SPOILERS for all ahead:
Can the Joker universe (Joker and Joker: Folie a Deux) and The Batman universe (The Batman, its upcoming sequels, and The Penguin TV series) be considered the same continuity in headcanon, even if not in reality?
The way they're structured seems like they almost could be in the same universe, and many people questioned if they were at some point before it was confirmed they weren't. Joker kind of acts as an origin story for the Batman mythos and his "Rogues Gallery" generally, not for any specific version of Batman, but it seems to connect quite well with Matt Reeves' The Batman: Bruce Wayne is a child in Joker, Harvey Dent is quite young in Folie a Deux and just had his villain arc set up, and the new version of the Joker we see in Arkham at the end of the second movie was also not much older than Bruce at the time, so that they could serve as villains for him once he grew up. And we seemingly saw a version of the Joker in Arkham at the end of The Batman; maybe that's him, or yet another person who carried on the mantle of the Joker that was established in the 2 Joker films.
I want to make clear that I'm not asking if they are in the same universe, I know they're not (officially)... nor am I asking if they should cross over in some way, I don't think they should. Just whether they could be compatible in theory.
Also, I'm aware that the tone is different, though very similar. I don't think The Batman's depicition of Gotham, Arkham and society in general are quite as bleak/cynical or the people in it are quite as horrible as in Joker's version, but Joker is seemingly set a long time before The Batman so that could explain the differences there as the society progressed and became a bit less harsh by the time of The Batman. They share a gritty, slightly mature style focused on Gotham's underworld and the grounded nature of only showing criminals and people that could exist in reality.
The one continuity issue I see is regarding what happened to Bruce Wayne's parents, but if that one element was removed could they otherwise be conciliated? Also, couldn't we just argue that the criminals that killed his parents in The Batman were actually Joker's followers just presented differently (and with different actors playing his parents of course)? We didn't see much of that time period when Bruce was a kid in The Batman, so it's possible there was an Arthur Fleck that had started a riot at the time?
All of the info about why added sugar is unhealthy compared to fruits seems to be that the sugar in fruit comes with fibre and nutrients that offset the negative health impacts of sugar to a degree by delaying its absorption and preventing a blood sugar spike.
However, by this reasoning alone, wouldn't it be possible to infer that if added sugar was paired with the same amount of fibre and nutrients, its effects could be mitigated in the same way as they are in fruit?
Well I haven't found any evidence either supporting or negating this idea or anyone even talking about that question specifically aside from a few other people asking the same thing, and random people replying without citing any evidence. For example someone suggested that indeed taking this approach may work a little bit, but it still won't be as healthy as eating fruit due to the "fibre-infused food matrix" of fruit or that sugar that is found naturally in fruits is "complexed" with fiber that slows down the absorption more, whereas the added sugar is more freely available to absorb quickly because it's separate from the fibre even if eaten together with it (though the separate fibre will still do some of the same job but not as well)?
"It can slow the absorption of sugar slightly but won't make a huge difference. Sugar from wholefruit and veg will always be processed differently due to the food matrix the sugars contained in that must be vroken down resulting in a slow and gradual release, when u eat added sugar but just have some fiber all that sugar is still there readily available to absorb. Overall it would be better to just stick to fruit and eat mixed macro meals with healthy unsaturated fats and proteins"
Well if possible I would like to see some scientific evidence/studies talking specifically about the difference on the body between consuming whole fruits containing their natural sugar and fibre + nutrients, compared to consuming added sugar along with foods containing fibre and nutrients in equivalent amounts (such as bircher muesli with added palm sugar, or another example if necessary for the sake of equalizing the fibre+nutrients content), and ideally health outcome data showing there is actually a difference between these...
And just more information in general about the idea of naturally occurring sugar and fibre contained together in a single food matrix being different/more healthy than added sugar taken together with separate fibre foods.
Thanks
It's a classic techno song that might be described as euro trance. I think I've heard the song but I'm asking for a friend. It might be an instance of the Mandela effect because the song can't seem to be found anywhere.
We are capable if we stop being selfish and go vegan
It's a classic techno song that might be described as EuroTrance. I think I've heard the song but I'm asking for a friend. It's possible it might be an instance of the Mandela effect because the song can't be found anywhere.
Here is the fallacy I'm describing:
Someone defends their own actions, or someone else's actions, as acceptable/justified or necessary, on the basis that those actions might be necessary or justified in certain circumstances, referencing other individuals or circumstances for which it might be necessary or justified, despite their own circumstances/the circumstances in question not having the same elements that would require it or justify it.
For example, someone defends the actions of someone who murdered another person unnecessarily because they disliked them (e.g.), using the argument that there might be people who need to kill in self-defense or in a survival situation for whom it might be justified, despite that not applying to the situation in question.
I'll attempt to write the form of the fallacy here:
X is justified in Y case.
Someone does X in Z case.
X is justified in Z case because X would be justified in Y case.
It's a fallacy because:
What is true of Y case doesn't necessarily apply to Z case; the elements/circumstances of Y case that would make X justified may not be present in Z case, and therefore even if X is justified in Y case it wouldn't automatically be justified in Z case as a consequence.
I'm of the view that this is a semantic question where we have a word, "pile", that describes a general amount but doesn't have a specified quantity to it, and so the only way we can determine the amount of units required to constitute a pile at the bare minimum, is through public consensus on the most commonly shared idea we generally have when we think of a pile.
I also think it's possible for there to be a "range of graduation" between a non-pile and a pile, so for example "a non-pile becomes a pile somewhere between x grains and x grains" (depending on what most people think this range is), and if a given number of grains falls below this range, it would necessarily be only a minority of people that would still accept it to be a pile.
So I plan to count the answers here and see if we can come to some kind of consensus or at least most common or average opinion. For sake of not skewing the results, I won't suggest my opinion on what I think the number or range of grains is upon which a non-pile becomes a pile. What do you think it is?
Is there Life on Maaaaaaarrrrrrrr-a-Lago..... ((song)[https://youtu.be/AZKcl4-tcuo?si=0JktuCh_EH-T0T5w])
I misread the question.
By everyone, I mean nonhumans (nonhuman animals).
By playing beatbox music and making everyone stay away from me while I grew corn and ate it slowly in front of them while they watched me cautiously from a distance.
Not necessarily (you may or may not) but you shouldn't be because Dairy is Scary (It's a joke calm down)
Someone told me Thoth was a messenger god but I and everyone else are too dumb to understand what his message was.
For example, if you said that someone had been fooled by something, would they take offense and think you're calling them a fool or foolish?
What if you say someone's been "played for a fool"?
I feel like often people ask me "Oh yea? Name some examples." and the burden is on me to prove something by providing representative examples. But often it's so overwhelming how many examples there are for something that I feel obligated then to either list everything, or try extra hard to find good examples, and even then I feel like I could be misrepresenting the case by not providing enough examples. Basically I feel like I would have to give many, many examples, or none at all, otherwise anything in the middle could be non-representative of the true trend.
Ironically, now you will want me to give examples of situations that I'm talking about. But for this I will provide 2 examples and rest on good faith that you will believe me (given the context of this post) that this happens much more often than I care to provide examples for.
So one example is when you are attempting to prove to someone that a certain thing is scientifically proven or is agreed upon as scientific consensus. You can look to the generally agreed hierarchy of evidence and provide what it considers to be high-quality evidence, such as meta analyses and systematic reviews, but even then there can be disagreement between specific reports, and there can be outliers that disagree with the overall most common trends or findings. So the only way to really prove something is to provide many, many different instances of scientific evidence to the point where the other person would be unable to find the same level or amount of evidence to the contrary by virtue of the fact that it doesn't exist to the same overwhelming degree, essentially proving the scientific fact. But again, this takes either an enormous amount of high quality evidence from various different sources, or nothing at all and simply an assertion that something is in fact scientifically proven or agreed upon as scientific consensus, because anything else in the middle could misrepresent the case and make it seem less substantiated than it actually is. It's either "all or nothing".
And now I'll provide a specific anecdote about someone who argued that there are no decent stories with a female main protagonist. I am so sure and believe it to be so obvious that there is an extensive history of great female main protagonists and female-driven stories, in all forms of storytelling, that I found this an overwhelming task to attempt to prove when the person asked for specific examples. How can I make the case of the wealth of good stories with female main characters without providing an exhaustive (or highly numerous) list? Even if I pick a few great examples, the person can always make the objection that "Those are an exception, and they don't represent the overall trend." and I risk misrepresenting that trend if the examples chosen aren't the best ones available, too. How can you possibly prove something like that without a very long and well-thought out and extensively researched list? Again, it seems like it's either attempt such a daunting task, or don't engage with the request for examples at all and just assert the claim that there are many examples, without specifying any to avoid the risk of taking on the burden of proving it and possibly misrepresenting the trend.
I hope this made any sense at all.
You're right technically... but i should have said "fictional story" and "plays multiple characters"
Extras/other people in the background are acceptable to meet the criteria but ideally with no human/entity on the screen at all that isn't played by the same actor.
Movies like 'Men', 'Moon' or 'The Nutty Professor' don't meet this criteria for example, due to the exceptions of characters played by other actors.
And it has to be somewhat mainstream and not a low budget student film or something.
Edit: I also meant that they play multiple characters...
And I'll paste my other example here:
Another example might involve arguing that the disposal of hazardous waste is necessary because it's a byproduct of a particular manufacturing process, while ignoring the question of whether that manufacturing process itself is essential or necessary. This fallacy occurs when one justifies an undesirable or harmful element as a necessary component of a larger practice or system without questioning the necessity of the entire system or practice.
Thanks, that's almost what I mean, but I might modify your examples slightly. They're good examples to work from lol (I'm pretty bad at coming up with scenarios that fit what I'm talking about). Sorry if this sounds kind of crazy:
Jess wants to draw a picture of a bird. For this, since Jess is completely broke and homeless, she would need to rob an art store to get art supplies. (Let's say for sake of example that there is genuinely no other way for her to obtain art supplies to draw the picture). Jess justifies this act of robbing the store in order to draw her bird picture because there's no other way she can make the picture otherwise. She makes the claim that robbing the art store is necessary in absolute terms, while overlooking or ignoring the fact that drawing the picture of the bird isn't necessary in the first place (even though she might desire to draw it, she doesn't need to, and therefore doesn't need to rob the art store, either).
Or...
When Alan plays tennis, his knee hurts. Alan has a strange condition that his knee only hurts after he plays tennis. When his knee hurts, he has to put ice on it, which requires an expensive refrigerator with an ice machine since that's the only way he can possibly get a good supply of ice in his situation (hypothetically). Alan then decides to buy the expensive refrigerator with stolen money from his grandma, and claims that it's an absolute requirement for him to, without considering the fact that he doesn't actually need to play tennis, though he might want to.
In both cases, someone is claiming that something (an action, state, etc) is necessary overall, because it's part of a larger goal/endeavour; without addressing the reality that it would only be necessary as a component of that larger goal that it would be in service of, if that larger goal was necessary, which in fact it isn't (and therefore neither are any components that would be required to achieve it).
I hope this makes sense :)
An action is cruel if it causes unnecessary suffering, period. The lack of an intention to cause suffering is irrelevant if the action does cause suffering and doesn't need to happen, and we are aware of the harm it does. Which we are. Continuing to engage in the practice is therefore willingly causing needless suffering, which is unethical.
I literally never said it was rape. I previously said it was a sexual violation, but I genuinely used the example of raping a human for a different reason, as an example of a practice that is unethical despite the fact it may not be intended to cause suffering (but does, and is unnecessary) If you can't cop that, that's your problem.
And yet, you bluntly try to argue that causing needless suffering to animals isn't cruel. You must be addicted to dairy or something (it does have casein, which breaks down into casomorphin in the body and has addictive properties). Either way you're clearly a sick person given how little empathy you demonstrate towards animals.
That's funny, notice I never said artificial insemination was rape. I guess that's something you assumed given that it is very comparable to rape, and is undoubtedly a sexual violation, regardless of its intention (which is ultimately unnecessary). And it's not a veterinary procedure, it's a farming practice with the end goal of producing a product to sell that the animal is exploited for.
I was using rape as an example of a practice that causes suffering and which is unethical despite the fact that causing suffering isn't the motivation for doing it (necessarily), in response to you trying to argue that something that causes suffering isn't unethical if suffering isn't the intention. If something causes unnecessary suffering, it's unethical, regardless of the intention.
No, we're talking about producing a particular kind of food that isn't necessary. Kicking a dog isn't necessary and neither is exploiting cows for their milk and causing them and their calves suffering and ultimately killing them at young ages. Both are harmful practices which can be avoided.
You're the one rendering yourself as completely devoid of empathy in your attempts to defend dairy farming and to argue that causing needless suffering to animals isn't cruel or unethical. Are you a dairy farmer? If not, I really wonder why you're so intent on defending it.
I don't need to defend an opposition to dairy farming. It makes sense to be opposed to unnecessary harm to animals. It's a rational position. Yours is not.
I already clarified that by dairy farming I mean on a scale that actually provides for a human populace, not simply in a contained circumstance that wouldn't be replicated anywhere else. Your arguments are ridiculous.
Raping someone not to cause them suffering but to gain something out of it is (pleasure, or a baby) is unethical. Something unnecessary that causes suffering doesn't need to be done for the express purpose of causing a being suffering in order to be unethical.
Pretty much every ethical framework that exists would find that causing needless harm and suffering to animals is unethical. Kicking a dog when you don't need to is unethical. Similarly, stealing a baby from their mother, restricting them in a crate, and killing them, causing the mother extreme emotional anguish, is unethical; causing her pain from overproducing milk is unethical; given that dairy farming is itself unnecessary.
You're making no sense and revealing yourself to have no regard for animals' lives and experiences. Causing unnecessary suffering isn't cruel? Good luck convincing any rational person with a shred of empathy to agree with you.
And dairy farming is not necessary for society. In a society that involves dairy farming, a person may argue that they need to participate in it if it's the only way they can work. If it didn't exist, they wouldn't need to. Again you made the fallacy of assuming something is necessary despite it being part of an unnecessary system.
Are you now trying to claim that animals don't have cognition despite the fact they're sentient and intelligent beings?
Or just "I don't do drugs", or "I don't do recreational drugs"?
Or "I don't smoke weed" and "I don't drink alcohol" when they come up, separately?
I wouldn't generally say it at all unless I'm in a situation where I'm offered recreational drugs such as cannabis or alcohol.
My understanding is the term 'straight edge' might be more well known than 'teetotal', but neither are completely known by everyone.
I take straight edge to mean not doing any recreational drugs. However I read that straight edge can have punk culture connotations that some people might maintain are part of it. Like I might meet a punk straight edger who claims I'm not really straight edge unless I have connections to the punk scene. They also apparently often claim you need to be vegan to be straight edge, I am vegan though coincidentally but not for reasons relating to straight edge culture.
Teetotal I believe most often means abstinence from simply alcohol, but can be used to mean abstaining from all recreational drugs (I think). It may be more well known as just not drinking alcohol. For example teetotallers often still smoke weed.
Apologies if I misrepresented any of these terms.
I don't mean IPA symbols (which I can't read) but rather characters from a normal alphabet being used to phoneticise a word, e.g. excerpt is pronounced "[EK] + [SURPT]". What would this be called? Letter-based phoneticisation?
The show feels like a mix of 'Mr. Robot', 'You', and 'Breaking Bad'.
Excellent series, too bad not enough people know about it. Incredibly unique and well done. From ep 1 it's great. I watched the whole 3 seasons and am now waiting for the 4th to come out.
I made a post on asklemmy @ lemmy.ml and it was deleted by mods apparently due to "super toxic comments" that users made. I didn't get a chance to view all the comments and still would like to. However, using this backlog: https://lemmy.ml/modlog?page=1&userId=2461030 , https://lemmy.ml/post/3809854 It says that the post couldn't be found. Not sure if that's just a temporary server issue or it's gone completely. Is there a way to view posts that were deleted by mods (even if you made the post yourself)?!
For example, could alternative terms like "carbon reducing" and "carbon increasing" make it more clear and avoid misinterpreting which means which?
From what I've read, gay people were born with the predisposition to eventually find out they're gay (usually), and gay people don't 'become' gay. They might come out or start engaging in related behaviours.
Watching a Quebec series from 2014 called Serie Noire, one of the characters complains that his girlfriend has become a lesbian, after he finds out she's cheating on him with a woman. He remarks multiple times about how he's distraught that she has become a lesbian and it's probably played for comedic effect. Of course the issue shouldn't be that she's a lesbian (or bisexual) but rather that she's cheating on him and isn't interested in him, but he also calls it "becoming" a lesbian, describing it as a somewhat random event/decision rather than a reveal about his partner.
Just wondering, would this be considered offensive today? Thanks