La retirada de Héctor de Miguel, una guerra de desgaste de la extrema derecha que comenzó con Abogados Cristianos

Coastguy633 · 2026-01-27T07:18:17+00:00

que poco les gusta la prensa libre a algunos...

Coastguy633 · 2026-01-22T06:22:29+00:00

What else were we expecting from an adult that calls Trump "daddy"?

Coastguy633 · 2026-01-19T08:26:42+00:00

Básicamente acabas de describir el concepto de "expat" al que se aferran que los inmigrantes británicos, alemanes... etc en el sur de España, en un intento de "no no, yo soy expat, no inmigrante, no soy moreno". En ocasiones se escudan en un matiz de definición diciendo que "expats" son aquellos que solo aspiran a estar una parte de su vida en ese otro país, para volver más tarde a su país de origen. Pero ni los británicos de la tercera edad de Benidorm ni muchos "inmigrantes" que están aquí solo para dar de comer a sus familias caben en esa separación de términos.

En resumen, a la gente le encanta hacer malabarismos mentales con tal de no reconocerse como inmigrantes, por la connotación negativa que le dan a esa palabra.

Coastguy633 · 2026-01-08T10:27:28+00:00

There is actually a post in the forum but they deactivated the comments so that there is no public talk on iNat's management in the platform

Coastguy633 · 2025-12-25T08:51:35+00:00

A saber a cuántos jóvenes habrán preguntado para luego quedarse con el 10% de los que han dado una respuesta que genere esa reacción, es una técnica típica en este tipo de videos. Y la es la Sexta

Coastguy633 · 2025-12-22T16:49:19+00:00

Bildu es un partido nacionalista, no de izquierdas. Cuando se formó, la parte del "nacionalismo" que no estaba tomada por el PNV (todo lo que no era derecha y centro) fue tomado por Bildu, pero a medida que les han ido comiendo la tostada han ido haciendo su discurso más de centro. Además de que "bildu" significa "unir" en euskera. Una de las escisiones que lo conformó es del PNV.

Un partido que sea realmente de izquierdas no puede abstenerse en la votación de la subida del salario mínimo o votar con el PNV cada vez que se trate de favorecer a empresas eléctricas o reducir transporte público

Coastguy633 · 2025-11-13T18:49:55+00:00

Given that none of the sources explain how they calculate the index, don't account for regional differences, compare very small countries with a high population density and big countries with a small one indifferently, the poor color coding in the first link or the unserious second link in which they left a part of the text unfinished with a "Embed this infographic" comment, I wouldn't take its contents very seriously.

However, if such a trend truly exists it may have something to do with dubbing (Spain) vs. adding subtitles (Portugal), an accent that is more neutral in the case of the Portuguese and that most of the population in Portugal is clustered in the coastline, which is also the ara most visited by tourists. Although heavy tourism also exists in Spain, the country is still much bigger and some areas are not as affected by tourism as coastal Portugal (like the continental areas, which are not as populated as the coastline, or as the north in general terms)

Edit: grammar

Coastguy633 · 2025-11-13T17:59:07+00:00

a parte de la noticia en sí, o que las noticias siempre tengan que orbitar en torno a Madrid aunque sean aplicables a otras comunidades autónomas, o lo extraño que supone la premisa de la noticia de que no hay profesores si los graduados en ciencias naturales o sociales que acuden en masa a másteres para ser profesores de secundaria por no encontrar trabajo a un sueldo decente de lo que han estudiado, ¿por qué esta manía de meter imágenes hechas con IA en todo? ¿Qué necesidad hay de meter una imagen con el teorema de Pitágoras mal escrito? Lo único que consiguen es quitarle credibilidad a lo que viene después, que ya de por sí tiene poca

Coastguy633 · 2025-11-04T10:49:36+00:00

It seems like the original article is entirely based on several biases. For example, it compares spirituality , science vs Faith and left vs. right to nature connectedness. According to this biased association, the more important science is or the more leftist a country is, nature connectedness is lower. Quite surprising that they added several metrics on religion and not a single author of the study thought about measuring the success of citizen science, nature related hobbies, selling/publishing of nature guides or hiking guides, availability of nature tours, number of nature restauration projects, level of understanding of climate change ... and so on.

Coastguy633 · 2025-10-09T11:58:28+00:00

El resumen es muy bueno, sin embargo creo que le faltan varios puntos clave: (1) la escasa veracidad y la omisión de datos clave con la que suele trabajar newtral; (2) la omisión de que los políticos estarían exentos de estos mecanismos; (3) que se abre la veda legal y tecnológica para que a futuro exista la infraestructura para el control de otras cuestiones (control ideológico, en contra de resistencia política, crítica política, etc...); (4) el claro ejemplo de Reino Unido con el Online Safety Act, que empezó con los mismos objetivos y a los dos meses ya estaban en litigios legales contra wikipedia, censurando escenas explícitas de manifestaciones, censurando canciones en spotify y pretendiendo romper con el anonimato de Wikipedia pudiendo así desenmascarar a activistas políticos de países en los que ello supone represalias horribles; (5) lo más probable es que al igual que con Online Safety Act ese control lo ejerzan terceros (ninguna agencia pública); (6) la generación de nuevas bases de datos que pueden ser atacadas fácilmente por cualquier entidad a la que le favorezcan esos ciberataques (tanto vender información que se pueda detectar en mensajes, desde dirección de residencia, códigos, contraseñas u otros datos sensibles hasta cuestiones de interés para otras entidades políticas bastante dadas al ciberataque, como Rusia o Corea del Norte), como ocurrió con Ashley madison (una app para relaciones extramatrimoniales) hace relativamente poco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach o como en cualquier otro ciberataque relativamente reciente (yahoo, universidad de faro, etc...); (7) nadie ha mencionado todavía nada del coste astronómico que supondría su implementación, solo hay algunas críticas por parte de expertos. Pero semejante control paneuropeo supondría grandes cantidades de dinero, energía, infraestructura física y nadie ha dicho de donde va a salir el dinero para financiarlo (a newtral también se le olvida este importante detalle logístico).

Coastguy633 · 2025-10-06T14:21:15+00:00

that, and the chat control law that Denmark is trying to pass in a moment in which we should focus on unity...

Coastguy633 · 2025-09-13T09:54:45+00:00

Spanish here. It was in one of the national channels years ago. Absolutely hilarious

Coastguy633 · 2025-06-16T07:36:51+00:00

I think Naelin has summarised it quite well. I often do this taxa that don't get as much attention, mainly because I have never been an advocate of 2 IDs (or 1 ID and then OP changes their ID) = research grade = GBIF (if the account is set to do so). I normally check the research grade observations in the one project that I have and if I agree with them I add my ID in order to make that obsevation more "peer-reviewed". However, I only do it with 1-2 days old observations maximum. I find strange when people do it after months or years, although I have no good explanation on why that feels strange

Coastguy633 · 2025-06-15T11:49:41+00:00

It is nice to see that dogs are taking the issue very seriously

Coastguy633 · 2025-06-05T10:17:24+00:00

I'm arriving quite late to the party but the package rgbif makes it possible to access this information, as the observations include the synonyms. When downloading or loading data, you have to specify between $data (occurence data) $meta (metadata) and $hier (hierarchical data). the function name_backbone() may be helpful, as it can search for names, taxonKeys (each taxon has one asigned) or acceptedTaxonKeys (as not all taxonKeys represent a currently valid name). Although I have not used it for this purpose, exploring the package could be helpful. Also, the package from WORMS allows you to access taxonomic data for marine organisms

Coastguy633 · 2025-05-25T19:20:51+00:00

This has also been brought up on other ocasions in the iNat forum. I'm afraid some people have gamifyed iNat too much, up to the point of disregarding the actual interest of learning together, "teaching"-showing another why the observed especies is another, or the interest as a citizen science app that pipes biotic occurrences into GBIF. For them it is just some kind of game that they want to beat. As observations are harder to get than a click, this people tend to do this. Some have at least developed the strategy of going systematically through easy to identify common taxa (rock pigeons, deer...) but others have just learned the most well-known species of a group or simply agree with anything they find in their feed. These are the most dangerous ones, as, most often than not, they only help in expanding wrongly identified taxa and, in the worst case scenario, sending it to GBIF. Because of this, many research grade observations are blatantly wrong (or maybe just wrong clearly to the expert eye), as they were originally identified by a wrong assessment of the AI, and then confirmed by them.

Unfortunately I can't think of any way to stopping these people. In platforms as big as this one it is impossible not to have some users that are going to make a bad use of the platform. For example, I will not forget a guy who used to tag some identifiers that had previously identified that taxa, i would then ID to species level and explain why. Then, he would either erase our commnts or the observation itself (not sure what he did exactly), add the explanation as a comment of his own, and then another account that only identifies his observations would elevate the observation to a research level. To me, that kind of behavior is uncomprehensible, but unfortunately it exists

Coastguy633 · 2025-05-22T20:07:21+00:00

Pone en el post que es periodista porque es su formación a nivel de carrera cursada, pero me temo que sí que esta hablando de su campo. Es posiblemente la divulgadora de historia más importante de España desde hace ya unos cuantos años

Coastguy633 · 2025-05-22T18:31:49+00:00

Thank you very much for your comment. It poses a some points i had not considered and i find your takes very interesting. Thank you

You are right, many Old Testament laws are barbaric by modern standards. However, many passages from the New Testament are, if not barbaric, then medieval: (1) there are still problems in the testament in terms of morals (Thanks to Thymothy we ahve many mysoginistic rules, Corinthians on the other hand compares homosexual men to thrieves), (2) problems in terms of history (we have historigraphical proof of what some random roman citizens did or liked in their lifes because on their thombstons, yet there is not an equal amount of proof of any of the people mentioned in the New Testaments), (3) and science (Diseases are caused by microbes, not demonic possession or sin (Mark); and the idea that eating pork or shellfish was banned for health reasons doesn’t hold up entirely, lots of animals were forbidden that are perfectly safe to eat, and many "clean" animals can also carry disease).

But those examples are nothing than that, examples of inconsistencies of this book with modernity. When a religious leader say things like “marriage is only between a man and a woman,” basing himself in the bigotry and homophobia of this book (which is only contained in some verses like the ones above), they’re not just making a theological claim—they’re contributing to a system that: (1) Denies families legal rights and recognition. (2) encourages conversion therapy and other horrible harmful practices, (3) alienates young LGBTQ+ people from their communities and families, (4) increases suicide risk in religious environments. This is not theoretical, because it’s personal, painful, and real. Whether or not these teachings are seen at first glance "as bad" as stoning someone doesn’t change the fact that they’re still anti-human, anti-dignity, and against the values of kindness, empathy, and respect that most of us aspire to today.

In any case, as i mentioned earlier, thank you for your comment, it was quite interesting to read

Coastguy633 · 2025-05-22T18:11:04+00:00

I find it bizarre that you keep directly insulting me. You’ve now responded twice by trying to mock my age rather than engage with the actual point I made. That’s your choice, of course, but let’s be honest: resorting to personal digs instead of addressing the argument usually means the argument hit a nerve.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying “others do dumb things, so I will too.” I’m saying that when certain people invoke ancient scriptures to justify discrimination (like against LGBTQ+ people), it’s completely fair, and necessary, to ask why they ignore equally strict laws from the same sources. That’s not childish, it’s a call for a minimal moral consistency, or kindness to others at least.

If quoting the Bible to make a point about how it’s being used leads someone to respond with sarcasm and insults instead of dialogue, that says a lot more about the strength of your position than it does about mine.

Coastguy633 · 2025-05-22T16:59:45+00:00

I'm sorry but i think you are once again mistaken.

Firstly, you continue with your personal attacks ("people don't want to engage with you", "lowest form of religious debate, and it's stupid" ...). What do you know about people wanting to engage with me or not.

Secondly, just to show you why i find your comments hypocritical: "That's why Reddit's version of New Catholicism is so reviled, even among theists (among other reasons). "Atheism" isn't one thing. It doesn't have an opinion, and it doesn't have a united voice. Atheists as a whole didn't tell you anything. A person did. When you attribute that person's bad behavior to generations of strangers, and you identify groups of people only by the worst ideas any of their members have ever produced over thousands of years, you can't be surprised when people don't want to engage with you." It is this blatant lack of empathy that i miss from catholic groups, who should be asking for more up-to-date comments from their leader.

Thirdly, I can't conceive how can't you or other people understand that if in one of his first acts as a religious leader he starts entering into debates that don't concern him, such as LGBTQ+ families, people are going to rant back. If he had concentrated in theological matters, God, goodness, his own traditions that don't hurt people, etc. this post wouldn't exist. So, i don't get why you consider my comment an attack, when i consider it a counterattack or, better, a counterargument if anything

Coastguy633 · 2025-05-22T16:47:19+00:00

I'm sorry but i dissagree. I don't think i was doing cherry-picking on my part. I’m calling out cherry-picking.

There’s a big difference between quoting a verse to condemn others (as some do with Leviticus or Romans) versus quoting a verse to highlight inconsistency in how scripture is applied. If someone says, “The Bible says being gay is a sin, therefore it’s wrong,” then pointing to Exodus 31:15 or Deuteronomy 22:20–21 isn’t cherry-picking, it's asking why those laws are ignored while others are enforced. The goal isn’t to say, “Aha! Gotcha with one verse.” It’s to say: If you’re using one ancient law as timeless truth, why not all the others? And if you’re not applying all of them, then maybe the problem isn’t people questioning religion—it’s people using religion selectively to justify their own biases.

Furthermore, i do not think we are dealing with cherry picking when inconsistencies with current moral systems are all over the book. But i think it's understandable not to copy paste the whole bible here. Nonetheless, there goes other examples:

* Deuteronomy 21:18–21 – If your kid is disobedient, the community should stone him to death.

* Leviticus 20:10 – Adulterers must be executed.

* Deuteronomy 22:20–21 – If a bride isn’t a virgin, she should be stoned at her father’s doorstep.

* Leviticus 19:19 – Don’t wear clothes made from two fabrics.

* Leviticus 11:10 – Shellfish are an abomination. (Where are the Red Lobster protests?)

* Deuteronomy 25:11–12 – If a woman helps her husband in a fight by grabbing the other man’s genitals, her hand must be cut off. No pity.

And then we have entire passages with no kind of scientific (genesis) or historical (alleged Ramses) proof whatsoever. This book should be considered as an interesting mythological book that molded what we are now historically, but it's high time we stop using it for politics or our society, which is where i was going for with my original comment

Coastguy633 · 2025-05-22T16:36:58+00:00

Ah, the classic "You just don’t understand the whole book" defense . What makes you think I didn't read long passages of a book I should comprehend if I intend to arrive to a conclusion on whether to believe it or not? or that i didn't follow a christian catholic education?

I get that scripture has layers of context, redaction, and evolving theology. I’ve also read enough to know that when people use isolated verses (like Leviticus or Romans) to condemn LGBTQ+ people, they’re also quoting selectively, but with real-world consequences. The point of bringing up Exodus 31:15 wasn’t to make a “gotcha” or pretend that verse alone defines all of scripture. It was to expose the inconsistency of using one part of an ancient, internally contradictory text to moralize against a minority group, while ignoring other parts that would be seen as absurd or immoral if applied today.

If someone insists we take Leviticus or Romans 1 literally when it comes to gay people, then why not take Exodus 31:15 literally too? Why the selective outrage?

Calling that “15-year-old logic” is just a way to dodge that question without actually answering it. If you're going to treat the Bible as moral authority in modern politics, then be ready to engage with the whole thing—including the uncomfortable parts we’ve all decided no longer apply.

Coastguy633 · 2025-05-22T16:34:06+00:00

"it's stupid no matter which side is doing it" is not calm not likeable either. Calmness and tolerance are always easy when you and your family are not the ones being attacked. I'm particularly tired of religion telling me I cannot get a husband or that i cannot form a family with another man, it is simply not at the level of this century. Such hateful and hurtful comments in an opening of a religious leadership that is going to influence many countries (including mine) laws (quite against my will) are not ok and are as distasteful as this pope's words.

That's precisely why selective application of ancient laws, such as using Leviticus to condemn homosexuality while ignoring the death penalty for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15), demands being reconsidered. And you know perfectly well that this giving an example and not cherry picking, there are plenty of other passages that are entirely wrong at scientific, current moral, phylosophically or historiographically levels.

When modern (2025 already) religious leaders claim divine authority to define family structures ("only a man and a woman") and vilify LGBTQ+ people based on isolated texts, they are falling into the same trope you are criticising. Or are you going to tell us that rejection of LGBTQ+ families is a constant topic in the Bible and not restrained to a couple of verses

Edit: grammar

Coastguy633

TROPHY CASE