JohnDoe

I don't quite understand, Satan is a contentious figure in Christianity (and maybe other Abrahamic religions? idk, not knowledgeable about it) and it's reasonable to be worried or concerned as an adult about what interests the youth might have. And it really seems the opposition is simply speaking platitudes. They haven't demonstrated 1. it is not a faith, and 2. it causes harm. The folks who are opposed surely can't have their preferred beliefs determine the beliefs of others in areas where it's clear there is not immediate harm.

It doesn't always line up perfectly to the cardinal directions and that confuses me :/

Fair assessment. It generally seems to be a way of conditioning the argument to prevent further or critical discourse. Honestly with how deprived folks in the US are (as I am in my country), I think it is a bit condescending to rain on their parade. What else would they look forward to? The widening gap in wealth inequality? The increase in infant mortality? The support of genocidal regimes? Working on the positives and what people want might be a better strategy. I will say I do appreciate your comment even if others don't think it's insightful, it made me pause and think a bit.

That said, I am glad this is implemented, and I don't have evidence (read: haven't seen anything or bothered to look too much into it) this project will fair worse than others which appeared to be 'too good to be true', baring such evidence and with the general sentiment that this makes total sense, I want to say it's fair that it would be done even if it is being done decades late.

I think it's work that does the work, a tautology, I think using money as a proxy for work is a convenient hop and skip. When it comes down to a rigorous analysis (of the kind say a climate scientist does in a life-cycle assessment money is to vague a reason. What does it represent? Some amount of gold? Well, the US dollar is no longer pegged to gold à la Bretton Woods, how then does 'money talk'?

I was meaning to respond but I think other's have. I have one of those 30+ min YouTube videos or similarly ridiculously long blog posts (and a longform article somewhere...) though I think you might not be interested so I'll keep it to myself unless you are interested in a good faith argument (argument, root word is the latin argumentum, to make clear; prove), I would rather not waste your time or my breath if that isn't the case.

Fair, this might be a stylistic thing. I'll def try and see how it goes.

The rule of law in a specific geographic area in a specific period of time isn't nearly as important as the meaning conveyed which is misleading.

Rather than missing the forest for the trees, why might he push for the title of founder? Why might some discredit his efforts and tactics in assuming the founder of title in specific contexts?

He did not play a meaningful role in the beginning of the company and is not responsible for its success. Money was responsible, the two founders' expertise was responsible, that specific person is not special enough for their contribution to matter much. Anyone can supply capital especially during the inflated economic conditions (of which we are suffering the consequences of now) and during the time where EV and technology at large was developed enough to allow such developments to take place.

Yeah I think what I dislike about that is it breaks up the flow of whatever I am writing. There's a coherence that is lost.

I'm accustomed to reading books or essays where there might be an excerpt, but more likely a paraphrase of what the author considers their opponent's argument to be. This makes it helpful at times to pinpoint a misunderstanding in the author.

But yeah, having consistent rules on the internet for posting is a losing battle I think. More or less thinking out loud, appreciate the comment.

Wish there was common nomenclature for referring to posters or parts of a comment to make the context clearer. Friends say I am on the spectrum but the Psychologist said that doesn't seem to be the case.

Like, OP1 is lame, OP2 supports genocide, etc. to clarify within a thread without having to quote or @ which I find a bit clumsy and generally gets in the way of flow.

Wait, I'm even more confused. Are you saying the OP who posted is creating the demarcations for groups?

Willing to admit my ignorance. Thanks for the info.

It's the right kind of doctor, it checks out!