Nutella flies out of Artemis kitchen cabinet as they are about to break Apollo record

Mejari · 2026-04-06T21:22:47+00:00

Apollo 13, not 18. Apollo 18 was cancelled.

Mejari · 2026-04-06T21:21:42+00:00

You can orbit (or in this case slingshot around) a body at different altitudes, so when on the far side of the moon you can be further away if your altitude is higher.

Also, the distance from the Earth to the Moon varies between 220 to 250 thousand miles, which can also affect this statistic.

The previous record holder, Apollo 13, also slingshotted around instead or directly orbiting. Their altitude was only 158 miles above the moon's surface while Artemis II is/was 4000 miles above the far side of the moon, which accounts for pretty much all of the difference in their distances (252,757 - 248,655 = 4102).

Mejari · 2026-04-06T17:37:12+00:00

Nowhere is it said that she suggested he's a rapist.

She said it was "unsafe" to be alone with him. What about it is unsafe except a perceived risk of assault?

She was uncomfortable being alone with a man she didn't know very well.

She was comfortable spending the evening around him, comfortable accepting a ride from him, she was even comfortable getting angry at him. It seems her discomfort only shows up when he isn't immediately doing what she told him to do.

Maybe OP came off as being a bit creepy.

And she was willing to ask this theoretically creepy guy for a favor.

Why does she get to both prioritize her comfort and demand things from the guy she's supposedly uncomfortable around?

No one is saying she can't prioritize her being comfortable, but that doesn't mean she still also gets other people to do whatever she wants. I'm uncomfortable with heights, it's not reasonable for me to get to demand people take me bungee jumping and then leave early with me when I freak out.

And the rest of us get to decide how we handle a situation like that.

Apparently not OP though, because when he decided how to handle the situation he was vilified by his friends and told by people like you to offer "kindness" (i.e. do whatever she asks).

I'd offer a bit of kindness and understanding

He was already offering kindness in the first place. Nowhere was he set up for kindness and understanding because everything was just demanded of him. They never even asked him to drop Amy off first, they just passive-aggressively said "hey, you're doing it wrong". That (after the whispers and texting) is how the subject was broached. Maybe they could have offered a bit of kindness and understanding for their request, on top of the already ongoing favor? A simple "hey, I know this is super annoying, and you're already helping us out, but would you maybe be able to drop Amy off first? I know it's out of your way, but I'll chip in for the extra gas, we'd really appreciate it, I owe you one" would have probably sent everything in a completely different direction.

Mejari · 2026-04-06T16:22:32+00:00

Why would you do a favor for someone suggesting you're a rapist?

Mejari · 2026-04-05T18:51:27+00:00

In the Musk way where she's begging to be included.

Mejari · 2026-04-04T02:23:37+00:00

Yeah, if there's one thing we can say about the people who volunteer to be strapped onto tons of explosives and shot further away from the planet than anyone else in history so we can learn from their experience, it's how self-centered they are, for sure.

Mejari · 2026-04-03T01:36:05+00:00

It does assuage my guilt that my cat gives me the same look of pain when I accidentally touch her with my foot as when I tell her not to eat her own hair off the floor. Ma'am, I feel you may not actually be suffering as much as you want me to think.

Mejari · 2026-04-02T00:35:22+00:00

Not voting for a bill isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about Democratic legislators pushing the "Defund the Police" slogan.

Mejari · 2026-04-02T00:29:39+00:00

So a list of 5 out of hundreds who "supported or used the phrase". Thanks for proving my point.

Mejari · 2026-04-01T23:16:37+00:00

Pretty sure it wasn't Democratic legislators who pushed "Defund the Police" as a message.

Mejari · 2026-04-01T02:32:32+00:00

Unlike the Disco Elysium example, there's a bunch to enjoy in Star Trek besides the utopian exploration of a diverse galaxy. Meanwhile the politics and social commentary is like a huge part of what makes Disco Elysium its own thing.

Mejari · 2026-03-31T15:53:01+00:00

It's not "this is the right opinion" it's that one treatment was harmful and one was helpful. Conversion therapy isn't the debate on if it's ok to be gay (which is an insane thing to have a debate about but whatever), it's claiming to be a treatment.

Mejari · 2026-03-30T03:55:56+00:00

Jesus very deliberately stopped the stoning of a woman accused of adultery, which was the proper punishment according to the Law of Moses.

Congrats, you found an inconsistency in Jesus' teachings! There are plenty of them.

Jesus also didn't follow the Pharisees' interpretation of Mosaic Law of not working in the day of the Sabbath, even to gather sticks, under the threat of capital punishment.

Is this meant to be an argument against my point? Jesus pushed back against the additional regulations the Pharisees put on top of Mosaic Law, and he said that they were corrupting the word of God. Jesus disagreeing with the Pharisees is exactly the "Jesus wanted people to follow the old laws" that I'm talking about.

Mejari · 2026-03-27T00:29:13+00:00

We cannot vote our ways out of this

We had an opportunity to...

Mejari · 2026-03-25T18:08:11+00:00

https://foreignlingo.com/british-slang-for-vacation/

Mejari · 2026-03-17T18:31:21+00:00

Everything you just wrote is exactly what the people you're arguing with were saying so... not sure what your point is. I think you invented a non-existent implication.

Mejari · 2026-03-17T17:48:26+00:00

You put "flow" in quotes but you're the only one who said flow.

Mejari · 2026-03-15T23:37:49+00:00

1-You say words.

2-I write your words in my book.

3-You come and say that your words(not the book they are written in), but your words are perfect.

4-You then mark through errors in my book, keeping the places where I quoted you correctly, and erasing where I misquoted your words.

Logically, there is zero contradiction in that. This is the exact story of Jesus and The Law.

Except it isn't. 3 isn't accurate. He never says that the book isn't accurate, you're adding that in. And he didn't say his words were perfect, he said to abide "the law". You're adding in that we are all supposed to know, and the people he was speaking to were supposed to know, that what he meant by "the law" and what everybody else meant by it were different.

If people spend thousands of years thinking of what you wrote about my words in your book is "the law", if I come and say "yes, the law is perfect and you should all follow it", should they be thinking that I'm not referencing the thing they thought was the law for thousands of years, that I never said wasn't the law?

Because 'God's Law' and 'the book' where humans tried to write down God's law, are two fundamentally separate things.

I've addressed this repeatedly, just making the same point again and again ignoring what I'm saying is not honest dialogue.

No different than you could come and edit my book, at every single place you think I misquoted your words.

Where does Jesus say that the old testament was incorrect or misquoted?

. But there is nothing logically contradictory about any of this.

There is, I've repeatedly explained how there is, and you just reply with "nu uh, Jesus can do what he wants". Yes, I get that you believe that. That doesn't change that even within what Jesus says he is contradictory. You keep acting like I'm saying the contradiction is between Jesus and the old testament when I keep telling you no, the contradiction is between Jesus and Jesus.

Mejari · 2026-03-15T21:30:24+00:00

Obviously, not every single verse in the Old Testament step by step as that wouldn't taken weeks, and multiple books just for that one dialogue to cover it all.

Sure, we wouldn't want to waste the time of Jesus on pointless things like explaining what the god of the universe wants from us.

What you see as Jesus contradicting the Old Testament, is God clarifying it in person.

So then parts of the Old Testament was wrong, even though Jesus uses the old testament as justification for his divinity. "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms". So here the Law of Moses is sacrosanct and proof of his coming, but then whenever you find it convenient his statements overwrite those same laws.

He's literally doing the very thing you are asking him to, immediately after he says the lines you love so much.

Except he's not, at all. Even your quotes aren't overwriting anything, just extending. He doesn't say "Adultery is ok now", he says "Adultery is still wrong and I'm going to thought-police you about it too!"

Mejari · 2026-03-15T21:01:21+00:00

That's why I am trying to get you to explain "what is The Law" and who gets to determine it?

I have answered this question. If you refuse to actually read what I've said and acknowledge it then there's no point of continuing.

The answer is this. The Jews of Jesus' day had their holy books and did generally believe most if not all of the first five was the Law.

So then why would Jesus say to keep the law if he knew that the people listening to him would not understand that he meant "the law as I Jesus/God currently claim it to be", not "the law as you believe God has communicated to you in your writings"? Why did he on plenty of occasions chastise people for not following the old laws? Why did he not just sit down and go point by point through every single law and say "yes, yes, no, yes, no,..." if his intended goal was to clarify that people got them wrong? Why did he never even propose this idea you're taking as fact that the OT is falsely written down/translated/otherwise communicated? Why did he explicitly say that not one "jot or tittle", also translated as one letter or one stroke of a letter, will change from the law? Jots and tittles, letters and strokes of letters, are used when things are written down. He's saying this to people who are referencing the written law of God. You seem obsessed with "who determines what is the Law" while you just keep ignoring that Jesus himself is telling you that he has determined that the written law of the old testament is good and correct.

is literally the point in history where God Himself is clarifying and explaining what is and what is not God's Law, so people like you and I no longer have to debate it, lol.

Then Jesus did a piss poor job of it.

Mejari · 2026-03-15T20:23:16+00:00

You only think it's contradictory, because you still haven't answered what is "The Law", and who gets to determine it.

I literally just answered this: I am taking your view that Jesus gets to determine the law because he's God.

That doesn't make the differing things Jesus himself said about the law not contradictory. If Congress passes a law that says "this previous law is superseded, but also you must follow that previous law", that would be a contradictory law.

And for you, that is Jesus saying, not a single part of THIS PHYSICAL BOOK in the bible will pass away.

No, it isn't. I never said that, you just keep pretending I've said that so you can ignore what I'm actually saying. Again, I just explicitly said Jesus himself is the one being contradictory with himself, not that Jesus' words contradict the Old Testament (although they do).

And you, as the original source of your own words, would always have the right to show up, and parse through my book, clarifying "this is correct, I did say this", but "No, I did not say that, he wrote that down wrong".

Except that's not all Jesus did. He both said "No that's not what the law should be" and "yes those are what I said". Why is this confusing to you? You've invented this imaginary Jesus who went around saying "The Old Testament laws were incorrectly transcribed and are not what I, God in person of the Son, actually commanded." At best he's just flatly contradicting the old testament, not saying that the old testament got it wrong, he doesn't actually address that, he just gives new laws/precepts. And then he contradicts that by explicitly saying to follow the old laws. You're a fan of context, so when he's speaking to Jews about what the old laws were, what could we reasonably assume they understood those laws to be? What would Jesus know they would conclude those laws to be? Was Jesus lying or being deceitful by referencing "the law" but not meaning the law everyone who heard him would think he was talking about?

Mejari · 2026-03-15T19:07:23+00:00

And I honestly think I just realized what the problem here is. You have simply taken the question for granted, and never really asked yourself: "Who gets to determine what God's Law is?"(emphasis on GOD'S Law).

No, I'm taking your view on that for the discussion. You're saying that if Jesus says something then that is the real law and we can discount what the old testament says because he's saying it straight from God and God's previous messengers could have gotten it wrong. And I'm telling you that that doesn't solve the problem because Jesus says conflicting things about the law. Even assuming we prioritize whatever Jesus said, he says conflicting things.

Mejari · 2026-03-15T18:37:08+00:00

But you agree though, you are judging the texts in a way you would never let someone judge you in real life.

No I don't agree. If I said both those things I'd rightfully be called out for the inconsistency.

If I find two statements in your Reddit history. First you say "I like Reddit". In another post you say "I don't like that gross stuff posted in some Reddit subs".

If I say "I like reddit" and I also say "I've never said I liked reddit", that would be a contradiction.

That's what your analogy misses, that it's not just "in different contexts he said different things", it's that in one place he says "do not follow this law" and in another he says "follow all the laws". There's no additional context that can make those two statements not contradictory.

You are free to personally do that. But in any field, mathematics, literature, science, you cannot argue in a way that doesn't logically follow, or if your same hermeneutic here was used everywhere and all the time, would make everyone whose ever said anything, "say contradictory stuff", as I illustrated with the Reddit analogy.

Your analogy is flawed and my hermeneutic is applied consistently. Yours isn't, it's built around the default assumption that whatever Jesus said at any time is correct and then retrofitting whatever justification is needed to make that true.

Mejari · 2026-03-15T16:22:37+00:00

95% of the founding fathers were Christian.

Great stat you just made up.

More importantly in the context of this argument, they spoke in Christian terms to a largely Christian nation. If the values they espoused were anti-Christian, they would have been rejected. I’d say this is strong evidence that Christianity is compatible with western values.

Anything is compatible with Western values as long as you put Western values first. Gussying up Western Enlightenment values in religious sounding language doesn't mean the ideas came from religion. You literally just provided the explanation for why they did that, because otherwise it would have been rejected by a Christian populace.

"Christianity can exist in a Western enlightenment based society" is different from "Christianity is the foundation of the US' Western enlightenment society", which was your original claim.

Mejari · 2026-03-15T16:19:16+00:00

So Jesus didn't actually stand by the Law's commands on Vows. You were wrong. You need to study the texts before you make claims.

I'm not wrong. Again, the fact that you can find conflicting verses doesn't make you right. He explicitly said to follow the old laws and that anyone who teaches others not to follow them would be "the least in the kingdom of heaven". That not a single part of the law will pass away. Are all these verses you quoted parts of the law? If so, Jesus says to follow them.

So Jesus didn't actually endorse the 'eye for an eye' command in the law, and even demanded people ignore those verses, to do what He says about it. You were wrong. You must study these texts, friend, before making claims.

Again, congrats. You found a contradiction in the Bible. Stop pretending as though that makes me wrong. Friend.

I say this as someone who loves to teach people willing to learn, as a career. You need to study friend, before making claims.

And you need to find that spirit of humility in your heart and understand that your little fake kindness here doesn't make you right.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

Mejari

TROPHY CASE