Yeah, I think this is a great idea. An automatic implementation would be easy if it’s a repeat of a that was already posted. Somewhat more difficult if it’s the same news but from a different source - dunno if that’s even technically a repost but it kind of is.

That’s not a terrible idea - it would be a link to the existing discussion of the topic, which is informative. I like that better than people just whining RePoSt!!1!

Shouldn’t be just electrons though - don’t all instances of any given type of subatomic particle have the same mass and charge?

People who have already seen something know they’ve seen it. They can just skip it. To somebody else it will be new. The vast majority of items being called reposts on reddit were things I had never seen. Whining about reposts might give someone a false sense of accomplishment, but I found it to be useless noise.

My thoughts exactly. On reddit I used to reply to repost complaints, which I find annoying, by saying that they were the most reposted thing I saw. But tbh their frequency has seemed to decrease, almost as if they’re being auto-removed. If so, I appreciate it. A subject showing up repeatedly just means somebody’s still interested in it.

Along the same theoretical lines, it seems plausible to me that the inner stresses of being an asshole might do the same thing. So maybe there’s some justice in the world after all.

You can also just talk normally to your kids without being a snob about anything.

Technically this could all be true even if the universe were created 4000 years ago. As somebody says in Robert Heinlein’s novel Job: A Comedy of Justice, “Yes, the universe is billions of years old, but it was created 4000 years ago. It was created old.” (approximate quote from memory)

I absolutely agree with science, but strictly speaking we can’t know for sure the universe isn’t the creation of some superbeing operating outside of it - or it could even be a simulation.

Following the pope’s dictums is the very definition of Catholicism. As a former Catholic myself, the comparison seems entirely apt. Clearly we disagree. Continuing to just say “No U!” seems like the kind of pointless waste of time that belongs on reddit.

That’s fine, but this organization isn’t the same as saying “vegans” any more than the Catholic Church is the same as saying “Catholics”. The church disapproves of birth control, extramarital sex and a lot of other things Catholics commonly do. I’m sure there are endless debates about whether individual vegans are vegan enough.

Not sure why this triggered a snarky response unless Ted is just waving a monkey puppet for internet points. Talking normally to kids is not rocket science, and it’s not stereotypical yuppies desperate to get their gifted darlings into AP class. It’s very simple - little kids can handle normal speech just fine, so why use baby talk?

Apparently there are conflicting standards.

Cool idea, except the pirates wouldn’t be part of it cuz the era you’re calling the “old west” didn’t start in 1800 - westward expansion was in its early beginnings then. The classic era of gunslingers and saloons and stuff was really a very brief period between the Civil War and the 1890s. Another forgotten bit of trivia about that time is that around 25% of cowboys then were black.

Sounds like it’s not the honey it’s the production system, so honey from wild bees would be vegan. Okay.

Know what’s real? Stupid pointless troll posts.

Many Indians I’ve worked with are sort of semi-vegetarian, eating meat but only on certain days. I think that’s specific religious doctrine rather than a general attitude about animals - like Catholics eating fish on Friday.

The response I’ve heard for that one is that domesticated animals are dependent on us because we’ve bred their survival capabilities out of them. People originally just captured wild animals and put a fence around them. Selectively breeding only the more docile ones has turned them into something they wouldn’t have been without our interference. To me that part makes sense, but the present reality is still what it is, and what you’re saying is still true.

Playing devil’s advocate, this could be sidestepping the issue, because the honey is only an unintended side effect from your friend’s POV, not the bee’s.

I think that’s actually a very valid point. What level of involvement in producing the food makes it vegan or not vegan? If eating honey is unethical I would think so is eating food produced by the hard work of another person.

Zoidberg once heard Fry say blood was thicker than water and wrote down: “Blood…thicker!”