I have to say though that since I have been accepted to university, I am happier than usual. When I am depressed I usually still seem "happy" but also seem very stern. When I am happy I feel happy x 30 and usually am overwhelming. Because of this I haven't been chatting here as much...
But, I can assure you all that you would find me annoying.
I'm pretty sure cavemen did not have a notion of morality as being derived from reason. I'd wager that some linear combination of the ideas of human origin a la social contract thinkers likely held for them
I guess I'm just wondering that given how many situations could arise, either it is never the case that an action necessarily violates the categorical imperative, or I should be able to generate a situation such that the only options cannot be universalized
Like I think some amount of specialization is needed
And the best thing really is to not start them, like I have never seen a case before of someone using a word and then getting jumped on, and that person actually changing his/her mind
Aside from if someone has the disposition to not use that sort of language, and merely echoed something without knowing its connotations. If it's deliberate, there's nothing good to be gained from fighting, so just don't
I mean, for what it's worth, when it comes to moral questions, I think attempting to invoke age difference would weaken your position, but again, I'm sticking to my original position that the result of such a fight would be wounds and nothing more
I usually don't meddle in these stuff. I would not use that word, but it is not my responsibility if someone else uses it in a social gathering. I do not approve of it but I have better things to do than to oppose it's use.
In particular I have no business telling adult people what is appropriate and what isn't.
This girl on the server messaged me and said that there are 1000 people like him online that don't actually have the balls IRL to be a bigot and that I should just let it go. I think she's probably right.
and whose morphisms are morphism under the equivalence class of being homotopy equivalent
in the following sense
$(f)_i,(g)_i: (X)_i \rightarrow (Y)_i$ morphism of complexes, then they are said to be homotopy equivalent if there exists a sequence $(s)_i : (X)_i \rightarrow (Y)_{i + 1}$ such that
So doing the shift first and then doing multiple iterations of the $g$-map is equivalent to doing multiple iterations of the $f$-map followed by a shift.
