I don’t know what you are smoking. But you need to stop. For your own good.

You’re trying to go into this massive tangent away from the topic and I’m just not going to follow.

I’ve already told you clearly what I mean and what I don’t mean. I’m not going to argue with you about how you personally percieve something. I’m sorry you feel that way.

I love ice cream, but I would never order a banana split. So that means I judge those that do? That I see myself above those that like banana split? The answer is no. I just don’t like banana split. You do you. Each to their own. Whatever floats your boat.

You’re the one reading into it. We’re talking about art. People like different art. And that’s ok. I do not imply any form of superiority, moral or otherwise when I say “you do you”. So you can scratch that off.

I have loads of stuff around my place that honestly, are not particularly beautiful or amazing in any way. But the artist is very dear to me, for various reasons. So I like to have them on display.

Why does it matter so much to you that some people would prefer to avoid artists due to their conduct? It doesn’t affect you. You just want to make it about yourself, by thinking that we judge you for listening/watching/buying/whatever from the artist. The world doesn’t revolve around you.

I don’t think you’re a bad person for enjoying Chris Browns music. I don’t think about you, at all.

First off, Nice strawman by the way.

Second, It is FAR from the same thing. I’m not uncomfortable being near something some awful person have been near. People have walked on the street I walk on, for several hundreds of years. I have no doubt some truly terrible people have traversed that road.

But I don’t want their artwork at display in my house. What I put on display in my house, is a reflection of me and my taste. Which is why I don’t want to have such artwork from such a person.

If you’re fine with it, good for you. I have not once said it would be wrong. I’ve not once said no one can or should have such things. Only that I personally, wouldn’t want to.

You not being able to differentiate what people are comfortable with in their own home, and what they tolerate in public, is the centerpiece of your argument. Not a particularly strong foundation since it’s based on nothing but your own misconception

That is certainly a personal preference someone might have. But the point is, if you know the painting you have displayed, is made by a child molester. You might not feel particularly comfortable with having his painting. Despite it being an otherwise beautiful piece of art.

I don’t care if Hitlers paintings are worth lots of money today. I wouldn’t want it anywhere near my place.

Imagine not being able to read the title correctly. It’s not about your painter thinking differently or voting differently. It’s about your painters actions.

He made a beautiful, remarkable signed painting. It’s the center piece in your living room. And then it comes out he was was abducting, raping, and killing women.

The painting looks the same. 1 week later his name will fade and no one remembers. But you might feel a lot differently about it knowing it was his painting. I’m not gonna claim it’s right or wrong whatever you decide. You do you. But im sure you can appreciate the potential moral dilemma.

You freeze them.

Probably. Being electrocuted can range anywhere from insanely painful to death in 0.1 seconds depending on the ampage

What part of “don’t torture an animal to death” is it you struggle with?

You sound like one of those disturbed kids that pull legs off of bugs or slowly crush various body parts until it stops moving.

If you’re gonna kill something, give it a swift death with minimal suffering. It’s really not that complicated.

I’d say as a rule of thumb, don’t boil anything alive…

You’re confusing sentience with self-awareness

Please stop using "even Hitler … " It just doesn’t work.

I don’t know. Difficult to see on the outside if he removed an internal microphone or not.

You’re not deleting the data. Just the adress to the data.

Still not a kill switch.

I’m just gonna say this. The former head of CIA had his laptop camera taped over. If he doesn’t trust the digital toggle. Neither should you.

Repeat after me. “There is no such thing as a non physical kill switch”

Very informative to get a refreshed guide on beer making. And I must concede my original perception wasn’t accurate.

I suppose my confusion comes from the difference between beer and beer. Just like I think there’s a difference between a steak and a steak.

I know breweries have it down to a science, with lots and lots of steps to get their perfect taste each and every time. Which is what I’ve been drinking as a lager beer.

I was wrong. Making beer is not that complex. It’s making a good beer on a large scale that is.

You need lots of test subjects, control groups, “blind tests”. And someone need to manage everything so it can be done in a controlled environment.

It’s really not as simple as just having a bunch of people testing it. You introduce placebo that way. Which the “official” process eliminates through their control groups and by injecting nothing but saline solutions while telling you it’s the real deal.

Or rather. You are made aware you may or may not recieve the real deal. You just don’t know.

Those side effects are not common. Because they would be unacceptable and “eliminated” before moving on to human trials. I put that in quotation marks because there’s probably a non zero risk. Just astronomically small.

Example. People have been observed getting drunk on non alcoholic drinks. But they’re not really drunk, they just think they are.

Yeah, I’ve gathered from these replies that the legal definition of what is “beer” is very different in other places if that’s what you consider a “beer”.

My dad worked at a brewery for a while. I’ve been there and seen the equipment at a tour and had the process explained to me. I suppose you COULD do it at home. But it’s by no means a simple process.

There’s a big difference between beer and “beer”. At least where I live. Maybe the legal definition is more liberal in other places.

I don’t know what you consider the “whole official process” but it exists for good reasons.

Yeast-based vaccines seem cool, and ingestion based vaccines rather than injection increases the availability, but also counterfits. But as someone said in the article. You cannot draw conclusions from two test subjects.

Does it make pregnant women miscarry? Does it make them sterrile? How does it affect those with different blood types? how does it interact with other types of commonly taken medications? Or even food for that matter.

Don’t you think it would be good to know those things ahead of time? Because that’s what the “whole official process” is about.