Total posts: 2,033
More specifically a Green Witch. For any pagans out there, do you have any advice for him?
Created:
I would say glass is one. The amount of applications it’s had is almost unfathomable.
Just think of all the scientific instruments and technology it’s been applied to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Props to you.
Let’s make this a fitness page. You choose the challenge daily. Nothing too extreme
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Want do have some healthy competition? You do 1000 push-ups and i’ll do 1000 sit-ups and let’s see who finishes first. I’ll be starting at 13 GMT.
I’ll comment when i’m done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Alright old man, you win. Even though you’re only focusing in on one aspect of what belief is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
We wouldn’t need to do this all day if you stayed true to the definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
At face value:
- Faith implies uncertainty
- Belief implies impartiality
- Truth implies certainty
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well.Within the context of acquired and stored data 1 + 1 = 2 is an unvarying and known fact.So why would you need to believe that 1 + 1 = 2Ok, so you might suggest that there will undoubtedly be the uneducated few who are not furnished with such knowledge, but they could not believe in something that they do not know.
Belief has multiple meanings, depending on what context you use it in. I’ve used it entirely correct.
As for GODs and their associated tales. Some people become conditioned to accept such established propositions as accurate, even though there is no definitive proof available. We refer to this as belief or an uncertain belief that is based upon known but nonfactual data.It's a bit like waiting at the bus stop for the bus that will hopefully arrive.More chance of a bus turning up though. Because know for a fact that buses do exist.
Belief is a neutral term for both known and unknown perceptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
No, you don't believe that 1 + 1 = 2, you are certain that 1 + 1 = 2.Believe: verb (used without object), be·lieved, be·liev·ing. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
By that definition belief and certainty aren’t contradictory. isn’t having confidence in the truth a form of certainty? Please don’t try to derail the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief =/= uncertainty.
Belief doesn’t necessarily equal uncertainty.
I believe 1 + 1 = 2.
Does that necessarily mean I’m uncertain? Of course not.
And as for their inspiration, it could just be completely tribal religiosity.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I’m not completely sure how cultured meat is grown, but most vegans are vegans due to animal cruelty and environmental concerns.
With cultured meat I’m pretty sure you can have completely free ranged animals, and all you need to do is wait for them to pass away of natural causes for the most extreme vegans.
I’m not sure if there’s a set amount you can culture before it starts to degrade. I assume there is.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Vegans aren’t fundamentally against eating cells. Plants have cells. Your post is safe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
We’re not the (Chinese) government. And I’m not saying all Muslims are defending him. But i’ve seen plenty go on prominent youtube podcasts/debates. You’ll end up coming across them if you search for debates on Andrew Tate and sex trafficking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If so, they should be making the argument..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I wonder what their principled reasons are.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Meat cultured from cells. “Lab grown meat.”
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The only one I asked you, other than the one above.
I’m curious what the Chinese public thinks about this. What’s your sense?
If you don’t want to answer because of your paranoia, it’s fine.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Are you going to answer my question?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It all started when the fire nation attacked.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I’m curious what the chinese public thinks about this. What’s your sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There’s also deepfake voices as well where you can train a program on a persons voice. When done you can type something and the voice will say anything you write. It’s become really realistic in the past couple of years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
People with specialised computer programs are now able to replace a persons face with another, to put it simply. So say there’s a porn scene, a guy can take that footage and replace the original features of the participants with another’s. Expressions still stay the same depending how much the computer was trained on the new face.
Famous people are the obvious targets of this sort of stuff, but anyone can have it done to them.
Famous people are the obvious targets of this sort of stuff, but anyone can have it done to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
This thread is aligned with a previous one called moral ambiguity vs intense fanaticism.Since not many people understood what I was asking / were able to answer it, I am going to rephrase the question.Here is the situation:You have two individuals: an antisemitic zealot who is driven by his ideology and lives by it; a morally ambiguous individual who is more clear-headed.The zealot believes that killing Jewish people is the only right option, and is ethically correct. The other individuals understands that killing the Jewish is deemed wrong, and understands that it is not ethically correct.Both individuals send 100 Jewish people off to their deaths. Both for different reasons.Which situation is ethically WORSE???
In a vacuum their actions are as bad as each others.
But more broadly speaking the antisemitic zealot has a whole ideological movement behind him. I would consider him more dangerous for carrying out future atrocities.
Created:
Posted in:
Should produces of deepfake pornography be required to pay royalties to people they have based their imagery on? Assuming they consented to it.
Or do you think deepfake porn shouldn’t be permitted at all?
Open discussion.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What’s your opinion on cultured meat?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
From what I understand this is more of a pure political message than a military one. Surveillance is normally allowed to a certain degree to reassure geopolitical stability. I’m sure China allows the US to do the same. These surveillance balloons are somewhat common.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You think both geocentrism and Flat Earth are not wrong, just inefficient? What’s your criteria for wrongness?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Super-inefficient or super-insufficient?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The world isn’t black and white even if you find it’s easier to think that way.
Created:
-->
@Elliott
I prefer chicken periods on toast myself, with some salt and pepper.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Let me get this straight. You said you don’t agree with animal abuse, but you’re against preventing it?
Can you explain? It isn’t like an embryo is more conscious than a cat.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There’s already a thing called animal rights. But you think it shouldn’t exist at all?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@YouFound_Lxam
I’ve noticed this is the type of ethics you often get from abrahamic orthodoxy. Very incoherent.
The point of rights is to prevent society/people from abusing those with less power.
Created:
Posted in:
Omfg I can’t believe no conservatives are shitting on the third episode. It should trigger the hell out of them.
I implore everyone to watch the show from the beginning. It’s really good regardless, but wait until that third episode.
It’s arguably the best so far.
Created:
Posted in:
Yay or nay?
Russia is already being attacked behind their boarder. These F16s will give Ukraine more capability to do so, therefor escalating the war further. Although Russias air defence systems are meant to be some of the best in the world when it comes to intercepting missiles and aircraft. It might dissuade Ukraine from wandering too close to Russian airspace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Bonding with men, and having long hair is a sign that you are gay?
Also having no children, being pacifist, father abandoning him. All signs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If you think about it Jesus seemed a bit gay. He liked to spend a lot of time around men and he’s often portrayed as having long hair.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
God knew how everything would play out before he created the universe. there are countless problems with the biblical narrative when God’s eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Do you know anything about history? Death has always been a part of being pregnant. I’m sure they knew the risks back then too.Death only occurred when something went wrong during the birthing process.Nature didn't intend for death, when natural processes were being created.The natural process of birth is a mother giving birth to a child, and both of them living.Death is just an error in that process, that occurs only sometimes.Back then it happened more, because we did not have the technology to help mothers dying when giving birth, but we do now.
“Nature” doesn’t intend anything, it just is.
And death isn’t an error, it’s a natural process.
The same goes for birth control. It’s all convenient.
Because you’re letting a mother murder her baby when she should know the risks.Ah Ah Ah. Not murder.Murder is killing with the intention to kill.If the mother went through the whole process of being pregnant and found out that she might die if she gives birth, then decides to let the baby go. That is not intentional. She did not mean for that to happen, whereas if a woman found out that she got pregnant, then decided to kill the baby before it has a chance to leave the womb, then that is murder. Killing with the intent to kill.
They both knew the risks and they both chose to murder. ‘deciding to Let the baby go.’ Is that what you call it when it’s convenient.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
She chose to have sex though. She should be willing to die to birth a baby.No, she shouldn't. Part of having a child isn't dying, right? So, she should be able to make that decision, if it comes to that. Something that is not part of having a child, is just killing it for convenience. That isn't something that someone should decide.
Do you know anything about history? Death has always been a part of being pregnant. I’m sure they knew the risks back then too.
You’re the one that’s arguing for convenience.How so?
Because you’re letting a mother murder her baby when she should know the risks.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Even if she new the risks of having sex?Yes, because she would have the choice between her life, and another life. It's not the same as killing a human baby just because you don't want it. It's a hard decision, but life always has hard decisions.
She chose to have sex though. She should be willing to die to birth a baby.
It is circumstantial. You just said it would be the mothers choice to murder a baby.It would be the mother's choice, when her life is at risk, not just for convenience.
You’re the one that’s arguing for convenience.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There are plenty of situations where the baby can survive but the mother dies. You would still allow abortion in that case even though the mother chose to have sex (assuming she wasn’t raped)? You would be denying the babies right to live. Why would the mothers life be worth more than the babies in this situation?No, in these types of cases, it would be the mother's choice on what happens because it is her life, and her baby's life.
Even if she new the risks of having sex?
The value of human life is circumstantial. It will always be that way. The extent in which we look at the circumstances will keep changing though.Also, does it really matter thinking that the guy who’s about to attack your family has value just before you blow his head off?A human life that has not even been given a chance, is not a circumstantial thing.As for your second point, difference is, even if I did nothing, someone would die. A baby in the womb isn't attacking anyone.
It is circumstantial. You just said it would be the mothers choice to murder a baby.
I was showing you how incoherent your view on abortion is.Everyone else seems to understand but you.
Are you sure about that? Exhibit A is up above.
So you are equating morality and legality?Alright, abortion is automatically good then because it’s legal.Never said I was equating morality and legality. I was simply saying, how about we say things are bad, because they are morally bad, and vice versa.
Or maybe think a little bit deeper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Alright well keep getting those As
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
All human life is of value, correct? So why should we be able to kill babies in the womb, and not normal humans? What's the difference?
The value of human life is circumstantial. It will always be that way. The extent in which we look at the circumstances will keep changing though.
Also, does it really matter thinking that the guy who’s about to attack your family has value just before you blow his head off?
As for the exception, when the mother's life is at risk, there is an exception because the mother could die as well. When you deny someone's right to live, then it becomes a problem. If you deny a mother who will die an abortion, that is what makes it wrong. So that is why that is an exception.
There are plenty of situations where the baby can survive but the mother dies. You would still allow abortion in that case even though the mother chose to have sex (assuming she wasn’t raped)? You would be denying the babies right to live. Why would the mothers life be worth more than the babies in this situation?
You’ve just been saying abortion is bad because the government should come for them.Elaborate this sentence right here. I don't know if you just typoed this or whatever, but it makes no logical sense.That’s how I’ve viewed your argument. And I know it makes no logical sense.So, your way of thinking and viewing things makes no logical sense?
I was showing you how incoherent your view on abortion is.
Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it automatically and ethically wrong.Yes, but so goes the same with legal things as well. There is a reason we make things illegal. With that logic, you could argue that everything should be legalized.Yeah, so let’s leave the idea that illegal = bad and legal = good.No, let's leave the idea that morally wrong = bad and morally good = good.
So you are equating morality and legality?
Alright, abortion is automatically good then because it’s legal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Alright, do you have any personal opinions? You’re not a prominent Chinese geneticist are you?
Created: