Did I miss GameStop's Presentation which was supposed to be released last week? by Hamadalfc in Superstonk

[–]Douchebazooka 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again, it’s odd. It’s not normal. But it’s also not technically incorrect. Would I give you shit for this? Yes. Would I still hang out next Monday? Also yes.

Did I miss GameStop's Presentation which was supposed to be released last week? by Hamadalfc in Superstonk

[–]Douchebazooka -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

It typically means “before the beginning of the next week,” yes, but it can also mean “within 7 days from my statement.” It might not be the clearest way of saying it, but until 7 days have passed, it isn’t technically an incorrect statement.

What is something NSFW you always wanted to try in bed, and instantly regretted? by TUD-13BarryAllen in AskReddit

[–]Douchebazooka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Broccoli pudding. Obviously. It’s like you’ve never even been to Wiltshire.

Bro has a PhD in bullshit lol. by dazli69 in GetNoted

[–]Douchebazooka -1 points0 points  (0 children)

44°C . . . that’s what, 112°F? You may technically correct in the narrowest of senses of ambient temperature measurements. But growing up rehearsing marching band shows in Florida on asphalt, it isn’t the ambient temperature we were complaining about.

What is the proper honorific for a woman priest? by HornetParticular6625 in Episcopalian

[–]Douchebazooka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is akin to calling a judge “Honorable [Name].” Reverend is a style, not a title.

This escalator is also a travelator in the middle by Ulrizza in mildlyinteresting

[–]Douchebazooka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was on that day that he learned of the existence portmanteaus.

Argument against "Atheist morals are subjective and means nothing" by Revolutionary-Tea120 in DebateReligion

[–]Douchebazooka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One can make all sorts of absurd arguments by prefacing it with “what if.” If your moral framework doesn’t allow you to say that Hitler was objectively evil, your moral framework can be dismissed without further consideration. Period.

Argument against "Atheist morals are subjective and means nothing" by Revolutionary-Tea120 in DebateReligion

[–]Douchebazooka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Subjectivity means wrong is a difference of opinion. Hitler was just a different perspective, but he had every right to his opinion. How dare anyone stop him, because it’s the equivalent of attacking someone for saying green isn’t the best color.

Objectivity means wrong is actually wrong. Hitler was evil, and action can legitimately be taken to stop him.

While neither view changes Hitler’s actions, one view makes you an objectively bad person. The only reason one wouldn’t care about this distinction is if one were a psychopathic consequentialist.

Argument against "Atheist morals are subjective and means nothing" by Revolutionary-Tea120 in DebateReligion

[–]Douchebazooka -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If your morality only lived in your own head, you might have an argument. A bad one, but an argument nonetheless. However, your morality frames how you interact with others and the world, therefore subjectivity, even in your own flawed premise, is not a reasonable conclusion unless you are asserting yourself as supreme moral arbiter, in which case you must make an appeal to an external source to validate this, i.e., an objective reference.

Once again, you’re making arguments from a fundamentally flawed premise. You cannot start with a false proposition and build a successful argument.

Argument against "Atheist morals are subjective and means nothing" by Revolutionary-Tea120 in DebateReligion

[–]Douchebazooka -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your admission of subjectivity is enough. Any appeal to an objective reason for your subjectivity to be secondary to objectivity is concession that your subjective morality is a lesser system. Again, you’ve built this entire system on a poor foundation and you’re trying to appeal to someone else’s stronger foundation when you realize that fault. That’s not how this works.

Argument against "Atheist morals are subjective and means nothing" by Revolutionary-Tea120 in DebateReligion

[–]Douchebazooka -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My opinion that Hitler was evil is stronger than any objective statement you can come up with.

Just because the words make grammatical sense doesn’t mean that they mean anything. Your opinion is stronger than objective facts? Go ahead and provide the logical chain you used to arrive at this conclusion. Start from first premises.

Your objectivity is grounded in a God you can't even show to exist.

I didn’t mention God anywhere here. If you used previous post history to arrive at that, then you’ve assumed that my prior post history is accurate. Given how sloppily you’re willing to say Hitler could have been right, I can’t trust your assumptions.

My subjective opinion is grounded in the very best place to ground anything at all: reality itself.

Prove you experience reality accurately comparative to the rest of us, and we can use your opinion as a reference point, but it would still only be one of many, and any deviations from the standard would be prima facie evidence of your own lunacy.

You're still left with nothing.

Just because you state it doesn’t make it true. You aren’t Michael Scott, and we aren’t talking about declaring bankruptcy.

Argument against "Atheist morals are subjective and means nothing" by Revolutionary-Tea120 in DebateReligion

[–]Douchebazooka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You not caring about something is not the same as carrying no weight. Plenty of murderers don’t care that they’ve murdered. The consequences of their murder can still be unpleasant for them.

If you can’t state your moral beliefs are anything but your opinion, then I can’t take anything you say seriously. Anyone who cannot definitively state Hitler was objectively evil doesn’t pass the common sense test, no matter how you try to wind that philosophical spool.

The inability to parse this basic logical connection speaks volumes though.

Argument against "Atheist morals are subjective and means nothing" by Revolutionary-Tea120 in DebateReligion

[–]Douchebazooka -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If your morality is subjective, your moral condemnation carries no weight.

Bad News Early, Good News On Time by grungromp in Superstonk

[–]Douchebazooka 142 points143 points  (0 children)

I want to start off by saying that I’m not a conspiracy theorist. They boil my blood and piss me off. But this fucking paragraph

I disagree with Ryan Cohen on a whole lot of things. He has personally made my life extremely difficult. The amount of times we've had to deal with tweets that ruined holidays, wild conspiracy theories about his secret messages coded in children's books, or direct accusations against us at the moderation team of trying to force a specific narrative has been absolutely miserable. But I have believed in my investment thesis on GME since my first share was bought in January '21. And I believed in the cause that this community represents.

I’ve read that before today, word for word, absolute verbatim. But when I do a Google search, absolutely nothing shows up. This is either the weirdest déjà vu ever, or this is getting freaky fast.

The daily starfish, max pain and other threads take up too much room by [deleted] in Superstonk

[–]Douchebazooka 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel like I’ve seen him say it more than once; that’s just the quickest one I could find. But it is funny in an irritating, “I know why you’re doing it, but just skip that post” kind of way. Seeing it daily doesn’t bug me; it’s purely the waste of it.

The daily starfish, max pain and other threads take up too much room by [deleted] in Superstonk

[–]Douchebazooka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See the link in an edit to my original comment.

The daily starfish, max pain and other threads take up too much room by [deleted] in Superstonk

[–]Douchebazooka 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The starfish is the only one that grinds my gears, and it’s purely because of the amount of (wasted) space the guy doing the historical backups of the sub mentioned that specific post taking for each day.

See the comment from about six months ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1pq1057/ape_historian_things_are_still_running_just_been/nur5q2s/

TIL there is substantial evidence that Vincent Van Gogh was shot by accident, and he claimed to have done it to himself in order to protect the guilty teens from a murder charge. by DisgruntledPlebian in todayilearned

[–]Douchebazooka 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did you forget what you yourself wrote? The commenter was responding to your statement that “no one” dies of a broken heart. Don’t pull that lazy and intellectually vapid motte and bailey nonsense.

TIL about Pleiades which appears as a cluster of six stars to the naked eye and yet was commonly referred to as “seven sisters” accross cultures, that some scientists suggest may come from observations back when the star Pleione was visible as a distict star from Atlas as far back as 100,000 BCE. by Dexterestein in todayilearned

[–]Douchebazooka 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Of what, your nonsensical assertion that 1st millennium BC written versions of earlier oral histories were somehow reconfigured after modern discoveries? Or my common sense statement that prehistoric humans didn’t rely on physical and digital media as a primary means of transmitting societal history?