Perfide @ Perfide @reddthat.com

Posts

2

Comments

654

Joined

2 yr. ago

And it's not necessarily saying it's a good thing

Did you actually read the article? They very clearly say it would be a major win for Biden.

It's not a Pokemon style game lol, it's an Ark style game.

I'm a leftist that's cool with guns and was raised around them, and technically, not legally, owned my first gun at 11.

A 13 year old still should not have access to guns anywhere in public without adult supervision. I get hunting, I get protecting the farm, etc. None of those involve taking a gun on public transport though.

And yeah, America bad. If this was even remotely a significant issue anywhere else, we could say otherwise, but it's not.

I mean, for it to be an equal trade, Texas has to remain at least a US territory. So Puerto Rico gets Statehood, and Texas keeps most of the downsides of Federal control while losing most of the benefits.

I see this as an absolute win.

It seems like a silly double standard for only one side to have a burden to prove their claim, but the other gets to claim the negation is true with no burden of proof.

Why is it silly that the claim originally presented should have to present evidence first? The counter-claim only has zero burden of proof so long as the original claim has failed to give any proof of their own.

For example, if you say "2+2 is 4" and my response is "NO IT IS NOT. IT IS 3! I REFUSE TO PROVE IT THOUGH", not only will I be wrong in a classical arithmetic sense but I have presented no argument for why you ought to believe my new counter claim to your original claim. It would make no sense to believe me without more info in such a case.

You wouldn't have to present an argument yet, at that stage. I'd think you're really dumb for needing something like that proven to you, but the initial burden of proof would still be on me. However, when I quickly and easily provide proof that 2 + 2 does equal 4, THEN the burden of proof falls to you to prove your counter-claim.

Don't forget his gun control measures, although that was admittedly only for racist reasons...

No, it is not. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance instead of malice. What you're saying is literally verbatim right wing propaganda.

The only thing "anti-fascism" or even "antifa" means is "against fascism". That's it.

What at all does that have to do with being a fascist or an anti-fascist? A shitty survey asking people which of two awful groups of people they prefer is not at all the same as asking what one's opinion on fascism is.

Fascism is very clearly defined. There is no pigeonholing here, there is no third option being left off the table like there was in that survey. You're either in favor of fascism, actively by supporting it or passively by not resisting it, or you are anti-fascist and resisting the rise of fascism to the best of your abilities. There is no in-between.

"God doesn't exist" is surely a statement right? If I tell you "god doesn't exist" (in response or not to something you've said), this feels like I am claiming the statement "god doesn't exist" is true.

This ties into the part you absolutely agreed with. The word "God" as it is defined now would not exist without the original unproven claims that God. Even if you're not responding "God doesn't exist" directly to someone who said "God exists", you are if nothing else still responding to the original millennia old claim that they do exist. For that reason, it is always a counter-claim.

As for what makes counter-claims different from regular claims, it's simply that the burden of proof lies first with the original claim. A counter-claim has no responsibility to prove their claim until such time as the original claim presents evidence supporting itself.

I don't think we need proof to reject a claim like "god exists". There's no real good evidence for it and all attempts at proofs of this in the history of the philosophy of religion have been analyzed and critiqued to death in some pretty convincing ways.

I absolutely agree. That was kinda my point. If the claim ever did get some actually noteworthy evidence, then it would certainly need to be properly proven or disproven... but I don't think that will ever happen.

So, for example if you tell me tax code says X, that is not a proof of what tax code says. It would make sense for me to not outright believe you (since we are strangers), but you could be telling the truth, so it seems equally silly for me to immediately jump to believing tax code doesn't say X too.

The problem with that is I at least in theory could have looked up the tax code, remembered it, and then told you it correctly. Sure, I could have lied or remembered wrong, but it was 100% within my capacity to give you the accurate information, and even show you where I got the information from. With a claim about God's existence, that's impossible for either side of the debate as far as we know, and since the original claim was "God exists", that side is, possibly forever, stuck holding the burden of proof.

More importantly, why does the hardness of doing a thing give you special status to make claims without proof?

It doesn't. But, "God doesn't exist" is not a claim, it is a counter-claim to the claim "God exists". The very concept of a higher power didn't even exist until people started claiming without evidence that it did exist, and it's been many branching games of telephone of that original unproven claim since then that has resulted in basically every major religion.

The counter-claim of "God doesn't exist" needs no proof beause it is countering a claim that also has no proof. If and when the original multiple millenium old claim of "God exists" actually has some proof to back it up, then the counter-claim would need to either have actual proof as well to support it, or debunk the "evidence" if possible. But again, the original claim is literally thousands of years old and still has absolute bupkis to prove it, so... I'm not too worried.

ETA:

The universe is massive. There are teapots here. Why is it not plausible to believe some other alien race would not also construct some kind of teapot? Also, consider the fact that all teapots here on earth are literally teapots in "outerspace" in some sense.

The other person you replied to worded this bit poorly. The original analogy is trying to convince people on Earth to believe that there is a teapot(which is too small to see with a telescope) orbiting the Sun independently somewhere in between Earth's and Mars' orbits. It's completely illogical to believe seeing as humans haven't sent anything without scientific value beyond maybe the moon, and there's no evidence aliens have visited our solar system let alone left a teapot in orbit. But since it can't be proven there isn't a teapot orbiting by itself, does that mean you should believe there is? No, of course not.

Can't help you with any of the other stuff, but to answer your 4k question: No, you still need your 4k collection for best quality. Upscaled 1080p is still 1080p, it just makes it not look wonky on a 4k display. Any details lost due to the source resolution will still be lost, you can't create extra detail out of thin air.

Green Day's music video for their new song "One eyed bastard" features Steamboat Willie pretty prominently. Not exactly a cartoon or a game, but definitely monetized.

Oh no, it's so much worse. This is a BRAND NAME, FCK NZS is a company that sells "antifascist" clothing and accessories. Capitalism has successfully commodified antifa.

There's nothing awkward about it at all, nobody deserves to be bodyshamed, period. Yes, being overweight is unhealthy. The vast, vast majority of overweight people know this. The only thing you accomplish by expressing your concerns and "acknowledging it's bad" unprompted is making the person feel worse, they're not gonna go "Wow, li10 is concerned about my weight, this was the moment I was waiting for to start being healthier". This isn't a hallmark movie, it rarely works like that.

If an overweight person expresses a desire to lose weight and be healthier, absolutely encourage and support that... but support looks like things like offering to be a gym buddy,sharing healthy recipes, words of encouragement as they progress, maybe even joining them on their diet, etc... and even then only if they've expressed a desire for that support. Telling them unprompted "I'm concerned about your health due to your weight" is NOT support, it's nothing but an empty platitude.

I vastly prefer dark chocolate(milk chocolate's ok, white is disgusting), actually, I just disagree with the logic.

Rammstein

How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?

It's still completely besides the point. Milk chocolate is it's own food, you don't taste the sugar or chocolate separately, it's a homogeneous mixture. You don't "like sugar more than chocolate", you like Milk Chocolate more than you like Dark Chocolate. You probably(hopefully... r.i.p your teeth otherwise) also like Milk Chocolate more than you like pure sugar, so by the OPs logic that must mean you like chocolate more than you like sugar, at the same time as you like sugar more than chocolate. See the problem here?

Btw, people do eat spoonfuls of honey which is probably 99.9% sugar.

One, not a completely fair comparison because honey has it's own distinctive flavor beyond just tasting like sugar. But also two, I've never known anyone to just eat multiple spoonfuls of honey by itself. Anecdotal, sure, but I don't think it's nearly as common as you seem to be implying it is

I even drink the water the pickles were in.

Yeah, that's vinegar, not water.

How is OP right? Just about everyone likes milk chocolate, but you'd be hard pressed to find a significant number of people that enjoy downing spoonfuls of sugar. Clearly it's not just the sugar people enjoy

The pickle comparison is also perfect. The only difference between dark and milk chocolate is the sugar content, and the only difference between a pickle and a cucumber is the vinegar.