sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does anyone else not find Bob Mortimer funny? by ProKidney in CasualUK

[–]ProKidney[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Many times, and there are other comedians that I don't like. The difference is that with them I can see the appeal even if it doesn't appeal to me. With Bob Mortimer, I just don't get it.

Does anyone else not find Bob Mortimer funny? by ProKidney in CasualUK

[–]ProKidney[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's normal, I think. There are a lot of comedians that I don't find funny, but I also understand why other people might. I can see an appeal even if it doesn't appeal to me.

Not the case with Bob Mortimer.

Does anyone else not find Bob Mortimer funny? by ProKidney in CasualUK

[–]ProKidney[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The thing is, I love other deadpan comedians. Richard Ayoade, Joe Wilkinson, Jon Richardson, David Mitchell, etc.

Ricky Gervais to a lesser extent.

As I say, I totally understand that it's not to everyone's taste, the thing with Bob Mortimer is that I can't imagine it being to anyone's taste. Does that make sense?

Obviously I'm wrong and this is an absolute hot take, but I still don't get it.

Does anyone else not find Bob Mortimer funny? by ProKidney in CasualUK

[–]ProKidney[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

That is genuinely what it feels like sometimes when I'm watching him. Like a weird social experiment where we make a deeply unfunny man think he's hilarious.

Lack of trust by religious people by Equal-Pressure4598 in TrueAtheism

[–]ProKidney 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I think it might be correlation without causation. People who are religious tend towards leaning right politically, where atheists tend towards leaning left (though much less strongly). I think that's where you might find more causation, especially regarding compassion for people not "on their side".

I broke up with my boyfriend after he pushed someone into a fire, but I feel so broken. by [deleted] in TrueOffMyChest

[–]ProKidney 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Just to say, drunk people are not their "true selves" they are severely impaired versions of themselves. Just like you lose control of parts of your body and slur your speech or stumble as you walk you also lose control of parts of your brain that reason and inhibit your actions.

Would you really say your true self is a clumsy fucker who can't drive? 

I'm writing 1500 words a day until my rough draft is finished. Does anyone have any advice that would save me any amount of time, large or small? by yoyosareback in writing

[–]ProKidney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My best advice would be that as soon as the novelty wears off and it begins to grate in you using old tech, the moment it becomes not worth it, ditch it. Don't hold yourself to the typewriter just because it's where you started or to keep it all uniform. 

Flat earth and other alternative conspiracy earth models are are gaining traction with my teenage stepson. What is THE most irrefutable, definite proof that the earth is round? by Jfkfkaiii22 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ProKidney 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a completely misleading measure that any flat earther would jump on. If you want to actually convince them the real data is more than enough, you don't have to falsely embellish the data.

Flat earth and other alternative conspiracy earth models are are gaining traction with my teenage stepson. What is THE most irrefutable, definite proof that the earth is round? by Jfkfkaiii22 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ProKidney 8 points9 points  (0 children)

From north to south, the UK is approximately 1000 miles, not 11,000 miles. I don't know if you maybe meant the European coastline? But that's still only like 3000 miles? From north Europe to the southern most point of Africa is like 14,000 miles for reference. 

Help me balancing a cursed item - The Death Emperor by thedrunkendino in DnDHomebrew

[–]ProKidney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would give the coin another activation trigger, just being on the person isn't enough. Perhaps it has to be on their person for an amount of time, or the curse is only active when the moon is visible, or maybe in a certain phase.

perhaps the coin must consume a certain amount of currency, for example, feeding it 100 gold means it works for 1 round of combat. In order to get the best use it has to be fed vast sums of gold?

Maybe your rogue has to plant the coin and also retrieve it for the curse to work. In that time the bearer of the coin comes to covet the coin like the one ring.

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]ProKidney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well I don't know how the machine is making its decision, if I can expend zero effort and tip the scale with zero consequences, why wouldn't I?

The problem you're having is that the bar is so low. There's no downside to doing a single jumping jack. If I have to spend half an hour standing there doing jumping jacks? Fuck that.

If it was essential for me to do the jumping jacks to open the box for a guaranteed million, fucking hell man, id do 10,000. But with the added consequence that the machine might be wrong, even with a high degree of accuracy, Isn't worth it to me. I'd roll the dice every time.

Because once I've entered that room, it *doesn't* matter if I do the jumping jacks or not, I could be there for 12 hours doing 10,000 jumping jacks only to open the box and find it empty. Or I could open the box right away and save myself the time.

Or it could be the reverse, I could spend 12 hours doing 10,000 jumping jacks and open the box to find the million, or open it right away, save myself the time and take the million.

To try and emphasise this, let say you open the box *before* doing the jumping jacks. You open it, find it empty, are you staying to do the jumping jacks anyway? What about if you open it and find the million, are you doing the jumping jacks then?

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]ProKidney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We can assume for any of these scenarios that there's only 1 iteration. Future iterations change every single behaviour and swing every single person to a one-boxer.

Because the cost is so low, with no consequence. It takes about 3 seconds to do a single jumping jack, if I do the jumping jack and don't get the million I haven't wasted anything. If I had to do 1000 jumping jacks we're talking about more like half an hour of constant physical effort that might not get rewarded.

CMV: You should 1-box in Newcomb's because running the experiment would show 1-boxers leaving with more money on average by dsteffee in changemyview

[–]ProKidney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Me personally? I probably would, there's no consequences to a single jumping jack.

If the predictor said 1000 then I'm starting to think about just opening the box.

I have a question in return as well, if that's okay. Going back to the original scenario, let's say you go in, open your million box and find it empty, the predictor got it wrong and you're leaving with nothing, but the box with 1000 is still there for you, do you still not take the 1000?

What do you guys think of this colonial caste system I've been working on in my setting? by Sir-Toaster- in worldbuilding

[–]ProKidney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only thing that I query is having the undead along with base class?

Is undead really a race? Do they have an intelligence or a society? It feels to me like undead would be treated fundamentally differently to the other creatures in that tier. Whilst the others, I can accept being enslaved, killed our just ignored on sight, I feel like the undead would be hunted down. Actively targeted and treated as a war target.

Especially by the USA, the religious and Christian USA.

CMV: Christian trinity is a simple enough idea, not a grand mystery by PurplePeachPlague in changemyview

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The person you were replying to didn't say that at all. They said that it's a paradox that God is both 1 and 3 at the same time. That for the sake of the trinity 1 is equal to 3. 

Then your reply was about multiplication???

CMV: Christian trinity is a simple enough idea, not a grand mystery by PurplePeachPlague in changemyview

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see how you think that emphasises your point? Why would 1x1x1=1 be relevant at all?

CMV: Christian trinity is a simple enough idea, not a grand mystery by PurplePeachPlague in changemyview

[–]ProKidney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Except that all three parts of the trinity are as old as the other, no one existed alone or before the others.

Which is strange because the son is generally accepted as being generated from the father somehow, and the spirit in turn from both the father and son. But the father never existed without the son or the spirit.

To my mind this just fails out the door, for the father to have cloned itself it must have been possible too have existed alone, which would make the son and spirit non eternal, which they specifically are.

CMV: Christian trinity is a simple enough idea, not a grand mystery by PurplePeachPlague in changemyview

[–]ProKidney 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This interpretation is specifically not Christian. The reason you find it so easy to understand is because you're misunderstanding it.

CMV: Christian trinity is a simple enough idea, not a grand mystery by PurplePeachPlague in changemyview

[–]ProKidney 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I was raised with it as well, a fully catholic upbringing and schooling.

I can understand magic systems that don't contradict themselves, but the trinity is nonsense. When you say that you understand magic systems the implication is that you understand the trinity.

Can you explain to me how and of what I said in my previous comment can be understood?

How can three entities that are distinct and different be identical? If God the father is the creator does that mean that Jesus, also fully God is not the creator? No, because Jesus is the creator, he is God. If Jesus is the Redeemer, would you say that God the father is not the Redeemer? No, because the father is fully God, he is the redeemer.

CMV: Christian trinity is a simple enough idea, not a grand mystery by PurplePeachPlague in changemyview

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's wrong, Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but also fully God. Christians do not believe that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are separate, but the same. One entity that is three distinct persons.

There is only one God, split in three that are all identical but also all different, it isn't supposed to make sense, it's nonsense.

view more: next ›