awsamation

I didn't make any appeals to emotion, I just pointed out their own hypocrisy. If you want people to believe that you actually think Jewish culture is being appropriated by Christianity, the very least you need to do is not use Christian terminology when there exists widely known Jewish terminology for the same thing. If you don't know enough about Judaism to know the name Torah, then you have no right to complain about the interaction between Christianity and Judaism.

And of course Christianity believes that Judaism is unnecessary now. Just like Mormons believe the Christianity is unnecessary because they have the v3 update. It doesn't erase Judaism, heck the thing that started this whole thread was the fact that Jewish scripture is included directly in the Bible. The old testament stories are the same either way. The only difference is whether you believe that Jesus was the savior who fulfilled the law and brought the new law, or if you believe that the messiah hasn't come yet. But those stories still point to a future savior.

The important detail isn't which exact term for Jewish scripture will most closely match the old testament in Christianity. The important detail is that "old testament" as a name is meaningless in reference to Jewish scripture, because the term only has meaning if you consider the new testament as equally valid scripture.

So they're arguing that referring to Moses in a Christian context is "appropriating" Jewish culture, while doing the exact same thing themselves in the exact same comment. If they actually cared at all they'd have known that using any Jewish name for the scripture would've served their point better than "old testament".

As for the Christmas thing, it doesn't make sense to call a Christmas movie Jewish because if you actually follow Judaism then the birth of Christ isn't something worth celebrating to you. Any Christ as the savior narrative goes directly against what Judaism believes about Christ. And any Christmas movie without Christ as a savior narrative, might as well be considered non-religious.

Is it still anecdotal if literally any farmer will tell you the same? Because they will.

A surprisingly large amount of effort goes into trying to keep the livestock from hurting themselves or getting themselves killed. That's inevitable when essentially turn off natural selection, they end up losing any sense of self preservation. And why not, they do have multiple humans who's entire career centers on keeping them alive until they're ready for slaughter.

Nah.

Steak is delicious, and at the end of the day it's only a cow.

Judaism doesn't have exclusive ownership over the old testament. They are an important part of the Christian canon too.

Heck, you don't even give enough of a shit to refer to the scripture by the Jewish name. If you really cared perhaps you should start by calling it the Torah, the name "old testament" is nonsensical when you remove the new testament.

You should stop complaining about people "appropriating" your culture when you're already giving it away freely anyways.

Exactly.

Everyone loves to support local independent small businesses when it's convenient. And some people even have the gumption to hold to those ideals when it's difficult. But the vast majority don't care most of the time.

When big business makes it cheaper and more convenient to buy from them, most people will. I'm just as guilty of that as anyone else. When money and time are plentiful I love supporting a local bakery for lunch and a local book store for that greeting card. But when I'm pressed for time or money is short, it's straight back to Walmart to get a card and an entire meal for the price of one baked snack from the local place. And in 10 minutes instead of half an hour.

And the megacorps don't need a majority market share to win. They don't even need a large enough market share to be profitable, they just need to make sure your market share is too small to survive. And once you fail, then they can change practices away from kill competition and back to make money.

Do you actually care that much about the creative story behind the latest widget that was added to your new appliance? Are you going to be choosing the 30% more expensive option every time because of that concern.

We aren't talking about art here, very few people give a shit about getting a "personal connection" with their new toaster. We're talking about buy use forget consumer goods. And if someone else is selling the same quality and the same features at a lower price, that's the one that your average Joe will buy. And will keep buying until you can't afford to keep making and selling yours because you can't compete on the metrics that people care about most.

And you're going to compete with them on price then? Even when they can and will sell every unit at a loss until you're driven out of the market. Unless you're wealthy enough to be part of the good ol boys club, you can't afford to play that kind of game. They can.

I'm sorry for, pointing out how popular isn't the best choice of word?

But no matter how you slice it, popular isn't a great descriptor. Whether you choose the prescriptivist "the dictionary says x thus the word means x no matter what" or the descriptivist "most people use the word to mean y thus the word means y no matter what", in this case they both agree.

Both groups agree that when I say "Jim is popular" it makes you think that people generally like Jim. It evokes some level of communal approval. The dictionary literally defines the word to mean likeable, and the general usage still seems to denote general approval.

So either way, it doesn't represent the Empress situation. A situation where the majority of the community at best doesn't care and at worst openly dislikes her as a person because of her behavior, but still comes back for the games. She has a monopoly, but that doesn't make her inherently popular. Most people who know seem to dislike, and most who don't will also have no bearing on her popularity.

Because those big businesses are only motivated by the profit possibilities.

If you take away that protection then they'll just stop trying. They don't give a shit about any of the motivations you listed. They'll wait for you to come up with something new, then use the advantage of their size to force you out of the market. You'll end up either giving up or trying again at which point they'll just repeat the cycle.

And there's nothing you can do to stop them because now they can be as open and blatant as they want with directly using your exact plans.

None of those motivations you listed actually need IP to be abolished though.

If you're trying to differentiate yourself from the competitors, having IP protection is jn your favor. The large corporation you're competing with can't just swoop in and destroy you by making an identical product at a such a loss of profit until you run out of money.

If you're fueled by creating open source knowledge, well you can already do that. You can choose to release your IP into the world for anyone to use unrestricted.

And for a sense of community, well that's just the second point again. Abolishing IP was never going to make you feel community with Amazon. But having IP isn't preventing you from having community with individuals. You can still work on a project together without abandoning the idea of IP ownership.

Depends on how exactly you define popular.

If you use a definition that includes anything like "liked and admired" then she doesn't fit. Her service is busy but as this thread shows, most people openly state they only go to her because they have no other choice for these cracks.

Using popular hides how many people actively want to jump ship if only there was competition. It's like saying that Comcast is popular because they have so many customers who don't have a viable alternative to using them.