He is saying it now because that “turns” the documentary from “supporters” into a documentary from “critics”. That helps sales. And now the news coverage is pulling attention to it again and of course, that is good for the sales/views.

So I disagree about the stopping to make money with him part, he is milking the other side now.

Being corrected on a German industry norm, how does that feel? A little ironic, maybe?

Also imagine paying a creator of the media that you consume and not a platform which scams an agency which scams the creator.

How horrible…

Honestly people are fucking weird. What is wrong with actually supporting the creator?

I want to help you understand the situation and why people say what they say. Then you can better judge the situation for yourself and make your own decisions.

Situation “your own house”: You want to buy a house but you don’t have the money because… Wtf is the housing market??? 100k for a cardboard box??? So you lent money from your bank to pay for the house. With interest, you pay maybe e.g. 70% more than what you lent. And it takes you 30 years to do so. You might lose your job and have to save a little extra to cover those times and maybe the bank let’s you miss a payment once. After 30 years, you have now a house that needs some repairs but you got more money in your wallet because you are done paying the bank. So you do some repairs and it cost you money, maybe you need a small loan again. Eventually, you are retired and you have less money but you don’t have to repair your house anymore. Sure, there are some issues but the heater will manage another 10 years. You don’t have to worry too much because you don’t have to maintain it after your death. You don’t need to save for a new roof in 5 years when you are 95yo. You can make the call that you don’t care.

So in other words, you pay a little less than 70% more than the value of the house and afterwards you paid for YOUR UTILITY. Every repair was between you and future you.

Situation “I rent to you”: I am buying the house and of course, I am lent the money as it is financially easier and in some places, gives me tax cuts. I buy a house and I too pay 70% interest on it. I need to get the money to pay for my loan. I am not a asshole but also not a saint. So what is pretty fair? Mhm… You, as my renter, pay my loan back! If i ask less, I am literally losing money. But wait, you might move out at any time and I need to pay my loan, so I am asking a little extra… Just in case. But then there are repairs and someone needs to pay for those, so maybe a little extra. Okay now, you are paying for everything! I am safe and sound. After 30 years, you paid back my loan and I own the place. I am getting old and I let my son take care of the business. He takes good care of the house and makes sure that all the repairs are done. He is earning so extra money too as well the loan is paid back. He is looking for a new house for all his children and a big nice garden. With his day job and your rent, his bank gives him a big amount of money that he spends on a beautiful house, he gets the house as he has the cash. You are getting older and you retire, but your rent is not going down. If you could have bought the house 50 years ago, it would have been yours, but it isn’t and you are paying the new loan of my son. The heater could use a replacement in the next 10 years but you really don’t have the money for that but it isn’t your decision, my son wants to rent out the house another 50years if possible. My son feels forced to look for a new renter as you don’t have the money to pay for the new loan and the repairs. He kicks you out. You are homeless. You pay off the loan and some of another loan but you are homeless.

Now that story wasn’t even about actively trying to make money but not wanting to take a risk for someone else.

Most landlords want to make some money.

Honestly I don’t get the OF hate in general. We all have watched porn and we probably liked at least some of what we have seen. What is wrong about earning a living with producing what other people want and like? And as I don’t think, we argue about people consuming porn but about paying for it, what the fuck is wrong with paying the content creator? Why do we prefer paying agencies with ad revenue while the agency effectively scams their talent? Why no ads but cash? Why agency and not talent?

Jealousy.

I don’t know, I kinda like the implication that Nazis aren’t homo sapiens. And while being “homo” is certainly not bad, something tells me that Nazis wouldn’t enjoy being called a “Homo Nazi”.

Facebook be like: “don’t worry! I will not print off your COMPUTER! it will be the printer muhahahahaa”

Honestly I don’t think anyone who is happy with their sex life is invested in how other people’s sex life is.

Looking at the homophobic crowd.

Great meme. Good protest.

Musk’s PISS. I mean LLM or Ai.

PISS is the correct term though. If you want to read up on PISS

I was told by a producer and seller, that they would keep the animal hostage for only a few months and would let them free afterwards.

What I heard, was “we force feed them coffee for a few months, let them free in a somewhat controlled environment and setup traps to catch them again and abuse them again for a few months”

I am not sure if I believe them about letting them free at all.

I don’t see the issue with people letting the outgroup do stuff that they wouldn’t let the ingroup do. It makes sense that you punish or lecture the ingroup about the negative effects of a behavior and it makes sense to surrender on here to educate the outgroup.

The people who joked about violence but are now against it, those people are funny.

LLM? No, PISS, it is called

Like you said in your initial comment,

International money transfer (with currency exchange) But also I don’t want to give some random website my credit card

What first party solved the issue with PayPal? I literally want to see it burn but I don’t have an alternative.

Then I see our disagreement.

I think and you are welcome to disagree, even if the intent is to call coal dirty and you provide an example, you would give an actual example of it being dirty.

If I don’t want to argue the obvious and just want to call the coal dirty. I wouldn’t provide an example because that is the whole point of “calling the coal dirty”, it doesn’t need to be explained.

If I would choose to provide an example, I would provide an actual example.

If we assume his intent was to call coal dirty and he choose to provided an example of the bible being contradictory, I expect the example is actually contradictory. That was what I was arguing.

And I think his example fails, as even in a literal reading, there are interpretations that work just fine without creating contradictions, e.g. a day is ~24hr; and god needed x hrs, or y days. All of us might doubt that it is the intended meaning of the word by the author. But that is our doubts and not a contradictions.

My nonsense was strictly to highlight my point that whether or not, we think it makes sense for someone to act a way, is irrelevant when talking about contradictions.

I hope this helps to understand my intentions. I would be happy to hear your thoughts.

So just that I understand:

Do you think that op and me weren’t specifically talking about it being contradictory?

Do you think that your question about “how it wouldn’t make sense for God to create the sun after the light cycles” is about the bible being contradictory?

Do you think that “does it make sense?” Isn’t off-topic in a discussion about contradictions?

Basically what do you disagree with specifically?

So you think it is smart to engage in a discussion with e.g. a Christian about Christianity while dismissing their actual beliefs and instead force your own Interpretation onto them? Do you think you can change Minds like that?

Of course, I am willing to accept any given sincerely hold belief for the sake of the conversation when my aim is to point out contradictions or issues in their belief. Otherwise I am not really talking about their belief and the issues with it.

And again the goal of op was to point out contradictions. That is the conversation that we are having.

If you have an issue with how general and open the discussion in regards to the Interpretation of the text is, blame op for keeping it vague.

Also why are you ignoring in your response anything about the fact that your injection was seemingly off-topic and the consequences of the misunderstanding that it seemingly caused? No objections or no acception? No questions? No thoughts?

Why do you continue to be hostile? I understand that you might felt like I dismissed your point and that you thought I was trolling but it seems to me as if I made clear that I wasn’t doing either. So what is up with that?

No, that is not my point at all.

My point is that if like OP intended, you want to criticize the religion’s contradictions, do it well. In the case of the creation story, a lot of christians do not believe it to be a literal story and have a bunch of different Interpretation. I have my own issues with that approach but those Interpretation might or might not be contradictory without looking into the precis interpretation, it is impossible to tell. As the goal of op was to highlight the contradictory nature of the christian beliefs and didn’t provide any precis interpretation of the text, I looked at the specific text that op provided and considered some interpretation and figured that op did an embarrassing job to show the contradictory nature of their belief. as with the provided text even if read literally, there is an non contradictory way to understand the text. While maybe odd or unlikely, totally possible and therefore non contradictory.

Your question about the motivation of god to be that way as you thinks it doesn’t make sense, is utterly valid from the perspective of a person trying to figure out how credible they perceive the religion in question but that was and isn’t what this discussion was about and what I am arguing. I am arguing about whether or not it is contradictory and not that pointing out contradictions is bad, or that you can’t criticize it, or that god’s actions would make sense to me.

If you think it makes no sense that god created the sun after the light cycles, I disagree with you but I don’t say that you shouldn’t argue your perspective. I am saying that you joined a different discussion and my reaction was based in that discussion. And I think if you want to have the other discussion about whether or not it makes sense, you are welcome to but maybe don’t inject it in another discussion and be surprised if the other person thinks that your injection is intended to be on topic. That creates confusion.

Tldr: topic is “is it contradictory?” And your injection was about “does it make sense?”. Different topics. Different discussion. Not the point of the discussion that I had, therefore I dismissed it as not relevant to the discussion. Have the other discussion if you want, just don’t be mad that anyone misunderstood your intentions with the injection.