Tlaloc_Temporal

I’m instantly distasteful of any recipe that adds onion for flavour. That stuff is pervasive, overpowering, and in nearly everything already. Unless onion is the focus of the recipe, I’d like to actually taste the food in the dish, not onion again.

Butter is great, and garlic is good but doesn’t smell that much. Screw onions though.

See, this might be ok if there were two of them. But now when the battery gets low you are required to stop listening.

Staying on the right but taking a few steps left is still an improvement!

I just did this with my phone, which I use as a bus pass. I stayed up a tad late getting that working again…

True, I may have slightly mis-interpreted their comment. Just consider this a supporting argument.

Why can’t you get similar right via other certificates?

Can you walk 24 hours a day though? Your body automatically breathes during sleep, but you need to be awake to walk and not be doing anything that requires you to sit still.

Sleeping, a sit down meal, commuting, office work, even exercise like biking and swimming, all require breathing and not taking steps.

That’s why it’s important to communicate with them rather than alienating them.

I can see the different levels of quote, but there’s also spaces between them. Too many line breaks maybe?

Your reader might not support nested quotes though.

Agreed. While I realize I am making some fuss about being right, being left and able to try again is far more important.

By that same logic, should president Truman have been ousted after WWII? Should the Canadian trucker convoy have torched parliament? Should all governments decend into chaos as soon as any group doesn’t like them?

I’m not saying this specific turn of events shouldn’t be resisted, I’m looking for better logic, a reason why the rules shouldn’t apply here. Something like the overt and immediate threat to people’s wellbeing and freedom. It doesn’t matter how good or bad this administration is going to be according to an individual, it matters that they’re going to cause a lot of unnecessary harm to a lot of people. Subjective opinions are how we got here.

Maybe we’re past the point of that mattering, perhaps a critical mass of people just want to cause harm and a lot of fucked up shit is inevitable, but I do hope to keep a sense of ethics and justice to rebuild when the fight for existence ends. I don’t want to become the uncritical extremists we’re fighting against.

I’m 50-50 on this. Peaceful transition of power is about respecting the decision of the people. A reasonable reason to buck the peaceful transition would be if it didn’t align with the will of the people, but that will is so obfusicated and twisted that I can’t tell what it even is anymore. If you have an issue with the transition, you should have an issue with the process that got you there. Bucking only the transition isn’t attacking the issue, it’s throwing a tantrum because you lost.

A miscarriage of justice isn’t solved with a pardon, it needs systemic changes. The rules are wrong, and ignoring them sometimes won’t make things right. What I would respect is rebuilding the system to be more representative and less able to be twisted. Gerrymandering, conflicts of interest, voting availability, lobbying, voter knowledge, even the journalism industry as a whole; there are lots of huge problems out there, ignoring those resorting to an armed “nuh uh” at the last moment is stupid.

That said, installing a dictator has never gone well, and being petty and stupid is probably worth avoiding that. It’s probably worth quite a bit more really. So I wouldn’t like it, but I really couldn’t complain.

The fingers aren’t the bottleneck, it’s the brain. I type just as fast with two fingers as with ten.

As AliasVortex@lemmy.world said, all parts of Factorio are mods, and can be enabled separately. The Base mod, which can’t be disabled has the vanilla game; the Quality and Elevated Rail mods, which are from the Space Age DLC but can be activated whenever; and the Space Age mod.

I don’t know which mod is responsible for changing science and recipes though. Coupd be either side.

rather destroy all life on earth than hurt The Economy.

Oh don’t worry, I have have issues with that too.

Thor summons lightning with Mjolnir

If you believe Thor is the cause of lightning, you might be more willing to ignore meteorology. If you believe the Aesir are actually divine and walk between the worlds, you might be more willing to believe that some people are descendants of them and thus superior.

Jesus needs to sacrifice himself on the cross in order to satisfy the Old Laws and get everyone into heaven

If you believe that blood sacrifices hold power, you might think that some people are performing them when they aren’t, or even perform them yourself.

If you believe the world will end, you might not be so concerned with maintaining it or even living in it.

My point is that making a habit of denying reality makes it easier to deny reality in the future, and even if one denial of reality is innocuous, later denials may not be. Bigots love to use religion to push racist, discriminatory, and abusive ideas, and the best way to defend against those ideas is to see how they align with reality. We can’t identify harmful acts if we can’t agree on the effect of an act, can we?

Anyway, the original topic was putting words in anti-theist’s mouths. There’s not even a generally accepted definition of anti-theism, with some being against organized religions, and others against monotheism specifically. To paint them all as opposite-christians is using a Zamboni as a brush.

I wouldn’t describe myself as an anti-theist, I’m not against the idea itself, it’s rather neat and might have been an important step in the development of human culture and thinking. I’m particularly interested in the old gods, like at gobekli tepe, or proto-devi and deva, or the bears and other beings that populate the oldest stories of the night sky. I might describe myself as a non-theist humanist: So long as it does good to the world, I don’t care in particular.

If you take a definition of religion that places something above the demonstrable world --the sacred supernatural-- we run into the issue of the world being sacrificed to intangible ideas, which is bad. This idea of the world being pointless in the face of something that cannot be proven is pretty central to most sects of western religions, and the ability to move people for an idea unconnected to reality is a fantastic way to gain power over them.

It’s this concept of unprovable authority that I find dangerous, and I think this is what is referred to with the theo in theism; the tyrant gods and political religious institutions of the west. It’s a very rough definition which may or may not apply elsewhere, but it’s probably what most english speakers are thinking about when you say god.

This is certainly what I’m thinking of when someones wants me to accept even the existence of a god: that they defy the limits of the world and thus deserve attention. The problem is that none of these beings have ever had any notable effect on the world, universally being spoken for by their followers.

You could argue for less-than-supernatural gods, like kings or pharoahs, or particularly respected people, or even certain animals, plants, or locations. In these instances, their effects can be directly investigated, and if any effects beyond those given by politics and popularity be found I would have no problem accepting them. I accept that we live in a shared reality, and thus I also accept anything that comports with it.

The opposite is also true; I’ll reject anything that doesn’t comport with reality. I consider anything that can make one ignore parts of reality to be dangerous and likely to cause harm, so I find myself at odds with most religions and directly against the idea of most gods, western or otherwise. It doesn’t matter how good the acts of a being are, I will not hold them as more than what is evident. A system of belief on the other hand, I might accept, if it doesn’t hold itself superior to reality or the world.

I can’t find any reference to antheist, but by your definition I am not one. I’m not anti-theist by your definition either. My belief is not guided by the supposed goodness of a being, simply their existence. It would be more accurate to call me an anti-delusionism-ist: against the practice of denying reality. That’s quite clunky though, and stops being true if a god is found to exist, although a lot of definitions and beliefs would change rapidly in that situation. Thus non-theist: I don’t care as long as you’re not hurting anyone.

I think Drag should ask more antitheists about their reasoning.

I am of the opinion that any willful ignorance of reality is dangerous, and most religions are organized and ritualized ignorance.

Most of them were just speculation when they were founded, and no one could fathom exactly how they were right or wrong. The difference is that now we can know better; we can fathom the depths of the universe and plot the edges of our ignorance.

This leads to a conflict between the intensly held beliefs of entite cultures and the systems we use to progress society. Thus the anti-intellectualism movement and conspiracy thinking, theocratic movements, and the willingness to deny truth.

I do not have the same issues with spiritual systems and religions that are willing to accept what we know about reality; but sadly those are in the vast minority. It’s less about being against gods in general, and more about being against the tyrant gods and authoritarian organizations that are willing to sacrifice reality on the altar of control and power.

So go ahead and make rituals, worldviews, and sacred meaning, but don’t let those cloud your vision of the world, and remember to love each other.

Because vampires can’t cross boundaries without permission, the answer is no, they can’t come in until allowed in.

Ah, so it’s the IRS that was the wrong target. I see.