Beemo Dinosaurierfuß

Why do you think you can dictate to anyone what to wear?

So by your own claim you are part of the polytheistic church of Paul?
That just is not catholicism.
Which is so easy to prove because the catholics love to write down their many rules.

So I honestly would just answer right back at you:

FFS read a book.

And btw, while I have been an atheist for many years now, I was raised strictly catholic in a highly religious area by my catholic family that included a catholic nun and the headmaster of a catholic school and I intensively studied christianity before I made my break with this religion.

You can’t bullshit me.

Catholicism is the church of Paul, and isn’t strictly monotheistic, trinitarianism and unitarianism aside.

That is just plain wrong, no two ways about it.

To me it sounds like you listened to some protestant that doesn’t care much for the catholic church and just repeat his rant without questioning it much.

And don’t get me wrong, I couldn’t care less about christian infighting. I was just curious about the reasoning how the catholic church, which is one of the oldest and most “original” christian churches, could be considered not christian at all.
After your post I don’t believe there is much basis to this claim at all.

That is totally new to me.

Can you give me one or two of those many definitions for my understanding?

I had success talking about the tortoise one with imaginary time stamps.

I think it gets more understandable that this pseudo paradox just uses smaller and smaller steps for no real reason.
If you just go one second at a time you can clearly see exactly when the tortoise gets overtaken.

That might be true in the US, but that is certainly untrue in other parts of the world, where college/university is way cheaper/free and the pay difference a degree makes can be huge.

I live in Germany and I think it almost always pays off to ge to university, at least if you are interested in anything even close to MINT.
And even in non MINT areas a higher degree opens many doors that otherwise are really hard to get into.

I respect your opinion, but I am completely the other way.

A meal wants to be a journey through your flavors.
Each getting a small time to shine, before coming together in the end for that one last perfect bite.

I mean I get your point and for all intents and purposes I don’t even necessarily disagree.

I just wanted to add this little factoid, since I think using “octopi” instead of the at least equally as correct “octopuses” shows that one tries to follow the etymology of the word.
And if you try to do that, the etymologically correct plural is “octopodes”.

Then again I hesitated even answering you, since I am by no means one of those weirdos that has a problem with language changing.

For all I care we can talk about octopussies and octopiarians or whatever, but as someone that had to learn latin as a child, the use of octopi just kind of itches my brain.

But it is all good, I get what you are saying and my first post was never meant as a negative critique of OP and more as a fun fact.

Just to be the super-nerd, octopus is not a regular latin word.
I think it is actually a greek loan word in latin.

So the plural is either octopodes to follow the original greek or octopuses in regular english.

Pretty sure that just released on Netflix.

Brenn!

That’s such a stupid take, I am not even sure where to start responding.

Of the many, many, many things one might reply I will just pick the simple facts that a sugary drink alone doesn’t kill anyone and cars have a real and tangible use to our society, while selling murder-tools at Walmart does not.

And btw I am very much in favor of measures to reduce the damages caused by the sugar industry and putting strict restrictions on dangerous traffic.

In short, while America needs to do SOMETHING the “Just ban guns” crowd are infuriating in their naivety.

As someone that is firmly against the free access to guns I cannot agree that it is naivety.

You guys got a serious problem with gun violence, your children are dying in, quite frankly, absurd numbers.
And you keep on letting it happen for decades now.

I am not someone that says just banning the ownership of guns outright from one second to another is the best solution there is. Off course it’s not.

But dude, even that strawman solution that pretty much noone actually proposes would be better than your status quo.

I don’t know if I would call it really good, but if I were to ever write a novel the setting would be dark fantasy like somewhere between the middle ages and the modern times where most men of the protagonists society are about to come back from a long war, but they also bring back a mysterious illness.

The protagonists were just too young to have gone to said war, but maybe an older brother did go, maybe he fell idk.
At some point the father comes home, but what was supposed to be a happy occasion turns darker because he is changed by war.

There has to be some form of secret society that has something to do with the illness or the lack of a cure for the common people.
And the young protagonists will have to deal with that situation due to circumstances and not because they were chosen or secret princes or something like that.

And I am a sucker for happy endings so while the novel would be rather dark as a whole, the ending would see a dramatic change to society with at least the potential to get better.
I think times of change make for good fiction.

I will never write that novel though, but just maybe I might get to use the setting for a TTRPG campaign some day.

Why not?

They own iShares which has some of the biggest ETFs on the market.
Although I don’t know if their competitors are any better.

First off, thank you for the detailed response.
I recognize that you know more about this than me so I am happy to learn.

There are a couple of points in your post though that I want to reply to.

Determinism as used here means behavioral determinism.

That is explicitly not what I want to talk about.
I might have misworded my first post or misunderstood op but I understand determinism as the view that with perfect information over any system it can be predetermined what will happen in the future of this system. Wikipedia says: Determinism is the philosophical view that events are completely determined by previously existing causes.

I thought that to be the case for a long time.
If I could control all the variables I could roll a die to a 6 every time or at least tell the outcome as soon as it’s thrown if I know everything else there is to know.

I also recognize that my understanding of modern physics is minimal at best.
But a physicist friend of mine told me that there is stuff that is truly random, so in gross simplification if I throw the exact same die in the exact same way under the exact same conditions it could still show different results making it impossible to predetermine the result.

If that is the case I don’t think this world is a system where it is possible to determine the future even with perfect information.

And maybe you are right that my knowledge is just too superficial to hold a real opinion in the debate between determinism and indeterminism, but I also don’t really have a horse in this race.
Just if you were to ask me as a layman I would think indeterminism to be more plausible given the (grossly simplified) information above.

The OP that I replied to described himself as a determinist, so I was just curious of their response.
But now I got a lot of other input to think about so I am happy either way.

Again, none if this is meant to attack you and I realize to someone more informed this might just seem as random rambling, but I was just honestly interested so thank you again for the response.

I am not sure you replied to the right comment since I never mentioned free will at all but was more interested in how a person believing in determinism handles the current state of science that at least suggests the existence of true randomness.
In my eyes true randomness contradicts a deterministic world, but I am interested to learn more from anyone who is more educated on this topic.

If I understand you correctly I agree with you though that what might be called free will is what happens in an individuals brain when they make a decision.
The discussion whether this decision making process in the brain can be truly free is a very interesting one, but not the one I wanted to have.

My personal layman’s opinion is that my brain has enough uniqueness to it that the decisions I make are individually mine and there are other unique people that make their own individual choices.
If those choices and decisions are truly free matters less to me as long as they are truly individual.

I am genuinely and in good faith interested what you think about quantum mechanics and that there seems to be an element of true randomness there.

I was pretty much a determinist until an actual physicist that I know and respect told me that he is totally convinced that there is stuff in quantum mechanics that just cannot be predetermined.

And if anything can be undeterminable then by influencing other things there would exist true randomness and then a fully deterministic world cannot exist in my eyes.
But I am very willing to learn more if you know a good counter-argument since I always thought determinism is quite an elegant view of the world.
I just cannot follow it if I am not convinced it is true.

I get hungover way less since I drink a lot of water after or ideally at the same time as getting drunk.

If I get hungover anyway it’s greasy food, weed, sweet drinks like soda or juice schorle and couch with a series or a silly movie. Probably a cat or two with me on the couch. Let’s be honest, probably only the one, the other only really loves my SO. Normal stuff I guess.

Or if it’s summer festival time maybe countering with beer might be another option to kill a hangover.

How so?