aaa
1d ago
How do you rate scenario 2 as more likely than scenario 1???
Israel needs western support to exist. Europe is going to become very muslim (and also very failed) in the next 100 years. In the US support for israel rests on three pillars: jews, defense contractors and red heifer evangelicals. The evangelicals are dying, the jews are quickly coming to see themselves more as liberals than as jews. On the other hand jews map to white and palestinians map to brown in the woke mind.
Within the next two generations israel needs to either resolve the problem fully, somehow, or find a new partner or they lose.
aaa
5d ago
The number of married men with children that eventually go gay say this is at the very least not universal.
aaa
8d ago
The Democrats lost young men to the party of, “hold still for your mugshot before you watch Riley Reid take her clothes off.”
Defending porn would actually be a good issue for Democrats to take up if they had any hope to be credible about it. The problem is that there's too much history of feminists attacking porn (don't bring up sex positive feminists, the difference between them is that sex negatives are against making porn and sex positives are against men watching porn), too much history (10 years plus) of left wingers agitating against busty women in videogames and too much history of democrats loving heavy handed content moderation.
Pornhub lost mastercard and visa in 2020 due to an article written by a journalist who wanted to use that as a springboard for his gubernatorial run, as a democrat.
aaa
11d ago
Speak for yourself, I want my output to be part of the machine god.
This. Yudkowsky and his followers are just worried they won't get their preferred version of the afterlife, that instead of techno-heaven-where-everyone-is-an-angel-living-in-the-clouds they will get techno-apokatastasis
aaa
14d ago
They believe that "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", despite the fact that such term came from nowhere, has no author, and in addition all great free speech thinkers argued precisely the opposite
You made me curious where this came from, so I tried playing with google search date ranges and the first instance I could find that isn't a spurious result is this https://askleo.com/how_do_i_block_people_from_finding_information_about_me_on_the_internet/ which google says was written in 2008. No attribution however it seems to cite it as a well known quote already.
aaa
25d ago
It's fairly common for indian and chinese hiring managers to only ever hire connationals.
aaa
27d ago
I'm not going to make a comprehensive argument for the existence of God
Fair enough, I therefore remain convinced that you would not be able to starting from that definition of initial state.
You brought up Feser earlier, I wonder what you've read of him. Five Proofs of the Existence of God provides five chapter-length proofs
This one. He has both problems: he relies on a rejection of actual infinites and also on a (non-)definition of causation that does not have referents.
aaa
28d ago
Ok, now formulate the rest of the argument using this definition of initial condition.
aaa
29d ago
What is finite here? The number of robots and the lenght of time can all be infinite. You are objecting to "initial condition?"
Correct, you are implying that there is a beginning and the past isn't infinite.
aaa
30d ago
By saying "If there is an infinite line of robots that all have an initial condition" you have introduced finiteness as an assumption, what classical theism does with this type of arguments is attempt to prove that this finiteness is logically necessary. The reason this worked in the past, but doesn't now, is because actual infinities were believed to be paradoxical.
aaa
30d ago
To turn the tables, imagine if George Soros died
IMO there is a very important difference between someone dying (in an accident, of natural causes) and someone being murdered. In the second case you are walking a fine line between criticizing someone who died (ok) and celebrating political assassination (not ok).
That said my rules > your rules applied fairly > your rules applied unfairly, as always. Until cancellation is taken off the table as a viable weapon the equilibrium is always going to end up being that if you can use it you use it.
aaa
1mo ago
I don’t think it’s any surprise that the debate debacle happened right after two back-to-back trips to Europe and a flight to the West Coast for a Hollywood fundraiser
Crazy that this explanation is being resuscitated. The first trip was on june 6th for d-day, to france. The second one on june 12th, to italy for g7. He returned to the US on the 15th of june. The debate was on june 27th, 12 days later. Nobody has 12 days of jet lag.
aaa
1mo ago
So: infinite robots with hands down, some point on the line something outside the line of robots intervenes to make a robot raise their hands. We know this thing cannot be a robot with its hands down.
Yes, this is another way things could be. But it doesn't get you anywhere with your argument because it isn't logically necessary.
aaa
1mo ago
If the circle is infinite then it's a line. On this infinite line of robots either no robots have their hands raised or at any point in time an infinite number of robots on the left has their hands raised. No, I'm not convinced that your argument for the necessity of a starting point is correct, it's simply a problem with dealing with infinites.
But suppose your argument is correct and there must be a starting point. Lets examine the consequences. The line-of-robots-world you describe is fully deterministic so we can reverse the arrow of time. In the reverse-time-line-of-robots-world a robot lowers their hands if the robot to the right lowered their hands, that means there must be a first robot to lower hands therefore the line-of-robots-world has an end, we already proved that it had a beginning, and thus the line-of-robot-worlds can not be infinite.
aaa
1mo ago
I'm not familiar with hol4 but wikipedia says it's strategy game set during World War 2. Bella Ciao is an antifascist World War 2 song, is it being used in a neutral non-antifascist context in hol4?
aaa
1mo ago
"Ciao Bella" can be a number of things, but one of them is a HoI4 meme.
"Bella Ciao" is an italian antifascist song.
aaa
1mo ago
The water boils because of a transfer of energy not because of causal power.
If you think that this materially changes anything I said then I don't know how to reach you
I think it does change things because every time I've heard that argument it ends with "and that's why god needs to exist here and now" and you don't get there with energy transfers because once the energy is transferred the source doesn't need to continue existing.
But there would be a reason why it's in one pattern instead of another. And mentioning light is actually more relevant to my argument! Because light is outside the infinite mirrors. There could be infinite mirrors and no face because no light! The infinity of the mirrors does not create an image.
I really don't know what you are even saying at this point. Usually these arguments are trying to prove the existence of god through a logical impossibility (i.e. non-existence of god is logically impossible thus god exists). I don't think there's anything logically impossible in the existence of an arbitrary arrangement of light, it doesn't need a cause.
aaa
1mo ago
The water boils because of a transfer of energy not because of causal power.
To expand on this. I know how Feser's argument typically goes and typically at some point you would say "no the first cause can't be the big bang because it needs to be present here and now". Boiling water (or energy transfers in general) are not good examples of this because you can remove the fire and the boiling will continue, you can interrupt the causal chain at various points without interrupting the consequences. That's my problem, I don't think that causation exists in the way that the argument needs it to exist.
aaa
1mo ago
No, I'm not. Unless you hold to a later Mark date than most scholars today. And many scholars belive Mark was Jewish, such as William Arnal and Julie Galambush who are hardly Christian Fundamentalists.
Mark is far removed from the events that he's narrating, either in time or in space or both. The belief that he was jewish is a minority position. Unfortunately like many things plagued by apologetics you can't even tell when some people are just mistaken or deliberately lying.
Right now I do not have boiling water. If I were to fill a pot with water and put it on a stove and turn it on and heat made the water boil, all that chain of events was required to make the water boil. It's also clear that there was something about that chain of events that caused the water to boil, when otherwise the water would have stayed in my pipes without boiling. The heat of the stove had the causal power to change the water from liquid to gas.
The water boils because of a transfer of energy not because of causal power.
I am not arguing that there is something logically contradictory in an infinite series of mirrors. The argument is, even with an infinite series of mirrors there would be no face if there was nothing imparting an image of a face.
The face is irrelevant? It's just light in some arbitrary pattern being reflected, are you saying that you can imagine infinite mirrors but not infinite light? That you can only imagine light in a pattern if there is something giving it that pattern (but the same isn't true of the atoms of mirrors)?
Yes! The thing impossible isn't the speed of the atom, but the fact that the atom exists at all.
An infinite series of mirrors can exist but not a single atom? I'm not following. I don't find this persuasive at all, I think there's nothing impossible in imagining an universe comprised of a single atom.
aaa
1mo ago
Original gMark ended mid-sentence, which seems to me to indicate it was not finished because the author or scribe was interrupted
The endings of manuscripts get lost, it's quite common. What this means in this particular case has been debated for centuries with different scholars arguing for various interpretations (including the long ending being the original intended ending). Jumping directly to "the scribe was interrupted mid sentence" is quite the stretch.
aaa
1mo ago
Are you getting that from Ehrman or somewhere else?
I'm getting it from reading the thing.
Even with a "late" gMark date of 73ish, the author would have been in the temple as all male Jews
The author of Mark wasn't a jew. What kind of line of argumentation is this? I'm bringing this as proof that the authors are far removed from the events and your response is "well, under the assumption that they are not far removed from the events this is impossible". You are making my point.
The historical investigation has the fatal flaw of needing to presuppose that nothing supernatural happened. If you approach without that presupposition, then the evidence points elsewhere.
A prediction coming true is not supernatural, people predict things all the time. The problem is that correct predictions only become relevant after they become true. Suppose Mark was writing in the 50s, some guy said "the temple is going to be destroyed" 20+ years ago and it never happened, are you going to bring that up? And it's not just the prediction, it's how it's treated. You wouldn't write the parable of the fig tree if the destruction of the temple hadn't already happened: the jews have already failed to deliver and god has already punished them.
Yeah, and then Paul died. He died during Nero's reign, in AD 64/65. He arrived in Rome in AD 60. Acts ends saying, "He spent two years in Rome preaching." Then there is a gap of another couple years, and then Paul died. If Paul died before Acts was written, Luke would have included Paul's dramatic death. He did not, because Paul's dramatic death didn't happen for another two years.
Or possibly because Paul dramatic death hadn't been invented yet. You are trusting sources written hundreds of years after the fact on this, farther from the facts than the most pessimistic estimates of acts. The ending of acts is truncated whichever way you look at it. Supposed it really was written while Paul was still in Rome you wouldn't say "it preached in rome for two years" you would also say "and he's still there" or "and he's now moved to spain" or "and then they arrested him again a second time".
This is just silly. If for the sake of argument we allowed that there could be an infinitely long hierarchical series— D actualized by C, which is in turn actualized by B, which is in turn actualized by A, and so on in infinity, there would still have to be a source of causal power outside the series to impart causal power to the whole
What's causal power. Make me an example of causation. Feser makes arguments like this and I'm convinced that his idea of causation doesn't exist outside of his brain.
Consider a mirror which reflects the image of a face present in another mirror, which in turn reflects the image of a face present in another, and so on ad infinitum. Even if we allowed that there could be such a series of mirrors, there would still have to be something outside this infinite series— the face itself—which could impart the content of the image without having to derive it. What there could not be is only mirror images and never any actual face.
LIght travels at finite speed so at most there would have had to be, at some point, a face. But I don't think this is the case, I think there's actually nothing logically contradictory in an infinite series of mirrors you are tricking your brain into thinking there is because the brain thinks in aristotelian terms, with efficient and final causes, but those things don't exist. Suppose the universe was nothing but a single atom travelling forever at constant speed, is that impossible? Our brain wants to say no because everything that we experience moving is moved by something but actually there's nothing logically impossible in it. If the universe was nothing but an infinite series of mirrors reflecting a face infinitely in both directions that's just how it would be.
This thing was invented by Eco because he was seething at Silvio Berlusconi's electoral victory and came up with the broadest possible definition of Fascism that would include his party. That's all it is, not a deep reflection of an intellectual on the nature of fascism but a knee-jerk reaction to an italian political party from the 90s.
More options
Context Copy link