18885 pts ยท December 29, 2021
story. I would think that at the very least, for you to have a religion, you would need to believe in some supernatural (and thus by definition non-scientific) cosmic force. If you do, you are using religion to answer questions about the nature of reality. And if you don't, there's no meaningful distinction from atheism. You can't completley separate scientific domain and religious domain from each other.
Moses received 10 commandments from God, or any other wondrous claims that the holy book is making... And if you're only using the stories as a way to reflect on your morals... Yeah, I can do that as an atheist and I can see value in that. But I don't see how does that qualify as a religion anymore. The core point I attempted to make was that if you don't use religion for any factual/scientific statements, you don't really have a religion. You're no different than an atheist reading a nice >
No, that's not what I think. I don't think you need to accept everything in bible as literal truths to be Christian. But I don't think it's religion if you don't accept *any* of the factual claims it's making. I can reflect on my moral values by reading Lord of the Rings, and just appreciate the story. But for it to become a religion, I think there needs to be *some part* you accept. If you don't accept that god exists, or that god created the world, or that Jesus performed miracles, or that >
The existence of there being a god is a factual statement about the nature of the reality. It's not a matter of opinion, it's not a philosophical question... Either there is a specific entity that created the world and wishes us to live in a certain way, or there isn't one. If you accept that that sort of fundamental claim about reality, then you are definitely using religion to answer scientific questions. If you don't, then you don't beliew in Christian/Jewish/Islamic god.
religion to seek answers to scientific questions and I totally respect that. But religion VERY MUCH attempts to answer scientific questions. The very first sentence of the bible is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and that is absolutely an attempt to answer scientific questions... and I don't think you can meaningfully follow any of the largest world religions if you don't accept any of the factual claims they are making.
Sure, but that's not the claim I was responding to. I was responding to you saying "Religion isn't for answering scientific questions". When the bible says (3 separate times) that Jesus excorcised the Gerasene demoniac to a large herd of swine and then those swine ran to sea and drowned themselves... It's not giving us philosophical guidance. It's making a factual, historical claim. You may think religion SHOULDN'T try to answer scientific questions and I agree. You may even PERSONALLY not use >
I'd love to see someone christian sue the school for having a slightly different christian denomination's commandments on the wall.
I'd be happy just to start with all the different Christian variations of the 10 commandments side by side on the wall. Remember, there's no clear set of ten commandments in the bible. There is a section (Exodus 20) with a bunch of paragraphs of varying lengths of stuff Moses says, but if I just told you to read it and give me 10 bullet points, it'd not be at all clear how to group that text. So Catholic 10 commandments are different than Anglican which are different than Lutheran etc...
There are very few religions that don't make factual claims about the world. E.g. about the nature of the reality, the history of the world, about there being an objectively right way to live, about what will happen to you after you die, or what will happen to the world in the future... These aren't spiritual or philosophical questions, these are claims that are either true or not. I'd completely agree with you if religions stayed away from the scientific matters, but they very much don't.
I don't know about IRL, but if you're into parrots it's hard to avoid seeing A LOT of poorly treated ones on your social media feeds. People who clip their parrots' wings because "Otherwise it'd be unsafe to keep our windows open" for example. It's extremely common in the USA. Yeah, clipping feathers doesn't injure the bird but it's like saying that tying a dogs' feet together doesn't injure it... It's the animal's primary mode of movement and if you aren't able to accomodate it, don't get one.
The post isn't saying it's about "mpreg" but that it's about sexual violence. About being bodily violated and then being forced to carry the offspring of the creature that violated you. I don't really think you need to be a hyper-insecure man to find that a suitable horror theme.
Again, this is not a serious issue. Presumably this is pretty robust technology, and in the rare cases that a mistake happens it's presumably very easy for the recipient to have it fixed. It's a reliable, low-risk situation. If you're not willing to automate this, you're not going to be able to automate anything in government. And if you want a good, well-functioning government that's not a desired goal. Even if it was humans rubber-stamping these, mistaked would still occasionally happen.
Inefficiency is always a bad way to create jobs. If the government has the budget to hire 4 additional police, would you rather that their work output is spent mind-numbingly rubber stamping 99.9% correct traffic citations, or that they e.g. use that time to e.g. investigate crimes? You should never use "job creation" as a way to justify wasteful bureaucracy, when you could just as well create the same amount of jobs by doing something more productive instead.
Assuming this is in Porgual (obviously could be other contries too), they cite 800k speeding violations a year. If half of them are automatic (couldn't quickly find that stat), it's 400 000 tickets a year. If a human spent one minute per ticket, you'd need 4 full-time workers spending 7.5h a day just rubber stamping this automatic process just because sometime a speeding towtruck could cause someone to have to spend 15 mins challenging a ticket. Multiply that for every process you automate...
I don't know. This seems like an incredibly rare edge case. If you have a camera, that reliably takes a photo of a car when it detects that car passing it above speed limit, and you have the data to directly mail the ticket for it... I'd find it incredibly silly waste of justice system resources to have a human rubber stamp them all. For these weird edge cases I'm certain there's a way to challenge the ticket and that the challenge will be instantyl approved.
Thanks for your research! Yeah, I think some version of this story probably happened. It doesn't sound unbelievable, the person in this post doesn't seem like a political grifter (I checked their socials) so he genuinely believes it, and there are these references to lost sources... But there might be significant details that are getting meaningfully modified as time goes on and people summarise other people paraphrasing summaries of unavailable sources.
I am a Finn and I have multiple friends who lived in Germany for a while... and absolutely encountered racism. One (Tall, polite, highly educated, well-earning, very nordic) guy complained to his landlord (an elderly german woman) that there was a weird smell in the apartment, and she said that it's because he lives there and he's a foreigner so he probably smells. Basically, the idea that there could ever be a country with a "white culture" or whatever is silly.
Yeah... What counts as "White" is completely cultural. Actually, drawing a distinction between white and black people is extremely specific to the USA (where there is the history of that distinction being meaningful in legislation). But whatever terminology you use, here in the nordic countries, we absolutely wouldn't consider e.g. a Swede and an Italian to be a part of the same ethnicity/culture so if we suddenly had a bunch of south europeans here, people would complain of multiculturalism.
best source then its initial answer of "There isn't widely cited academic information on this" or whatever was completely valid. I don't know about the history of that area, so I'm not saying this didn't happen... But I would really hope that in a post that is allegedly about "We should have more media literacy in trusting our sources" wouldn't take the claims of that guy at such a face value when the video has massive red flags like that.
I stopped my research there, but... The best source we have appears to be a sketchy diving company website, citing wikipedia article that doesn't describe the event, and the only vaguely related paragraph cites an 1800s book without page number... I'm honestly happy ChatGPT doesn't explain it as fact. I assume if there are better sources, the person in this video would have referenced them. If anything, I judge chatgpt for changing its view after being pressured enough... But if that is the >
Yeah, I looked at the domain names ChatGPT cites in its "I'm sorry" response and that looked sketchy. It's a short excerpt on some diving company's quite unprofessional looking site ( https://roatan-diving.com/roatan-history ). That page only cites one wiki page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Islands_Department ) as a source. That wiki page doesn't talk of the event and only makes one reference to velasquez, which refers to some encyclopedia from 1800s without citing page numbers.
It doesn't really work like that. In accounting, every cent you spend must be matched by how you received that money. If they count the money they donate as a tax deductable expense, then they first have to have that money in their balance sheet, so they need to mark it as income... At which point they *should* be able to deduct that donation so there's no taxes that they need to pay for transferring your money to the charity as what you donated to them wasn't real income for them.
We also know it's a lie because Netanyahu said they are close to having WMDs. There's a decade-long track record of him constantly saying "Iran will have nukes within months" and a decade-long track record of him lying every time he's said that. It'd be silly to assume that this is the time it's true, at a time when it also happens to be politically really convenient to him.
Pretty sure I bought that CD to my mom as a present at some point.
The way you phrase it "the actual taboo word" makes it sound like it's specific to that word instead of being a common concept. At least here in Finland we very much believed that names have power (knowing something's true name gives you some power over it, and saying it out loud may summon it). There's TONS of alternative ways to refer to bears because of this. And you see a similar concept in more recent folklores like "bloody mary".
TL;DR: Obama didn't use the words "tried to kill" but the exact quote was "If Donald Trump does not care that a mob might attack his own vice president, do you think he cares about you?". I don't think the core message is all that different but points for being more precise.
plan when you're already at the top. The scheme you describe would require them as a class of people mass-shift most of their wealth out of stock (which they haven't been doing, otherwise the market would have tanked *before* these tariffs etc.), then wait for markets to crash and then mass-buy everything back and hope they time it right instead of it becoming a prolonged recession. That'd be an insane scheme for people in such positions to attempt.
I doubt that. I'm not saying there's no insider trading going on at all, like someone from the inner circle doing some shorting before a major tariff announcement. With this level of corruption, I'm sure there's some of that. But in general, rich people already have their wealth in assets like stocks and real estate. When they go down, rich people in general are losing their wealth. And if there's one thing that's good for rich people, it's status quo: Don't gamble everything on some complex >
I'd not bet my life on that. 12th amendment (which establishes the vice president process) talks about people being "constitutionally ineligible to the office of the president". There are two instances in constitution where that phrase ("eligible to the office...") is used (age & citizenship requirements). The later 22nd (term limits) says "shall be elected to the office of the President". I'd not be shocked if the current SCOTUS made a distinction that he's not ineligible because of term limits
As a Finn, I'd definitely count UK in. I won't comment on internal affairs and it does feel like prime ministers rotate every other month or so recently. But UK's support for Ukraine has been unwavering through it all. And when Russia had just invaded Ukraine, Turkey and Hungary were being difficult about our NATO membership, etc... Boris Johnson (who I don't align with generally) showed us such incredible support that if I ever got a chance to thank him in person I'd probably tear up.
story. I would think that at the very least, for you to have a religion, you would need to believe in some supernatural (and thus by definition non-scientific) cosmic force. If you do, you are using religion to answer questions about the nature of reality. And if you don't, there's no meaningful distinction from atheism. You can't completley separate scientific domain and religious domain from each other.
Moses received 10 commandments from God, or any other wondrous claims that the holy book is making... And if you're only using the stories as a way to reflect on your morals... Yeah, I can do that as an atheist and I can see value in that. But I don't see how does that qualify as a religion anymore. The core point I attempted to make was that if you don't use religion for any factual/scientific statements, you don't really have a religion. You're no different than an atheist reading a nice >
No, that's not what I think. I don't think you need to accept everything in bible as literal truths to be Christian. But I don't think it's religion if you don't accept *any* of the factual claims it's making. I can reflect on my moral values by reading Lord of the Rings, and just appreciate the story. But for it to become a religion, I think there needs to be *some part* you accept. If you don't accept that god exists, or that god created the world, or that Jesus performed miracles, or that >
The existence of there being a god is a factual statement about the nature of the reality. It's not a matter of opinion, it's not a philosophical question... Either there is a specific entity that created the world and wishes us to live in a certain way, or there isn't one. If you accept that that sort of fundamental claim about reality, then you are definitely using religion to answer scientific questions. If you don't, then you don't beliew in Christian/Jewish/Islamic god.
religion to seek answers to scientific questions and I totally respect that. But religion VERY MUCH attempts to answer scientific questions. The very first sentence of the bible is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and that is absolutely an attempt to answer scientific questions... and I don't think you can meaningfully follow any of the largest world religions if you don't accept any of the factual claims they are making.
Sure, but that's not the claim I was responding to. I was responding to you saying "Religion isn't for answering scientific questions". When the bible says (3 separate times) that Jesus excorcised the Gerasene demoniac to a large herd of swine and then those swine ran to sea and drowned themselves... It's not giving us philosophical guidance. It's making a factual, historical claim. You may think religion SHOULDN'T try to answer scientific questions and I agree. You may even PERSONALLY not use >
I'd love to see someone christian sue the school for having a slightly different christian denomination's commandments on the wall.
I'd be happy just to start with all the different Christian variations of the 10 commandments side by side on the wall. Remember, there's no clear set of ten commandments in the bible. There is a section (Exodus 20) with a bunch of paragraphs of varying lengths of stuff Moses says, but if I just told you to read it and give me 10 bullet points, it'd not be at all clear how to group that text. So Catholic 10 commandments are different than Anglican which are different than Lutheran etc...
There are very few religions that don't make factual claims about the world. E.g. about the nature of the reality, the history of the world, about there being an objectively right way to live, about what will happen to you after you die, or what will happen to the world in the future... These aren't spiritual or philosophical questions, these are claims that are either true or not. I'd completely agree with you if religions stayed away from the scientific matters, but they very much don't.
I don't know about IRL, but if you're into parrots it's hard to avoid seeing A LOT of poorly treated ones on your social media feeds. People who clip their parrots' wings because "Otherwise it'd be unsafe to keep our windows open" for example. It's extremely common in the USA. Yeah, clipping feathers doesn't injure the bird but it's like saying that tying a dogs' feet together doesn't injure it... It's the animal's primary mode of movement and if you aren't able to accomodate it, don't get one.
The post isn't saying it's about "mpreg" but that it's about sexual violence. About being bodily violated and then being forced to carry the offspring of the creature that violated you. I don't really think you need to be a hyper-insecure man to find that a suitable horror theme.
Again, this is not a serious issue. Presumably this is pretty robust technology, and in the rare cases that a mistake happens it's presumably very easy for the recipient to have it fixed. It's a reliable, low-risk situation. If you're not willing to automate this, you're not going to be able to automate anything in government. And if you want a good, well-functioning government that's not a desired goal. Even if it was humans rubber-stamping these, mistaked would still occasionally happen.
Inefficiency is always a bad way to create jobs. If the government has the budget to hire 4 additional police, would you rather that their work output is spent mind-numbingly rubber stamping 99.9% correct traffic citations, or that they e.g. use that time to e.g. investigate crimes? You should never use "job creation" as a way to justify wasteful bureaucracy, when you could just as well create the same amount of jobs by doing something more productive instead.
Assuming this is in Porgual (obviously could be other contries too), they cite 800k speeding violations a year. If half of them are automatic (couldn't quickly find that stat), it's 400 000 tickets a year. If a human spent one minute per ticket, you'd need 4 full-time workers spending 7.5h a day just rubber stamping this automatic process just because sometime a speeding towtruck could cause someone to have to spend 15 mins challenging a ticket. Multiply that for every process you automate...
I don't know. This seems like an incredibly rare edge case. If you have a camera, that reliably takes a photo of a car when it detects that car passing it above speed limit, and you have the data to directly mail the ticket for it... I'd find it incredibly silly waste of justice system resources to have a human rubber stamp them all. For these weird edge cases I'm certain there's a way to challenge the ticket and that the challenge will be instantyl approved.
Thanks for your research! Yeah, I think some version of this story probably happened. It doesn't sound unbelievable, the person in this post doesn't seem like a political grifter (I checked their socials) so he genuinely believes it, and there are these references to lost sources... But there might be significant details that are getting meaningfully modified as time goes on and people summarise other people paraphrasing summaries of unavailable sources.
I am a Finn and I have multiple friends who lived in Germany for a while... and absolutely encountered racism. One (Tall, polite, highly educated, well-earning, very nordic) guy complained to his landlord (an elderly german woman) that there was a weird smell in the apartment, and she said that it's because he lives there and he's a foreigner so he probably smells. Basically, the idea that there could ever be a country with a "white culture" or whatever is silly.
Yeah... What counts as "White" is completely cultural. Actually, drawing a distinction between white and black people is extremely specific to the USA (where there is the history of that distinction being meaningful in legislation). But whatever terminology you use, here in the nordic countries, we absolutely wouldn't consider e.g. a Swede and an Italian to be a part of the same ethnicity/culture so if we suddenly had a bunch of south europeans here, people would complain of multiculturalism.
best source then its initial answer of "There isn't widely cited academic information on this" or whatever was completely valid. I don't know about the history of that area, so I'm not saying this didn't happen... But I would really hope that in a post that is allegedly about "We should have more media literacy in trusting our sources" wouldn't take the claims of that guy at such a face value when the video has massive red flags like that.
I stopped my research there, but... The best source we have appears to be a sketchy diving company website, citing wikipedia article that doesn't describe the event, and the only vaguely related paragraph cites an 1800s book without page number... I'm honestly happy ChatGPT doesn't explain it as fact. I assume if there are better sources, the person in this video would have referenced them. If anything, I judge chatgpt for changing its view after being pressured enough... But if that is the >
Yeah, I looked at the domain names ChatGPT cites in its "I'm sorry" response and that looked sketchy. It's a short excerpt on some diving company's quite unprofessional looking site ( https://roatan-diving.com/roatan-history ). That page only cites one wiki page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Islands_Department ) as a source. That wiki page doesn't talk of the event and only makes one reference to velasquez, which refers to some encyclopedia from 1800s without citing page numbers.
It doesn't really work like that. In accounting, every cent you spend must be matched by how you received that money. If they count the money they donate as a tax deductable expense, then they first have to have that money in their balance sheet, so they need to mark it as income... At which point they *should* be able to deduct that donation so there's no taxes that they need to pay for transferring your money to the charity as what you donated to them wasn't real income for them.
We also know it's a lie because Netanyahu said they are close to having WMDs. There's a decade-long track record of him constantly saying "Iran will have nukes within months" and a decade-long track record of him lying every time he's said that. It'd be silly to assume that this is the time it's true, at a time when it also happens to be politically really convenient to him.
Pretty sure I bought that CD to my mom as a present at some point.
The way you phrase it "the actual taboo word" makes it sound like it's specific to that word instead of being a common concept. At least here in Finland we very much believed that names have power (knowing something's true name gives you some power over it, and saying it out loud may summon it). There's TONS of alternative ways to refer to bears because of this. And you see a similar concept in more recent folklores like "bloody mary".
TL;DR: Obama didn't use the words "tried to kill" but the exact quote was "If Donald Trump does not care that a mob might attack his own vice president, do you think he cares about you?". I don't think the core message is all that different but points for being more precise.
plan when you're already at the top. The scheme you describe would require them as a class of people mass-shift most of their wealth out of stock (which they haven't been doing, otherwise the market would have tanked *before* these tariffs etc.), then wait for markets to crash and then mass-buy everything back and hope they time it right instead of it becoming a prolonged recession. That'd be an insane scheme for people in such positions to attempt.
I doubt that. I'm not saying there's no insider trading going on at all, like someone from the inner circle doing some shorting before a major tariff announcement. With this level of corruption, I'm sure there's some of that. But in general, rich people already have their wealth in assets like stocks and real estate. When they go down, rich people in general are losing their wealth. And if there's one thing that's good for rich people, it's status quo: Don't gamble everything on some complex >
I'd not bet my life on that. 12th amendment (which establishes the vice president process) talks about people being "constitutionally ineligible to the office of the president". There are two instances in constitution where that phrase ("eligible to the office...") is used (age & citizenship requirements). The later 22nd (term limits) says "shall be elected to the office of the President". I'd not be shocked if the current SCOTUS made a distinction that he's not ineligible because of term limits
As a Finn, I'd definitely count UK in. I won't comment on internal affairs and it does feel like prime ministers rotate every other month or so recently. But UK's support for Ukraine has been unwavering through it all. And when Russia had just invaded Ukraine, Turkey and Hungary were being difficult about our NATO membership, etc... Boris Johnson (who I don't align with generally) showed us such incredible support that if I ever got a chance to thank him in person I'd probably tear up.