Opinionhaver

I’ve heard that the taste of bear meat varies wildly depending on its diet. If they’ve been eating a lot of fish, the meat tastes awful - but after gorging on blueberries, it’s supposedly absolutely delicious.

One potential moral hazard with a law like this is that in some extreme cases it might turn rape into murder since the penalty is the same for both but by killing the victim one may decrease their chance of getting caught.

Ackshyually

Fair enough. I’ve been a smart-ass my whole life, so I’m not going to argue against that.

Whataboutism

No issues with that either. That doesn’t exactly refute my point, however.

Sealioning

This I don’t agree with, and your definition of it seems somewhat strange - especially the part about distorting what others say, which I don’t admit to either.

Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. - Wikipedia

Saying “I don’t understand” isn’t sealioning if I genuinely don’t understand. If someone doesn’t like what I’m saying, I don’t engage with vague accusations - I ask them to be more specific so I can respond to what they’re actually saying, not what I imagine they’re saying.

Instead of addressing that definition, you highlight your alleged intentions (“I’m simply questioning…”), and claim that saying the IDF uses human shields “paints a somewhat dishonest picture of the actual reality”. Like, there’s no other way to interpret this excerpt except as you defending the IDF.

I’ve only claimed that “human shield” doesn’t fit the definition in this specific example, but when people provided examples of other cases, I didn’t claim they weren’t true. I condemn the IDF’s use of human shields just as harshly as I do when Hamas uses them.

To me, it seems hypocritical when people criticize one side for something the other side is demonstrably worse at - but I’ll grant you that, in this specific case, I’m assuming bad faith when I really can’t know anyone’s intentions or underlying motives any more than they can know mine.

Also, saying that I “defend the IDF” is a pretty vague claim. Yes, there are more things I might defend the IDF for than Hamas - but that doesn’t mean I blanket-approve everything they do. I don’t defend the use of human shields, and I don’t defend genocide. You may argue that I’m "effectively" doing so, but since that’s not my intention, I don’t accept that accusation. I could just as easily flip that around and say people here are defending Hamas - which would equally misrepresent their views in most cases.

Now, as you’ve probably noticed, I tend to be a bit provocative in the way I comment - that’s intentional. Like trolls, I am baiting for a reaction. The difference is that: 1. I actually believe what I’m saying. 2. I don’t act in bad faith (or at least not with bad intentions). 3. Getting a reaction isn’t my end goal - I use it as a tactic to get people to engage with me. I also intentionally don't tend to caveat my points because othewise my every response would just be a list of what I'm not meaning/saying.

I still stand firm that Felix has made multiple false accusations against me and has consistently behaved in extremely bad faith from the very beginning. It’s pretty clear to me that this all started when he asked for examples of extremism on Lemmy, and one of the multiple examples I provided was of someone advocating for the abolition of Israel - something he clearly had a strong emotional reaction to. That reaction seemed to prompt him to dig through my post history, looking for anything to support the assumptions he had already made about me.

At no point did it feel like it was about the actual content of my claims - it was a personal smear campaign, not an argument. I think that compairing the lenght of our moderation histories is quite revealing.

Finally, as a side note - I hate responding to multiple points like this in one post, but I don’t see any other way to address everything you brought up. If you still want to continue the conversation, I’d much rather focus on one or two specific claims you feel most strongly about. But if not, I just want to thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful response - and above all, for your civility. Social media needs more people like you.

I have a separate sauna building on my yard with a wood burning stove but I probably go there about once every 3 months. I used to go several times a week at the gym I went to but my current one doesn't have one.

The issue isn’t that you can’t get a proper workout without gym equipment - it’s that most people simply don’t stick with it. They start training at home, but it becomes more and more infrequent until they stop altogether. Getting a gym membership tends to create more accountability, and I think going to the gym is actually an easier habit to build than working out at home.

Even for me, with a gym membership, I’ve noticed that if I go home between work and the gym, I’m much more likely to skip the workout. But if I go straight to the gym - having already decided to do so and with my gym bag packed - then I might as well do the workout since I’m already there.

I was hoping you'd be wrong so I looked into it and while that's not the whole story, it's not entirely wrong either.

Damn, and I thought I was bringing in good news.

Yeah, most modern cars are so quiet anyway that it’s not immediately obvious you’re in an electric car - and even from the outside, most of the noise comes from the tires, not the engine. It really is superior technology in almost every way, but I’d imagine that the day-to-day driving experience isn’t all that different from any other modern car with an automatic gearbox.

Personally, I drive a stick, so from a driving experience standpoint, I’d actually consider going electric a bit of a downgrade. I quite like the analog feel, myself.

I'm in. Let's go!

I'm hesitant to say - I intentionally didn’t mention it.

It was a Tesla Model Y. I mean, it was just a quick lap and I didn’t drive, so I can’t form any conclusive opinions, but as someone interested in technology, it’s definitely an intriguing machine. The acceleration especially was unlike anything I’ve experienced before. Kind of crazy that you can just drive something like that with a regular license.

Other than that, it's kind of like a folding phone - fun to mess around with if someone else has one, but not something I’d want to own myself. I’m more than satisfied with my nearly 20-year-old pickup truck.

It’s going to be an uphill battle to get in shape without proper gym equipment. Even among those who start going to the gym, most end up quitting because it’s a lot of effort and the results don’t come fast enough. Trying to work out at home makes it even harder. To gain muscle mass, you need to be lifting at the absolute limits of your strength - and that’s really difficult to achieve outside of a gym setting. It can be done, but I generally advise against it, because the odds are stacked against you.

Also, keep in mind that you can’t effectively lose weight and build muscle at the same time.

You do realise..

I don’t. I’m genuinely trying but I don’t.

What gross distortion? What exactly is the issue, then? It’s not hypocrisy or sealioning Felix was accusing me of. I honestly struggle to make sense of what I’m even being accused of here. Everyone just seems to be assuming bad faith, while I’m simply trying to figure out what I did wrong this time.

If it’s about me being annoying, pedantic, or whatever - fine, I don’t disagree. But my issue is with claims about me or my beliefs that just aren’t true. And if they are true, I’m sincerely hoping someone would point them out to me.

Considering the 30+ year long streak of pure good luck in my life I'll probably get cancer when I hit 50.