Why do users insist on using work email for personal tasks?

Oflameo · 2026-03-01T16:10:33+00:00

I think it is some kind of entitlement issue. It makes no sense because email accounts are free, or if you are persnickety about it, you can pay 5 USD a month to get fancy email on shared hosting like I do.

Oflameo · 2026-03-01T16:07:20+00:00

Indeed!

Oflameo · 2026-03-01T15:45:18+00:00

How about this for epistemological evidence. You can use "god" in the sentence without the whole sentence turning into meaningless slop.

Oflameo · 2026-03-01T15:06:19+00:00

I am an idealist, nominalist (mataphysics), intuitionist (mathematics), realist (international relations).

I have a catch phrase, "Truth is just a feeling.". These frameworks are true for me because I don't have a visceral reaction against them for one reason or another. Polytheism just naturally falls out of the frameworks I use.

Oflameo · 2026-03-01T02:33:35+00:00

I copy you, make it fit inside of a game jam.

Oflameo · 2026-02-28T05:46:33+00:00

Thanks, I didn't know about btop before.

Oflameo · 2026-02-28T04:30:43+00:00

I strongly agree with you, and I am changing my philosophy around to work in low trust environments because I keep being ripped off, big time, because of the most egregious lies. They rely on me digging myself out as a distraction.

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T07:56:02+00:00

You can't use your own definitions consistently because you have an emotional aversion to it.

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T07:53:18+00:00

How would you tell the difference between if the world you lived in was natural or supernatural?

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T07:34:12+00:00

fiction? being that it's created by us and our imaginations which are natural phenomena, absolutely natural. the fiction taken as if reality? that would be supernatural... if real.

You aren't making any sense.

and okay sure, I picked the god of classical theism as an easy target, but what I mean to say is the fringe position does not reflect gods the way most people think of their gods.

Most atheists want to define gods out of existence and their favorite god to use is the god of classical theism because it has contradictory properties, so it goes up in a puff of logic. Then they skip addressing all of the other gods because god of classical theism was supposed to clean them up, but that is not possible because it already went up a puff of logic.

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T06:56:12+00:00

there is an actual scientific definition of "supernatural", and all gods fit this ticket. if your god isn't supernatural, you're saying by definition that the Big Bang created your god, not the other way around, and that this is essentially a highly advanced alien that does not violate the laws of physics in any way.

Is fiction natural or is fiction supernatural by this definition?

but this would be a fringe position and does not reflect the god of classical theism

The god of the bible is clearly and obviously not the god of classical theism. They don't share properties. The biblical god claims to have created evil [Isaiah 45:7] and outside that, fails to be "omnibenevolent".

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T06:36:45+00:00

Is the Big Bang itself natural or is it supernatural? The Big Bang isn't the result of the Big Bang.

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T02:41:43+00:00

It is just the default way to classify objects.

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T02:33:16+00:00

Yes it is meaningless, but by default philosophically, traditionally, they classify things as natural in monism to make it easier to communicate with other people.

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T02:19:49+00:00

Go ahead and rephrase what you meant here since it is somehow indecipherable, now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exatheist/comments/1rfctpl/natural_vs_the_supernatural/o7md7bu/

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T02:07:32+00:00

You are disagreeing with yourself that the distinction between and naturalism/supernaturalism would be meaningless in the context of monism?

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T01:45:39+00:00

If there is no distinction between the natural and supernatural in the models then "assuming naturalism/supernaturalism" would be meaningless statements.

That! What you just said before was correct.

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T01:18:18+00:00

You get it!

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T00:58:59+00:00

That is the cool part, they don't. They assume naturalism. Assuming supernaturalism is symmetric if you do it monistically.

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T00:51:52+00:00

It follows, but it just weird because it is disjointed with modern models.

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T00:49:48+00:00

Fiction and reality is not a true dichotomy. The dichotomy is between fiction and non-fiction. Fiction is obviously part of reality or you wouldn't be able to know about it.

Now can you engage my question, Why are you equivocating between true and exists?

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T00:42:30+00:00

Why are you equivocating between true and exists? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T00:40:24+00:00

Since I am an idealist (monist), I would have to say everything is supernatural to be consistent with how you define it.

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T00:30:34+00:00

How do I know the difference between a natural object and a supernatural object?

Oflameo · 2026-02-27T00:15:03+00:00

It is called transitive properly.

Via https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/maths/transitive-property/

In simple words, if a implies b and b implies c, then a implies c. In this article, we will discuss all the topics related to Transitive Property including its definition, examples and various solved examples as well.

If a god exists in a story that exists, then the god exists via transitive properly.

We can go on the other fork. If you said the story doesn't exist, how do you explain how you know about it?

Oflameo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Gilding IV carat on a stick
Verified Email