JargonWagon @ JargonWagon @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

330

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think you meant to reply to a comment and instead replied to the post.

I never gave you a directive, just pointed out that there is no need for the snarky sarcasm.

That's a good interpretation.

Woah.

Centrist?

EDIT: Tried to make a joke and it seems to have missed the mark. Centrist was the least surprising thing in that comment to be shocked by, I thought, so only being shocked by that I thought would have come off as funny. Poe's Law prevails lol

I can grindy schlong on a rail.

I agree with you that those with disabilities and those in isolated areas rely on it, but you didn't reply to the post - you replied to that comment. I'm not being ableist, but pointing out that you replied to a person who was just stating that they themselves can live without it. The person you replied to wasn't being ableist either.

Ahhhhhh so good, I haven't seen this in a while, thank you for sharing.

Jesus, they were just saying that they themselves don't miss it, not that no one should ever use it, no need for all the snarky sarcasm.

Lemmy haters probably be like:

Hol' up, you hating on wet burritos? They're glorious.

I still really want to play Black Flag, ngl. I think I have a weakness for sea songs. Maybe I should play more Sea of Thieves instead.

Perfect response as always. Thank you. Hearing about my friend's job having some difficulties where there was some update on a Linux based device at stores and it's causing all sorts of issues at the stores. I'm sure he would agree with your statement right now.

This post and your replies are amazing.

How can I Linux?

Finally, some quality content

"Parks and Rec" and Rocket League. They set up an event at a park to allow two teams compete in RC car soccer. I would watch it.

Or what if they're black? I've read so many stories about sensors not detecting people simply because they have darker skin.

This thread has plenty of anti-religious stances and oversimplified explanations that just mock those that are religious. Despite how exhausting it will be to think about the replies, I feel that some balance is needed for the sake of good content and discussion. I'm terrible at this shit, so take it with a grain of salt. Obligatory "I'm not religious" - I'm not defending those that have twisted religion to be used for personal gain, perversion, or for enacting upon hatred, but to say there's zero benefit to religion and that it shouldn't exist is naive; it is, however, in need of improvement.

Religion provides community, philosophy, and despite what everyone in the comments here are saying, education. You can deny a specific diety all you'd like, but it poses potential answers to questions science has yet to figure out. Did a diety create the universe via The Big Bang? When does life begin? What happens after death? What happens before we're born? Etc.

Church provides support for those struggling. You can argue that praying to a diety may not do anything on its own, but to have a pastor say that someone in the church has been struggling with something and everyone includes that in their prayers - it helps a lot to cope with the passing of someone, addiction, debt, etc. Some churches will do events to help raise money for a cause. Some will pull you aside to help give direction to resolve the struggle in your life. Some host meetings for AA and other similar programs.

Einstein rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science.

Multiple strong atheists including my college Language Arts teacher throughout my life have said that The Bible is one of the greatest books ever written - not for the diety, but for the teaching of morals, the poetry, the individual pastorals, and the story overall. Is it the only source to learn morality? No. Additionally, any source where you learn morality from will also have immoral characteristics, so don't let any strawman arguments prevent you from learning from it.

Nothing and no one is perfect, so use your own judgement to discern the morality from the immoral, and question it. For those interested in pro-religioua debate, books on Apologetics can be an interesting read.

Same.

I'm sure there's some sort of logical fallacy to be said about negating the quality of a quote based on the person who said it. Like, if Einstein said it, then it must be smart. If Hitler said it, then it must be evil. Etc.

I'm aware, just adding to the conversation is all