Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 118
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I find it amusing that you'd have such criteria when 2 or 3 of your other criteria sound like something a grammar-nazi would care about. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I suppose you can find some grammar-appreciative people to be friends with, perhaps in the editing or copy proofing world?
I used to be more mindful of language rules myself.
Now there are language mistakes that I like. How my daughter says 'bloopy' instead of 'bluey' and calls her brother by the second half of his name. How endearing! Perhaps if you care to not be so hung up on what most people consider trivial language mistakes, taking up a foreign language would help?
When you are the one desperately trying to express yourself in a foreign language, begging native speakers not to immediately switch to English or ignore you, perhaps you will feel more inclined to be magnanimous toward others' mistakes?
What's the problem with that? We all hold some beliefs we can't justify from the ground up. I've never seen Antarctica, I have to believe that it exists if anybody talks about it.
Distrusted in what sense?
Do I trust that they will keep the AC at the exact 'right' temperature when I'm not around and they have control of the thermostat? Perhaps not, but why 'dislike' them for that?
I think it's important to respect that other people's preferences might be as arbitrary/determined as mine, and I shouldn't dislike them for that. Unless we're talking about extreme levels of causing discomfort to others.
Me neither, but unlike for typical religious claims, we have:
polar bearsEdit: penguins - I actually checked this time)Well that would require me to believe in satellites and photography (aren't these devices stealing your soul anyway?). It could be AI-generated for all I know.
This is not as odd as it sounds. There is a significant portion of the educated Western population who claims that God sometimes gets confused and puts a soul in the wrong body. This is something they teach children in many parts of the West.
'Don't sacrifice children because an angel told you not to' is not that odd of a belief, by comparison, imo.
But that's from growing up in a civilization that was deeply imbued with Christian values. Somebody who grew up in a Mayan city might be fine with Clancy-style late-term abortion.
Yes it does, and that is reasonable. I guess you're gesturing towards the argument of "if we are willing to believe sources like photographs, then why not also believe the Bible/Church too?".
My acceptance of videos/photographs as evidence is something I'm willing to generally apply (even to stuff that I don't like) - but I don't think stuff being written down is similarly strong evidence (and I don't think you do either, since you probably don't believe in the Quran)
No I don't believe in souls. And I'm pretty sure that even Christians, who believe in souls, don't think cameras steal them.
Good point, I think eventually photos/videos will become untrustworthy, maybe they are already untrustworthy. But I remember seeing photos of Antarctica years ago, before realistic AI image generation was a thing.
I assume you are referring to transgenderism? That's really not what most adherents believe (speaking as someone who was firmly pro-trans, and who is still broadly sympathetic to it) - given that most of us are atheists.
Some liberal detractors of transgenderism liken it to a religion by arguing a gender identity is functionally identical to a soul because lots of pro-trans people struggle to define what "womanhood" means explicitly.
But it can be done: a "trans woman" is a man who wishes to be a woman, and one's "gender identity" is just the gender/sex they wish they were (and then we redefine gender/man/woman/mother/father/etc to match gender identity instead of sex, and discourage mentions of sex) - no appeals to the metaphysical, just the phenomena of human beings having desires.
As I explained above, transgenderism boils down to the mundane claim that sometimes men want to be women, and vice-versa. I am almost certain that angels don't exist now, and never existed in the past - because I've never seen an angel, seen photographs of an angel, or heard any other convincing evidence they aren't made-up.
Sounds like you're gesturing towards the fact that atheism has no objective morality, which is a good point that I think a lot of atheists don't address. Without a God, there is just people's subjective moral preferences - "sacrificing children" (i.e. killing them for no good reason) feels immoral to me, and to many others. But if someone felt otherwise, I can't actually prove they are wrong by pointing to a line in the Bible, and they wouldn't even be "wrong", they'd just have a different taste to me (and that would be horrifying to me)
And it might even be true that humans need a God to maintain a stable society long-term. But none of that has anything to do with whether God, angels, etc exist in the first place.
Also, nice try, but I see what you did there: the pro-Clancy defence is that she was mentally unwell so it wasn't her fault. People who believe in abortion don't believe the fetus counts as human, so it's okay to kill it with full awareness of what you are doing.
My point was just that we generally at some point believe what others tell us. Whether it's that a picture in a textbook depicts something that actually happened, or that a given natural phenomena is explained by what they are saying.
Photograph-based scams are pretty much as old as the camera, like the Cottingley fairies.
It is conceivable that miniatures of icey landscapes were used in photographs with clever angles and painted backgrounds to fake Antarctica. I don't have a reason to believe that's the case but it's possible.
People who use words such as 'wrong body' are clearly referring to some kind of dualist conception of the mind - body, analogous to souls.
I've never seen a woman who can lift heavy things yet feminists will have us believe they are equal to men. Moreover, there are many things that Science has revealed to us that were prior excluded from our understanding. I can't see or smell radiation myself.
There's plenty of good reasons they come up with for these abortions.
Pure coincidence.
She was just being a girl. In her murder era. Going goblin mode on the kiddos. Being brave and independent. Performing self-care?
Pure coincidence that these people would excuse a 'true human' having a little bit of an oopsie moment while taking one of these mental health days off. Like there's some kind of slippery slope when you grant certain people the right to kill whoever they deem inferior, and celebrate it.
On a subreddit that reposts Tumblr posts, I just read a fantastic endorsement of Death Note as an examination of how monstrous people become when they’re allowed to kill without consequence. Basically, the show and manga both make it crystal clear how quickly people go from principled secret murders of bad people to convenience killings.
And all I could think was how quickly I’d be banned for life if I dared point out half of the population has the Death Note for their unborn babies. I thought of asking, “Is the Death Note a metaphor for concealed carry or Roe v Wade?”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
>Antarctica
>polar bears
Hmm…
There were polar bears in Antarctica until the elder things ate them all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People who make things worse for everybody else:
Those who deny the validity of scientific investigation (including supply and demand)
Those who don't bother to avoid ambiguity (i. e., foisting onto others the burden of reconstructing their intended meaning) in communication
For Alfred to assume that his random classmate/coworker/whatever Beatrice agrees with him on everything is charitable, but naive. Inevitably, if Alfred interacts with Beatrice, he will learn that she disagrees with him on minor topics—perhaps a few, perhaps a zillion.
If Beatrice disagrees with Alfred on a zillion minor topics, those minor disagreements are not in themselves sufficient cause for Alfred to dislike Beatrice. However, those minor disagreements do indicate an underlying difference between Alfred and Beatrice, and should lead Alfred to assume that Beatrice probably disagrees with Alfred on a zillion major topics as well—i. e., to distrust Beatrice. Even if those major topics are not known to Alfred, it is well-advised for him to assume that, if he bothers to learn more about Beatrice, then he eventually will come to learn her opinions on those major topics, and to dislike her. Familiarity breeds contempt.
I gotta say that this has been a fascinating thread looking into your psyche.
Kudos to @disparagus_impact for sussing it out. I don't think I would have gone this deep.
I somewhat agree that familiarity leads to finding disagreement which leads to some distrust.
I'm libertarian and atheist, if I believe anything about polling I'm bound to have major disagreements with just about everyone. I never wanted to limit my friendship and dating circles so heavily though. I take friendships and relationships as a journey for me and another to discovering the maximum amount of common ground agreements.
By the time someone knows about my most contentious beliefs I want them to know a dozen other things that paint me in a positive and agreeable light. This is also a minor way of spreading my beliefs. The human mind is very social. If someone knows a bunch of cool and friendly x-itarians their opinion of x-itarianism is likely to go up. Conversely if they only know a bunch of grumps and assholes their opinion will go down.
More options
Context Copy link
Well there's all kind of scientific investigation. Is scientific investigation the highest course of action no matter what? Should we be scientifically investigating something right now instead of having a conversation?
There's a trade-off between avoiding ambiguity and time. Users of this website are obsessed with avoiding ambiguity but it makes every discussion longer to read / longer to respond to.
The implication being that if you get to know somebody you will inevitably end up disliking them. While I don't think that is necessarily true, if you do believe that to be true, why do you want to speedrun that inevitability by throwing lists of questions at them?
You should enjoy not knowing them that well for as long as you can.
Also if you stopped constantly inquiring about various topics you would be less likely to form an opinion that would lead you to dislike somebody over it. ie touch grass
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link