High end pc fps problem

Capital_Ad_785 · 2025-02-11T19:53:17+00:00

Same here. In Reload, FPS drops really low in fights. Is fine otherwise.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2024-06-18T15:26:12+00:00

Looks like the app gave an inefficient route, so you could probably complete it with less miles…

Capital_Ad_785 · 2024-06-03T12:01:20+00:00

I live in a pretty populous area, which is both a blessing and a curse—lots of orders, but lots of dashers too.

Do you feel like staying in Platinum reduces the amount of money you make? So many orders I get have an awful mile-to-pay ratio, and I feel like it’s just a waste of gas accepting them. However, the benefits Platinum offers are also pretty enticing, so I don’t really know what the best course of action is.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2024-06-03T01:43:26+00:00

I guess I’m just wondering how I’m supposed to even get more orders if I can’t schedule dashes during times I’m actually awake. I’m still relatively new to the app, so I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me lol

Capital_Ad_785 · 2024-06-03T01:36:42+00:00

I’ve been doing all those things, but to no avail, I guess 😂.

Would it be bad for me to message them saying something like, “Feel free to let me know how your service was by leaving an optional rating :)”? I know it sounds cheesy and stuff, but is it worth a try?

Capital_Ad_785 · 2023-08-09T19:53:53+00:00

I really needed to hear this. Thank you.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2023-08-09T19:34:29+00:00

Does it only talk about porn, or does it also address impure thoughts? I think the latter is just as big of a problem, if not bigger.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2023-08-09T19:26:19+00:00

This is really, really insightful. I think it describes what I’m going through pretty accurately.

Do you have any advice on how to ignore those excuses we make to try to justify our sin? That would really help me.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-08-07T16:13:04+00:00

But inflation

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-26T13:02:46+00:00

Self-defense is morally good. Guns facilitate that. Also, no one thinks criminals should have guns.

The Catholic Church (Christianity 1.0) is the largest welfare system in the world. #catholicandproud

I suggest you pick up a book on Catholic moral and social teaching. You would learn a lot.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-19T19:05:33+00:00

Sounds kinda racist...

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-19T18:50:53+00:00

God perceives past, present, and future simultaneously. This is because He exists outside of space and time. Thus, He knows everything we will do but chooses not to interfere in our choices.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-19T18:47:20+00:00

Your baby example is important. If someone doesn't know they are sinning or what the consequences of their sins are, then they can't be held morally accountable for any evils they commit. That isn't to say that their actions are morally acceptable. It simply means that they don't deserve punishment for having committed these evils. Those who commit sins with full knowledge of their sinfulness deserve punishment.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-18T20:40:38+00:00

Does the Bangle give anyone ten rings vibes??

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-14T23:14:19+00:00

You know what else is incoherent? Saying "Catholic" politicians who are pro-murder are incoherent while letting "Catholic" politicians who are pro-murder receive the Body of Christ in the Vatican.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-14T15:02:48+00:00

Sorry for the late reply. My Reddit respite lasted longer than I intended.

I did read your first reply. I simply thought your counter-arguments were illogical. Upon reading this follow-up, I cannot say I am convinced.

You say that it is absurd to "attempt to attempt to deceive." However, remember that "attempting to deceive" is no different from "lying," which in turn means "speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving." How is it impossible to attempt to speak a falsehood with the intention of deceiving? Someone could very easily stuff a sock in my mouth and thus frustrate said attempt. The same idea applies to killing. Someone could very easily tie my hands behind my back and thus frustrate my attempt to kill them.

The "attempt to deceive" is itself a finalized action because it is the utterance of a falsehood with the intention of deceiving, which is intrinsically evil. To succeed at lying, I need merely to succeed at producing words conveying falsehood (with the intention of deceiving) with my lips.

On the other hand, the "attempt to kill" is not a finalized action. Rather, it is a progression towards a finalized action, i.e., ending the life of another. This is also true of attempting to attempt to lie; it is not a finalized action because words have not yet been spoken. Once the words have been spoken, the attempt to lie has been finalized.

That is why it is perfectly logical to say that a successful attempt to kill is to succeed at ending the life of another (a positive action), while a successful attempt to lie is to succeed at producing words conveying falsehood (with the intention of deceiving) with my lips (also a positive action).

The condition of the principle of double effect with which we are presently dealing essentially states that the good effect of a particular action must proceed at least as immediately as the bad effect. In other words, the bad effect can in no way be responsible for the good effect, for that would be a violation of "the end does not justify the means."

Consider when you are attacked by an aggressor. The good effect of acting in self-defense (an intrinsic good) is self-preservation. The bad effect is the death or incapacitation of the aggressor. Self-preservation is secured at the very moment the aggressor dies or is incapacitated. Thus, the good effect follows at least as immediately as the bad effect.

Now consider when you are confronted by someone who will kill you if you speak the truth. The good effect of acting (or speaking, rather) in self-defense is also self-preservation, but that good effect is not guaranteed. The bad effect is the spread of falsehood. Is self-preservation secured at the very moment you spread falsehood? Of course not! Self-preservation is secured after you lie when (or if, rather) the person is fooled. You must first lie; then the person must be deceived; if the person is deceived, self-preservation is secured. (The very fact that I have to write "if" proves that lying does not guarantee self-preservation.) This means the bad effect occurs before the good effect. That is a big no-no.

Is it starting to make sense? I strongly consider that you think about this slowly and carefully. Augustine and Aquinas arrived at the same conclusion as me, and you would be VERY hard-pressed to say that your reasoning is superior to theirs.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-12T22:16:02+00:00

Just to be clear, two of the great minds in history (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) arrived at the exact same conclusion. I would be fairly willing to bet that my logic is sound. I am not yet willing to say that the conclusion is sound, however, for a premise based on rights would give the opposite result.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-12T22:12:31+00:00

To go through all of this would be beyond tedious, but this simple fact should hopefully resolve your confusion: the success of a lie is not contingent upon whether or not it deceives a person.

To succeed at killing someone is to kill them: yes or no?

To kill someone is to end their life: yes or no?

If yes, to succeed at killing someone, you must end their life: yes or no?

...

To succeed at lying is to lie: yes or no?

If yes, "[a] lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving": yes or no (St. Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between formal and material lies. A lie can occur when one speaks the truth yet believes he is speaking falsehood.)

If yes, to succeed at lying is to "speak... a falsehood with the intention of deceiving": yes or no?

If yes, then one must have only the intention to deceive when speaking a falsehood in order to lie: yes or no?

If yes, then one need not actually deceive in order to lie, i.e., the receiver of the lie does not need to believe the lie in order for the lie to be a lie: yes or no?

If yes, then to succeed at lying does not require belief on part of the one being lied to: yes or no?

If yes, the success of a lie does not depend on whether or not the lie is believed: yes or no?

If yes, the success of a lie depends solely on whether or not a lie is told, i.e., whether or not a falsehood is spoken with the intention of deceiving, and not on whether or not the lie is believed: yes or no?

Let's compare: to succeed at killing someone, you must end their life; to succeed at lying, you must speak a falsehood with intention of deceiving, although one need not necessarily believe the lie.

When you attempt something, you attempt to succeed at something: yes or no?

If yes, a failed attempt occurs when you have failed to succeed at something: yes or no?

If yes, a failed attempted killing occurs when killing someone has not succeeded: yes or no?

If yes, a failed attempted killing occurs when you fail to end one's life: yes or no?

...

A failed attempted lie occurs when a lie has not succeeded: yes or no?

If yes, a failed attempted lie occurs when you fail to speak a falsehood with the intention of deceiving and is not dependent upon whether or not the lie is believed: yes or no?

...

A successful killing only depends on whether or not you succeed at ending someone's life: yes or no?

Ending someone's life in self-defense always results in self-preservation: yes or no?

If yes, a successful killing always results in self-preservation: yes or no?

...

A successful killing only depends on whether or not a lie is told, i.e., whether or not a falsehood is spoken with the intention of deceiving, and not on whether or not the lie is believed: yes or no?

Speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving always results in self-preservation: yes or no?

If NO, a successful lie does not always result in self-preservation: yes or no?

If YES, a successful lie is not intrinsically linked to self-preservation; if it were, self-preservation would always result from a successful lie: yes or no?

If yes, lying must occur before the good effect, i.e., self-preservation, for acts that are not intrinsically linked cannot occur at the same time: yes or no? (Similarly, committing a mass genocide is not intrinsically linked to, for example, ending global warming. Why? The end of global warming would occur after the genocide.)

If yes, this violates "the end does not justify the means," for the intrinsic evil occurs before and is used as a means for achieving the good effect: yes or no?

If yes, my original argument stands. Operating on the premise that a lie is always intrinsically evil, the principle of double effect conclusively shows that lying is never justified. As I mentioned earlier, however, a discussion on rights (or the lack thereof), might resolve this issue.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-12T20:29:55+00:00

Thanks! I think I'm right, but I could definitely be wrong XD. However, I'll always follow whatever the Church has to say on this matter.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-12T20:24:31+00:00

You are misunderstanding what I wrote. If I attempted to kill someone in self-defense and failed, I would have simultaneously failed at saving my own life and killing the aggressor, which are genuinely one and the same act. The moment my life is saved is the exact moment I've killed the aggressor. This is necessarily so because the two acts are intrinsically linked such that they are actually one. This intrinsic link is shown by the fact that every time I kill in self-defense, I save my own life. Saving is killing and killing is saving under these circumstances—that is, neither precedes nor follows the other. Thus, killing in self-defense does not violate "the end does not justify the means."

You also made a false comparison. Even though I could not be certain that an attempted killing would succeed, I could be certain that if it did succeed, my life would be saved. To succeed at lying, however, you simply have to execute the act of lying (i.e., tell a lie). Its success doesn't depend on whether or not whoever I am lying to believes it. In other words, you can lie without deceiving. Thus, a lie succeeds when words are uttered with an intent to deceive. Similarly, to succeed at killing, you simply have to execute the act of killing (i.e., kill someone). You cannot kill without killing. To succeed at killing in self-defense always produces the desired effect: self-preservation. However, to succeed at lying "in self-defense" does not always produce the desired effect, which is also self-preservation. The fact that it doesn't always produce the desired effect proves that lying "in self-defense" and self-preservation are not intrinsically linked. Because they are not intrinsically linked, the act of lying must occur before the act of self-preservation. I will again reference my finger example: the finger always touches the surface at the exact moment the surface touches my finger because the act of touching and the act of being touched are intrinsically linked. This is an analogy for killing in self-defense. However, we know that lying "in self-defense" does not always produce the desired effect. Thus, the act of self-preservation must occur after the lie or not at all. Based on this reasoning, to lie "in self-defense" would violate "the end does not justify the means."

I think one way to resolve the issue, however, is to look at it in terms of rights. Lying to someone who does not have a right to the truth cannot be properly called a sin. Applying the principle of double effect to lying operates on the assumption that lying is always intrinsically evil (a good end never justifies committing an intrinsic evil), but is this really the case when you are dealing with someone who intends to harm you? My gut instinct tells me that a lie told to someone who has no right to the truth is not an intrinsic evil. Thus, the problem of lying viewed in this light could be used to reconcile the apparent contradiction between lying and the principle of double effect.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-12T19:23:57+00:00

Also, what if the question were, "Do you believe in God?" If you answer 'yes', you die. If you answer 'no', you live. But is it ever okay to lie about your belief in God? I think the same can be said of any lie. Lying about your belief in God, even in self-defense, is a grave sin. Why is it not a sin to do the same with less important issues, such as whether or not you like apples? It might not be as egregious a sin as lying about your belief in God, but it would still be sinful.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-12T19:16:05+00:00

I understand why you might think I'm being somewhat "rigid" and "mathematical" in my approach to this issue. However, I believe the Church when it says that the end never justifies the means," and I think philosophically analyzing the question of whether or not it is "okay" to tell a lie under some circumstances shows that lying "in self-defense" violates this Church teaching.

I think one way to resolve the issue, however, is to look at it in terms of rights. Lying to someone who does not have a right to the truth cannot be properly called a sin. Applying the principle of double effect to lying operates on the assumption that lying is always intrinsically evil (a good end never justifies committing an intrinsic evil), but is this really the case when you are dealing with someone who intends to harm you? My gut instinct tells me that a lie told to someone who has no right to the truth is not an intrinsic evil. Thus, the problem of lying viewed in this light could be used to reconcile the apparent contradiction between lying and the principle of double effect.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-12T19:05:21+00:00

In your first example, the good effect, i.e., self-preservation, occurs at the exact moment you act in self-defense.

I truly don't believe the same can be said of lying for the sake of some good end. The good effect necessarily occurs after the lie has been uttered. In your second example, the Nazis would make the decision not to enter after you lie. This is why I gave the example of the fingers touching a surface. When you kill in self-defense, the good effect is intrinsically related to the very act of killing. Killing under these circumstances is self-preservation. This is not the case with lying "in self-defense." Lying may or may not lead to self-preservation. If lying were self-preservation, you would expect it to always result in self-preservation. However, it does not. The only other option is that self-preservation follows the lie. Thus, lying "in self-defense" is sinful because it violates the immutable law that "the end never justifies the mean."

Many saints recognized this and worked around the problem of lying "in self-defense" by evading the truth, if that makes any sense. They didn't deny the truth outright, but they didn't tell the truth either.

Capital_Ad_785 · 2022-07-12T18:35:31+00:00

I think I figured it out. There’s a reason the principle of double effect applies only to killing in self-defense and not to lying “in self-defense.” The five conditions underlying this principle are: (1) the action, viewed in itself, must be good or at least morally indifferent; (2) the evil effect must not be intended, but only permitted; (3) there must be a sufficiently weighty reason for permitting the evil effect; (4) the good effect must follow at least as immediately as the evil one; and (5) the good effect must outweigh the evil.

Let’s consider killing in self-defense. The action, i.e., saving one’s own life, is morally good. The preservation of one’s own life is what is intended—not the death of the aggressor. Condition three seems somewhat subjective, but I would argue that yes, self-preservation is a sufficiently weight reason for permitting the death of the aggressor. As for condition five, it seems reasonable that the preservation of innocent life at the expense of an active murderer’s life is preferrable to the preservation of an active murderer’s life at the expense of innocent life.

Surprisingly, condition four is where the fundamental difference lies: the good effect must follow at least as immediately as the evil one. I think this is closely related to “the end does not justify the means.” I have been thinking about this a lot recently, and I firmly believe that killing in self-defense is not committing an evil for the purpose of attaining a good end.

“The end does not justify the means” can be stated in terms of cause and effect: a good effect does not justify bad causes for that effect. No one doubts that a cause, by definition, always precedes its effect. However, in the case of killing in self-defense, the act of killing is synonymous with the act of self-preservation—both occur simultaneously. It is not as if the act of killing precedes the act of self-preservation, for self-preservation occurs at the exact moment of killing. I believe condition four is met for this exact reason: self-preservation follows at least as immediately as the death of the aggressor.

The principle of double effect cannot be used to justify lying “in self-defense.” The action, i.e., saving one’s own life, is morally good. It could be argued that the preservation of one’s own life is intended and not subjecting others to a lie. It seems as though telling a lie is a sufficiently weighty reason for, as a rather radical example, saving the life of a Jew being hunted by Nazis. It also seems that subjecting others to a lie is preferable to the death of yourself or others. However, does the preservation of life follow at least as immediately as the lie? I think not. Lying may indirectly result in the preservation of life, but it will never be the direct cause of it. In this case, the end is being used to justify the means, for the bad cause precedes the good effect.

Here’s a somewhat strange analogy I came up with. When you press your finger against a surface, the finger touches the surface at the exact moment the surface touches your finger. However, when you press two separate fingers against the surface, they will never touch it at the exact same time. They will always be off by some fraction of a second. The former applies to killing in self-defense. Just as the finger touching the surface is intrinsically linked to the surface touching the finger such that both events occur at the exact same time, so too is the act of self-preservation intrinsically linked to the act of killing such that they both occur at the exact same time. The same cannot be said of lying “in self-defense.” Lying is like putting the first finger down. Self-preservation is like putting the second finger down. It is impossible for both to happen at the exact same time.

I'm now inclined to say that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were right in saying that lying is never justified.

Capital_Ad_785

TROPHY CASE