iNow

This is simplistic to the point of false. It does matter what people believe, regardless of their reasons or how it’s been rationalized.

You should put this in your signature to save time. Applies to so very many of the posts you make.

I respect that. I can’t force you to be correct.

https://www.croptrust.org/our-work/svalbard-global-seed-vault/faq-about-the-vault/

Nah. Already made my point clearly with those already shared. I’m not targeting perfection, just understanding. A*theist. Literally means not*theist, and theism is specifically about belief in god or gods. Religion and ritual more broadly may get lumped into this by some speakers, but those speakers do so inaccurately. the·ist noun a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. adjective denoting or relating to belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Since you appreciate perfection in analogies, you should equally appreciate perfection in definitions, and here that lays with Zapatos’ position.

Yeah, but people are also debating whether the earth is flat or whether the theory of evolution is correct. Zapatos is exactly right here.

Lol

Metadata is data about data… file type, file size, creation date, last updated date, etc. In much the same way, meta-metaphysics is data about metaphysics… the way metaphysics is conducted and how understanding of it is pursued. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/meta-metaphysics/v-1

Being better looking and more intelligent than you is a pretty low hurdle to jump… I mean, you don’t exactly set the bar very high. As for me, if I weren’t so humble, I’d be perfect! Cin Cin 🥃

They also hit residential buildings. Fuck you and everyone who thinks attacking sovereign countries unprovoked and killing civilians and children and pregnant women and everyone indiscriminately is funny.

No worries. This is why I clarified my intention... twice... or was it thrice? I dunno. Whatever. No worries is my message here. It's unfortunate my nap comment itself meant to lighten things up got a neg, but again... whatever.

You might be missing the logic of this point, but it’s important for you to be aware that inserting a god or gods into your thinking actually INCREASES the complexity of your position and makes your explanation LESS simple. It’s a new layer and a new assertion you’re forced to explain, and yet you can’t explain it with anything more than castles made of sand. So… if you truly do value simple concepts and consider them to be most powerful, then you really ought to discard deities from the equation entirely… unless/until hard evidence gives us any good reason to place them there. After millennia of trying, nobody has yet come up with any hard evidence (or really any evidence at all) supporting the conjecture that god(s) really do exist. Every. Single. Time… the idea gets any pushback at all, it always seems to come back to a baseless individual faith (which even you have already acknowledged in yourself), some form of specious wish thinking, or mere chance that one happened to be born into it so had exposure or indoctrination as children.

Which one(s)?

If you’re not intentionally misrepresenting me, then I fear you’re suffering from some rather significant reading comprehension challenges. See above. Same applies here. You’re approach to this discussion has turned me off. That’s what it should tell you. Pot. Kettle. Black. Is it possible you missed a nap today, or maybe have low blood sugar?

Calm down. All I said is 1963 called and wants their bad label back. I didn’t call MigLs wife a bad name or kick his dog. Let’s move on, please. Pot. Kettle. Black. Happy to follow your lead once you do the same. Please stop arrogantly and inaccurately suggesting you have insights into my motivations.

Except just today they bombed Kyiv. Liar.

No thanks. Far too much time and bandwidth has already been wasted on this ridiculousness.

Then you also suffered from a false positive. This is now the second time I've confirmed there was no "anti-Canadian animosity" in my comment. I've also already clarified that my intent was solely to highlight proximity. Anyone else who feels I acted with malice by suggesting "the US isn't that far away and it's clear to essentially everyone that calling people 'colored' not far from your own front door is wrong" is free to do so, but then you too will be ignoring the inaccuracy of your stance and in parallel be arrogantly pretending to know more about my own intentions than I do. If they don't know and are simply unaware, then that's one thing, but if upon being informed they choose to persist anyway, then the brush spreads its tar quite appropriately IMO.

Proximity

If you did, it was a false positive

Yeah, because the only option remaining if not paying is rubles is “free” 🙄

Well, like 20 miles south of you… erm, sorry… like 32 kilometers south of you, it’s long been recognized as being out of favor and used only by the ignorant and hateful and shriveled fossils clinging to a spiteful past. It’s akin to calling a handicapped person a cripple or an autistic kid retarded. People worth half a damn have recognized it’s inappropriate and stopped saying it. Also in fairness to another question you asked me, I absolutely favor moving away from the term PoC, but it’s still much more open to different views and since that one’s not such a LONG settled issue like not calling people “colored,” I let it slide this time.

Good. Convince the world to maybe after 40 years of delaying to move more rapidly off the fuels that are warming the planet

I wasn’t objecting. I was asking you to explain. Which you just did. Thank you.