MotteInTheEye
No bio...
User ID: 578

Those aren't contradictory views, both those things can be true. They could have met in the middle.
I expect that what he has in mind would be something like government-sponsored genetic engineering or embryo screening for prospective underclass parents.
I hadn't considered leaving the oil in the pantry in the fryer between uses, if you use it often enough I guess that's workable.
I had also forgotten that deep fryers have lids which will trap most of the oily steam. So consider me convinced on that point.
True, I should have said "another explanation".
I guess a corresponding benefit could be dramatically reducing the overhead of a small business. But only in a fantasy world where all state taxes followed suit.
Maybe he lost a limb.
Not with that phrasing, perhaps, but the idea that crime is caused by systemic issues and social conditions is equivalent to saying that those things create a social niche which someone will fill.
And the flip side is that most grandparents are too old and frail to contribute much to the household by the time they have grandchildren.
The primary method of cheating in chess is to use game engines to suggest better moves than a human could think of. Modern game engines are much, much better than any human players and at this level of the game it might only take a couple of key moves to sway the outcome.
Of course over the board tournaments have lots of rules and procedures to prevent this, so much so that many think Niemann could not have circumvented them and that if he cheated it must have been through spying. But the bandwidth of information that needs to be transmitted to and from an accomplice is so low that I don't think you could ever be 100% sure it didn't happen. Which is unfortunate because it means an accusation of cheating is essentially unfalsifiable.
Do you have a link to a recipe? That sounds fascinating and delicious.
I thought the idea with farmers is that, yes, they start their day at dawn, and DST helps them stay in sync with the rest of the country. Probably obsolete now that a very small fraction of the UK and US populations are family farmers, but I think it's a coherent idea.
I would guess he had some perfect plan for how to destroy the gun without a trace that required him to be in a certain place.
It appears that you are just using Jesus's words as a jumping off point for a claim you want to make rather than seriously engaging with what He meant. He tells the parable in response to a troublemaker asking for a rigorous definition of whom he needs to love as his neighbor, and after telling the story he asks "which of these was a neighbor to him?" - in other words, trying to limit to whom the commandment applied and to whom it didn't was the wrong spirit in which to approach it.
Are you raising the utilitarian perspective because that's the grounds for your opposition to a state putting people to death? If so, I'm not sure it works out very well.
what is the marginal utility / justification / satisfaction found in execution versus life imprisonment?
This one's pretty easy, it's incredibly expensive to house an unproductive prisoner for 50+ years and incredibly inexpensive to e.g. build a gallows.
But I only address the utilitarian argument because you raised it, my belief is in no way utilitarian and is simply founded on the principle of retributive justice that a murderer should die for justice to be done.
You can make the case with the burger but the deep frier part is not plausible. Cleaning up a deep frier and the fine mist of oil it will deposit all over your kitchen are a lot of work, there are substantial efficiencies of scale for deep frying.
Also keep in mind that getting in a comfy car and driving to McDonald's and back doesn't register as work to most people in the same way that cooking and especially cleaning dishes do.
I still agree that lying like this is bad and he shouldn't do it, but it doesn't seem like you've interacted with the core of the counterargument. The fact that his statements are exaggerated makes them bait for the media to debunk and therefore signal boost them.
I wouldn't expect distracted driving to disproportionately impact hit and runs but not overall accidents, so the fact that that's the statistic used here makes me suspicious that overall accidents don't follow the same trend.
Then the Christians you know are very unusual, even just considering the set of Christians alive today, let alone considering the set of Christians across history.
Most heavy/death metal bands aren't comedy-focused, so obviously no.
I think it's pretty difficult to construct a realistic hypothetical on which to test intuitions. Yours doesn't really work because the woman is choosing between an actual man and a report of a bear (by the man), which is a very different comparison.
I would guess there are plenty of manly men who bird watch, but they are mostly not the ones who sit on the committees and run for president.
The question isn't assigning blame, it's actually assigning credit for success. If America's success is primarily due to slavery, then a) maybe the slaves are owed not just for the wrongs due to them but also for the lion's share of America's prosperity and b) the achievements of the founders are proportionally reduced, so fidelity to their principles is less important.
Even the most agreed-upon doctrines, such as that any sinner can repent and be saved; find dissent in at least a few churches, such as Calvinists with their TULIP.
This is not really true. It's true in the same sense as it would be true to say "material determinists claim that there certain orderings of a deck of cards that can never be created." Some orderings of the cards will never be created, and since material determinism says that the entire course of the universe is already set, in a sense that's equivalent to saying that there are some orderings which "can never" be created. But for all practical purposes it would be a misleading way to phrase it.
The same applies to Calvinism. Calvinists teach that everything which will come to pass has been foreordained by God from eternity. This means that those who are foreordained not to be saved, "can never" be saved. But it's not due to anything special in the person nor susceptible to our analysis ahead of time. Certainly it is not a Calvinist doctrine that certain sinful acts allow us to know here and now someone's predestined fate.
I don't think that's very typical, at least assuming that you went on to college afterwards. Although all I have as evidence is a gut feeling and my own n=1 case: I worked a fast food job for six months at the beginning of college and could not have been less interested in maintaining connections with any of the people I worked with there.
- Prev
- Next
GP's point is that air travel is not analogous to surgery because nobody ever dies from not being able to catch a certain flight (Saigon and Kabul aside).
More options
Context Copy link