Felagund
5d ago
Could you elaborate on what you meant by this? I'm not tracking perfectly:
Because there's still quite a lot of us on the left who fundamentally dispute the framing of
COVID gamesmanship about religious services or with visas
I very much do not grant this!
Felagund
29d ago
I'm also curious about what the new version looks like, though I read the web serial version.
Felagund
1mo ago
Yes, but:
- It's so massive that it's actually inconvenient. It's around 3 times the length of the entire Harry Potter series, which is a lot to jump into. 2.If this matters to you, it felt like there were more gay than straight characters.
Felagund
1mo ago
Why would they reject you? My impression was that forecasts were one of your big things?
Felagund
1mo ago
I think the desire to persuade is often to some extent due to vice. See pages 16-18.
Felagund
1mo ago
You can type them with the option key on a mac, or by holding down on the hyphen key on an iphone.
Felagund
1mo ago
No, it wasn't? They changed which line was the official one in the 20th century.
Felagund
1mo ago
Why are you recommending extramarital sex right after invoking your religious affiliation?
Felagund
1mo ago
My sense is that most theists here tend towards an old earth, and if not, they stay quiet.
Felagund
1mo ago
That wouldn't put an end to the problem. NGOs literally fly them into the country.
Felagund
1mo ago
In my library, there are more than 100 ebook copies of "This Book is Gay," of which 1 is being read at the moment. That probably costs this particular library system $5000 per year.
I've heard that you can often find similarly ridiculous numbers of copies of some other leftist books at other library systems.
Felagund
1mo ago
It's progressives, generally speaking, who dislike "child marriage" being legal (which usually means, you can get married at 16 or 17, provided that a parent or the court system signs off on it being fine). I don't think that this is accurate.
Not a good look for Cremieux. That's a shame.
Edit: Not as bad as I first thought, as he included the source in a series of links at the end, labeled, "Links:"
Still not great.
Felagund
1mo ago
It doesn't assume that there's sufficient evidence to conclude that God exists. It merely assumes that there's more than literally zero evidence for one sort of action being favored over another. Which will roughly always be the case.
It doesn't matter how strong the evidence is for/against there being a God; the relevant question is something closer to, "what course of action has, in my own evaluation, the best chance to get me infinite rewards/avoid infinite punishment?" Which has more to do with what sort of god is most likely to exist than what the absolute probability is.
Felagund
1mo ago
What do you make of Unitatis redintegratio affirming that those not under Rome can have faith, hope, and charity (3)? And Lumen Gentium defining the Church in those terms (8), in some sense at least?
Felagund
1mo ago
It would be, but as compared to the larger infinity, it would be a much smaller one in expectation.
Cardinal infinities don't work. Something like hyperreals or surreals work better. You could also just drop the continuity axiom and treat infinity as a relation between values rather than sticking a number on it globally, but hyperreals/surreals should work equally well.
But if we want a convergent utility function, we probably need to add the stipulation that there's some maximum possible state, or at least, some state than which it is impossible that you have values infinitely greater.
Felagund
1mo ago
It is if our concern is the expected value of acting accordingly. Higher rewards->higher expected value (all else equal).
It actually doesn't leave me open to all sorts of malicious agents. My credence in them will understandably be quite low, and so the return on just continuing to try to follow Christianity faithfully will outweigh whatever they're offering/threatening.
Okay, do you think that the pagan gods of your homeland can plausibly promise you infinite benefits or threaten you with infinite harms? (And if so, we might then have to worry about different levels of infinities, given that e.g. hyperreals have them, but I'm not certain about that)
Felagund
1mo ago
Well, for reason of Pascal, the relevant question is how strong it is compared to the alternatives. Do you think that it's reasonable for me to think that Christianity is more reasonable at least than most other religions (of those that promise infinite rewards)?
After. I've been Christian all my life. But I do think that if I were convinced that Christianity were false, that I would look seriously at alternatives, due to Pascal's wager, and if I gave up, would be doing that out of weakness and would be unreasonable in that.
Why bother? Because forcing yourself and the other person to dig, think through unexpected things, etc. makes both of you come to more nuanced, defensible, in-touch-with-reality versions of your positions.
And secondly, for the sake of those watching, who may not yet have committed to positions.
I'm agreed with you that we're on a terrible trajectory. E.g. the judiciary and presidency are on a crash course almost no matter what happens, given that, right now, all the district judges are making ridiculous TROs far overstepping their power (so that ignoring the courts is a growing sentiment on the online right), and on the other hand, the democrats want to pack the court. The chances we have a judiciary functioning properly in 30 years feel much lower than I would like. That's just an example, across the board, from both sides we're seeing escalations, radicalization, degradation of norms, which invites more of the same.
More options
Context Copy link