Holy fuck, "Space logistics simulator with some casual space piracy" the game.
For the receptive kind of brain that's some premium crack.
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 756
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 756
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Actually , before we get on to the original response, which, while somewhat sarcastic is a legitimate offer.
I do have an actual question, are you , as an individual allowed to claim that your interpretation is the correct one?
Like in a religious sense, wouldn't claiming to be the only one with the real understanding of god's intentions be some kind of blasphemy ( sort of like claiming you're a prophet ).
Now, on to the actual response.
It sounds like you have the inside track on the correct interpretation of the sentences.
It's clear we are all struggling with coming to the correct conclusions with the information available, why don't you save us all the trouble of trying to figure out what was actually meant and publish a book with very clear, step by step definitions.
I, legitimately, would benefit from being able to reference something that could 100% keep me out of the bad place.
The existing texts are generically vague, linguistically shifting, contextually contradictory and subjective in many ways.
Not to mention thousands of years old and filtered through many many generations of truly shitty organisational power structures that changed them suit their own desires for power or control.
A genuine guide that covers all the contextual and subjective nuances would be a literal godsend.
Send me a link when you've published, I’ll even pre-order (well, I’ll probably look at the reviews first, I’m not an idiot)
- JumpRemoved
A Life of Crime
This where we disagree and the communication broke down.
It seems we do disagree because even in this reply you provide no justification for assigning a must to an argument that is provided as a should.
The original logical argument is that the solution to homelessness is to provide houses.
Agreed.
Though technically™, and for a very literal definition of homelessness, that is correct.
The arguments that followed look like they are providing counterarguments using a less literal definition, like "modern day homelessness and the causes thereof"
The counterpoint is that providing houses is not enough of a solution
Agreed, emphasis on the not enough, meaning, still partially enough.
and that in order to actually solve the problems that homeless people face, they must also receive the other assistances listed.
This is where our interpretations differ.
I'm reading this as :
and that in order to solve more of the problems that homeless people face, they should
mustalso receive the other assistances listed.They were providing a possible suggestion to increase the effectiveness of the solution, that's not a must that's a should also
Less of a "It won't work at all without this" vs "yeah, ok, but we should also do this as well"
I'll concede it is a very strong should but it's not close enough to a must to come to "So, if giving both mental health assistance as well as housing assistance is antithetical to housing-first research" as a conclusion.
ETA: Actually, if you’re familiar with Boolean algebra.....
I am familiar with it, boolean algebra doesn't help if the values you are using are faulty.
At this point, I’ll stress I’m not arguing for or against any of the points raised in the actual discussion, my original reply consisted of: "housing-first” doesn’t mean “housing only"
The only thing i've been doing is taking the examples you've provided (and in the original case, the request you made) and pointed out where they seem to rely on faulty interpretations or information not provided.
- JumpRemoved
A Life of Crime
Which portion am I interpreting incorrectly?
The portion contained in the reply you were responding to.
You were asking for sources in response to a specific reply, sources that included only housing and not accompanying mental health support.
i was just saying that the reply you responded to mentioned "housing-first" not "housing-only", so it seemed like you were asking for sources for something that was never mentioned ( in that reply ).
But i'll respond to your reply , point by point.
First reply states that mental health assistance must accompany housing assistance 1.2;
It does not, it posits that mental health support will help a greater proportion of people, there is no must in there.
Next reply states that this goes against the findings of a housing-first approach 2.1:
So i'll concede that this person does seem a bit confused, given that they seem to be arguing the same point as the person they were responding to in what seems to be a fairly hostile manner.
But they still seem to be championing a housing-first approach.
Their next statement makes little sense to me 2.2:
Because the initial reply said to give both, not one or the other 1.1:
Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive.
One is a proposed solution, the other is a somewhat pointless statement, but it's not contradictory.
So, if giving both mental health assistance as well as housing assistance is antithetical to housing-first research, then there must be a study which shows that mental health assistance is either unnecessary or detrimental.
I'm not sure how you're getting from "I think these two things would solve the problem " to "Only thing one is required, thing two is useless and possibly detrimental to the goal".
ETA: If they’re arguing for the same thing, then why did the second person imply that the first one was wrong?
Confusion or misunderstanding probably.
- JumpRemoved
A Life of Crime
Not me you're replying to, but I assume "housing-first" doesn't mean "housing only"
I guess they were coming back to pick them up again later?
That makes sense, didn't even think of that.
Is there a pro-conservation reason for stringing them up? genuine question.
Like some territory marking thing ?
That aside, fox hunting as a "sport" is traditionally a shitshow , not because of the foxes dying specifically , but because of the way it is conducted.
This doesn’t seem to be related to fox hunting (the "sport") though, perhaps the two are being conflated here, or there is some sort of link not disclosed ?
I imagine it's from all the times authority figures from religious organisations that are so zealously espousing "think of the children" have ended up being the very thing they are supposedly fighting against.
I can't speak to the lightheartedness of the intent of the author, but I can say that I personally understand the structure of the humour at play.
Plenty of times a Church has reported it's leaders who were abusing their position and co-operated with law enforcement.
And plenty of times they've done the exact opposite, enough that is is part of the cultural Zeitgeist of multiple nations that religious authority figures have been abusing their power and getting away with it for centuries.
My church's policy is that you report it to the police first.
I mean this genuinely and not as an attack.
I'm not sure how to address that level of naïveté but i will explain it as best I can.
Firstly, I can't imagine there is a single policy written anywhere that states "hide the child abuse from the police" as the official position.
Secondly, I'd wager good money that all the religious institutions and staff at all those places would swear up and down that the policy was to report it to the police and it was a few "bad actors" in an otherwise fundamentally good organisation.
The exception possibly being those very insular cults where the abuses are part of the actual doctrine, in those cases they'd admit to it because they don't see themselves as having some something wrong based on their beliefs.
There are numerous historic and ongoing cases about this, it's not difficult to find.
Even if you personally (or even all the people you know) are 100% following this guideline, it's provably true that that isn't always the case.
"But the rules say we should report them" isn't strong position to defend any size of organised religion in the face of the sheer number of accusations, arrests and investigations to the contrary.
As I said, and I mean it, this isn't an attack on you or yours. You could be absolutely correct about your circle, and I have no issues with individual faith (as long as its not forced upon others).
The issue I have is with trying to defend organised religion as a whole using small anecdotal data as a basis.
Honestly, I want you to be right but "trust me bro" isn't a good argument and you need good arguments, because weak arguments are worse than no arguments at all.
I could be wrong but I've only ever heard it used to refer to black people (not all poc's) acting violent or loudly.
Like how they imagine a chimpanzee would act, I assume.
Im not expecting great depth of thought from people using this phrase knowing it's origin.
I'm not saying there is an issue. My issue is that the comic is trying to make out that teachers don't abuse.
That's certainly one of the takes of all time.
I'm fairly certain all the comic is implying is that the person talking about pushing for youth pastors in school secretly has csam on their computer.
But im legitimately interested in how you got that take, just because I don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
I don't see how a pastor who has passed the same necessary background checks as a teacher (this is required in the UK) is any more of a risk than the secular teachers.
This I agree with in principal, though I would also add that the church (organised religion in general, really) has reputation for protecting it's members for a reason.
I would also add that the equal checks standard isn't in every country.
Assuming the odds are the same for both to be a perpetrator, one of those is anecdotally ( possibly statistically ) more likely to receive protection.
Unironically used the term "chimped out"
Either a born and bred 4chan native or a very dedicated method actor.
but it’s not arrogance when half this thread is Europeans looking down their nose as if they have any fucking clue what’s happening in the USA today.
Being arrogant in response to a perceived slight doesn't cancel out the arrogance.
I'm not commenting on your response specifically I'm saying your argument here doesn't make any sense.
Everyone has a constant feed on what's happening in America, not just the news and propaganda outlets but the direct social media reports of thousands of day to day people.
I don’t want to read a single comment panicking over a Trump tweet or letter. I don’t want any more debates with EU commenters pretending they know the US constitution, laws, election process, or insitutional corruption better than I do.
That's easily solvable, don't hang out in a space called "FuckTheUSA", it's like a vegan being offended by meat preparation after making a reservation and walking in to "BIG JOE'S 100% REAL STEAKHOUSE AND BURGERS".
Probably best to avoid all of the topics that are very obviously things you don't want to see the comments on.
Living in a country gives you lived experience, it's doesn't automatically grant you intellectual superiority on "US constitution, laws, election process, or insitutional corruption" , if that was the case, those voting percentages would be different.
I don’t want to hear from anyone who’s reading headlines from halfway around the world and dismissing my experiences (“just do something”). I don’t wanna hear shit from any armchair revolutionaries living in countries where the police can’t even carry pepper spray.
AFAICT nobody in this thread has said you personally should be doing anything above and beyond the normal voting and campaigning you'd normally do ( i could have missed it, feel free to link any missed statements ).
A great deal of police forces are allowed to carry pepper spray ( or some other form of non-lethal ), many of them also have access to firearms, though obviously not at the scale of the USA I'm sure if we had a senile despot funding a force of untrained bigoted assholes to go out and feel good about themselves, they'd open up that access pretty quickly.
Also, and i don't mean this as an attack, unless you are actually out there doing something tangible, that would also make you an "armchair revolutionary", albeit one immersed in the situation.
She entered into the agreement of her own volition (as far as we know) and was of an age to do so.
If her intention was to provide sex (and companionship, because that's sometimes an important component) in exchange for the payday after the 2 years then I'd classify that as sex work, though a more long term contracting kind of work.
If she was in it for the relationship and it just didn't work out then no, it's just a failed relationship with a bonus payout.
But i'll concede that my perspective isn't necessarily the norm, as i put quite a bit of emphasis on intent.
To me it's weird to classify sex work as something different to any other job from a labour perspective.
I understand there are unique challenges, but i think a lot of that could be solved with decent regulation and support.
The fact that there's a whole bunch of legal (and cultural) moralising around it is a big part of the problem, though not all of it.
All of that said, this isn't even close to my area of expertise so I'll assume there's a whole bunch of things I've not taken in to consideration.
Where how and when ?
I said the context was about that, rather than what other tools could be used to do the same thing.
I never claimed a position on whether that has or has not occurred.
Im pretty sure the issue was incompetence rather than malice. But if you have something that proove malice i would love to see it
I have not stated a position on that, so I have nothing to defend or prove.
Though I will say that tacit endorsement in this case doesn't. require malice, just inaction.
Claims of action don't count until proven.
Sure, but the context isn't about the ability, its about the accessibility (ease of doing the thing) and the tacit endorsement of the act.
Saying "yeah but {X} can also do that" isn't really relevant here.
I understand that some LLM's have this capability.
I thought you were comparing two similar things, like Gemini was integrated with another social media platform somewhere providing the same, easily accessible, integrated means of creating these kinds of images.
Seems that it's just vague whattaboutism on your part.
I agree mostly with that but i also, personally, need to keep on top of adequately questioning my own reasoning.
Just because i think reality is on my side doesn't make it automatically true, I'm not immune to propaganda or fallacious logic.
Even worse (for me personally) is the trap of assuming my subjective (and relatively well reasoned ) correctness in other conversations carries over in to whatever conversation I'm having right now.
A sense of conversational and intellectual superiority can be an insidious path to closed mind.
I would consider "Only people in a coma wouldn't come to the same exact interpretation as i have" to be fairly non-standard.
Not wild exactly, but certainly subjectively arrogant.
That's a supremely weak foundation for actual conversation, not only is it couching your own interpretation as fact it's also one of the strongest reasons you might not be considered to be conversing in good faith.
It amounts to:
"I believe we all owe god everything so you must follow along with my personal interpretation of what they are expecting, because i say god says it must be so"
If your reasoning boils down to "because god said so" that's not a conversation, that's a dictate because you can't reason with someone who's only basis is faith.
To me, that's almost the exact reason organised religion is the greatest impediment to personal faith and/or worship.
Because when you take that attitude and scale it up, organised religion is the result and it leaves no room for anything else.
I'm not sure how that is related to anything being said, but genuinely, to what end?
All of the organised religions (cults over a certain size) have done heinous shit over the years, in conjunction with nations, empires, tribes etc.
Same as with basically all of the nations that have existed, using othering(religion being a top contender in that list) to justify whatever bullshit they want to do.
Isn't going to work if all of the surrounding statements from you are based in faith.
or "it is, because i/god said so"
Isn't a basis for arguing objectivity, it's hiding behind faith as a means to not have to actually engage.
Your whole conversation history in this thread has been variations on "My interpretation is correct/the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine/I’m surprised you don't understand/i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don't understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct"
That's not a good faith conversation, that's a repetitive statement.