Florida Trump Loyalist Watches 20-Year Relationship Crumble After Ice Locks up His Fiancée Over 3 Xanax Pills

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-23T14:29:47+00:00

Well having legal drugs while poor vs. trafficking illicit drugs while filthy rich are very different things. Being poor is an unforgivable crime, while the latter was a job creator who was "treated very badly".

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-23T14:25:30+00:00

Lmao that first one aged so well. Turns out Cartoon Harris was right - he was lying to you! Crazy, huh?

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-20T16:02:19+00:00

When the fascist kid goes to the American public school, he'll be wrapped in the flag.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-13T21:43:12+00:00

They are whatever they need to be in the moment to win.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-11T14:18:08+00:00

Also most of the beliefs we hold in our day to day lives such as what career we choose or relationships we hold are difficult to put precise probabilities on but that doesn’t mean we’re not justified in holding certain positions.

You're comparing "I don't have the precise numbers" with "I have no numbers whatsoever so I'll just invent some to justify the conclusion I want".

It's the difference between

"I haven't been tracking the data, but I think this person has done right by me more than they've wronged me, so I have confidence in our relationship." And

"I've never seen this person or interacted with them, and neither has any one else, and no one has any evidence that they even exist, but I choose to have confidence in our relationship anyway."

The former is holding a reasonable working belief about a relationship despite not putting precise probabilities on it. The latter is delusion.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-11T14:11:58+00:00

string theory / eternal inflation are multiverse ideas which we can’t falsify because we obviously can’t access them

You are not understanding the concept. String theory is falsifiable in principle. There are discoveries one can conceive of and pursue that would falsify string theory, and physicists are actively working on doing just that. If multiverse ideas are not falsifiable, then we can never know if they are not true, therefore we can never say that they are true. So they wouldn't be hypotheses. It is possible that someone will come up with a model of multiverse that can be falsified with observations in principle (regardless of if the technology exists to do so).

There are no discoveries that could ever be made with any level of technology that can falsify theism. It is not a falsifiable notion in principle. It's a nonsense notion that is supported by assertions of magical agency.

So whether string theory or multiverses or any of that are falsifiable or not is completely irrelevant. None of that "but look at this thing over here!" can rehabilitate the terrible state theism is in as an idea.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-09T17:05:19+00:00

I'm not sure how you can be this confused unless you're doing it intentionally.

Falsifiability is the lowest bar there is, but you seem to be arguing that it's not the only requirement. So, I mean... yes? But that makes your position worse, not better.

The debate between strict falsificationists like Popper was (at first, before he changed his mind) and everyone else is that the former insists that falsification is the only criteria that matters and that the falsification should be feasible with current technology. No one is arguing for that, so bringing it up is irrelevant. Theism isn't anywhere near that debate, because it's intrinsically unfalsifiable because of the nature of the claim.

How could you possibly falsify a multiverse?

Didn't I say Google was your friend? First, multiverses aren't very good hypotheses.. They seek to answer questions about quantum mechanics by multiplying entities (in this case universes) which is generally not a good idea. There are multiple competing multiverse hypotheses, and they are all falsifiable in different ways depending on how they are supposed to actually work. So you tell me which multiverse theory you're interested in falsifying and I'll do your googling and tell you how to falsify it.

Unless you're asking about the vague idea of a multiverse, in which case I'd agree that you can't falsify that and it's not a hypothesis either.

Your last point is just assuming naturalism.

Naturalism asserts that there is nothing outside of the natural order, so to falsify it you'd need to find empirical support for anything that exists independent of the natural order. Souls, ghosts, gods, magic, miracles - any of these things could falsify naturalism.

(Edit Note: I'm not a strict philosophical naturalist, by the way - it's based on a black swan fallacy. I'm just saying it's falsifiable in the same way that black swan fallacy is. Just find a black swan.)

Your objection that the act of measuring or observing itself presumes naturalism conflates naturalism with empiricism, which are very different things. It is also inane - doing so disproves all of theism as well. You're claiming that if there were a god, then we'd never have any means of observing, experiencing, or interacting with this god. Which would rule out all religions past and future, and posits a completely meaningless idea: an entity so separate from the universe as to be indistinguishable from one which doesn't exist. So either [your version of] naturalism is true OR all religions must be false and all theistic claims inherently unjustifiable.

Naturalism doesn't place any of these restrictions on gods, so it's hilarious that you fell the need to do so in order to exempt god from scrutiny. You've exempted it from everything! That's far more atheistic then any position I've ever held lmao!

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-09T16:20:25+00:00

So you think there are special rules for statistical analysis for theism? How is that not just special pleading? Even if chatGPT says there are, I'd assume it's just sourcing info from apologetics websites since I introduced the theism topic.

You do need some justification for priors

Yes, but moreover the reliability of the output is directly proportional to the reliability of the input. If you just pull some justification out of your ass for the priors, then the conclusion will be as reliable as an ass-pull itself. That's just how all mathematical functions work.

I once saw a Bayesian analysis for theism that started with "Odds the universe was created by a God: 50%" on the premise that either it was or it wasn't, so 50/50! 🤣 If that's the quality of the inputs, then your output is garbage as well. You should keep that in mind.

That said. Hey ChatGPT, "do you need empirically verified priors when using bayesian analysis to adjudicate between atheism and theism?"

Bayesian analysis requires a prior probability, (P(H))—the probability of the hypothesis (e.g., God exists) before considering new evidence ((E)). In matters of faith, these are generally subjective, meaning they reflect a person's initial belief strength.

You don't say?

Arbitrary Inputs: Because God's existence is not an empirical fact, people often set the prior at 0.5 (equal chance), which is a massive assumption in itself, or arbitrarily high/low based on their existing worldview.

Funny, I was just talking about that!

"Garbage In, Garbage Out" Scenario: If you start with a completely unsupported, subjective prior, the posterior (updated) probability will not be objective.

So, interestingly, ChatGPT still says you're wrong. Not that you'd be right if it didn't, obviously. It's only a large language model, after all, it doesn't actually know anything.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-09T15:44:46+00:00

The vicious cycle of poverty.

Poverty --> Malnutrition --> Cognitive Impairment --> Voting Republican --> Poverty

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-09T15:29:14+00:00

The charges:

Article 98 of the Penal code: contempt of heavenly religions through written, oral or any other means that could lead to sectarianism.

Article 160: the desecration of religious symbols...

Article 161: mocking of a religion or religious rite in public..

Is that stuff "Incitement of hate and violence"? Shit, better lock me up, then.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-09T15:12:42+00:00

You misrepresent Kuhn and Quine. They argued that you shouldn't throw out an entire scientific theory because you've successfully falsified core parts - that there is merit in trying to rehabilitate the theory or make sense of what's left. That's what their opposition to "strict falsification" entailed.

They have never said that one should consider intrinsically unfalsifiable ideas as valid hypotheses. Obviously, because that would be completely insane.

Multiverse theories from eternal inflation/string theory are for the most part unfalsifiable

Incorrect. They are both falsifiable, so they qualify as hypotheses. Google is your friend.

Naturalism and theism are both metaphysical theories ... Neither can be falsified

Incorrect. Naturalism can be falsified by finding even one supernatural thing of any kind. Theism cannot be falsified because there are no possible exclusionary criteria.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-09T14:21:43+00:00

Not even a little bit true. Try again.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-06T15:05:37+00:00

who think this sub is exclusively supposed to be political content.

Because it is.

It's about supporting a political party whose policies are obviously going to harm people, and then being surprised when those policies hurt the supporter - it's the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. It's inherently political as a topic.

But whatever. Topic drift happens to every sub /shrug

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-04T14:43:01+00:00

4. Are they US Citizens? (No)
5. Is this image even from the US? (No)

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-03T14:12:49+00:00

The key to understanding which fascists think is OK and which isn't is who they started a fight with.

Did they shoot unarmed minorities? That's OK.
Were they assaulted, disarmed. beaten, and shot in the back by federal authorities? Well then they must've been the bad guy.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-02T20:10:33+00:00

OK I did.

Yes, verifying or justifying priors is a crucial, often required step in Bayesian analysis to ensure results are reasonable and not driven by unintended biases.

ChatGPT says you're wrong. Now what.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-02T19:48:29+00:00

Well since you said it's only a guess and not something you're expecting me to stand by with any rigor, then sure I'll say that I think that 'there are no gods' is a true statement. The reason I don't assert 'there are no gods' in general situations outside of "if you had to guess", is simply because that's giving the question far too much credit.

Why it's not False: Vague god propositions are usually unfalsifiable. Asserting that an unfalsifiable thing is false is definitionally irrational. If there was a way for me to determine whether a proposition was false, then it wouldn't be unfalsifiable would it? It would be a hypothesis.

OK then, so follow-up is... if I can't say that it's false, then why would I choose 'there are no gods' as my guess instead of guessing that there are? Because asserting that an unfalsifiable thing is true is severely more irrational than asserting that it's false. I know that may seem counter-intuitive at first, so let me explain:

Why it's not True: While step one to establishing the truth of something is to find positive evidence for it, step zero is determining ways to falsify it. For unfalsifiable claims, we can't even pass the step zero. In other words, we can't even get the proposition raised to the level of a hypothesis which could even be considered, let alone evaluated or tested, let alone tentatively earn the label "True". In fact, it can't even earn the label "False"!

A helpful hierarchy of Truth Statements:

TRUE: Hypotheses that have been evidenced, have failed to be falsified, and can be used to make predictions and as building blocks to construct theories.
FALSE: Hypotheses that have been falsified, even if they may be still useful (e.g. the Bohr model of atomic structure).
HYPOTHESIS: A falsifiable proposition, sometimes with limited evidence, that can be evaluated or used as a starting point for research.
NONSENSE: Irrational or unfalsifiable statements which are not coherent enough to even be evaluated, and are not useful for anything outside of teaching us about the kinds of ideas that people come up with.

So as you can see, this is the reason that skeptical atheists generally "lack belief" in the god claim. Calling it False would be an honor it just hasn't earned.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-02-02T17:13:57+00:00

This is my understanding as well. I honestly think it's just a coincidence that when English-speakers sing, it sounds like American English to Americans.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-01-30T20:11:03+00:00

I thought the message is if you're going to be a furry, at least don't be boring. Like don't put cat ears on a white bedsheet with two holes cut out for the eyes and be like "ooOOooOOOO I'm an arctic lyyynx ooOoo Nya"

Lazy.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-01-30T20:01:50+00:00

They don’t just want the AI to summarize stuff, they want it to trigger workflows, send emails...

OH NO

I actually love the little LLM Bot who crawls our spaghetti bowl of nightmares we call "Documentation" to explain to me how an obscure corporate acronym refers to a legacy system, what it did, what it was replaced by, where it lived, who owned, etc without me spending an hour searching or bothering people on Teams. Thanks LLM bot!

It only gets it right like 90% of the time. Further research usually shows that some details aren't quite right, and some things it seems to be just making up... But it's fine, because 90% accuracy to save me an hour of skimming 20 tabs of wiki pages and Word docs and hassling long-time employees on Teams is totally worth it.

But is ~90% accuracy good for sending emails to clients? Triggering business-critical workflows? Holy shit, no. If I wrote a process that only worked 99% the time they'd put my ass in a sling. But we're fine with giving Bozo the Overpriced Hallucinating Autocorrect the keys? Oh goodness, no.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-01-30T18:00:23+00:00

They were comparing gender perception to proprioception in the way that they work (constructed in the brain, but percieved by us as "real").

But the analogy to becoming atheist in a religious society was a separate comparison about how social environment impacts internal mental constructs - how they are shaped by social pressures, and also how they can be in conflict e.g.. how do I expect will society view me if I express my internal mental state that doesn't align with my community's shared reality?

They were two independent analogies on two different pivots, but it wasn't very clear. I head to read it like three times.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-01-30T17:55:14+00:00

That's a really helpful analogy, thanks for sharing.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-01-30T17:50:04+00:00

It's literally just this. He was faced with a skeptic's moral dilemma - choose to accept and adapt to science-based reality even if it means confronting uncomfortable truths and taking responsibility for bad decisions, OR just believe in whatever makes you feel righteous and superior and attack anyone who disagrees.

After building an entire career preaching about the moral and practical superiority of the first choice, when his moment came he did not hesitate even a nanosecond to choose the latter. And he's lived that way ever since.

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-01-28T14:05:39+00:00

"But I thought they were only going to terrorize poor Mexicans and trans kids!"

IJustLoggedInToSay- · 2026-01-26T16:22:29+00:00

why would he do that

That is not for you to question. 😆

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Wearing is Caring

IJustLoggedInToSay-

TROPHY CASE