit your needs at any given moment. And if you're not sure what, if any, is literally true, how do you know there's a god at all? And you're defending Catholicism, which is in for an even more uphill battle than most because it's been around longer and has to account for all the beliefs that have had to be updated as knowledge and culture had changed.

To maybe build on this a little, as someone who grew up in a household with a parent with anger issues who would take their own frustrations out on the family, it definitely helps as something to avoid, but I've found that my inward reactions have gotten better as well once I realized that anger being my immediate reaction was due to growing up in an environment where that was normalized. Even if at the time it could be frightening and I knew even then that it was bad, the human brain is funny and children are impressionable.

I was in my 30s before I came to terms with the fact that my anger issues, however well controlled the outbursts were and no matter how much I avoided letting other people know it was happening, they were still there and I was still following in the steps of my father emotionally. And recognizing that it's not how everyone feels and it's not just "how my brain works," but conditioning, and conditioning that can be broken. Similarly, I would remove myself and reflect, but I'd start to focus less on me and my reactions and force more empathy by thinking about the person or thing or situation and what led to me being upset. Eventually it got to the point where now my immediate reaction is to rationalize the situation before I emotionally respond. If I think through it and I feel I should actually still be upset, then I can confront it, but in calmer and more rational state, confident that I'm probably justified.

It still happens sometimes. Mostly it's the normal irritability that everyone feels when they're stressed or tired. And sometimes that old habit comes back and I react a little more hotly than I should for no reason. I have cats that, like your dogs, even if the anger is not directed anywhere near them, they get scared. Seeing that pulls me out real quick and I'll calm down if only just to calm them, then give then scritches and pats to let them know it's okay and they're safe. So I'd probably say that even just having them around has given me a little accountability to help as well and made it easier to avoid. Say I'm having one of those days where I'm just clumsy and uncoordinated and keep dropping or breaking things. I get real close, but my reaction will immediately be to think about making sure they don't get upset. I think it helps over-wright that anger conditioning with conditioning myself to focus on something else.

So the conclusion I've come to, literally just now while typing all this since I haven't given it a ton of active thought before, is that the conditioning to that reaction has to be broken, and that's usually easier by replacing it so you don't even go to anger, but to something else every time. As every therapist I've ever been to says, you also can't feel shame or upset with yourself for the anger. It's a thing that you want to work on and the bet way to fix it is to dispassionately view it and work on it. Beating yourself up will only make it worse.

Because I don't want to worry about finding a new backpack every time I just have everyone have 2 backpacks for selling items, then just before I sell I go to everyone's backpacks and just mark everything as wares. Although, honestly I started doing it because I wasn't positive that it was giving me the price for the items in the pack and not just the pack itself early on. It's routine now.

I have a gilded chest in my camp supplies specifically for souvenirs. I also use chests for organization in the same camp chest. One for each weapon/armor type that I'm holding onto in case I decide to respec someone later and I need a different aspect on their armor.

But if it can survive on it's own, it's not aborted. Were it legal to remove the fetus at that point, then it's a delivery. It can survive on it's own without being attached to the another's body, so they would deliver it early.

You make a lot of assumptions there though, don't you? You're assuming that you would be motivated to "return the favor," but where does that motivation come from? Humans reciprocal acts are learned traits. There's nothing they get in return for that act alone. The return only comes from the potential impact on the community, which is a social function, not biological.

I used lions as a contrast specifically because they're behavior is different. They are baser creatures who's community does come directly from biology and it's drastically different. I also also gave canines as an example because they are specifically social animals and those behaviors that are similar to ours are derived from the social aspect, not biological since it's community specific, not species.

Sociology studies how humans behave as groups in relation to each other. It's specifically about the things you're describing. Evolution drives us to pass our genes on. That's it. What you're saying can be just as easily used to trace literally everything humans do back to evolution. The argument could just as easily be made that religion is a result of evolution. Humans are curious because looking for answers gave us a cognitive advantage over competition. That trait leads us to searching for answers. If none are available, we find one. And now we have gods. But religion is organized and requires groups, which brings us back to sociology again.

I mean, on a molecular level there is no difference. I feel like they even did the whole ship of Theseus thing several times. And the obvious one is the 2nd Riker. Enterprise (the series, not the ship) saw the addition of transporters to starships and they talked about it a lot in that episode. Bones in the original refused to use them because he understood the science of it and knew people were essentially being killed and reassembled every time they were transported.

I always got the impressions that people who said non-replicated food tasted better were either deluding themselves or that extra flavor they attribute to the food is like, non food things in it. Leftover dirt, mold starting to grow.... Kind of like how completely filtered water is tasteless when the minerals and other fine particulates are removed. Transporters, as a side effect of how they work, remove illnesses from the body (Except when it needs to not for plot reasons. And don't get me started on the billions of bacteria that exist in our body all the time that are necessary for life that wouldn't count as "you"). So presumably, they would remove all those tiny things in food if transported, and obviously wouldn't create them in the first place if replicated.

Edge is just Chromium. When they retired IE they switched. It might still work better because it's the default supposedly built to work with their products so their tweaks should help. But it is Teams and they've been doing a lot more updates lately. Did you update to the new version of Teams they've been pushing? It's bad and it's performance is bad, so that can cause issues.

Because time and direction are different metrics? West is a metric that only means anything in relation to something else in a straight line. It's a direction. West doesn't stop being west if you go too far. It's always west.

I can't look at their sources, so I'm going to believe them, buuut that is death per energy units. And I can't argue that nuclear isn't more efficient and generally safe. Presumably though, those injuries from wind are from construction primarily? Nuclear power plants have been out of fashion since the 80s for some reason, so there aren't really equal opportunities for construction incidents to compare that while wind construction has been on the rise. And I can only assume that after construction, the chance incidents only go down for wind while they can really only go up for nuclear.

None of that is to say that nuclear is bad and we shouldn't use it. Statistics like this just always bug me. Globally we receive more energy from wind than nuclear. It stands to reason that there's more opportunity for deaths. It's a 1 dimensional stat that can easily be manipulated. it's per thousand terawatt per hour, including deaths from pollution. So I got curious and did some Googling.

After sorting through a bunch of sites without quite the information I was looking for, I found some interesting facts. I was wrong in my assertion that wind deaths don't go up after being built. Turns out, most of those deaths come from maintenance. It does seem to vary by country, and I can't find it broken down by country like I wanted. It's possible that safety protections for workers could shift it. But surprisingly, maintenance deaths from nuclear power are virtually non existent from what I can tell. It seems like the main thing putting nuclear on that list at all is including major incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Well, Fukushima has really only been attributed for 4 deaths total. And Chernobyl was obviously preventable. So it looks like you're right! Statistically, when including context, is definitely the least deadly energy source (if we ignore solar).

But, how are you getting other people on board with your actions? How are you convincing others that the thing you think is harmful needs to be stopped? Voting with action requires group solidarity.

Say, we take this post as an example. These companies are doing unethical things, then lying to the public about it's good while raking in dollars. Sure, you and I may see through it, but have you met people? They're idiots and likely to just take everything at face value. You can just quietly shake your head and take your dollars elsewhere while droves of consumers keep giving them money. That's fine. But you haven't actually don anything. Your singular dollars don't have an effect. People have to know about things to act on those things.

That's where complaining comes in! Someone has to sound the alarm for people to take notice and make changes in their own life.

I get it. You're already on board with what this guy is saying and don't need to be informed. But other people do exist. People who may have not heard it phrased in a way that won them over. Circlejerking over an issue is definitely annoying, but I don't know that this single post counts as that. If every post here is just complaining, I'll agree that it should be slowed down. But complaining the second a single person tries to draw attention to as issue is going to get the opposite of the results you claim to want.

Vote with your dollars, don't complain?

Genuinely asking, is that what you're trying to say?

I'm guessing the market will just sort it all out, right?