Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)IT
Posts
0
Comments
307
Joined
5 mo. ago

  • In America at least, "law enforcement" (Police, Ice, CBP) aren't allowed to force you to enter your password, but they can just happen to hold your phone up to your finger/face to unlock it using biometrics.

  • By nature of being outside of our universe they are not subject to the same constants/restraints or our same concepts of space and time.

    But I'm not necessarily saying it's a requirement. That's just the line of thought I lean towards personally at this point.

  • Interesting, I've never heard of that term but I am partial towards the Maliki madhab which is highly influenced by the Asha'ri and I see them listed there.

    I'll be sure to look into this later.

  • I am genuinely curious what these conflicting attributes are in your view.

    But also, from a dialectical lens, contradiction exists in all things in our own observable reality, from the lowest levels of the concept of movement to the highest levels of the organization of human society. Why would a seeming contradiction be proof that God cannot exist?

  • I believe in God because I think its the best explanation for the existence of our universe with it's laws. A being outside of our current space/time setting our universe into motion just makes sense to me.

  • "adults either know or don't know" then you immediately acknowledge there is room for ambiguity. Revealing that you worked backwards from the premise of "belief in God is childish".

    Why else would your example of a reasonable "adult" usage of believe be valid but not

    "Hey man is there a god" "I believe so but I haven't seen him personally"

    In both examples there is a being/place beyond our current reach which we believe to be there, for whatever reasons, but are unable to confirm at the moment.

    Ironically in your rush to call others childish you posted the most childish response here by assuming your understanding is the only valid one.

  • You think just calling something stupid is a good argument deserving of a proper intellectual rebuttal?

    I don't think your opinion on someone's intellect is of much value if that's the case.

  • If nobody lessened their consumption habits and just switched to "vat grown meat", that would not solve the core of the problem. While less resource intensive than farm grown meat, it's still resource intensive.

    As I said before, it can exist to fill the voids left by other solutions, but it is not a solution in and of itself. For this reason it should not be the priority as the priority should be on growing/promoting other less intensive alternatives and lessening consumption itself.

  • Within our current political-economic system? End subsidies for farmed meat, subsidize alternatives, and raise awareness on the issue as well as about health effects of excess meat consumption.

    This will have the "push" effect of driving up farmed meat prices while having the "pull" effects of cheaper, healthier alternatives. There is nothing in particular to enforce.

    Edit: and as the market on farmed meat becomes less profitable producers will leave the industry as well which leads to a sort of "spiral" as scarcity goes up, raising prices, pushing more away.