@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

2 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

				

User ID: 359

OracleOutlook

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

2 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 359

That is interesting. I always identified with the male characters as a kid. I hated being relegated to the pink power ranger role in preschool. Raven in Teen Titans was the first female character I felt a strong connection with.

Most of the books and shows I was exposed to as a kid featured boys being the main character/hero and girls being poorly written plot devices or hyper-feminine. I always identified (roleplayed in make-believe) as the hero, regardless of gender/race. I wanted to be Aladdin for Halloween and ran into an issue there with the shirtless vest look. But for the most part no one made much of it.

Regarding the second example, it's been widely accepted that actors are an exception to any kind of visual discrimination and that many roles require picking someone who just has the right vibe and look (which includes their race and gender.) When casting a family/clan/isolated society, people usually pick actors who look the most alike.

Imagine that there is a long running series that needs to record a flashback for their main black female lead. If we used the usual standards for hiring, where race and sex don't matter, the series might cast a Asian male. Casting black hobbits in a predominantly white insulated society is as jarring to me as that.

It's abnormal for a six month old to need to eat that often, six month olds eat about 4-5 times a day (with 3-4 hours between feeds) and nap 3ish times a day.

Usually a watchful parent can tell if a baby needs something (food, sleep, etc) before it reaches the point of crying. If a baby cries, a parent should be able to resolve the issue without soda. A six month old is past the point of colic.

I hope this is more Fun than Culture War, but She Hulk spoilers below:

Most of the show was very episodic. There were several episodes where I remarked to my husband that there were no outstanding plot threads that I could see and if the show ended there I wouldn't care. There were also many episodes where the highlight of the show was anyone but the main character. Wong, Matt, Abomination, everyone else at the law firm.

The finale went for a big merging of a bunch of disparate elements into one tropey climatic fight. And then they did the biggest lampshade hanging I've seen outside of crappy fanfiction. Basically the writers admitted that the story they wrote sucked, that Marvel Studios cannot make anything original or interesting, and that the direction of the MCU is literally written by an algorithm to appeal to the lowest common denominator. But they seemed to think that pointing this out somehow absolves them and made She Hulk good.

Did anyone else watch the show? Did I miss something? Did the lampshade hanging work for anyone?

There's a difference between breaking the fourth wall, which I appreciate, and lampshade hanging, which I find amusing in small quantities. It's just irritating when 'bad writing' is the thing they are explicitly hanging a lampshade over.

The "no resolution" thing bothers me. We didn't need a massive fight, we didn't need to see Jen argue with K.E.V.I.N. We needed to see Jen work through her self esteem issues relating to her job and social life and that was never addressed in a satisfactory way. Her getting together with Matt felt rushed.

Breaking the fourth wall was done in an amusing manner and was entertaining at least. It was just empty. It's like eating cotton candy on an empty stomach. It was amusing at the time but a bad choice overall.

Of the recent Marvel Shows, the one I liked the most was Hawkeye. I enjoyed Agents of Shield, but wouldn't claim it was worth anyone else's time.

I thought Daredevil season 1 was great though so we probably have very different tastes.

The Slime Mold guys are up to it again - this time asking people to drink large amounts of potassium chloride.. My OB thought it sounded harmless so I'm drinking about 1/8 tsp - 1/4 tsp of potassium chloride a day, though I'm not signing up for the trial as I'm pretty sure they don't want pregnant women in there. I do feel a little more energetic, we will see if that lasts or if it's just a placebo. The normal markers to assess health changes are lost to me, but I'm measuring my underbust to see if that changes over time. As a pregnant woman I am in a position where I am getting my blood pressure, heart rate, and blood samples taken regularly, so at least I'll know quickly if something isn't going well.

If potassium supplementation works, I don't know how they are going to work out their confirmation bias that it's obviously lithium causing obesity. My own assumptions regarding the obesity epidemic are that either 1) our soil is deficient in some nutrient and our body keeps telling us to eat food until we get enough or 2) it's seed oils. Potassium supplementation obviously addresses the first, for the second I wonder if potassium has an effect on ROS or oxidative stress.

No control group for the potato diet, there isn't really any other food where it would be relatively safe to eat just it an nothing else for a month. They were just trying out a weird cool trick they saw online and wanted to put statistics behind it - did eating mostly potatoes for a month without restricting calories actually lose people weight? It did! They have no idea why though, the study has no way of telling why, so now they are trying other things.

Yes, the Potato diet thing was just to confirm that it even did anything. The Slime Mold guys seem pessimistic that anything has a long term effect on keeping weight off, so confirming that something does lose weight and keep it off would be one data point to them.

It absolutely doesn't tell them why the Potato Diet worked at all in the slightest. Hence this next step - is it a particular nutrient potatoes are high in? If this is a bust, they will undoubtedly turn to other possible causes.

I am Catholic and it is possible to be rationally convinced of the existence of God, the Gospel accounts, and the Catholic Church's claims. Many atheist philosophers of religion admit that it is possible to have a rational belief in God (even though they themselves do not.) Capturing Christianity is a Youtube channel from a non-Catholic Christian who has spent the last few years interviewing experts (theist and atheist) about topics of philosophy, history, biology, and apologetics. I would recommend watching any videos that stand out to you and starting from there. I like the interview format because it's less one sided, but you can then go on to read any books, articles, etc the experts have published to get more in depth on a topic.

Edward Feser and Peter Kereft have a good amount of books between them that provide a baseline understanding of the philosophy of religion. Feser's Aquinas is a good place to start, but both of them have a good selection of books on a large number of interesting topics.

Bishop Barron is also a good Catholic Apologist. He has his own channel, but I like this interview as a good summary/introduction to him.

It's normal to feel a little silly when you are doing something new or picking something up from your childhood and trying to approach it like an adult. My recommendation would be to call your nearby parish and tell them that you are considering returning to the Church but would first like to talk with a priest. Talk with the priest about what your experience is with the Church, what you're hoping to get out of returning, etc.

I will say that when I returned to the Church I discovered that a lot of what I thought was Catholicism was actually just my own parents' opinions. Likewise on the internet there are a lot of people willing to offer their personal theological speculation as if it was 100% Catholic dogma.

I will say that Capturing Christianity has a lot of resources on the Catholic/Protestant debate as well. I don't want you to feel like you're getting only one side of the story, below are some of the more recent videos:

The Case Against the Papacy

The Case For the Papacy

How Catholicism Can Be PROVEN FALSE

No, Catholicism Hasn't Been "Proven False"

This page gives a basic starting point for what the Church has done in the US. As someone who has gone through safe environment training, I feel like Catholic institutions are among the safest places to leave your kids now.

Repentance is a difficult thing for a topic like this. Have abusers as individuals repented? Most haven't. Most went on to die in peace or sob in prison. Same with people involved in a cover up - most were abusers themselves. Is there repentance to be found there? I don't think so, but lack of repentance is the least of their crimes.

Has the Church as a whole repented? The Church as a whole feels like the sheep getting eaten by the wolves (and I don't mean how upset the rest of the world gets on the topic.) When members of the Church (priests, religious, laity) hear about abuse, they don't identify with the abuser, they identify with the victim. It's not, "I could have been that rapist," it's "I could have been that child, that vulnerable seminarian, that cloistered nun, that could have been me." So the Church as a whole responded like victims, and implemented protocols to protect themselves and their members from abuse.

As a whole, the US Conference of Bishops has apologized, "As bishops, we have acknowledged our mistakes and our roles in that suffering, and we apologize and take responsibility again for too often failing victims and the Catholic people in the past. From the depths of our hearts, we bishops express great sorrow and profound regret for what the Catholic people have endured." Individuals who have had specific failings have apologized (though not all, and it's not surprising to me that terrible human beings who rape children don't apologize.)

But apologies aren't repentance. What would repentance look like here? To a Catholic, repentance is an unexpected and undeserved (for the repenter, the victim deserves justice) act of grace that allows someone to feel true remorse for a personal fault they have committed. What do people mean when they ask for repentance from a group of 1.3 billion people? That is a question a lot of people have wrestled with and I don't think anyone has come up with any satisfactory answers.

I think most people today don't realize Catholics had a Pope literally declared a heretic at one point. We've had much worse popes. The Catholic claims do not rely on a perfect pope who believes, professes, and acts perfectly all the time. This post has a good summary of what Catholics mean and don't mean about papal infallability.

It's just weird that Catholics had a run of fairly upstanding and holy popes compared to the historical norm. Pope Francis is a regression to the mean.

People don't get excommunicated anymore, except in the latae sententiae (automatic) way. Apostates are automatically excommunicated (can. 1364), so you can already consider Dreher excommunicated and move on with your life without trying to start a harassment campaign.

Him getting divorced isn't an excommunicable offense, it's possibly not even a sin as long as he doesn't get remarried.

We put out a pumpkin, left our porch lights on, and noticed that a lot of families were going past our house. Left a bowl out under the porch light after that and most candy got taken.

My girls liked going trick or treating, though about 2/3 of houses just left out bowls.

Last night I watched a spooky video interview with a UK mortician who claims he has been pulling out larger than normal blood clots that don't look like normal blood clots during embalming. There are a couple of other morticians and a pathologist around the world who are saying the same thing.

The way the morticians are describing this phenomenon seems alarming. Is this some sort of congealing happening after death or is this something that might have contributed to the cause of death? Is this something caused by Covid, by any of the vaccines, or all of the above? Is it affecting a large part of the population, is anyone looking into treatment? Is it even happening at all or is it a hoax? So many good questions to ask.

When I checked the Internet the only question I saw people asking was if it was caused by the vaccine or not. And most of the time they weren't even asking. One side is absolutely certain it is the vaccine, the other side is absolutely certain it is caused by Covid and vaccines can't have contributed at all. No discussion on detection or if it's treatable or anything that I would consider a higher priority than finger pointing. Do people care more about culture warring than survival?

My son got his 15 month well-child check today. At the appointment everyone was really trying to upsell me the COVID Vaccine. I had a conversation that went:

Dr: "Are you sure, just the regular 15 month vaccines?"

Me: "And the flu shot."

Dr: "The regular 15 month vaccines, COVID, and the flu shot?"

Me: 'Ye-no, no COVID. Just the flu shot if that's possible."

Dr: "Yes, it's possible."

Then with the nurse administering the vaccines:

Nurse: "I noticed on the paper it said just the 15 month vaccines, would you like the flu shot as well?"

Me: "Yes, the flu shot."

Nurse: "COVID, too?"

Me: "No COVID."

Nurse administers 3 shots. I get the paper home with my son's weight, height, and shots administered. They list COVID as administered, no flu shot. My husband called them, he was put on hold then disconnected.

I'm sure the pediatrician thinks I'm crazy, but I don't think a boy less than 2 years of age gets a huge benefit from a Covid vaccine, he's already on an aggressive vaccine schedule, getting multiple vaccines every three months, and I really wanted him to have that flu shot.

There also needs to be a clearer way to consent to medications/procedures than a verbal conversation that apparently two separate people misunderstood. I'm still hoping he got the flu shot but the paper was marked wrong.

These guys seem to think so: There are thousands more UK deaths than usual and we don’t know why. I don't know how unusual it is to have 11% more deaths than the period before COVID though, seems like it's small in absolute values and could be related to health getting worse during lockdowns.

A part of me just really hopes it was a typo and they are just disorganized. I have a hard time believing what it looks like happened actually happened.

It's already happened - with a registered Democrat arrested for trying to interfere with a voting machine.

But it heightened concerns among election officials and security experts that conspiracy theories related to the 2020 presidential election could inspire some voters to meddle with - or even attempt to sabotage - election equipment.

But it's ok! Even when it's registered Democrats doing the meddling, it's the fault of the Republicans for their conspiracy theories of Democratic meddling.

Election officials in Colorado use locks and tamper-evident seals on voting equipment, so it becomes apparent if someone has tried to access it. Trigger alerts make machines inoperable if someone tries to tamper with them, which is what happened in Pueblo, according to Ortiz and the Colorado Secretary of State's office.

That is good. This means that people can't hack election infrastructure without detection and we have nothing to worry about. Hopefully no one will make any claims to the contrary.

I'm pregnant so I don't think I'm getting the kind of results you are looking for. But I'm healthy, baby is healthy as far as anyone can tell. I no longer want my morning cup of coffee, instead I drink a herbal tea/potassium chloride mix and feel awake and energetic. I think I needed more potassium in my diet and this is a cheap and easy way to get it.

I spoke with my doctor before doing anything. Enteric-coated potassium tablets seem to be the biggest concern. I'm getting 60mg/100 ml which is a pretty diluted dose.

One of the new blue checkmarks might be an indication someone is not a Bot. It shows an investment in the community. Right now it's mostly used to troll people who think that a blue checkmark is a sign of authenticity, accuracy, and truthiness. But over time it could develop into something useful.

Or Musk is trying to bankrupt Twitter, has no idea what he's doing, or any of the above.

As a note, Tumblr is now selling not one, but two blue checkmarks for $7.99. They also stack, so there are some people running around with 28 checkmarks. Everyone on Tumbr thinks this is a grand idea, regardless of what utility they might get out of it. Why purchase a blue checkmark? Because it's amusing.