Sure, I’m not against that at all. I hate advertisements and would take no issue with a universal ban. My problem was with the arbitrary moral outrage at this advertisement targeting “Children,” by virtue of the utterly meaningless phrase “Under Age,” which includes actual, legitimate adults, in the US.

Sure, but the primary complaint was against a 0% alcohol beer targeted at “Children” by nature of using the term “Under Age.” I have no complaints against wanting to remove advertising, in general, including drug advertisements.

Below drinking age, sure. I think the nonsense here is that the US considers you “Under age” until you’re 21. So you’re complaining about an ad targeting children, when the target is literally “Anybody under the age of 21.” Which is an unfair complaint to make.

Because using that same logic, “under age” porn is actually legal. Because at 18 you can get fucked in the ass by 3 dudes at once, but not buy a beer.

I hear you say “But there are different ages for X and Y.” Yeah, but it’s the exact same term used to mean the same idea with completely different ranges and neither has any justification beyond “Uh… Here’s the cut-off I guess?”

Would you take issue with 18yr olds having beer ads aimed at them? Because that’s technically “Under Age Beer!” And they’d be considered full adults here in Germany.

Except the US concept of underage also includes people 16 to 20, which this ad is undoubtedly target towards. If it was an ad for beer with bright colours and cartoon characters I would agree, but it is not.

So 19yr olds shouldn’t be advertised to? What’s the cut off?

I actually fully agree that all advertisement is awful and support removing it entirely.

But lacking that, I don’t see an issue with advertising universally. And if we’re going to restrict advertisement to children, target actual children. “Teenagers” includes people legally old enough to join the military and kill other humans.

I’m pretty sure young and impressionable children get used to the idea of drinking beer from friends and family. I think the bigger issue is that the drinking age is fucking 21. It’s absolutely nonsense. If you want to protect children from alcohol abuse, talk to them, teach them, let them have alcohol when they’re ready to try it, in safe settings.

From my experience, most people assign deeper meaning and claims of consciousness simply because they do not have a grasp of molecular biology. Or if they do, it’s rudimentary. Not as an insult against them, just as a matter of fact.

Cells are 100% molecular machines. It’s why viruses works. The virus doesn’t actually hurt the cell, it just changes it’s programming so it makes viruses instead.

If you worked in a kitchen, and a new order came in that said “Chop off all your fingers, then disembowel yourself.” You wouldn’t do it. A cell would. So would an ant. So would a plant.

You’re assigning human values and desires simply because it’s what you experience. By that same logic, you should be claiming LLMs and even the most basic old-school AI in videogames is conscious.

Physics mandates that the universe move towards its lowest energy state possible. This causes the formation of molecules that allow a release of energy. Some of these have a structure that tends them towards a shape, granting an interior and exterior. Some of these molecules are self-replicating, like proteins.

Now we have proto-life, with self replicating proteins inside the hydrophobic/philic sphere.

Lil tiny skip forward a billion years or so, and we have basic cells with no interiority, but chemical and molecular systems that are 100% reactionary. They actively move towards survival and away from death. Not because they are aware, because those lineages survived when the ones that sat idle and did nothing did not.

It’s easy to see motion as a sign of intelligence, even organization. But crystals are not alive. A cell is alive. Neither is conscious.

Unless you believe in magic, then no amount of science, logic, or conversation, matters.

Sure, but the logic reveals literally nothing. I can create an entire Sims world for the sole reason to see if the “turn pink clothing in to green clothing” mod works. Does the fact that their existence had a reason actually mean a damn thing?

Why did you feel the need to make that comparison? Did anyone here mention supporting their actions? Is the strawman fighting back?

I actually don’t agree with this. You can also do the prep the restaurant does. Stir-fry, I pre-cut veggies and make various stir fries all week. Pho, I make a huge batch of broth and eat pho every day for a week. Sushi, I pre-slice the veggies and pre-cool the rice then, you guessed it, I make it for about a week.

If you need to have wildly different meals every night then I agree with you. But I’m content to have the same meal 5 to 7 times before switching.

Several reasons. First, humans have already decided that intentionally causing harm is not something we condone as a society, even under the guise of cultural or religious exemption. Largely, because it assumes that every single person part of the religion is there voluntarily, which is demonstrably false.

Secondly, it DOES affect me. There is an active effort to erode the separation of church and state, meaning Christian values are being actively imposed on those who do not claim any affiliation with Christianity. Southern Baptist, being the largest denomination in the south, is increasingly active in politics.

And lastly, I 100% agree that people within a religion should make absolutely no attempt to control the lives of those NOT within their religion. But that is not what we see.

My religion says that I am morally obligated to beat you up and steal your car, so how dare you argue that I shouldn’t.

You’re a religious bigot if you try to tell me that following the tenets of my faith are wrong.

Just because a book says a thing doesn’t make it right or justified, and crying about being a victim while actively supporting oppression doesn’t make you a champion of good.

You might want to read up on the “No true Scotsman” fallacy too.

You’re talking past each other, using “better” in different ways. Correct, my cooking is technically inferior to restaurant cooking for exactly the reasons you described. However, the recipes themselves are designed by an individual with preferences. Even if my cooking is technically inferior, it will be ‘better’ simply because I am cooking for my own palate and preferences. Same word, completely different meaning.