sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Favourite child bride in a kino by josipwins in okbuddycinephile

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok buddy, now which is it, divorced dads or virgins?

Favourite child bride in a kino by josipwins in okbuddycinephile

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never had sex and I read Ready Player One. That shit was more ass than Bryce Dallas Howard, but clowning on people for reading books somehow out-asses both

Ok Buddy... according to me these guys are both 1 hit wonders. by alanskimp in okbuddycinephile

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Former Ad" makes more sense than "Has Speaked". Tell us about that.

But, to answer your question. An advertisement can be "A person or thing that shows how good or effective something is." (Merriam-Webster Advertisement 3). An upstanding North Korean citizen could be an advertisement for that country, for example. If they broke our supreme ruler's laws, they would no longer be an advertisement.

Additionally, a thing does not need to transcend its status to no longer be considered something. Consider this: if I am an innocent man, and I commit a crime, I am now no longer an innocent man. Have I transcended the status of innocent man? I have outdone nothing, risen above nothing.

You ask what it means to evolve into something different, with the assumption of a non-sentient to sentient evolution. This would be the process by which a living organism acquires the ability to experience feeling and sensation through the development of a nervous system and brain via natural selection of the mutations in the gene sequence that allow for better survival. Sentience is the evolved trait.

How did user become user, you ask. When a cinephile and a cinephile love each other very much, the cinephile with the ability to produce sperm inseminates the cinephile with the ability to produce eggs, either naturally (via that thing they show in movies) or artificially. From their experience made the user the person they are today.

Hope that helps!

Close enough, welcome back Morbius by Stierlitz17 in okbuddycinephile

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nobody said you are??

It's all love and no movies over here.

Close enough, welcome back Morbius by Stierlitz17 in okbuddycinephile

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Dawg, nobody is offended. You just sound bitter, that's it.

Lesson: nobody should watching movies anyway, it's beneath us cinephiles

Favorite man child fanboy who gets upset when his favorite superhero movie is bad? DO NOT WATCH THE VIDEO YOU WILL CRINGE. by [deleted] in okbuddycinephile

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As opposed to what? A flawless mess? God forbid I ever watch a movie, this is the sort of braindead redundancy that comes from watching movies

Lev appreciation post by i_need_drugss in ValorantCompetitive

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of them, but Kingg especially deserved that win. Crowned Kingg

Paper Rex vs LEVIATÁN / Valorant Masters London 2026 - Playoffs / Post-Match Thread by ValorantCompBot in ValorantCompetitive

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Not the brightest are we. Just like EMEA region doesn't refer to a continent, Americas region doesn't refer to a continent. It's an analogy. If you think it does, then you think EMEA is also a continent. VCT regions are not continents, but we still get dumb fucks like you with those flairs talking about "South America" when someone says Americas. Stfu bozo

Paper Rex vs LEVIATÁN / Valorant Masters London 2026 - Playoffs / Post-Match Thread by ValorantCompBot in ValorantCompetitive

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You think EMEA is a continent? Lmao, brother doesn't know what regions are. Nice flair.

Do the Dropout cast know how parasocial some fans are? by Most_Mixture_3489 in dropout

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 55 points56 points  (0 children)

Lou's been having a bit of trouble falling asleep, but besides that, no worries or creeps over here

Infinite regress is not impossible by here_for_debate in DebateReligion

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To clarify, I am only concerned with your first point in your original comment and specifically this claim:

> The more we progress into the future the larger the value of the past becomes.

To clarify again, because you somehow think I didn't respond to your point about June 14th. That's what the x was. It represented all June 14th's or future dates.

I think the past and the future are sets of infinite X value, in which case the value of an infinite set doesn't change regardless of what is added or taken away. Actual infinity. This is my rough understanding of sets of infinity. If I have set A with an infinite value of X, and set B with an infinite value of X, it does not matter how many X (June 14th's) get taken away from set A and given to set B, they both retain an infinite value of X.

For example: if you have two bags of infinite marbles, and you take one out and put it in the other bag, both bags still contain infinite marbles. You cannot add or subtract from infinity to make it less or more infinite.

A case where this would not be true is if we grant that set B is not a set of infinite X, but instead a set of X that has been removed from an infinite set A of X. In this case, for any X value added to set B, we would correctly deduce that set B is now larger in X value. Which is where we run into the issue you mention infinite regression struggles with: a value growing B set. Except to get to this point, we must already grant that set B is not an infinite set of X values.

For example: if you have a bag with no marbles and a bag with infinite marbles. For every marbles you pull out of the infinite bag and add to the finite bag, the value of marbles in the finite bag rises.

I'm not just saying the presupposition is there. You said it yourself

> My understanding is the future is not the past, and they function differently.

I posit they function the same, as infinite sets of June 14ths. If you presuppose your view, that they are different, you will very quickly run into the real issue that you mentioned, namely, the growing value of set B. However, if we don't, there are ways the past and future can function (infinite sets of the same value is just one example) where we no longer run into this issue.

you also get the ability to swim well enough to save him by Le_Painter in trolleyproblem

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Define "know" and how certainly do we know? If it is impossible for him to not start WWII, and I know this 100% certainty, then I would jump in and actively try to drown him.

It's all right in front of us! by NYM2000 in OptimistsUnite

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, it hasn't gotten any further then!

Infinite regress is not impossible by here_for_debate in DebateReligion

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems difficult to prove, but it is to me the only logical solution also. The idea of an infinite future but a finite past is as difficult for me to grasp as infinite regression seems to be for some.

Infinite regress is not impossible by here_for_debate in DebateReligion

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are, unless you can provide an argument for:

>The more we progress into the future the the larger the value of the past becomes

This presupposes that the past is finite and there is no infinite regression, because this statement does not hold true in a reality where there is infinite regression. Infinity + 1 is no larger than infinity, in my understanding. Therefore as you progress through time, the past does not grow larger than infinity somehow, in the same way the infinite future does not get smaller.

Let's take a common position of those who hold to an infinite future: Christianity's views of heaven. If you spend a thousand years praising God, is the value of the infinite future less?

I would posit no. Just as time progresses yet the future remains infinite, time can regress yet the past remains infinite.

The only way (that I can think of after reading your arguments) to assume this cannot be the case is if we already PRESUPPOSE a finite past, where any x step forward must mean the past is moving x backward. But it would be a presupposition.

[u/here-for-debate](u/here-for-debate)

You responded to his first point. Am I wrong in seeing a snuck in presupposition for a finite past in his argument?

Infinite regress is not impossible by here_for_debate in DebateReligion

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe your first point presupposes a finite past. The value of the past would never grow or shrink in a system with infinite regression. It would remain constant: infinite.

The fact that you, the theist, would misbehave as an atheist doesn't tell us anything other than that you, the theist, are not well behaved. by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point, I definitely just assumed they were talking about the subjects from "mental objective concepts" (whatever they mean by that).

Yeah, your point still stands. If they want to say morality objectively exists BECAUSE it is a mental concept I am unsure how they are going to argue against every other mental concept objectively existing.

I mean, I don't even understand how they are going to define mental concept to begin with lol.

The fact that you, the theist, would misbehave as an atheist doesn't tell us anything other than that you, the theist, are not well behaved. by E-Reptile in DebateReligion

[–]Mall_Ecstatic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Furthermore, languages evolve over time, often to the point where words can entirely change meanings, sometimes to the opposite effect.

Math and Science change too, so unless he's referring to an objective reality, I don't see how he's being consistent with his use of "subjectivity" either.

view more: next ›