I’ll bet she could carry more meat than you.

I can’t believe you would trample on my freedom to extinct an animal like that.

I’ll just give you an example even if it’s not reated to unlocking phones: A black BMW 335i is filmed hitting a pedestrian and the plate number finishes with a 5. We’re gonna need to have a look at every BMW within these parameters. If you prevent the police from checking your car by hiding it, a guilty guy might have more time to hide his car and a crime is gonna go unpunished, leaving a victim with no one to pay for his injuries.

And if my car was in an unrelated accident but just happened to fit those criteria, you could use that as evidence against me (and not only that, but then stop trying to solve the crime because you’ve assumed the perpetrator.) It ALWAYS goes both ways. If the only way you can solve a crime is by violating people’s privacy without a warrant, maybe don’t be a cop.

Cops are seen as bad guys because people like you argue for why rights shouldn’t apply to people, and making you get a warrant (aka doing your job) is seen as interfering with a crime.

The worst part is, it is stupidly easy to get warrants here in the US, but the cops WILL make your life miserable if you make them get one.

Hey man, I’m future you. I here to give past me a warning. You keep looking like a complete fool and when you look for evidence to support your false claims, it turns out you were wrong the whole time, so you built a time machine to stop yourself. Anyway, the warning is to only use 1.11 Jiggawatts, as you miss the return time to stop yourself from looking foolish by about a day. Good luck!

You could also pronounce it like Exitter and it still works.

Currently, my taxes go into destroying homeless encampments and arresting them, so we could probably use that money for housing and feeding them instead.

Feed and house them, can you not read?

It’s only a contradiction from a flawed human logical perspective. We, as imperfect beings, cannot see a world that is capable of free will that is also free of Evil. But God is capable of all things, including creating such a world where that is possible.

God is capable of a world existing without Satan and having free will, for example. Satan’s existence is reliant on God’s will, and should God will it, Satan would not exist, and to ascribe all Evil purely to Satan is to blame God for Evil. It is, frankly, an incorrect assertion. Satan could be a manifestation of Evil, I could understand that, but Satan is not the CAUSE or even perpetuator of Evil. Evil would have to be a fundamental force created by God in that example, in order to allow free will.

Does God have the ability and power to make it so people have free will AND there is no Evil: Yes or no?

That is God refusing, by choosing to let free will dictate actions. God acting as a bystander while those that didn’t take any actions towards Evil suffer punishes those who chose to be Good because of God’s actions (or lack thereof.) Pretending that this aligns with free will is inconsequential.

Does God have the ability and power to make it so people have free will AND there is no Evil: Yes or no?

Every atrocity and every suffering is the fault of Satan.

If Satan is the cause of all suffering and atrocities, then God either cannot stop them and/or refuses to stop them, but if we assume the former, Satan is more powerful than an omnipotent and omniscient being, and if we assume the latter, God is also responsible in part for some of that suffering by refusing to stop them. I don’t think either of those are correct.

You are making a silly argument that is flawed. The Witcher includes sexual themes because the book it is based on also includes these themes.

BG3 includes optional romantic themes because the game it is based on can include optional romantic themes. The game is about your involvement in the story, about how you navigate the world and its people because it attempts to mimic DnD. You can do a lot of “I seduce the dragon” and BG3 was designed to be fairly accomodating to a variety of tables.

To suggest the game would be better if it contained no romance when you haven’t played it is… bizarre? Especially with it being optional. But, that is perhaps the epitome of my argument. A lot of content in BG3 is optional. To remove any of it would be to make a game about options lesser.

I think romance is included in a lot of stories because it is a very common component in life. We have so many experiences around love, and exploring that in a fictional environment at the same time we do battle against demons is fun for many people.

TTRPGs cater to you choosing your own story. To remove the romance from this story is to say that some choices in this story cannot be made.

Also, there’s mods to remove the romance. It would be a loss to have them gone at the onset.

I disagree on pretty much every point, but I personally don’t see the problem you’re having with the game. If you don’t like the nudity, that is optional (as in, there is an option for it.) If you’re complaining about the romance, that’s like an entire genre of stories. Heck, softcore porn is also a genre of stories that is exceptionally popular. So, why would removing it for you make up for the loss of potential customers that were gained from it being there, especially since you bought it with it there anyway? Idk, seems like you disproved your own point.

The biggest mistake a lot of people make is being born poor.

People complain about slavery yet without it they wouldn’t be housed and fed. Curious…

Your mom.

Yeah, I suppose those would. I wouldn’t have thought it, but definitionally, it would be! I mean, heck, some of those are listed by Meriam-Webster! Isn’t language neat? You learn something new every day.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social media

Users create and/or share content, check. Users discuss content, check.

Unless you think something is missing from that definition, Lemmy is social media. It is pseudonymous, but it is still social because of the users.

Make sure you take your dog’s shoes off, too.