- jswelkerGood idea! I haven't and won't. Now read me the original text of Anselm's ontological argument and explain it in modern English without falling back to ancient philosophical gibberish like "substance" and "potentiality".
- "Paying a guy from the Philippines to write your code and submit it under your name is just another tool no different than using an IDE!"
Surely we agree that some boundary exists where it becomes absurd right? We are just quibbling over where to draw the line. I personally draw it at AI.
- I'll ignore your ad hominems there.
I am not saying I _know_ anything. Rather, I am disappointed in the incredible hubris and overconfidence shown by the Church fathers, not in terms of their faith but in terms of their certainty in the intellectual tools they had available and the extent to which those fumbling tools describe a God who in their own telling is infinite.
Yes I have read large portions of the Summa, Augustine, Anselm, Boethius, Origen, and others, and I am fairly confident in saying that if you strip away the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle and their followers, many of the arguments laid out by the patristics become tautologies at best and semantically meaningless at worst.
I am not saying I know what the answers are. Just that we need more humility than what was shown by a church council convened by--checks notes-- a power hungry and opportunistic Roman dictator.
- I find the Nicene Creed to be a major stumbling block as a person of Christian faith with a background in formal philosophy. Rather than accepting the inherent paradoxes in Christ's message, it attempts to shoehorn it together using the philosophical swiss army knife of the era, Neoplatonism.
As a result, now Christian orthodoxy is saddled with neoplatonic philosophical vestigial baggage in the term "consubstantial", which means Christians are wedded to and forced to defend a hard metaphysical realism. This comes out hard in Augustine and later medieval Christians. (See Anselm, Aquinas, etc)
They described the faith using the intellectual tools of their era, and now those artifacts are hard-coded into the faith. It would be like if the Nicene fathers were in the early 20th century and described the faith in terms of Theosophy and branded all non Theosophists heretics forever.
- Yes "we" can, but the difference is that in a liberal order "we" at least ostensibly represents the people, and in an illiberal order, "we" represents a naked power grab by whichever elite group currently has the reigns.
- I think it is fair to say everyone has failed on every level and every side to some extent. This is classic tragedy of the commons, where the commons is the seemingly unlimited power and wealth of America that everyone wanted to cash in on and externalize the costs.
- The real question is whether the stock craters again after this bubble pops. CSCO has nearly doubled in the last year. Hopefully sound fundamentals will be enough to dodge the next crash.
- But they do have great salads.
- Ban social media and go a step further and ban mobile devices for children while we're at it. The generation of iPad babies is completely broken. I kept my kids away from that stuff religiously, but now these brain addled goblins are their peers.
- Your niece and her husband are one in a thousand parents. Very few have the fortitude to do it. Not a good outlook for the future if we depend on the virtue of parents.
- My friend, this is America. We already have so much experience relocating displaced undesirable native peoples into marginal lands where they can cosplay independence and autonomy. Oklahoma is pretty much taken, but I think we can spare Arkansas, Kentucky, and a few others.
I know a lot of people from high school for whom this would be a big step up in life actually.
- I think the court is trying desperately to avoid having to rule on anything and will slow walk this until it hopefully goes away, while giving the admin virtual carte blanche to do what they want.
- I think there are plenty of things that haven't been tested because they are so obvious they don't need to be tested.
- I don't think they have the balls to end it. I think they just decide that adjudication on the case takes 4+ years, they sidestep making any real decision, and they hope and pray the whole thing goes away with the next administration. In the mean time, the Trump admin continues to do what they want, with the fig leaf that they promise they will listen to the court.
- I'd actually entertain a ban on birthright citizenship _for all citizens_.
Imagine as a thought experiment that everyone in the US had to go through the immigration process to earn a place here. If you are born here, you have a green card for 20 years or so, and if you aren't the kind of desirable person we want in this country, you get a one way ticket somewhere else. We don't need freeloaders! Maybe every 10 years you can reapply if you are not accepted.
Imagine how different our education and child rearing processes would be if the stakes were made real.
Dystopian? Yes. But that is the dystopia we are already heading towards for many people who would otherwise be future citizens.
- In this case it was more of a "Meh, maybe." Which IMO is worse than Betteridge's Law.
- I got very excited during the Grusch hearing time period a few years ago and followed the UAP community for a few months (years?). It seemed very legit at the start, but how long has it been now with still zero evidence from that whole congressional whistleblower song and dance? So many grifters came out of the woodwork and made little influencer careers on "just two more weeks" promises. And so much overlap between the UAP community and D-list congressional MAGA shysters during that time.
I want to believe. But unfortunately I don't.
The testimony evidence would not stand up in court. Testimony is admissable, but only after some ground facts are established. In a murder case, we presumably have a body or some very suspicious missing person report. If I went to the cops and said "Bob killed a guy. I know there's no body, but trust me bro, I am very credible for X reasons." They are not going to put Bob in jail on that alone.
So yeah we have a lot of testimony. But testimony is corroborating evidence. But there is nothing here to corroborate.
- Even if my taxes doubled, it would be less than just the premiums on my current family health coverage.
- Shoulders of dwarves.
- The author must have written the headline as a legitimate question to the audience because they certainly did not make much effort to answer it in the article.