SouthernCanadian

I didn't say anyone was obligated to agree with me.

I didn't say my outlook was correct. I don't think objective morality exists so I wouldn't say any outlook is the correct one. But if it did exist then there would be one correct morality rather than multiple.

I am trying to consider this but you refused to answer my question earlier. How is not killing someone harmful and dangerous?

Again, I don't have any alts. If you rub your brain cells together, it's obvious that someone else could agree with me and be up voting me.

I have never apologized for rapists.

Are you starting to see what I mean about jumping to conclusions?

Have you considered that multiple people can disagree with you? I don't have any alts LOL. Proving my point.

Was this generated by some sort of schizo sjw AI or something? You are increasingly incoherent.

I'm afraid of all rape victims? Lol you're really good at this jumping to conclusions thing. I'm happy to watch you tire yourself out though.

So let's just be clear here. You're saying that everyone who opposes the death penalty is terrible? How did you come up with that? What reason would you have for killing a rapist? How is there a positive outcome from that?

Devil's advocate, it's not optional if you want to keep your max cape, which is probably the best QoL item in the game

I knew I shouldn't have mentioned sausage on Lemmy. Some of y'all are too weird for me

You sound like you've never eaten sausage while engaged in physical combat

This is only a problem because people imagine a potion has to have certain traits. Afaik, none of the rules as written specify that potions have to be more than a mouthful.

It isn't like potions are medicine, where you have to have a specific quantity to be effective. They're liquid magic. A single drop could carry whatever it does, though that would be less than useful because getting that single drop out of a bottle would be just as time consuming as chugging a bottle.

If you don't think of potions as being in a half pint sized bottle, the problem takes care of itself. A vial about two inches long and an inch in diameter, made of earthenware or even glass would hold enough of whatever to fill your mouth, be just as portable, and only take three to five seconds to use.

If you ignore having to swallow, it's even faster. It's magic, it could activate and affect you as soon as it's inside your body. Which also means rectal intake would work tbh.

There's plenty of fictional reference for potions being contact based, where the first drops start whatever change occurs. And there's basis good healing positions being able to be used topically, though that won't always apply to every injury.

But think about that for a second. If the potion has to be swallowed, that's pretty badly planned magic. The healing spells that healing potions are made from are contact based depending on the system. Touch ranged healing is fairly common. So, why can the healing potions not work if poured onto a wound? Why would you have to wait while you swallow, then let the magic burst from the stomach?

And, we know potions can be used on unconscious targets. Unconscious people can't always swallow anyway. So the full draught being swallowed is obviously preconception rather than something that is inherent to potion use.

The reason potion making in our world (hey, there's recipes for them, and people think they work, don't blame me) supposedly requires drinking the entire thing is that the ingredients are part of the magic, and the use of heat to reduce the potion beyond the initial making is "magically" going to break down what would work. Mind you, that's what people have claimed when the question is posed to them.

Working with real magic, you could reduce the liquid part, or hand wave it and say that the ingredients are consumed in making the potion, and thus don't require the same end volume.

And yes, I've thought about this way too much lol