sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 0 points 3 days ago

Me and the boys love a French 75

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 0 points 3 days ago

chaff spun aside by the Iron Dais of Judgment.

Poetry

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago

Perhaps, and I'll admit this is overthinking a silly comic, but it seems to me that the coffee is a given assumption and it is only the addition of poison which is variable, so I think any implications of the coffee are entirely incidental

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 3 points 4 days ago

As I said in a other comment, I think "they didn't live long enough" is a bit of misconception. I'll repeat my comment here rather than writing it out again:

"So I'm no expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but it's my understanding that while average ages were much lower in the past, this number is heavily skewed by infant mortalities and deaths due to preventable disease. As I understand it, the expected age of an otherwise healthy individual was pretty comparable to us today. More people died young, but those who didn't lived about as long as us. So I don't think not living long enough for skin cancer to take effect really jives with my understanding of history.

But again, I'm not an expert and the likelihood that I'm just an idiot who is wildly misunderstanding things is, frankly, high."

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

Source? This is my point, that I think we lack evidence for that claim.

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 37 points 4 days ago

The "you'll feel worse and worse" part is pretty blatantly ignoring the endorphin rush that exists here. Like yes you may feel worse on the level, but it's accentuated with moments of feeling pretty damn great, which seems disingenuous to ignore.

I'm not even a smoker, and I was happy as hell when I parents quit smoking, but let's not pretend the choice is as simple as "poison or no poison" without any tangible upsides.

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

I'll say that I think if the situation was truly as simple and non-nuanced as you describe, I wouldn't have any reason to be confused or uncertain on the topic.

But as stated, since even those who adhere to best practices seem to be at higher risk with compound exposure, I think your claim of simple acclimation is a little lacking. I think there is truth in what you say, but far from the whole truth and it is what is missing which eludes me as well.

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

So I'm no expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but it's my understanding that while average ages were much lower in the past, this number is heavily skewed by infant mortalities and deaths due to preventable disease. As I understand it, the expected age of an otherwise healthy individual was pretty comparable to us today. More people died young, but those who didn't lived about as long as us. So I don't think not living long enough for skin cancer to take effect really jives with my understanding of history.

But again, I'm not an expert and the likelihood that I'm just an idiot who is wildly misunderstanding things is, frankly, high.

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago

I mean I definitely see your point, but as I understand it even field workers are encouraged to use sunscreen and farmers and others who spend a lot of time outdoors are at greater risk of long-term damage, not lesser, despite this supposed acclimation.

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days ago

Those make sense to me, but I'll be honest with you, where I struggle is with the idea of sunscreen. How did our ancestors live outside constantly without any sunscreen but if I'm outside for more than 2 hours in the summer without it I come home looking like a burnt lobster?

I'm sure the answer is that I'm ignorant, or the "natural causes" of yesteryear were really just undiagnosed skin cancer or something, but I have to admit it does seem like a real negative adaptation here from the viewpoint of my uneducated mind.

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 0 points 1 week ago

SOULSUCKER in my ass.

Ummm.

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

Modders make mods for free. Video creators publish free videos on sites like Youtube or Vimeo today without any revenue stream. Prior to that creators published their content for free on sites like ebaums, or albinoblacksheep, or on personal pages.

Humans want to share. If Youtube had never existed, people wouldn't have suddenly stopped making videos to share, they should have just found another method of sharing or created their own alternative. The desire to create and share is innate to humanity; the concept of monetary compensation is not.

As for wanting everything to be free (I'm not who you were talking to but I'm responding anyway)... I mean, yeah kind of? Here's my question: why should everything be paid? I think that's a backwards mentality. People were sharing stories and art and other creations for no reason other than the love of sharing long before Youtube, and they will keep doing so after. Imo not every effort in life needs to be directly compensated. To me this is the same reason I will never pay for game mod: I want to support and encourage a modding community who mods because they love do it and they love sharing with community, not because they see a possible revenue stream.

Imo turning your hobbies into jobs or "side hustles" is one of the worst consequences of capitalism, and one we should push back against.

1
submitted 6 months ago by Vespair@lemm.ee to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
0
submitted 6 months ago by Vespair@lemm.ee to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
0
submitted 6 months ago by Vespair@lemm.ee to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
1
The Juniverse (lemm.ee)
submitted 6 months ago by Vespair@lemm.ee to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
432
submitted 7 months ago by Vespair@lemm.ee to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
view more: next ›

Vespair

joined 1 year ago