Let's count the problems:
Any others?
I just want to point out something that I've not seen others mention - sometimes girls are just way too paranoid about what their families will think. I know one girl who keeps insisting that her parents wouldn't let her date a black guy, but then she also admits that she dated a hispanic guy before and thought the same thing but her parents loved him. Honestly I think like 70% of girls imagine that their parents wouldn't accept some huge swath of men due to some superficial characteristic, but probably in reality only maybe 20% of parents would actually be against their daughter dating a guy who treats her well, even if he's of a type they dislike.
Yup I was going to treat it like eating cubes of tofu
I have to disagree honestly. So many times someone tells me about some question they're pondering, and when I offer some suggestion about what may be going on or how to fix it, they're like "Why are you talking about something you know nothing about? You don't have to have an opinion."
But am I allowed to? I'm a curious person. If something interesting or strange or problematic is happening in your life, the first thing my brain is going to do is start trying to explain it. So I could keep it to myself, but then since my mind is on something I'm not allowed to talk about, I'm going to sit there and be silent and then they'll be like "What? Do you have any reaction at all or are you going to just sit there in silence?"
And then I pull out my beretta...
The month first is best because consider what happens if a message gets cut off. You might get: "You'll be flying to New York on the first of ..." or "You'll be flying to New York on June..."
The first message doesn't tell you anything useful. Do you need to buy shorts or a parka? Do you have months to prepare or are you leaving in a few hours? Could this be an april fools joke? It's a 1/12 chance. Totally useless.
Second message, sure the details are unclear but at least you know what to pack and that you need to hurry about getting the rest of the message.
This is a type of ad hominem fallacy because you're downvoting based on something about the speaker that is unrelated to the argument. You might argue that there is a correlation between the misspellings and logical fallacies, but you offer no evidence, and the fact that you committed this phallusy while spelling everything correctly speaks otherwise.
He didn't. The quotes in these tweets are fake. If I search for these quotes these tweets are the only results. Twitter is a hostile platform to reality as reality can get in the way of virality. Hence why you never see sources on twitter. This was likely written by someone with only a passing familiarity with gandhi's position on WWII who probably guessed at how he would speak based on his character in Civ.
What did gandhi actually think the Britiish should do in 1940? In his actual words:
I want you to fight Nazism without arms, or, if I am to retain the military terminology, with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have, as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.
Basically he was speaking for an extreme form of non-violent civil disobedience, not capitulation.
Also a famous gandhi quote: "Stop believing everything you see on twitter you gullible rube"
In most cases, it's wrong to violate the social contract, especially while benefiting from it. However: the harm done by violating the social contract should be weighed against the harm of not violating it.
In this case, the harm of violating the social contract is pretty minimal, as copyright law is not a fundamental part of the fabric of society. One can even argue it's kind of dubious, as something that moneyed interests favor very heavily with no similar moneyed interests favoring a strong public domain.
The harm of not violating it is not only do you give money to a holocaust denier, you're giving it to him for denying the holocaust. Even worse, you're giving him money for being wrong, and so effective at deception that you are compelled to spend money disproving him.
The whole point of copyright is to encourage useful works and spreading of knowledge and art. In this case the work is not spreading knowledge, but un-knowledge. Irving is exploiting a loophole in copyright law that allows him to work against its very purpose.
Thus I'd say violating the law is ethical as the benefits far outweigh the costs.
There's a lot of assumptions in saying it's just meaningless chemicals
But then what perceives the illusion? How can the whole concept of an illusion have any meaning without a thinker to perceive what isn't true?
Consciousness
Being secretly not updating because it thinks it's disconnected, so I have to notice that little icon by the inbox to know it's just not telling me about meetings being scheduled and such