sudneo

Was this all an attempt to "gotcha" people to prove that cars on free roads go faster and protect you better from elements than bikes? I mean, yeah of course they do. This doesn't make them "superior" in an absolute way because superiority depends on parameters. Take cost, health benefits, maintenance costs, environmental impact and bikes would be superior.

Can't talk about US, but in Italy the daily average by car was between 10 and 15 kilometers I seem to remember, that is 30-40min by bike at a slow pace. For that I would 100% say that provided infrastructure exists, bikes are a largely superior transportation vehicle compared to everything else. If you talk about traveling between islands I would say a boat is more efficient, or if you have to travel 500km I would say planes are. Superiority depends on the specific evaluation, that's my point. For the kind of coast to coast trip you mentioned, in winter, I would say trains can be vastly superior to cars, for example, and they can be combined with bikes.

The other user already shared some article with lots of historical data, both words and actions, that should give a better picture. Anyway, since you decided to ignore all that, then there is also to say that the tweet was a speculation made months ago on a topic where nothing happened yet (or at least, I haven't read any news about antitrust in the last month). I don't think anything will happen, but anyway that makes it at most naive.

It's Italy, there is no chance of that efficiency. This is - as usual - stuff done to prevent pirated sport content. Nothing else has ever and probably will ever be done.

Climate estimations have been systematically optimistic, because we still don't fully understand all feedback loops and factors. The IPCC needs to play ball on some more political topics, but overall they have been ringing the alarm bell for so long.

This is not giving him any benefit of the doubt, it's trying to understand what he wanted to say given the fact that he is not able to articulate a thought. That is what I understood from the video, he rambles all the time and says random stuff, I think it's a matter of fact he can't articulate a thought. Sure, it's a disgrace that one of the most powerful men in the world (if not the most) can't do that, but here we are.

You are missing the core argument of your interlocutor. From a purely utilitaristic standpoint, educating and correcting someone who seems to be in good faith but repeating propaganda or lacking knowledge is more effective that being an asshole (which BTW completely avoids the possibility of that person considering seriously what you are saying). So if you want to "shut it down", your actions are ineffective or counterproductive.

You do you, of course, but nobody is asking to tolerate Nazis.

When I woke up this morning I saw the headline and I thought "here we go again". I watched the video and my impression is that he said that sentence in his classic dementia rambling, right after it he said "he should have ended it".

Basically he was blaming Zelensky for not having negotiated right away and Biden for not having pushed for it.

Not sure if this makes it any better, but at least I got the impression he mispoke saying that particular thing.

It is absolutely dependent on what I am making.

In general my preference is tortiglioni/elicoidali, but that doesn't work with everything. As long pasta I prefer thick spaghetti-like shapes, like vermicelli, spaghetti alla chitarra or tonnarelli (with egg). Obviously if we are talking about fresh pasta there is also much to choose from, but I would say one of my favorite type is quadrucci, very good in soups. Also good gnocchi are amazing (do they count as pasta?), bad gnocchi are terrible.

Pasta that I don't like the most, probably farfalle and bucatini. Fun fact, bucatini are called "abbotta straccioni" in Rome, which roughly translates to "peasants stuffers", because more uneducated people who wouldn't know how to eat long pasta would "suck" and ingest lots of air (due to the hole) and get filled more, so restaurants could serve smaller portions. To this day, I will take tonnarelli/gnocchi/rigatoni with amatriciana to bucatini any day.

Right, then let me elaborate.

Take furries. Using a moralistic approach such as yours I could conclude that they are freaks who encourage bestiality. Instead I think that consenting adults can do what they want as long as they are not harming anybody (this part was obviously implied, but suddenly you lost the ability to use context and imply things when it was convenient to build a strawman).

Take women with control-related kinks. Using your moralistic approach I could go tell them that they are victims of bla bla bla who internalized bla bla bla, and that ultimately men who accept to please those kinks perpetrate bla bla bla. Instead, I think that consenting adults can get off the way they want.

I could go on, but the point is clear, hopefully.

On this topic you are a bigot. You are a bigot because you are essentially using a dogma that women can only act as victims of a system that oppresses them and nothing else. You are stripping away agency, and applying rigid moral rules grounded in that dogma. You are using a very similar approach that homophobes use to hate on gay people, you just think that you are doing it for good© reasons to defend oppressed minorities; or singular actually, because this only applies to women dating older men I suppose? Or you also have other definitions for wrong couples? Black woman/white man? Indigenous woman/white man? Poor woman/rich man? And what if this was a lesbian couple? 25yo woman/50+ woman?

I would like to know the mental gymnastic to bend that "moral principle" so that you don't end up against mixed race couples or similar, because if you consider people only expression of their social group, you absolutely can conclude that some (all?) of those relationships represent and perpetrate the same power inequality that exists between their demographics.

Elsewhere you suggested to people to "check your own biases", maybe you can take your own suggestion here and try to see if your analysis fell short.

Yes, it's the same thing here, great parallel.

"We don't judge other people sexual preferences, unless they are the wrong ones according to me"

Hard disagree.

Also there are plenty of opposite examples (i.e., older women celebrities dating younger guys), what is that a symptom of?

This has nothing to do with feminism imho. In fact, I would say the opposite, it's an attempt to prescribe what women should do. Religious morality.