2/4 ain't bad.

I like the fact that it’s free as in freedom.

Freedom subject to the instance you are signed up to (and posting to) , unless you run your own, but if you do that why are on .world ?

I like that there are intelligent people; the collective is extremely frustrating and intellectually lazy, but there are actual thought-provoking interactions by people who put in actual effort.

If you are looking for this in a community called "Lemmy Shitpost" i have an exciting bridge based opportunity in which i think you'll be interested.

Being a person of evident intellect, I’m sure you'll recognise an opportunity when you see one.

In theory they are supposed to pay a commensurate amount of taxes.

Different how, isn't github owned by microsoft ?

i always thought of it as the general worsening of something in the pursuit of the short term increase in capitalist benefits (or the delusion of such).

It's used a lot for products and/or services but underlying those is probably the enshittification of all the supporting structures, mental and physical health of the workers etc.

I could be wrong however.

I'm sure you understand the issue isn't the actual field but the premise behind why it's being added.

Real question, what if there is no cognitive dissonance.

Like someone who knows exactly what's going on and says "fuck it, it's delicious" ?

Ah the tried and tested "it's ok if it's my property" which historically(and currently) is a universal guideline for what is and isn't ok.

Murder isn't a violation of the US definition of free speech, unless the government does the murdering.

Still a crime, but not a constitutional free speech violation.

That's like looking at a tennis match and asking "how does wearing white win the game?".

Ignoring context to feign confusion is some weaksauce trolling.

Another indication you haven't actually read any of the papers, even the titles

3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.

I'm aware the title of the post you linked to was exclusivity about cats, the content of the majority of papers was not.

No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren't going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.

Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.

However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.

I'm assuming you don't have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn't actually change the content of the response.

Feel free to surprise me though.

So you'd be good with phrases such as "God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time" to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?

Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people's shared belief in them.

Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn't make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.

"God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time"

vs

"Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time"

Goddammit, gonna lose me some internet points but it's just too juicy.

"Pedant"