While I agree it’s infuriating the use of -punk for non-rebellious things, there were several other -punks before 2000s. The main one that comes to mind is Gothic-punk, which has been used in Vampire the masquerade since 91 to express the game’s gothic and rebellious influences.

There are a few misconceptions in your logic.

1. Force is required to rape
2. Erections are controllable

Both of them are easy to disprove, but not obvious at first sight.

For 1 consider any case where a woman might have power (not physical) over a man, e.g. blackmail, teacher, parole officer, boss, etc. Another possibility to remember are weapons or physical threats to a third party. Also you should remember that humans have a fight/flight/freeze response, so a third of humans would just freeze regardless of being able to overpower their attacker. Finally there’s also the possibility of even without any threat, even being able to think properly, and knowing that he could physically overpower a female attacker, a man might not do it for fear of legal or moral repercussions, e.g. being thought not to hit girls or believing that no one would believe that he was defending himself. In fact lots of women who get raped don’t try to fight back or escape, believing (sometimes accurately) that their attacker would worsen the offense if they did that, e.g. by killing them (even if no threat was made), it’s not uncommon for rape victims to feel ashamed and guilt about not having fought back, and by saying that men can’t get raped because they could theoretically overpower their attacker you’re indirectly saying that any woman who doesn’t fight back with all her might is not being raped either, because they could have overpowered their attacker of they tried.

For 2, erections (and even ejaculation) are physical responses, in fact you can make a corpse get a hard on and cum (some wives do it to preserve their husbands sperm). This is no different from women getting wet or having orgasms while being raped (both of which are common), it means nothing, it’s just a physical reaction to a physical stimulus. In fact lots of victims (both men and women), especially those in abusive relationships think they deserve that because of those physiological reactions. To put it in simpler terms, saying a men can’t be raped because if they got an erection it means they wanted it is like saying that people can’t be stabbed because if they bled is because they wanted the knife.

Because you vote that the government shouldn’t help the poor. Whatever you do on your own personal scale is meaningless compared to the impact that could be caused if you voted to have the government do the helping.

As to why you hold such contradictions in your mind, I don’t know, maybe you feel guilty about depriving the poor of healthcare and education that you try to make out for it? Maybe you are a good person with good intentions who never really thought that whatever help a single person can give is meaningless on the large scheme of what the government could give so you think you are helping by serving soup to the people you deny healthcare, or maybe you’re just an egoistic bastard who likes to see people in misery to feel better so you vote for them to be miserable and you do volunteer work to be near them. I don’t know, I’m not in your head, but your political views directly contradict your thoughts, if you think people deserve help when they’re vulnerable you’re left leaning.

I’m not insulting you, but thinking that facts are always knowledgeable is a childish vision of the world.

You put quotes around expert because you know they weren’t, actual experts were saying vaccines did not cause autism. Let me ask you then, how do YOU know that vaccines don’t cause autism? Because to me the answer is simple, I’ve listened to the consensus of the experts, but to you that’s a fallacy.

Facts are not always knowledgeable, authority in a field gives one credibility over the facts they claim.

The thing is that facts are not as clear cut as you think, that’s a very childish vision of the world (to think that it is always possible to differentiate a fact, don’t believe me? What am I wearing now? There is a factual answer, but you have no way of knowing it)

Plus if Neil deGrasse Tyson claims something about astrophysics and you claim he’s wrong, you better have at least someone as knowledgeable as him in astrophysics to back that claim, otherwise I’m siding with the expert on the matter.

Plus all discussions rely on the backing of experts, otherwise any discussion is impossible, I could just claim your argument is wrong because some word you used means the opposite of what you meant, your only counter argument would be to point to a dictionary, which is by your own definition an appeal to authority fallacy.

That’s a common mistake, an argument from authority is only a fallacy if the person is not an authority in the field. Quoting Neil deGrasse Tyson on political views is an argument from authority, quoting him on astrophysics is not.

I know the point of your answer was not to dwell on these things, but:

And what would a chair look like if our knees bent the other way?

Is actually very interesting, would’ve we designed it as a normal chair but we would rest our chests instead of backs? Or would they have a place to rest the legs instead of on the floor?

Native speakers make mistakes when things sound similar, e.g. effect/affect, then/than, etc. For non-native speakers those are very different words because they have a very distinct meaning in our heads so it’s impossible for us to confuse them.

On the other hand Non-native speakers tend to use the wrong word order, for example using a lot of “of” (House of my friend/My friend’s house) or affirmations that are meant as questions (How you did that?/How did you do that?). This happens because in our native language that’s the way phrases are structured, and internalizing the structure of a language happens long after you have enough vocabulary to communicate.

You talked a lot about what the person would want, how do you know that the people who’ve had their heads shrunken didn’t want that? It seems just as strange as wanting to get embalmed and preserved inside a reinforced and padded wooden box below the earth, yet people choose this daily in most western cultures.

Freedom from religion.

You’re not entitled to be free from people practicing their religion near you, e.g. you don’t have the right to not have churches in your block

The right to clean food and water.

You can’t invade someone’s property to get food and water.

The right to self defense.

A juri needs to agree self defense was required, you can’t kill someone because you thought he was going to do something to you without evidence of it.

The right to attempt escape from imprisonment.

That’s not a right most countries even recognize, in fact it is a crime on most countries to attempt to escape imprisonment, even if you are wrongfully detained by the state.

The right to a fair trial.

Fair is very relative, people get injustly put away constantly, just as much as guilty people are not. Even if we had 100% certainty on the conviction, people would disagree on the penalty, to some it’s not fair that a person who killed others gets to keep living, while to others it’s unfair that someone should be sentenced to death regardless of their crime. While I believe that this is the hardest one to answer of your points it is so because the word fair is very subjective, what if my idea of a fair trial is so different from yours that we can never conciliate both? Whose idea of fair trial is the one that gets implemented? Certainly the other will believe the trial was not fair.

The right to life

Unless you try to kill someone and he defends himself

liberty

Unless you commit a crime

and security of person.

Again, unless you threaten someone

The right of the abolition of slavery in all forms.

That’s another wording for freedom, by several metrics, prisoners are slaves.

None of those are unrestricted, which is what the original person said.

Of course I believe in human rights, but I also think there are limits to it. And you didn’t answer my question, what right do you believe should be unrestricted?

Because they point out facts? Or do you really think there is an unrestricted right?

Your disk is like a file cabinet, there’s also an index folder where for example it says that “your file.txt” is in cabinet C7. You go there and there’s a sheet of paper written in pencil with the contents of your file. In this analogy here’s how several solutions work:

• Delete the file: throw away the index folder. Now if you need to write to disk you might think C7 is free and when you go there to write something else you find the old paper, which you erase and write on top. But if someone gets to your cabinet before that and they open C7 your file Will be there in its entirety, there just isn’t an index telling you which cabinet to open.
• Zero wipe: you go to C7, erase the file, and then throw away the index. Now if someone gets to your cabinet they might go to C7 but all they see is a white sheet of paper. However it’s technically possible with a white sheet of paper to see what was written before, so this is considered better but not perfect.
• Random wipe: same as before, except you erase and write random stuff on the sheet of paper. So it becomes a lot more difficult to recover what was there.
• Multiple passes: Same as before, but you do this several times, so after dozens of random writes your original data should be completely impossible to recover.

Yes, first quoting Sir Terry Pratchett:

J.R.R. Tolkien has become a sort of mountain, appearing in all subsequent fantasy in the way that Mt. Fuji appears so often in Japanese prints. Sometimes it’s big and up close. Sometimes it’s a shape on the horizon. Sometimes it’s not there at all, which means that the artist either has made a deliberate decision against the mountain, which is interesting in itself, or is in fact standing on Mt. Fuji.

As such let’s look at the Granddaddy of all modern Medieval Fantasy, in Tolkien’s work there are several human/elf couples of renown, from Beren and Luthien which are not in the movies so people don’t usually know to Aaragorn and Arwen (who are a central point of the movies). Not only that, but we know that they can produce offspring, because Elrond is a half-elf, not only is he a half-elf, but both his parents were half-elves.

In short, yes, they do.

My grandpa used to do this way before smartphones, I remember his 30.000 days birthday when I was a kid.

It’s curious, I have a similar story but with different countries, and the reactions are VERY different. I was born in Argentina, but my family emigrated to Brazil when I was 13 years old. I speak fluent Portuguese but obviously have an accent that people can’t quite place, but once it’s pointed out they notice it. Yet the vast majority of my interactions about it are something similar to:

• Where are you from?
• I was born in Argentina, but lived in Brazil over 16 years
• Ah, so you’re mostly Brazilian then

And I think that that says a lot about Brazilians and how they’re very welcoming and friendly. Unfortunately the British don’t seem to be the same way, at least from your experience, maybe people in larger cities are more used to immigrants so they would see you as mostly British or something.

As for the voting, for me at least the only way was to become a citizen, most countries allow you to ask for citizenship if you’ve been living legally long enough so you probably qualify. Just bear in mind that some countries ask you to abandon your other citizenships when you do so, so not sure if that’s your case and if it’s worth it just to be able to vote.

Yes, but the input power moat likely varies, and that’s because the energy conversion is not perfect, depending on the mechanics some energy might be dissipated as sound or most likely heat. But since I don’t know the specifics I can’t account for it, and it’s possible that red lasers require more energy than blue lasers because of a quirk in the way they’re generated currently. If we ignore that and imagine a magic box that can convert 100% of the energy given into specific color photons, for any given input it will generate more photons when configured to red than to blue, because a single blue photon contains more energy than a single red photon, therefore you need more red photons to get to the same level of energy.

This question has lots of different answers depending on exactly what you want to know, I’ll ask it in a few different ways and provide answers to them

Does the color of a photon change its energy content?

Yes, color is the result of how energetic a photon is, red is low energy compared to blue, so a single blue photon contains more energy than a single red photon.

Does the color influence how much energy is transferred to an object?

Yes, the color of an object is the result of white light hitting it and it reflecting back that color. For example leaves are green because they reflect green light while absorbing most others. In a way the color of an object is the color that the object rejects. So if you have a blue object it will reflect the blue laser more than the red one, so the red laser will heat it more because it’s being absorbed.

Which color heats lead the most?

That is a very interesting question, to know this you need to look at the absorption spectrum of the material, i.e a graph showing you which wavelengths are more absorbed by the material, so if I’m reading correctly the spectral lines in the wiki page for lead https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead it seems a cyan/greenish laser would be most effective in heating it (or I might be reading it completely opposite and that is the least effective color for heating lead)

Does a blue laser produces more energy than a red laser?

It depends, lasers emit photons, and while a single blue photon contains more energy than a single red photon, thousands of red photons contain more energy than a single blue photon. So it depends on how many photons each laser emits, if it’s the same amount then yes blue lasers will output more energy, but that’s not a given. In fact while I’m not intimately familiar with the physics of lasers, if we asume a perfect energy conversion from electricity to photons if two lasers use the same energy input they should have the same energy output, which would mean less photons for the blue laser.

Because it has a special place, i.e. it’s leveled with the ground, so anything above it you need to climb up, anything below it you need to climb down.

Think of it this way, floor is a synonym with level, if I asked you to tell me which level the ground is at the only logical answer is 0, if you say the ground is at level 1 that implies that the first basement is level 0 which sounds ridiculous.

If you’re in an elevator that has the numbers from -5 to 15, where is the only logical place for the ground to be at?

No, best before is for the market, it was never intended for customers, that’s not the date the food goes bad, it’s the date it starts to be different from their best, e.g. a bread might become harder than intended, so it’s meant to have the store sell it on pristine condition. Use by date is the one that is for customers.