I have a Xiaomi Amazfit. Cost me 55€, and the battery lasts 15 days with an always on display. It has included GPS, compass, pressure meter, heart rate monitor and sleep monitoring.
Sincerely, other than looks (and I woild still not bring an Apple phone to more formal occasions just like I don't bring my Amazfit) I can't understand why anyone would pay 10x more for an iWatch not can I stand that I would have to charge it everyday.
> There are no converts, either you started a Linux person, or you started a Mac person.
That's a clear over generalization. I started with Mac, used everything Mac for about 15 years (various Macbooks, Mabooks Pro, iMacs and one Mac Pro) and then changed to everything Linux about 5 years ago.
I am a scientific researcher, my main activity in the computer is programming, I didn't miss the Mac at all except for a little tool that I used for my personal life (GarageSale) and that I couldn't get anything similar (it's a tool to create eBay auctions in a much easier and nifty way).
Anyway, there is nothing about the Mac itself I miss.
>As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant.
Re-read your original comments then:
"The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights."
"Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are."
Now understand that abortionists are "intolerant of life" as the original GP stated, because they are intolerant of the children/fetus rights, not of the woman deciding not to abort (I think that is obvious to anyone... but here I am having to write it down).
Your all argument was that woman have those rights, but children/fetus don't, therefore forcing woman to conceive was against their rights, and, you concluded, intolerant.
I confronted you with realities where the children/fetus rights are higher than those of women (i.e. Alabama) and by your reasoning, that changes who is the intolerant one.
> The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm".
Harm is also an abstract concept of course, I don't understand where you want to go with that sentence.
Your original words were: "The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights."
See, you equate "intolerance" with defending to violate someone "rights".
Obviously in place where the "rights" are different - i.e. Alabama - then it changes who is the intolerant one. In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine.
Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion....
You are effectively arguing that, in Alabama, for instance, since 2 months ago, pro choice are the intolerant ones and pro life are the non intolerant. After all, the law there, says so according to your reasoning.
> A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract".
If A stabbing B is a crime and thereby - according to your reasoning - "intolerant", while B stabbing C is not a crime and therefore non "intolerant". Then the concept of "intolerance" is definitively an abstract.
The point is that you argue that pro life are intolerant because they don't respect woman rights.
Well, then, using your argument, in a society where unborn children have rights, the exact same thing can be said about pro abortion: they are intolerant because they don't respect children rights.
So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.
In the examples you have given, it all comes down to a particular society definition of whom has rights and whom doesn't.
Your argument is based on a specific society where law states unborn children have no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid.
That goes on to validate the GP argument that "intolerance" is nothing but an abstract concept.
Sincerely, other than looks (and I woild still not bring an Apple phone to more formal occasions just like I don't bring my Amazfit) I can't understand why anyone would pay 10x more for an iWatch not can I stand that I would have to charge it everyday.