I imagine, in the event no one ever knew, found out, or cared about the swap, then life would go on, just a bit more weird than before. I can’t imagine it in a modern society, even briefly. We have too many records of too many things. And beyond that, it’d depend on stuff like who they are and how long it’s been. Maybe on how readily both of them can convince people that they are mentally sound and worthy of respect. Who knows? That’d be wild.

Unrelated, but I think the fair folk used to swap infants out with ugly versions, or dying versions? Am I mixing up fairies and the UNSC again?

Well, would you believe 9/10 of them?

Alright, then. I’ve read, like, a few Python tutorials. I thought OOP was more of a way to do things if it makes sense to. Like using a for loop vs a while loop, just on like, a language and code structure level. I didn’t realize most people didn’t like it? I hardly even know what it is lol. It’s just that I’ve not heard someone explicitly be against it. I didn’t even consider it a thing people would be pro- or anti- lmao

Unrelated, I know, but I’m really interested in your antu-OOP-ness. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say they’re anti a concept like this yet

Hmm, yes, very wise.

I think it’s really pretty color inverted! Luckily, I’m not having trouble reading it, either- my eyes thank you.

ha, gotem

Maybe look up atheism then try correcting your own comment instead of theirs :)

In all seriousness, I think your definitions are a few centuries out of date. It’s been drifting toward meaning a-gnostic instead of undecided. Contemporarily, it’s used to explain one’s believed level of knowledge on a claim. I can, for instance, be agnostic toward plate tectonics, and be made gnostic of them by evidence.

“Why! Do users! Dislike! The use! Of emojis! On Lemmy!?”

Overused, they’re just so tiring too read. I think, if you’re gonna go that hard, just full send hieroglyphics and drop the text aspect.

Well, it was a run-on thought! It really does feel that convoluted when you try and figure it out, but rest assured, you’ve now thought about this in more depth than most conservatives!

I choose to believe no one is this particularly misinformed.

It’s really funny bait, though

“walk the bird” has cursed crossover potential with my understanding of British slang

Are you aware of medicine? It’s pretty rude to say “im not disabled like you. It’d be wrong for you to not suffer,” as you did.

Now THIS is podracing

IF you define taking and shrinking a corpse’s. head as a violation of the rights of that corpse’s human rights, then yes. Of course, I disagree with most of what you asserted. I guess my first two questions are “Why does a corpse get rights?” and really just… generally… with the moral system thing. If one feels “the environment” is more important than a human, then they should be pro-kill-all-humans?? I’m not sure that tracks. Most societies have a moral system that’s a little more complicated than “destroy everything that’s not the most morally significant to protect it from being hurt by less moral things.”

Anyway, interesting question! Maybe we should talk about corpse rights as a new category of rights? Less important, perhaps, than living humans, but more important than nothing?

…nonexistant?

I dunno, but it’d be funny

I’m not sure, but as a woman “with multiple personalities” I can say it fucking feels like it sometimes

add a “spend 0 / balance 50” column

This comment section is exactly what my dumbass teenage brain would have needed to read.

sorry you got downvoted, dr satan. your question is inherently kinda yikes but I had the same thought as a teen. it took me a long time to really get why Affirmative Action != reverse racism.