How do you determine when to call for proof or not?

It could have "during a discussion" at the end, with or without "online" as further clarification

I kinda assumed that it was either a language/translation issue, or trying to find the best way to express it due to some other difficulty.

Not that it matters really, but it does mean that it's difficult to be certain we're answering the right question

This isn't a shower thought

Mario kart, and need for speed carbon

The only reason it's obvious is that there's billions of people in earth. It's hard to find anything that there isn't a decent number of people that feel/experience the same thing.

Which is no biggie at all, I didn't intend for it to come across snippy or anything.

Hell, the only reason I even mentioned that this isn't best place is that once you get enough down votes, a post can get buried to anyone that isn't sorting by new. Reduces the chances of interaction.

I'm trying to recall where on lemmy, and what the name is, for the "doesanyoneever" type of thing. I ran a couple of searches, but there's too many ways it could have been created the run through them all but there is one, and I could have sworn it was on lemmy.world, but I'm not seeing it currently. But I could just be missing it, I dunno.

I mean, is this actually a question?

It really seems more like a rant followed with a DAE at the end to keep form.

There's nothing to answer here.

Which is fine, but you picked the wrong C/ for it, which means you aren't as likely to get favorable responses.

But, with that said, of course you're not the only one. It's a pretty common sentiment, particularly when people have some long term health issues (physical or mental). You go to enough group therapy sessions, you'd be hard pressed to not have any given group be a majority of members feeling the same. Same with many support groups.

It's a thing.

The down votes are about not having done due diligence.

Private investigators don't break stalking laws because they don't need to. They can do their jobs comfortably, from a distance, without any illegal acts at all.

For the question in the post itself, they don't even need to have anything to do with the subject of their job. They'll be looking into backgrounds, digging through records as their main method. Most of what any PI does is digging through records.

Even when they observe and record current activity of a person, there's no need to violate stalking laws the get the job done, because those laws are written with pretty specific language. With the caveat that the exact wording is going to vary by jurisdiction, there's no sustained harassment, or any direct contact at all during a normal PI job. Even photography or other records are made from a distance, and in places where the expectation of privacy doesn't apply. More important, they don't sustain that level of surveillance past the point where the case ends.

Now, that's not saying that individual PIs don't cross the line, they probably do, the same as paparazzi do, though probably far less often since their entire job is expensive to pay for, and they won't be paid if they end up in trouble for breaking laws while doing something unnecessary.

In other words, movies and TV vastly misconstrue what the job is actually like.

Feel free to use the example.

And I get where you're coming from for sure. No worries there :)

Well, it was one, I just didn't catch the typo of examples instead of example.

But, you're using an insult. Your example is already something nasty to say, no matter how you say it because you're attacking someone. Using curse words is no more or less effective at pissing the person off enough to shoot you (as an extreme but possible outcome).

For an example to work to support your opinion, it has to be undirected because directed statements are never neutral to begin with.

A better example would be something like pointing out a painting you don't like.

You could say, "that looks like something a five year old vomited up after drinking finger paints"

Or, "that thing is so fucking ugly it makes me want to vomit".

As long as the person you're saying it to isn't the artist, owner, or a dedicated fan of the artist, you have a relatively controlled example where the main difference is the presence of cursing.

See the difference in the examples? If I call you a giant moron, it doesn't matter much if I say fucking moron instead. It's the insult that's doing the work, not the adjective.

Now, this applies at any level of creativity. "You're about as pleasant as the south end of a north bound mule" is relatively creative, as is "you're a bigger asshole than the north end of a south bound elephant" very similar insults, with the significant difference being the cursing.

In that specific example, it could even be argued that the use of profanity increases the effect, and it would, depending on the target. Cursing is an amplifier in a huge swath of the population. "You're a jerk" isn't as effective as "you're a fucking jerk", because that extra step outside of social mores deepens the aggressiveness of the insult.

It's definitely subjective. There are people that would be more insulted by a well crafted, profanity free barb. But, on the whole, insults are about aggression and challenge. It's a form of dominance display to an extent. So using insults as an example for the effects of cursing is flawed by nature.

Now, a better example yet would be the weather. Someone saying "I'm tired of this fucking rain" is more boring than someone saying "I really wish thor would give us a warning before bukkakeing the world". Is bukkakeing an actual word? Doesn't matter, but it struck my mind lol. You can replace the jizz reference with "spitting on", if you feel sexual matters serve the same role as cursing.

Once you remove the insult factor, it becomes more about the cursing itself, which makes a better example and point of discussion.

This is so far from unpopular.

The general social mores are against cursing. While that has been slowly changing, it hasn't reached a tipping point yet.

It's also not a new opinion. There's a lot of sayings related to it, my favorite being "cursing just gives people permission to ignore you".

The rest of your post? Flawed examples. But that's just my opinion, you do you.

Sugar free, but are they artificially sweetened?

Edit: nvm, I should have just explained rather than asking and not waste your time, my apologies.

Reason I asked is that while nothing in those flavor packets spoils in a way that will harm you, nor break down into something that could, they may well taste unpleasant.

Artificial sweeteners in particular kinda get "stale", unless stored completely air free. They lose sweetness, and if the other chemicals are mixed with the sweetness in mind, it might not be enjoyable.

But there's no actual expiration date on any of the brands or their components that I've ever seen. Best by dates aren't the same thing as expiration dates (which you probably already knew, but figured I'd mention it anyway).

Worst case, it tastes like crap, unless the package has been damaged enough for moisture to get in. If the packet is intact, you're good to go. Otherwise trash it

Pfft, everyone knows pee is stored in the scrotum

I don't think this one has a clear cut answer.

In other words, it'll come down to opinions rather than facts or truths.

There's at least three likely possibilities, in my opinion.

First is that hamas is decentralized well enough that taking out leadership only is kinda pointless.

Second, the goals of the current actions aren't solely about hamas, and taking out leaders would weaken the goals as they appear.

Third, mossad may not be able to achieve the goal, and failing would be too risky considering how much pressure is already building against israel. If they try to assassinate people in other countries, and they fail, that's going to make more enemies than they already have, despite those countries themselves already being less than friendly to Israel.

I suspect that the matter was considered, but discarded quickly. It just wouldn't achieve anything useful for them, despite the purported goal of destroying hamas.

Now, there's also the chances that the real goal is purely to destroy Palestine, and take full ownership of the land. That's a distinct possibility, imo. If that's the real underlying goal, doing anything to take down hamas before that's achieved would not happen.

I don't think that anyone can trust what a world leader engaged in a military action of any kind, so taking the stated goals as truth is a bad idea. But they could be, and if that's the case, then using assassination as a tool would weaken their position. It's kinda frowned on.