Precedent is nothing more to them than a tool to keep democrats down. Show me the last time a republican respected precedent when there was nothing in it for them.

Ok, I understand this now. The reddit post this post is based on came on the heels of another post where an actual father disowned his actual daughter and then took the money he promised her for college and left her out to dry, while giving all of her siblings the same amount. There are several people discussing that incident on the linked post, but this is not that. It’s just a post about fathers disowning their children.

I guess that’s my bad. That guy was an asshole. I’m not trying to say all dads who do that are assholes. I guess based on the first two comments on this thread chain, I thought we were talking about that guy.

I’m tired of words being put into my mouth. I could clarify my stance again, but I don’t think I care enough.

I didn’t say boundaries shouldn’t exist. I’m was actively arguing that we are not all the same. I understand perfectly what he meant by the difference between love as a feeling and as an action, and feel that the distinction is irrelevant in the context. You don’t have to agree with me, I’m not looking for approval.

Besides all that, none of it has to do with the original purpose of this thread before it went off on a tangent, which is that the situation in question is fucked. No interpretation of boundaries or conditional love fits into the fact that he rescinded a life changing gift upon learning she wasn’t his, after he loved her like a father for 19 years.

I sympathize with his situation. What he did was misdirect his pain at his kid, which is shitty either way.

Insisting on your own definition doesn’t really do anything other than show (again, for the third time now) that you believe love has limitations as to who deserves it.

You love differently. I’ve already made my points. You’re free to love or not love your children as you wish, but stating something as broad as ‘all love is conditional’ is getting into the territory of deciding what love is for everybody. If you can’t grasp why that’s ridiculous, I can’t help you.

I’m not interested in continuing this increasingly circular argument. Agree to disagree.

Regardless of what either of us defines love as, it’s pretty hard to argue that what that man did to a child he spent years raising was justified. Even if love is conditional, there’s still a line where it turns from simply not loving that person into active spite. That girl did nothing to lose his love except discover at the same time he did that they weren’t related. If that’s his condition for loving her, as I said to begin with, he didn’t actually love her.

In any case, I try to make it a point to not say the same things over and over when arguing on the internet, because it just leads to a lot of wasted time. So if you’ve got nothing more to add than insisting on the same points you’ve made multiple times now, you’ll forgive me if this is where I stop responding.

You are a god among men

This is the natural progression of the games-as-a-service model. Any game that relies on online support of some kind just to function will eventually cease like this.

Is it stupid that a vr game about a pet relies on online support to function? Absolutely. But it is what it is. Buy more offline games.

Putting forth the most extreme example you can think of is the opposite of proving your point. You’re just demonstrating where your line is, and doing so also showing that you can’t fathom love deeper than that, not proving it doesn’t exist. It’s also a little sad you think that parents out there don’t love their children in the face of crimes they committed is the rule and not the exception.

I understand deep pain and not being able to face the kid after that kind of betrayal by the mother. Taking away that kid’s ticket to life because of it is absolutely worth judging someone over. This is not just being unable to cope with pain. This is lashing out at someone who doesn’t deserve it.

Look bud, I’m sorry about what happened to your mate, and I won’t pretend to understand the personal nature of the decision he had to make. But I’m also not going to sit here and let you justify what is clearly an act of spite by saying all love is conditional because a mother doesn’t love a murderer. That’s a pretty ridiculous jump, and that you had to jump that far in the first place really only shows that you think love should be conditional.

You should probably reevaluate the place in yourself where that notion comes from, because that’s not really the kind of statement a stable person makes.

Anyway, you’re not going to convince someone who defines love differently than you that there is a limit to what that love should be. Less so that the specific circumstances of this situation in particular are justified.

Have a good night, buddy.

deleted by creator

All love is conditional

My man, that’s not even close to true. The only person who chooses to love conditionally is the one doing the loving. A parent’s love for a child is the last kind of love that should be conditional. And if that parent’s condition after 20 years is that that child came from his seed, then he doesn’t really love his child. Love means accepting someone for who they are, not judging their worthiness based on their circumstances.

I’d say, based on how convinced you are to make a statement that all love is conditional, you probably need to see a therapist.

I’d like to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and say that trauma is a removed, but he really just said “I discovered you were conceived in an affair so you don’t matter to me”. It’s pretty difficult to reconcile that opinion from the standpoint of a father.

Ok, but when you spend a third to a half of your life loving someone like your child and then you just drop them for something that isn’t at all their fault, do you really love any of your children? Do you really love anyone when you can drop a bond like a father to a child just like that?

All that kind of move does is send the message to everyone else in his life that his love is conditional and you might be dropped at any point for something that isn’t your fault.

You’re a housing provider, not a landlord. If you aren’t making anything off of the houses you lease then you aren’t the subject of the ire of renters.

Ignore those goons saying you’re a bad investor. It’s noble of you to not leech off of the people who you rent to, and at the end of the day, the equity of the house is still yours.

deleted by creator

BECAUSE IT’S DEVASTATING TO MY CASE!

Congratulations, comrade. You passed the test of patriotism. Here’s your gun and manifesto, we’ll be sending you to confront the US army at dawn.

Do the same at VAs

The problem with that is that it may have been legal at the place it was done, but states would absolutely place police next door to wait for those women to come out. They already have laws that criminalize women who go out of state

Yes, it is a tool. A camera is a tool, and yet there is a process in which it is used to create art. A paint brush is a tool, but it’s not the thing that decides what goes on the canvas. A tool does not create without an artist.

What you’re arguing, that a computer does not create, isn’t even the point. Ultimately ai generation, like any tool, is only as good as the vision of the person piloting it.

It’s pretty clear to me that you don’t want to hear what I’m saying anyway. You want to be angry about a tool.

Good luck with that 👍

I understand what you’re getting at, but that doesn’t mean that that artist’s work is any less valuable. In your example, the artist in question is still being paid to create genuine art. I suppose there is an argument there that with ai available to create similar art, he may otherwise lose commissions to lesser quality substitutes. But on the other side of the coin, it’s possible that many people emulating his work would accept a much lower quality substitute for convenience and wouldn’t have paid him to create anyway, particularly given that d&d art is often used for conception and token purposes and not quality.

On the topic of ai art affecting that artist’s reputation, I can see how it might become a problem that certain ai pieces are incorrectly attributed to an artist. That problem seems largely unavoidable though to people unwilling to differentiate or inquire as to who the artist is in the first place. That might also be something subjected to copyright law in the near future, like an ai water mark being required on any ai generator.

I still don’t think that creative work is even going to come close to being trivialized. Ai art is free to the public, and yet I still know several artists who live off of commissions, one of which is my wife, because ai can’t yet produce what people actually want to see with the refined quality that they can get from a real, human artist.

So you would say that the tool devalues the artist?

I know it’s not so simple as that, but in essence the argument that you’re making is that as technology improves the baseline technique available to beginners, the gap narrows and devalues the work of an experienced artist.

In my opinion, that’s backwards. Art is subjective by its very nature. People using ai to generate art without a background or technical expertise in that art aren’t artists in the same sense that a person building a house in the Sims isn’t an architect. Does the Sims allowing a player to design a house devalue the job of an architect, whose purpose is to create something actually valuable? I think a architect would laugh at that notion.

In the same way, an artist creates value in a way that a non-artist cannot, even with ai generation being a factor.

No need to be hostile. I know plenty about creative process, including photographic process. What I’m asking you is, if art is directly tied to the process of creating it, in the same way that photography has a different process than painting, would ai art be considered art to you if you learned that there actually is a process of refining the product?

That is to say, you pointed out that there is a difference between clicking the shutter and taking light, composition, shutter speed etc, into account. One of those produces an ameteur product, and one produces a photo worthy of a gallery. And the difference is the artist.

So if you were to learn that not all ai art is even close to art, that in fact the vast majority of it is akin to the amateur clicking the shutter, would you consider good ai art any more valid given a process you may not be aware of?

Let me ask you this: Would you consider photography art? And if so, is it fair to say that photography is a cheap form of art because the process is often less intense than putting a brush to canvas?