philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
philosoraptor
9mo ago
Mereological nihilists... deny the existence of compound physical objects
Eliminative materialists deny the existence of beliefs,
Both of which are extreme minority views held by a tiny number of people that even other philosophers mostly think are wankers.
every statement you just made only reinforces @MonkeyWithAMachinegun's thesis.
Um... yes? That's the point? If this seems like a reasonable response to you, you're deeply confused about what that post is doing.
philosoraptor
6mo ago
Clearly it's possible to charge for both. Lesser included offences absolutely are a thing. You just can't convict for both, as I understand it (and I see a couple other posters who seem to have relevant backgrounds are agreeing with this interpretation).
philosoraptor
7mo ago
Same. TLJ took a lot of wind out of my sails, and so Solo is the only live-action Star Wars movie I've never seen in a proper theater, and TLJ and RoS are the only ones where I've only done so once.
philosoraptor
8mo ago
Sailers law of female journalism
... dare I ask?
philosoraptor
11mo ago
the only state that is plausibly a nation is Texas
Hawaii?
philosoraptor
11mo ago
I occasionally see "meat" and "poultry" treated as separate categories, but mostly in older sources and even they seem to tacitly concede the two are closely related. I've never knowingly met anyone in person who thought it was an important distinction. This is the first I've ever heard of pork products not counting as "meat", though. Where do you see this usage?
philosoraptor
11mo ago
A 50-year old is an X-er, not a boomer, and not even an especially old X-er. The boomers were their parents' generation.
philosoraptor
7mo ago
Doesn't that just further underscore ChickenOverlord's argument? The position he(?) is arguing against is that AI will somehow get better than any human at this, and CO is pointing out that as currently implemented, AI isn't really analyzing anything except language and so is unlikely to outperform the human-generated data it's trained on. Seems to me you're just giving a further reason to think the bar of what it can do is rather low.
philosoraptor
11mo ago
If this were happening in a vacuum with no historical context, that might be a good argument. But this situation is all about historical context, and to ignore it to this degree is somewhere between hopelessly naive and wilfully blind.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
That reason was just bad, as it excluded the option of "AF was confident in his interpretation, so he didn't ask".
Thus, my calling it "extremely weak circumstantial evidence". (It's not, for example, like he caught Arjin in a contradiction or anything like that.) I think we're agreeing on the basic facts and just assigning somewhat different descriptions to them.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
Is there a "don't" or similar word missing near the end of that sentence?
philosoraptor
6mo ago
April Lavigne
Avril. I wouldn't bother if it was just once but you're both doing it, at least one consistently.
philosoraptor
6mo ago
to which to fatFIRE (or at least chubbyFIRE if I get all-so-tiresome'd out before getting there).
To what?
philosoraptor
10mo ago
Anecdotally from someone who's never watched any of it, I have actually heard of all the other ponies you named save Rarity, but not Fluttershy.
philosoraptor
10mo ago
Read the OP and judge for yourself. Based on my own read of same, I wouldn't go so far as "retarded" but "unexceptional" fails at doing her justice in the other direction.
philosoraptor
11mo ago
Flip 1 and 2, and reverse the order of 4-6 (for one thing the whole structure surely pushes against individualism), and you might have the beginnings of something. But your #2 is clearly #1 and it's not close.
philosoraptor
10mo ago
receive an equity stake in Intel in exchange for cash grants
How does this differ from just buying shares?
philosoraptor
1mo ago
Yes, I did. I made a few changes in the first few minutes, after realizing my initial version was much harder on Amadan than it needed to be and not really fair. And if you were responding to that version of my post, your response was wholly appropriate and captured some of the reasons I was editing it at that moment.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
(Unless you were a union worker in one of the industries Thatcher stopped subsidising, I suppose)
Um, she did a little more than "stop subsidizing" them.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
At least in my experience, women are the first to claim that sex is not a big deal and discourage anything that shames promiscuity or a lack of self control.
I think this is one of those things that's true as long as the conversation remains abstract and unspecific, but frequently falls apart as soon as the conversation is about a concrete scenario the person is actually facing (or can imagine in a particularly vivid way). Kind of like "there's no reason women shouldn't be the ones approaching men rather than the reverse", most women agree in theory but freak out as soon as it's suggested they themselves put it into practise.
philosoraptor
7mo ago
I, Jedi is by Stackpole, one of the writers you praise, and is usually considered one of the best Legends novels.
philosoraptor
11mo ago
What if you conceal it in a mirror or somewhere non-obvious? Neither Epstein nor the average prisoner is a secret agent with bugfinding tools.
As you practically said yourself, this is spy-novel stuff. You are almost certainly greatly overestimating the budget and technological sophistication involved.
Besides, much of the purpose of such things is to serve as a deterrent. Hiding them works against that. (As well as being able to maintain or replace them easily, not that this was a high priority in this case on anyone's version of events.)
philosoraptor
1mo ago
but I do not believe this for reasons I explained in my other post
You did not explain your reasons for thinking he was lying, or at best you gave some extremely weak circumstantial evidence of this, before moving on to your main topic which was psychologizing about why. It was actually one of the better examples of Bulverism I've seen here.
If nothing else it shows there's an important sense in which he was not a terrible politician but a very good one, contrary to the quoted text.
More options
Context Copy link