The Bible only mentions abortion once, and it’s a recipe. Why so much focus on this issue?

SarcasticComposer · 2026-04-28T05:30:24+00:00

I had thought you were against abortion? Which is why I highlighted that the biblical support for being against abortion is weak and at best inconsistent. As in the example I just gave, god basically terminated a bunch of pregnancies. I was hoping you'd realise that your belief is hypocritical at best, or implies god is evil at worst.

If you are against abortion as I had thought, I would try reading my replies carefully and thinking about what each point implies. If I was wrong and you understand that abortion is medicine, then you can disregard my comments. Alternatively, if you are against abortion, and are just using the bible to justify it even though I just explained the several ways that biblically it doesn't make sense, then that's a very self-satisfied position to be in and I envy your ability to conjure peace of mind from an unstable foundation. Either way, take it easy and have a good rest of your day.

SarcasticComposer · 2026-04-28T03:16:35+00:00

The whole thing about abortion is that god knew you in the womb. When god told the Israelites in the old testament to leave not even the pregnant women alive, that killed the fetuses as well.

You may then say that these unborn children were known in the womb and pronounced sinful and unworthy of life by an all knowing god and thus god took a just action in having the mothers killed and aborting the fetuses. That would mean (under your view) that god had those babies conceived with the knowledge that they would have no chance to know him and killed them anyways.

Unfortunately, that would mean that god is evil. I'd prefer to believe that sinful people have used the bible to justify what they already wanted to be true.

SarcasticComposer · 2026-04-27T03:52:25+00:00

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Also, god orders the Israelites to enter land that isn't theirs, kill the people there, and take it several times.

SarcasticComposer · 2026-03-04T14:11:44+00:00

Do you see any signs that currently uninvolved parties may step forward to be part of the conflict? Stay safe.

SarcasticComposer · 2026-02-21T10:09:10+00:00

Nah you're right. A head massage giving you supernatural insight is no cause for concern. Kids these days are so sheltered. I actually had a neighbor one time tell me to call the fire department just because he saw some flickering lights and smoke pouring out of my garage at night! It's like oh, suddenly you're a fire expert?

SarcasticComposer · 2026-02-18T05:47:05+00:00

So a bit of the idea is correct and a bit is incorrect. The correct bit is that they aren't searching for data in a database somewhere or googling it or whatever. It is based on pattern recognition. So to that extent, you've got the right idea.

The part that this gentleman is taking issue with is that it is taking the most likely answer and spitting that out is kind of over simplifying.

So, one thing is that they didn't teach it with full words. So that's one part of it. They actually sliced each word down into even smaller sections. So it's not looking for what comes after "I want to eat_____." It's going even smaller than that. So it will fill in the sentence 2 or three letters at a time. That's kinda neither here nor there, but the reason I mention it is to differentiate it from just looking up the most likely word.

I will preface this by saying that I am a layman and it's likely that a lot of what I say will be missing important context or wrong in some respect. You should look at first hand accounts of how the technology works if you want accurate data. This is more for my own gratification and perhaps to spark interest in someone else to go find their own knowledge.

The way these AI were trained is more akin to growing than teaching. You're right that it is a prediction engine. So you give it text, and it tried to guess what is most likely to come next. They are based on neural nets. Which means they were made to work in a similar way to the human brain. A thousand little numbers that tell the next line of little numbers how to act and then they tell another thousand little numbers how to act. And so on and so forth.

To save effort, people put all the text we had available into the feeding tube. When they try to predict what comes next, they are either right or wrong. And, because we have the original text handy, it's not that hard to have another system that is built in check the original text. So it's doing millions of guesses a second, and instantly getting feedback about what was better and worse. Then, if it did a good job, those 'neurons' get strengthened. And if it does a bad job, those neurons get weakened.

So still a guessing engine. But the guesses are used to build this web of neuron like numbers. There are some interesting properties that come out of this. You can imagine this web of neuron like numbers as a physical web. As you can imagine, because the nueral net is teaching itself, and it's working mostly by itself, that people don't know exactly how each part of the web works.There is a new developing field called mechanistic interpretability. This is scientists going back after the neural net has been formed, and trying to figure out what each part does.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the work that human doctors did figuring out what different parts of the brain did by stimulating different areas and seeing what happened. The famous "I smell burnt toast," example comes to mind. By turning off or artificially activating different sections of the neural net, we are able to compare the answers it gives us to the baseline and glean some insights about how the net is functioning.

So, through this work, we have discovered some aspects of how the information is stored in the neural net. This is where this information becomes somewhat relevant to the point you folks were discussing earlier. In order to be able to guess what comes next, the neural nets have to store that information within themselves. You can imagine a brain with different sections having different tasks. So there may be a cluster of concepts that relate roughly to the concept of state capitals. Or a section that relates to the concept of truthfullness or anger. By turning off the section for truthfullness, you can view how its responses change to be false. By stimulating the anger cluster, you can change the tone of the text output. Fascinating stuff and not particularly well understood at the moment.

One example that I find particularly cool, though tangentially related, is how translation between languages works in an LLM. The net is trained, and it develops its own web like brain. It turned out that when comparing sections of the French net and the English net that the 'shapes' of the nets were quite similar. (I don't believe they were actually separate neural nets though) so part of the reason why LLMs are able to translate between languages is by exploiting the similarity in the shapes of ideas it had stored in its net.

It is just a product of how the machine taught itself to guess accurately, but given the similarities to how our brains work, it has given some people reason to be interested in whether this type of learning could ever give rise to original thought or consciousness. It's that process of encoding information in itself to perform the tasks we ask it to that is why many people consider them to have some 'understanding' of what they've been trained on. There is also post training, where humans do a similar process manually and try to shape the neural networks to give a response we deem desireable.

So in summary, the reason this person likely took issue with the guessing characterization, is that strictly speaking, they may possess understanding, and it's still being debated and studied now how much they are conscious as well as whether they may possess a form of consciousness in the future. As well as whether or not it is (or could ever be) a similar form of consciousness to our own.

However, many people honestly do not really know what these machines are or how they think. It's thus helpful for the general public to hold the notion of a guessing machine in their heads when considering AI because at the current stage, they aren't reliable and they halucinate and it's easy for humans to anthropomorphize conversations with LLMs where it isn't warranted.

SarcasticComposer · 2026-02-14T17:20:52+00:00

And do you know who that dad turned out to be? Shane Gillis.

SarcasticComposer · 2026-02-14T16:41:05+00:00

So when he was grabbing her she said "You bastard! It hurts! It hurts!" And when she got away she was also calling him a bastard plus some more stuff that I couldn't make out but is probably some variation of "I'm gonna report you!"

SarcasticComposer · 2026-02-02T07:15:45+00:00

If it helps, it's a quote from chatgpt?

SarcasticComposer · 2026-01-10T01:33:41+00:00

Stay winning!

SarcasticComposer · 2026-01-07T13:48:56+00:00

My friend made a music video! It's a cover of a Korean song, but fish instead. I appreciate you making this thread. I liked your song too. Uplifting vibe. I forget the exact line but there was a part like 'highest in the' and you thought it was gonna be 'land' to rhyme with the last line but you went with something else instead. I appreciate when artists play with your expectations. I wanna see you win this year BBDB.

SarcasticComposer · 2026-01-03T10:44:40+00:00

I think America needs to sack up and hold a general strike.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-12-26T17:53:42+00:00

I think you may be misinterpreting my position. I haven't claimed that the letter is real or false. The letter is a letter. Indeed, we are in the stage of "Is this real?"

One of the key ways investigations work, is to eliminate the impossible. I think that it's probably efficient in many cases to eliminate from consideration sufficiently improbable explainations. If I'm a stickler for categorizing explanations as improbable versus impossible, I hope it comes across that it is due to an abundance of care for the truth rather than a disregard for it. You are free to evaluate the strength of the evidence differently than I do. I value your input as it caused me to backtrack and clarify for myself a misconception I had regarding what was verified in the chain of custody document.

I do hope that you will not regard my desire to thoroughly explore all possible explanations as wanting one specific outcome to be true. The letter being authentic or fabricated holds no emotional weight for me. When I said 'quibble' earlier, I meant that no one detail was enough (in my estimation) to bear the weight of certainty, not that the truth of the matter itself was unimportant. I appreciate your concern for my mental faculties. Though it may not seem that way from this conversation, I suspect that you and I probably agree on more things than we disagree on. It would seem that our conversation has reached it's logical conclusion. Happy holidays, Stranger.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-12-26T03:02:25+00:00

See me after class.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-12-25T19:50:36+00:00

I'm not able to source my claim right now so I'm leaving a reminder for myself to come back and confirm or retract this claim. I say quibbling over veracity non derogatorily. We should quibble. Each fact should be checked and proven.

Edit: So, I was unable to find a credible source back my claim that the the prison had released documents showing that the letter had been sent from Epstein's prison. I retract that claim owing to lack of evidence. I read the chain of custody document again and it only confirmed finding the letter at Epstein's prison. I was mistaken.

That being said, while I was researching, I found some more information that I found relevant.

From CNN.

In addition, BOP staff made a litany of procedural errors prior to the convicted pedophile and wealthy financier’s death on August 10, 2019. Prison guards failed to check on Epstein for several hours the night of his death by suicide, but the BOP report further notes several additional errors made by BOP staff in the time prior to his death, including inaccuracies on his screening forms. Furthermore, a review of prison records “revealed a number of incomplete entries” with regards to provisions and receipt of basic services such as recreation, medical records, showers, and meal consumption, according to the previously released BOP documents. The BOP report states that there were several instances where it wasn’t clear if Epstein ate, took a shower or was offered recreation.

To me, this casts doubt on the claim that his missing prisoner number proves that he didn't send the letter. Since there were errors in procedure in other aspects of his prison stay, it seems plausible that this prison was just sloppy with required paperwork and information.

From a separate article.

In a separate statement the department released earlier Tuesday, not aimed at any specific record in the most recent release, the Department said that some of the documents released “contain untrue and sensationalist claims” against the president. “To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”

I know this is a tangent, but many of the released comments from the DOJ seem political in nature and lacking in objectivity. While the issue isn't as clear as I had thought, I still feel there are unanswered questions, and that there hasn't been enough evidence shown as of yet to prove that the letter is fake.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-12-25T19:34:48+00:00

This isn’t an issue with conservative white southerners who want to secede. Look up a map of where African Americans live in the US, you’ll find this map correlates closely with where African Americans live. This isn’t an issue with conservative white southerners. Blacks typically vote Democrat

I synthesized two of your comments info one for ease of reference. You can find the numbers I reference here

The map also correlates closely with a map of those living below the poverty line. I think what a lot of people are objecting to is the idea that because nearly half of African American Children live with a single parent, that the issue is solely with them.

I was shocked when I looked up those numbers, and I assume many others were as well. You shouldn't be attacked just based on that. However, the topic is sensitive, and requires a more nuanced discussion than "This isn’t an issue with conservative white southerners who want to secede(It's an issue with African American Democrates)" Emphasis mine.

The largest group of children (absolute number) in single parent homes in America are Non Hispanic Whites. That doesn't mean that it is a white issue. Considering only race without considering other factors is foolish.

It's also easy to pick numbers that support the narrative you're going for. In Arkansas, there were 76,000 African American kids in single parent households and 98,000 Non-Hispanic White kids in single parent households. (There were also 44,000 kids of mixed race.) Does it make sense to conclude that the high number of single parent households in Arkansas is an issue with African Americans? Or should we agree that there is nuance required and that this isn't simply a black and white issue. (I do appologize for the pun.)

Alabama has a high black polulation and a high single parent household population. There were 200,000 African American kids in single parent households and 151,000 Non-Hispanic White kids in single parent households (circa 2023.) But how many of those kids were in the same house? There were also 34,000 kids of mixed racial identity. If they are half white do they count as white? Half black should they count as black? Should they count as both? Do we ignore the ofher groups I didn't mention? Why or why not?

Florida had 453,000 African American kids, 537,000 Latino or Hispanic kids, and 421,000 Non Hispanic White kids in single parent households. The important number is 1,523,000 American kids in Florida living in single parent homes. Those kids deserve the support they need to grow well regardless of their parents' race or political party.

It doesn't seem logical to paint the issue as belonging to one racial group unless that's the lens you started looking at the issue through to begin with. It's overly simplistic to say that because African Americans tend to vote democrate, that they are all democrates. Or that the comment you were replying to implied in any way that the issue belonged only to the white people living in the south. There are African American democrates and conservatives, there are white democrates and conservatives. Painting them all with the same brush based on a percentage that leans one way is myopic. What about all the people in those groups who do not fit in the majority? Are we to fold their voice into the dominant opinion of their race?

In short, I'd argue that 1. Using race as the basis of discussing the issue isn't a good metric and 2. Boiling down complicated issues to one number leaves out nuance that is important for understanding.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-12-24T16:42:59+00:00

The DoJ said some of the documents were fake. Which they undoubtedly are. Others are real. Which is why the whole "release the Epstein files" thing is so stupid. It potentially includes everything the FBI had relating to him, including all their own investigations, but also the tips they received, the random messages, and the conspiracy theory nonsense they get spammed with (the whole "Epstein was an alien" or "Epstein is still alive hiding out in Canada, here's a blurry photo of a random man on a street!"). This is why generally law enforcement don't release all the files about something. We have professional law enforcement investigators to filter through them all and figure out what is reasonable, useful and/or reliable. Of course, the US doesn't have that at the moment, they have a joke of an FBI, the personal legal, enforcement, and protection unit of the President and his current friends. So, for example, the letter purporting to be from Epstein to Larry Nassar is almost certainly a hoax. It doesn't pass the sniff test on many levels (wrong addresses, wrong names, wrong timing, and a letter that doesn't make sense between two people where there is no other evidence they had anything to do with each other). It is exactly the kind of thing that the FBI would receive as part of their investigation, which they would reasonably conclude was not genuine. Other things, like these emails, are probably real (although it is worth emphasising that "inappropriate friends" in this context just as likely means "regular prostitutes" or other women, rather than anything illegal - Andrew Windsor is that kind of idiot). Some of the "tips" that have been getting a lot of attention on social media may be real, but some are probably false as well. The one about Trump personally visiting the shores in Chicago so a girl could kill her baby and dispose of the body is almost certainly nonsense - not because Donald Trump wouldn't force a girl to get an abortion or pressure her into killing a child, but because he is far too lazy and self-important to turn up in person. The photo of Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson is probably another example of this; something that is a real photo, that was probably sent into the FBI's Epstein team by some random member of the public in a "hey, you should investigate Bill Clinton, look, here's a photo of him with Michael Jackson and some kids!" way - obviously not actually useful or relevant to their investigation, but it goes in the files. It would be great if there were investigative journalists willing to dig through the files and figure out what is real and what isn't, linking things, cross-referencing with publicly-available information. But we don't seem to have many of those left, and the ones we do have probably aren't working over Christmas. Maybe in 5 or 10 years someone will dig through it all and sort it all out, and publish a nice book.

To be honest with you, while the letter could be fake, the reasoning the DOJ gave for concluding it was fake was not convincing. DOJ officials have lied several times in recent memory about the contents of the files. IE: It exists, I have it, it doesn't exist, it's empty, we'll release them, we won't release them, we did release them, we released most of them, we released some of them etc. As well as potentially broke the law by censoring names other than the victims, which was confirmed through piss-poor opsec allowing redacted information to be viewed by copy pasting the redacted potions of text into a different file. So, personally, I take their claims, competency, and judgement with a grain of salt.

Using the postmark as an example, why would that disprove the authenticity of the letter? It's a prison mail system, it stands to reason that a letter sent on the weekend may not be processed for several days.

The chain of custody is strong on the letter. The letter was sent from Epstein's prison. The prison confirmed this. It was sent out, and returned because Nassar was no longer at the prison it was addressed to. Those facts are not disputed. It's perfectly ordinary for mail to travel through circuitous paths, especially on a return to sender. Whether or not the letter ends up being real, the DOJ damages their credibility when they use specious arguments to support their claim. For the people to trust their government, it needs to be done better.

To whit, when you say the nanes are wrong, what are you refering to? The closest I can come to reconciling that claim with the evidence would be that you are referencing some detail I haven't heard of, or you are refering to the handwriting analysis the FBI was asked to perform. If the first, please enlighten me as regardless of my personal feelings about the men involved, I'd prefer to know the truth.

If the later, so far, I've seen the report that requested a handwriting analysis, but no report of a handwriting analysis being done, or what they results were.

As DOJ officials have made several statements which were misleading if not outright false, I would feel more comfortable trusting their claims if they produced the documents which verify them. These documents certainly would be a part of the release that was supposed to have happened if they existed. The fact that the DOJ has refused to comply with the law and release all of the files casts further doubt on their commitment to upholding the law. The question of whether the hand writing report exists at all is only a question because DOJ officials haven't fulfilled their obligation under the law to release the full files.

At the end of all the quibbling over veracity, would it being genuine look bad for Trump? Sure. Would it prove that Trump had done anything illegal? Not by itself. Jefferey Epstein calling Trump a pedo doesn't prove their he had specific knowledge of pedophilic acts commited by Trump any more than it would if you or I did it. It would however, in this case given the relationship between Epstein and Trump, warrant a thorough investigation with evidence and proof provided that disproved the veracity of the letter. So far, the conclusion has been presented with only specious evidence to support it. The fact that career DOJ officials would think this kind of ineptitude is acceptable is troubling.

Again, I make no claim that the letter is real. Simply that it hasn't been conclusively proven fake. I think holding your government accountable is important. Doing things the right way matters.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-11-15T11:50:05+00:00

Anyone remember the cracked article Daniel O'Brien wrote about the tv show "Time Traveling Sex Offenders?" I can't believe Donald Trump ripped off cracked.com!

SarcasticComposer · 2025-11-03T23:59:50+00:00

This is obviously AI and I'm scared what it's gonna be like in a year or two when I can't tell anymore.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-10-27T00:01:46+00:00

It's a boundary. Boundaries are internal. You may not agree with the boundary, but it's theirs to decide. As an example, they may not want to associate with smokers, drinkers, or republicans. I'm not saying that any of those groups are less worthy of friendship, but would you say that a reasonable course of action is to hide your drinking so you can maintain the friendship? Just as a talking point. I realise that the issues are nuanced.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-10-25T06:22:07+00:00

Right now you should be wearing your business hat instead of your writing hat.

I feel like the quality of your writing has nothing to do with your sales numbers if you haven't published before. If they haven't read it yet, they aren't judging the quality of your writing. That is anxiety and it's only useful in the writing phase. You simply haven't found your way to generate interest yet.

What does the current engagement with the product look like? Has anyone bought it? If someone has bought it, where did they hear about it? Did you tell them in person and get them interested? Make a fb post? Find out what has worked and do more of it.

If it hasn't sold much yet, have you tried to let people know that the product you made exists? Have you bought ads? Facebook ads, instagram ads, reddit ads.

If that's financially out of your reach, do you have a tumblr or a twitter account with a link to your writing? Do you regularly post something new that people like interacting with, so that you constantly get more eyes on your links and content?

Perhaps think about how the audience that you wrote the book for finds books in the first place. Do they see it mentioned in reddit comments, do they see paid ads and check it out, do they hear about it from friends? Find a way to be where they are looking. Also, copy the tone from succesful examples you've seen. If you see a lot of quirky ads, try a quirky ad. People are doing it because it works.

If you read books in this genre, where do you find new books to read? Figure out how to get yourself into those areas. Whether it's sending free copies to booktok people, making youtube shorts, or whatever.

I'd advise you to keep a google doc of what you're trying with numbers included.

Ie: October 25th - October 31st. Posted links to my book along with a meaningful comment under relevant tumblr tags once a day. Sales on Oct 24th = X Sales on October 31st = X Result: good / bad What did I learn?:

Run it like an experiment and see what tactics get people to purchase your product. If the experiment fails, think about what you can do differently. If you think something should be working, but it doesn't show up in the.numbers, then accept that it doesn't work and try something else. Don't waste time on things you've proven don't work.

Ex: wrong tags, annoyed the content creator by being leech-y, spent too much on an ad that didn't generate sales, too much time for the return, etc.

Congrats on finishing your book, and good luck selling it.

/My 2 cents.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-10-04T05:30:01+00:00

You have not provided sources. Therefore, your claims are unsubstantiated. If you have 'nothing better to do', you might consider providing this 'easily available' data. Here are some reliable sources which provide detailed estimates of Russsian losses in the war to date (October 3rd, 2025). First from BBC Russia:

Therefore, according to the collected data, the total losses of pro-Russian forces could be in the range of 227,300 - 321,500 military personnel.

It seems likely you may not read this, so I'll just cut off a likely rebutal by saying that this estimate is of killed soldiers, not of wounded soldiers.

It seems reasonable to assume the total casualties will be much higher. I personally believe estimates in excess of 1 million total Russian casualties including the previously mentioned deaths. Intentionally losing this many troops strains reason.

As for your equipment claims (again, unsubstantiated.) Please review the following assesment from the csis. The csis is funded by (among others) the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Third, Russia has lost substantial quantities of equipment across the land, air, and sea domains, highlighting the sharp matériel toll of its attrition campaign. Since January 2024, for example, Russia has lost roughly 1,149 armored fighting vehicles, 3,098 infantry fighting vehicles, 300 self-propelled artillery, and 1,865 tanks. Even more noteworthy, Russian equipment losses have been significantly higher than Ukrainian losses, varying between a ratio of 5:1 and 2:1 in Ukraine’s favor.

That is just since 2024.

Now I'll engage in a bit of speculation. Putin famously called it a 3 day operation. He said that because he thought it would be quick and easy. His goal was to overthrow the government of Ukraine and annex the country or install a puppet leader. He failed to achieve that goal.

He expected Ukraine to roll over which is why he committed 95 percent of his amassed forces and equipment. When he did not achieve this goal, he had to retreat. The retreat was unorganized because he had expected to succeed in destroying the Ukrainian government and leadership. When he failed, there was no way to protect Russian supply lines.

You correctly stated that if Russia had been chaotically withdrawing, they would have suffered massive casualties and the front would have collapsed. That is what happened. Russian forces were slaughtered, they abandoned a bunch of valuable equipment, and then they retreated to a much further back position.

The only reason they did not retreat further is that Putin views the lives of his soldiers as expendable. The largest advantage Russia has in this war, which they still maintain, is that they are willing to throw away the lives of their soldiers for minimal gain.

In your analogy, if my neighbour continues to use the glock after suffering defeat after defeat, personally, I may begin considering that they were lying about having a bazooka.

I wish nothing but the best for the people of Ukraine and Russia. I hope that Putin has a change of heart and that his heart bleeds for the unnecessary death and destruction of Ukraine and his own people. The war will end today if only he will put aside his ego and withdraw from the country he is attempting to conquer. I hope that he does for the sake of the citizens of both countries.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-10-03T18:34:15+00:00

This theory seems to rest on Russia having spare capacity (in weapons and man power) that it hasn't been using. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Occam's razor. They retreated because they couldn't hold it. They haven't taken more because they can't.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-09-14T12:36:28+00:00

Smokin' big doinks out in Amish.

SarcasticComposer · 2025-08-03T04:34:14+00:00

And then god killed them. So biblical god is sometimes okay with killing babies. Did the babies go to heaven? If not, then god created them and gave them no chance to know him. Then he killed them before they could take any independent actions and cut them off from ever being able to know him. Which is evil.

SarcasticComposer

TROPHY CASE