See, and again I'm making a point about clearly observable facts, with the implication that trying to sense others' mental states is a normal part of communication between all people. But you're trying to make it all about me. I want to have a conversation about facts and universal habits of communication, but in the conversation you're trying to have, it's all about me. You're clearly very laser focused on me, to the point you won't listen as I try to talk about something other than myself, and you're lying about it. Why do you like obsessing over me so much?

All the things I listed fit your definition.

I don't believe in inherent evil either, but I believe a person's actions create their moral character, and moral character is a useful metric.

I disagree. I think anyone can do politics. According to your definition, 10,000 people blocking the streets for a rally isn't politics. A man self immolating in front of the supreme court isn't politics. A scientist appearing before the UN to talk about the dangers of climate change isn't politics. That's silly. It's also a circular definition, given a politician is defined as someone who does politics.

That was to save his life, wasn't it?

It would be more accurate to change need to want. Because soulless corporations want soulless art, but they don't need it. Passionate, meaningful art sells better and it has a prosocial effect. Why do you think Disney calls their theme park engineers "imagineers"? They want passionate people working for them. Disney only cares about money, but passionate workers make more money.

And imagine how fucked society would be if we didn't have stories that made us think. You know those elsagate videos that were controversial a few years ago? I don't want kids to watch shows like that. I want kids to watch shows that teach them valuable lessons. Like Star Trek Prodigy, and The Owl House, and Diego, and all the stuff I liked when I was little that made me think but which I've forgotten. Kids need to think. Adults need to think. We need to have important social lessons reinforced. We need gay, bi, ace, trans, and nonbinary characters on TV because that saves lives.

Could an AI write Scar into The Lion King? Could an AI sneak a blatantly homosexual coded villain into a work by a homophobic company in order to have at least some representation? No. Companies only care about money, they will not program their art AIs to care about ethics. And that's why AI art sucks. Art without ethics is bad.

Inherently? No, that's not needed to construct Floey's argument. Floey's argument requires only that the meat producing process be practically torturous. And it is. Most chickens are raised in quarters so cramped that they need to be debeaked so they won't peck each other to death from the stress.

The benefit is that it's not situated inside your chrome user interface, with the toolbar and the tabs, so there's more screen real estate. Also most people don't know how to make desktop/startmenu shortcuts to web addresses.

Yeah, I figured that out in high school too. I think it just irks me that different students are being graded on a different standard, subjectively speaking. The neurotypicals are being judged on their ability to learn, while the gifted kids are being judged on their ability to explain. Maybe the gifted kids wanna learn too. They're all told their whole lives the point of school is to learn, and then they're met with disappointing reality. We expect gifted kids to grow up so fast, and having to explain the material back to the teacher to prove they know it doesn't help. I wish they got to spend a little longer just being kids.

You didn't read my other comment in this thread where I directly said Biden was supplying arms to the genocide in Gaza, did you?

No, that's not true. One of the key signs of a cult is that it doesn't have many members. One of the key signs of an abusive religion is that it cuts the victim of from their support structure, whether that religion be a cult or a larger religion. You seem to be talking as though the word cult meant abusive religion. I can assure you that though many religions are abusive, an equal proportion are both small and large, cult and non cult. Most victims of religious abuse are not in cults, because most religious people are not in cults. When you mix up cults with abusive religions, it becomes hard to tell the difference between the two, and you make it harder for people to see the abuses committed by larger religions.

I know lots of people don't know it's a slur. That's why I made this post and included an explanation of how and why it's a slur. I don't know what your complaint is. I was very aware of what you're saying and took action on it. Is your argument that I shouldn't have told people it was a slur? Are you opposed to the concept of education? Or are you just arguing because you like to be contrary?