moobythegoldensock @ moobythegoldensock @geddit.social

Posts

1

Comments

159

Joined

2 yr. ago

In that case, keeping the doors and windows shut will give you the best chance of survival, because there will be less oxygen flow and thus a slower burn.

You’ll need to call in a fire emergency, lie low on the ground, and try to use a rag/shirt/towel to filter some of the smoke while you wait to be rescued. You still might die, but at least this way you have a chance.

Using thermal imaging cameras, researchers found that closed-door rooms on both floors during the fire’s spread had average temperatures of less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit versus 1000+ degrees in the open-door rooms. “You could see a markable difference that a person could be alive in a room with a closed door much longer,” says Kerber.

Gas concentrations were markedly different as well. The open-door bedroom measured an extremely toxic 10,000 PPM CO (parts per million of Carbon Monoxide), while the closed had approximately 100 PPM CO.

https://fsri.org/programs/close-before-you-doze

We are very similar, and have grown more similar over time.

Closed. Open is a fire hazard.

Well ok then.

Incorrect. There have been many ontological arguments: Wikipedia lists over a dozen formulations.

You not being convinced by any does not change the fact that they have been seriously proposed and discussed for the last 1000 years or so. And again, ontological arguments are just one of many different types.

I see you feel the need to project some notion of “feelings” onto me, which is not at all what fallibilism is. So not only did you attempt to start an argument on an explanatory thread, but now you’ve demonstrated you’ve misunderstood the replies, declared yourself winner of your own game, and are jotting off. So… congrats?

Simple: how has it always existed? Why is there not more of it, or less, or none at all? Is there a viable explanation beyond “It just is?”

I’d be certainly willing to consider any other models you may have.

And yes, I do get to dismiss them, because this entire thread is a question of whether and what people believe, and OP asked me whether I believe in them, so I answered. I could believe in literally anything and it would fit the topic of this thread.

But to get more specific, I am a fallibilist: I believe that everything is ultimately unprovable, not just gods. The scientific method and deities are simply two models I find compelling enough to be worthy of my time and attention.

I already answered your specific question: the philosophical arguments that make consideration of deities compelling do not hold for fairies. As one of many examples, no one has ever advanced any sort of ontological argument that would hold for fairies. Without those, the claims are not at all similar, and I have found no compelling reason to contemplate the existence for unicorns or fairies.

I don’t think we need to get a semantic argument over whether the singularity that led to the big bang is the same as the universe or its own distinct thing. Matter, energy, hypothetical branes, or any other “stuff” of existence: do we have a mechanism for this that isn’t just turtles all the way down?

Aliens? Probably. We know planets are common and there’s nothing to suggest that life could only evolve once. I’m skeptical of claims that any are actively visiting Earth, though.

Fairies, pixies, unicorns, djinn, etc.? No way. Gods at least have some ontological arguments in their favor: for example, is it more parsimonious to describe a universe that started existing out of nothing or a deity that exists outside of the universe’s constraints? Neither explanation is particularly satisfying, but at least both are considerable.

Fairies, however, don’t add anything to the discussion and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.

Try blocking the repost bots. It helps.

Strong agnostic, weak theist.

I think God’s existence is ultimately unknowable, and those who claim to know one way or another are using wishful thinking to plug the gaps. But I was raised Catholic and still nominally believe in some sort of deity, though it wavers day to day.

No, nobody thinks this.

“I don’t understand it so therefore it’s bad!”

The footnote for that is that some schools have “college” in their names due to name recognition, even though they are functionally universities.

For example, Boston College is actually a university, and is considered more prestigious than Boston University.

From the start. Puritans and missionaries were here before the US itself was founded.

Marijuana is considered physiologically addictive.

From UpToDate:

In a national survey of 1527 cannabis users who reported at least three times per week use, the most common symptoms of withdrawal were sleep difficulty (14 percent), irritability or anger (14 percent), anxiety (13 percent), headache (12 percent), and depressed mood (11 percent). Other symptoms such as restlessness, decreased appetite or weight loss, abdominal pain, shaking or tremors, sweating, and fever or chills have been described.

“The customer is always right” is a bad maxim, just like “caveat emptor” that it replaced was a bad maxim.

A better one should be something like, “Valid customer complains should be taken seriously.” Sometimes business do something wrong and should have to fix them; other times, customers are full of it and should be informed as such.

It is the full quote and OP is not misunderstanding its meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right

You’re thinking of a later retort that was added to try to change the quote.

No it didn’t. It always referred to customer service.