SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225

There is just too much of the Bible that is objectively false at this point that I don't know how a Mottizen would go about gaining faith.
I think it should go without saying, but obviously people do not share your opinion that many parts of the Bible are objectively false. But without knowing what your specific points are it's hard to really say more.
The reason theft is wrong is because you are depriving someone of their property, the use of said property, and indirectly the time and effort put into creating/obtaining that piece of property.
I disagree. Theft is wrong because taking something which doesn't belong to you is inherently wrong. As I said, that's why I don't consider the copying distinction salient.
They do not accept the divinity of Jesus.
Wait, what? That is literally the one thing you have to believe in to be a Christian. Even a doctrine as foundational as the Trinity has had sects who don't believe in it. But if you deny the divinity of Jesus, you can't be a Christian, full stop. In any other context if someone said "hey there's a group of Christians who deny the divinity of Jesus" I would assume they were joking, but I imagine you are not joking about this. I seriously do not understand what goes through people's brains to want to identify as something they disagree with so fundamentally.
It's been a few years since I read Ancillary Justice, but I remember disliking it quite a bit as well. My main complaint, if memory serves, was that the author had some interesting ideas but never had a good story to back them up. The plot just was boring. And like you, I came away firmly convinced that the awards for the book were a diversity pick, and that if a male author had presented the same book it would've been panned.
In all honesty, at this point I would take the Hugos (and similar industry awards) to be a negative mark on a book, not a positive one.
I can't tell if you're calling George's words or Tolkien's "cope", but if it's the latter then I think you're mistaken. Tolkien was Catholic, and his setting reflected his beliefs. Death is absolutely a good thing in that framework, because you get to be with God, and that is such a profound joy that all else pales in comparison (even being in an 18-year-old body until the heat death of the universe).
Also, I think you're underrating how weary the world can become after even just our short stay here. Some of those problems would be obsolete in your hypothetical scenario, but not all. At some point, when you've seen a pointless genocide for the hundred thousandth time, is the fact that your body works great really that much of a solace? One thing I've noticed in spending time with old people (proper old, not @George_E_Hale lol) is that they are often quite ready to lay down their cares and rest. And the young never quite understand it because they just haven't been through enough of life to get to the point where death seems like a welcome end to things (with some exceptions, like very depressed people). But it's a very real thing, and to be honest I can understand it a lot more now at (almost) 40 than I could at 25.
No, it really does make everyone worse off. Not only have we now pardoned even more criminals who should be serving punishments for the things they did, Trump has now given the other side incentive (and justification, no matter how flimsy) to defect further.
Trump is perpetuating the cycle of badness and I refuse to accept bad reasoning like "oh well they do it too, turnabout is fair play" trying to justify it. I'm sick and tired of being caught in the crossfire between these people.
Observing the proprieties while your enemies are biting and gouging is only a winning move if there is some powerful third party who values non-escalation.
You seem to be making the mistake that what's important is to win or lose. But as the cliche goes, what matters is how you play the game. I would much rather lose while upholding good moral behavior, than win by sacrificing morals.
First, that isn't something the federal government is allowed to do per the Constitution. So it's up to the states. Second, I don't want even the states accelerating the panopticon by incorporating all our biometrics into it. I don't know what benefits you have in mind, but I can't think of any which are not dwarfed by that massive cost.
I want to fix the budget, but I'm less than stoked about robbing me of the money I was forced to pay to social security in order to do it. Personally, I think that if politicians can't agree on what to cut (which is a likely outcome TBH) we should just cut all budgets at the federal level by x% in order to make it happen. For example, if we need to cut spending by 20%, every single department budget gets slashed by 20%. No exceptions. While it would be better if our representatives could agree what needs to be cut, this would at least be better than the current status quo where the US just keeps borrowing money it's never, ever going to pay back.
I would imagine a fair number of people here know who he is. I take it you don't - he has a series of interviews on youtube where he has a variety of guests. I've only seen one or two, but found that I enjoyed his interviewing style. He manages to balance asking challenging questions with being respectful, which I enjoyed. He also apparently had a successful career as a ML researcher before that.
Now as to the other part of your question, I agree. Nobody here should be expected to know about his relationship status.
Well said. At the end of the day, acting virtuously is good in and of itself. The fact that many people don't understand this any more is a key cause of decay in our society.
I would have him not engage in the same detestable behavior Biden did. I don't fucking care if it means that the Democrats get to perpetuate bad things and get one up on Republicans, that is still preferable to the current state of affairs. If I get screwed over by only one side hitting defect, I'm better off than the status quo where I get screwed over by both sides.
How is paying to rent a bike that's available wrong?
Except that isn't what happened according to the teens. According to them, what she did was to scan a bike that one of them was sitting on and had said he was going to still use. This is roughly equivalent to if you find someone at the library who has a book on the desk in front of them, who says "sorry but I'm going to check this book out still", and you snatch it off the desk and check it out yourself. That isn't breaking any laws or anything but would be kind of a dick move.
I'm not saying that this nurse is the worst person in the world, or that she should be fired, or anything like that. I am just saying that as the kids tell it, she was kind of rude to them. That's all.
What I would do myself: I'd go "yeah I knew it, wireless earbuds are a stupid product" and go back to wired forever. I personally think that wired earbuds are just a flat out superior product and many times cheaper to boot.
I don't suspect that's on the table for you, though (else you probably wouldn't have bought them in the first place). So given that you probably want to stay wireless, I would stay the course for now. Maybe return them to Google if you feel you would rather get another brand considering the issues, but otherwise keep them and see what happens. If they do indeed start acting up again, don't try to fix them or troubleshoot, send them in for warranty repair/replacement. You aren't responsible for trying to fix their broken product, that's what a warranty is for.
Scott would characterize the Developer as having lied to the contractor about having the approval, but did they?
Yes, and I don't understand how you can even question it. Remember again the original claim: "they're going to approve it, we're just waiting on the paperwork". Not only does this falsely imply that the approval has been agreed upon (which is why the contractor should go ahead and start), it contains the explicit falsehood "we're just waiting on the paperwork". The developer is not "just waiting on the paperwork", they are trying to gain leverage to force the planning board to capitulate. This is a very clear lie.
To be fair, @thomasThePaineEngine didn't say "there's no way out of original sin", he said "one cannot cleanse oneself of" original sin. Which is technically true in Christianity, one can't cleanse oneself. Which is why Christ had to cleanse us from what we can't cleanse ourselves from.
Though on the other hand, it also isn't true that one must "regularly and harshly atone for" original sin either. That has been paid for, we don't need to keep beating ourselves up for it.
I don't really agree with that. I don't have any real love for HBD, but IMO science is about the pursuit of truth. People should be free to advance theories, no matter how implausible or distasteful I may find them, if they can provide the proof to back them up. If it turns out they're right, then we need to face that with our eyes open rather than trying to shut them down by saying "ha you can't have the data, sucks to suck".
On top of that, as @Conservautism pointed out the NIH is a branch of the federal government. As a taxpayer, I don't want them to have any ability to deny access to their datasets. I paid for that, and I expect it to be publicly available.
Why hasn't it already?
In my opinion, it hasn't because (contrary to what AI hype proponents say) it can't. AI simply isn't very good at doing things yet. To use the specific example I know well and actually have interacted with, LLMs don't write good code. It has wildly inaccurate bits that you have to check up on, sometimes to the point that it isn't even syntactically valid. It actually slows you down in many cases to try to use LLMs for programming. A skilled programmer can use AI tools as a force multiplier in some situations, so they do have a (fairly narrow) use case. But the idea that you could replace programmers with LLMs is just plain laughable at this stage of the game.
I'm not an expert in every field. But given that AI is not actually very good for coding, one of the things its proponents claim it to be good at... I don't exactly have high hopes that AI is good at those other things either. Maybe it'll get there, but there's not sufficient reason to believe "yes it will definitely happen" just yet. We have no way of knowing whether the rate of progress from the last few years will continue, or whether we are going to hit an unforseen wall that blocks all progress. We'll just have to wait and see.
So, I think that is why the great AI replacement hasn't occurred. It isn't able to successfully happen yet. At best, right now you would replace humans with AI that does the job extremely poorly, and then (in a few years, when the hype dies down) humans would get hired back to fix all the stuff the AI broke. Which is a distinct possibility, as that is what happened a couple of decades ago with outsourcing jobs to India. But as painful as that would be, it's not "all these human jobs are over now".
Iām unpersuaded by the typical religious argument that life is so sacred we cannot take it. We do take it, all the time, in war and executions.
You seem to be alleging that this is hypocritical on the part of the religious argument, but I think in fairness one must acknowledge that religions which oppose euthanasia generally oppose war and executions too.
Assuming they can consent, no. It's very bad and should wind you in prison for a long time. But it's not rape, because that word means something specific. "Rape" is not a catch all term for "any evil behavior involving sex".
Yes to all three (though I do try not to watch porn). Trust me, it doesn't reduce my desire to have sex. It's an outlet at those times when I can't have sex, because I can't have sex.
I genuinely have no idea why anyone would prefer porn over sex. Availability aside, it is a strictly inferior substitute for the real thing. So based on my experience, no, I don't think availability of porn is causing people to have less sex.
The nation is a house divided and it stands by inertia alone.
Sad, but definitely true. Unless we can unite somehow, I can't help but think that the current divisions in our society will literally destroy the country. I don't really know how to fix it, but it's pretty depressing to contemplate.
Agreed, and hopefully nobody would dispute that. I think what's being pushed back on here is the very strong claim in the OP of "A blow to the CICO theory of obesity". Given that due to the basic laws of physics CICO must be true, it's not really accurate to say that it has received a blow. That does not mean that focusing on CICO is the best strategy for any given person to effect weight loss, but the basic physical principle is true for them even if they struggle to make use of it in their lives.
If not, how is telling the contractor "The planning board is going to approve this project" a lie? Where is the falsehood? Where is the deciet?
First, because the planning board was not going to approve it at the time that was said. Second, and more importantly, you left out the very clear deceit I already cited: the developer is not in fact "just waiting on paperwork", he is engaged in manipulation to apply leverage to the planning board so that they will approve it.
Nobody said anything about a preexisting agreement.
It is very clearly implied, as otherwise the contractor would not go ahead.
They said an agreement would be made and that statement was correct. An agreement was made.
Yes, only because of the lies the developer told. That doesn't count as an accurate reporting of facts.
Your hypothetical scenario is not some clever bargaining flourish. It is a dirty lie that only a scumbag would engage in. I have pointed out the express and implied untruths that the developer says. If that isn't enough for you to call it a lie, then I lack the means to persuade you I guess.
Do we have any Catholic mottizens? I was raised Catholic for a time, but eventually my parents left for ye olde non-denominational Protestant church. For some reason though, I've found myself attracted to the idea of returning recently. I find a few things attractive about it:
I have found that I kind of prefer "high church" to "low church". Not that either is better than the other, but a more formal service kind of feels like a better fit for me personally.
I really appreciate the tradition and longevity behind the institution, and it appeals to me to be a part of that.
I like the unity of the Catholic church. Not that they don't have things that divide them, but they seem to be a lot more unified than the other Christian groups are. Related to this...
I used to think that all the rigid formalities were stupid and arbitrary, and I hated having to just follow along. But in hindsight, I think maybe I just didn't have the perspective at 13 to appreciate the importance of them (shocker, I know). Something that Scott wrote in one of his pieces (I think it was the reactionary FAQ) has stuck out to me, where he says that if everyone jumps on one foot during the solstice that is objectively pretty stupid. But if everyone does it, that is how communities are built, because we're now fellow solstice jumpers. I feel like some (maybe even all) of the rules and formality I chafed at as a teenager are things of that nature, and I do appreciate anything that builds community in these divided times.
So I guess my question is, am I just being insane here? Or maybe waxing nostalgic for my childhood in a weird religious way? I've been thinking maybe I should investigate rejoining the Catholic church (which as I understand it would entail going to some adult classes and getting confirmed, as well as getting my marriage recognized by the church), but I also can't shake the feeling that I'm just being silly. I do want to find a church home to call my own, but I'm not sure whether or not this is the right path for me.
More options
Context Copy link