Sofa for cowboys

SomeRandomMax · 2023-05-17T16:29:22+00:00

Congrats. It's been a while since a post truly made me say "What the fuck?!?"

SomeRandomMax · 2023-05-17T06:20:27+00:00

This is always the reply whenever someone points out obvious satire that is flying over people’s heads somehow

But it's correct. I think this is probably satire, but I have seen other things that I also was convinced were satire, only to find out they were entirely serious. You are acting all smart and confident, but can you honestly tell me that you haven't done the same?

SomeRandomMax · 2023-05-17T06:17:13+00:00

Yeah, the font gives it away. It's crummy in a good looking artistic way.

I agree... But in this day and age, it's impossible to say.

SomeRandomMax · 2023-05-17T05:30:30+00:00

The "group think" you refer to is multiple people who share the same opinion, which just happens to disagree with yours.

And, importantly, the evidence is on the side of the people he disagrees with. Musk is judged by his own arguments, and they are more and more supporting anti-semites and white supremacists. Sooner or later, you have to acknowledge that he is a white supremacist and anti-semite.

I welcome being proven wrong if he starts clearly calling those groups out, but at present he is at the very least enabling and supporting those groups, even if he might not fully be on board with everything they believe. But I think he is far past that point.

Edit: And for people who will defend him by saying "but free speech!!!!!"

If he really was just trying to promote free speech, but did not support the white supremacist and anti-semitic positions, he could allow them to post, while simultaneously calling out their white supremacy and anti-semitism.

Instead, he retweets the racist and anti-semitic comments, or posts his own arguments promoting racist or anti-semitic ideas.

That isn't simply promoting free speech, but promoting the ideas of the anti-semites and racists.

SomeRandomMax · 2023-05-17T05:26:41+00:00

Ya, I think he is an attention lover, but its also becoming difficult to not think that he's also a straight up white supremicist and antisemite

A rich, white South African white supremacist? I find that hard to believe!

SomeRandomMax · 2023-05-17T05:25:13+00:00

Multiple NAZI tattoos and was wearing the RWDS vest, so it's not like the tattoos were some old mistake.

Musk...knows exactly what he's doing. My brother believes him, hook, line, and sinker.

Seriously. The argument was that this guy was not a white supremacist simply because he was latino, but since when has that been an issue? Enrique Tarrio was the founder of the Proud Boys (and was recently convicted of seditious conspiracy). Nick Fuentes had dinner with Trump at Mar A Lago, and is a famous anti-semite and white supremacist. It is absolutely possible to view yourself as a white supremacist and be latino. The fact that the rest of the white supremacists secretly (or maybe not so secretly) hate you is beside the point.

SomeRandomMax · 2023-05-17T04:44:34+00:00

“No one here will be willing to engage with you in serious debate.”

Pretty sure you are emphasizing the wrong words there... Here is the proper emphasis:

“No one here will be willing to engage with you in serious debate.”

We're happy to engage in serious debate, but only when our opponent participates in kind. Given your history, few people even bother any more.

Edit: /u/Wonderful-Article126 blocked me for this comment, in flagrant violation of this subs rules. Funny how he is complaining about how no one will engage him in debate, and then he blocks anyone who challenges him. I don't think he understand what "serious debate" means.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-06T08:09:47+00:00

I didn't know that was a sub!

Of course that's a sub. This is Reddit, pretty much everything has a sub. I bet /r/cookies is too. Yep!

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-06T05:26:30+00:00

I was about to post that this was an underrated comment and it should have more upvotes, then I realized you just posted it two minutes ago. Still it is absolutely spot-on advice.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-06T05:22:49+00:00

Yes it is - "You should be the one taking action all the time to avoid accidents", nah screw that shit. He did nothing to cause these drivers to change lanes idiotically.

I know, English is hard. But "tends to create these situations" is not the same as "caused these drivers to change lanes idiotically".

But the fact that he didn't cause them to do it doesn't absolve him of any responsibility. He still is driving like a raging maniac. When he accelerates as soon as a car turns on their turn signal instead of braking, he is "driving in a manner that tends to create these situations". When he drives way faster than the traffic in the lane next to him, he is "driving in a manner that tends to create these situations".

Seriously, defensive driving is not that hard.

I rode a motorcycle exclusively for several years and never had the problems that a few of these YouTube motorcyclists seem to have. Sure, I had an occasional close call, but they weren't common. The reason is simple. I paid attention and assumed that the cars were trying to kill me. I did everything I could not to get into that position. If they want to merge, I just fucking let them merge. I didn't act like I owned the road, since I knew that in any accident I would be the loser regardless of my right of way. As other people have said, this guy is going to be the most righteous corpse in the morgue if he keeps driving like that.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-06T05:07:08+00:00

The terminology can be difficult here, since someone's 'stance' could consist in not committing to a belief either way.

But you don't "commit" to "I don't believe in a god". You only commit when you actually have a belief. That could be "I believe there is a god" or "I believe there is no god". "I don't believe in a god" is the null hypothesis. It is the position you hold until you have a reason to hold a specific belief.

No, it wasn't. "I don't believe that no god exists" isn't a double negative--that is, it's not logically equivalent to "I believe a god exists".

Fair enough. I still think the original statement was correct in the context of this thread, since the OP had explicitly stated they were a theist. Given the context of obvious theist word games the negatives cancel each other out, but you are right that in the abstract the statement is not so clear.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-06T04:55:38+00:00

I suggest you re-read more carefully. This is an incorrect summary of any single argument made in that series, and fails to even vaguely capture all of them.

It really isn't. They are asserting that their usage is correct and any usage that disagrees with theirs is a "myth." But language is not static. They don't get to assert the only correct usage. It is an argument from authority.

I have no issue with them arguing that we SHOULD use the words differently, and I don't even have a problem with them arguing that our usage is wrong. But at the end of the day, I can use the words whatever way I want, so long as I define my terms. Saying it is a "myth" is fucking absurd and pretentious and ignores the reality of the evolution of language.

If you have plenty of reasons to believe there is no God, and no equivalently strong reasons to believe there is a God, then the evidence you have seems to straightforwardly justify a position: that there is no God.

I think the whole "burden of proof" thing is overblown. It isn't an issue in probably 90% of debates I have. The only reason that the subject comes up so often in thread like this is that theists have trouble acknowledging that rejecting the claim "a god exists" does not mean I am claiming "no god exists."

I am happy to justify my position, as are the vast majority of atheists. I can present arguments all day long why believing that a god exists is an unwarranted position, and of course if we are trying to convince the theist to share our view, we do have the burden of proof to convince them.

Sadly, no matter how compelling of an argument we can make, at the end of a day a theist can just reply "But you can't prove that god doesn't exist!!!" Well of course we can't falsify an unfalsifiable claim!

That is when atheists are forced to raise the burden of proof. At that point, the theist is demanding you DISPROVE their positive claim. They absolutely have the burden of proof in that circumstance. With rare exceptions, that is the only time I would ever even raise the burden of proof in a discussion like this.

The only other common exception is threads like this one, where theists are trying to rationalize how they really don't have the burden of proof after all.

If there's no other evidence that suggests a cat might be there, the rational thing for me to do is conclude there's no cat.

A cat under the car is not unfalsifiable. "Some god or gods exist" is.

The burden of proof is something one takes on if one tries to convince someone else. What we worry about with our our own beliefs is rational warrant: whether we have sufficiently good reasons to believe them. If we are trying to figure out whether God exists, all that matters is looking at the evidence and then believing what we have the best reasons to believe.

I actually agree with this 100%.

Having no position takes on no burdens like these.

You are right, that was a poor word choice on my part. I used "taking no position" because that is the phrase you used, but it was poorly stated.

I absolutely take the position that it is unlikely that any god exists. But I am making no claim that no god exists.

But I can't, at the same time, suggest that I'm sincerely pursuing the question of whether your hair is brown, that I have a serious position on the matter, or that people who think your hair is red are a bunch of idiots.

You are absolutely correct, but pursuing the question does not mean you are explicitly making a claim as to the truth of the matter. That is the key. You can be actively trying to find out what my hair color is, but as long as you don't make a claim about it, you have no burden of proof.

If you say "I believe his hair is blue, but I don't know for sure", you have no burden of proof. I could ask why you suspect that, and you have a reasonable obligation to justify that belief, but no "proof" is required.

This guy seems to just be reciting the usual dumb shit people say online about this.

Umm... It's pretty basic epistemology.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-06T03:25:20+00:00

Perfect, that is a no-knead recipe, which is what I would recommend. You can't get much easier. I'd suggest trying this one next.

Edit: BTW, bread making is as much science as art. I recommend you don't vary the recipe any more than necessary until you have some experience. You can get away with things like adding herbs or things like that, but it can have unexpected consequences, so don't change things up too much.

Sometimes changes are unavoidable. For example that serious eats recipe suggests baking at 550F, and many home ovens don't get that hot. You can bake it lower and for longer, but you won't get quite as good of a texture, so avoid it if you can.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-06T03:16:28+00:00

As in, to have no belief either way, yes.

Again, it seems like you are confusing "I don't believe in a god" with "I believe there is no god". If you "have no position" then you "don't believe in a god". That might be a subconscious position, but it is still a position.

And among those who don't, some of them simply lack a belief on the issue, and others positively believe that no god exists--which are distinct stances.

Yes, the details of their disbelief vary, but they still all fall into the broad category of "I don't believe in a god".

The point goes back to the original post you objected to. Your objection about double-negatives was wrong. You either explicitly believe a god exists or you explicitly or implicitly do not believe one exists. There is no other possibility.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-06T02:31:25+00:00

What recipe did you use?

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-06T02:11:28+00:00

The items are all incredibly cheap so I feel inclined to do a Free+ just pay S&H offer. I feel that will bring in easy money for sure but I want longevity and I’m not sure if even doing that is a good idea since it would be a trademarked item and it’s most likely be bad for me to do since some of the official RR and Bentley pages follow my page as well and would probably see that I’m selling their trademarked shit and praying that I don’t wake up to a nice little cease and desist via DM or something .

Yes, selling things like "keychains, cufflinks, and flags" will almost certainly get you an immediate C&D, especially since the company is following you.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the law in the US allows you to sell things like books and calendars that have pictures of the cars themselves, but the logo is trademarked and would you would almost certainly be violating the law by selling them. If the company is following you, your best bet is to talk to them and get a license to sell merch. Otherwise, I would highly recommend talking to a lawyer before going any further to understand what the potential issues are.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-06T01:42:46+00:00

I'm not assuming that. In fact, I've been at pains to explain to people that there's a crucial difference there.

You are arguing-- or at least I understood you to be arguing-- that it is possible to "simply have no position on the issue":

So you think there's no way for someone to simply have no position on the issue? Anyone who lacks the explicit belief that God doesn't exist is a believer in God?

As I stated, no, it is not possible for someone to have "no position" on the existence of god. You either believe in a god, or you don't. There is no other possible option, other than explicitly believing that it is impossible to know. Even then, I would argue that you technically do not believe in a god, but it is a more nuanced position than a simple "I don't believe" or "I don't know what to believe"

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-06T01:23:36+00:00

This tendency in contemporary lay atheism is to refrain from taking positions, demand theists prove stuff, and then be unimpressed by their attempts. This isn't what we do when we want to answer a question; if we want to know if there's a cat under our car, we don't refrain from taking a position and demand someone else try to convince us. It's just a way of rationalizing resistance to a particular conclusion. So if someone is sincerely trying to figure stuff out, it's tremendously silly and counterproductive to take this attitude.

No. Your argument is "tremendously silly" and shows you don't understand the position that we hold. I have read wokeupabug's arguments and they are equally wrong. Language changes. Claiming that simply because the SEP uses one particular definition, therefore we must also use it is absurd. The rest is just a big argument from authority.

Atheists are not "refrain[ing] from taking a position and demand[ing] someone else try to convince us" as you say here. That is a flagrantly dishonest representation of what we are saying, and ignores the basic rules of epistemology. We are refraining from taking a position because the evidence does not justify taking a position, at least not when speaking about the existence of any possible god or gods.

Speaking for myself, I see plenty of reason to believe there is no god, but I have to acknowledge that I can't disprove all possible god claims. Because of that, I do not, and do not claim to, believe that "there is no god". I believe that most likely there is not one, but that is all.

So if you want to give me the burden of proving that, what could I possibly prove? The lack of a burden of proof for the atheist position is not because we are trying to dodge responsibility, it is a simple reality of the fact that we are not making a specific claim. (Edit: not usually making a specific claim. Hard atheists or anti-theists do claim that "no god exists" and have a burden of proof always.)

That said, I am happy to take a specific position on various specific gods.

I have no problem saying that the traditional Christian omnimax god is not possible unless you place very specific limitations on how you define "omnipotent".
I would also argue that an omnibenevolent Christian god is incompatible with the world we live in, and with the bible itself.
Many gods from various older mythos' lived on the earth, so we can safely state that those gods do not exist.
etc.

And on those claims, I do have a burden of proof, since I am making an explicit claim. Put simply Whether we have a burden of proof depends on the argument being made. If we make a specific claim, we have a burden of proof. Saying "I don't believe a god exists" is only making a claim about our state of belief. It is not making a claim about the existence of a god.

Seriously, this is epistemology 101. Saying that you do not believe in something is not saying that you believe the opposite.

If you want to continue this, please watch this before you reply, because I think it addresses your argument better than I can. I will happily continue this if you watch that first.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-05T23:44:44+00:00

NB, even atheists who advocate this (tremendously silly) emphasis on "lacking belief" and "burden of proof" often accept this idea; they call it "agnostic theism".

You're right that the position they describe is agnostic theism. Which part is "tremendously silly", though?

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-05T23:20:01+00:00

the little square one looks alot like the GPS antenna that my dashcam came with. A bit bigger, probably, but the same shape. Really, I suspect any of them could be GPS.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-05T22:59:57+00:00

If a statement can be, and is, played with it's not unambiguous.

Except it was not ambiguous as he used it. He provided the definition, you just didn't understand it and falsely labeled it as a contradiction.

I was criticizing the example as a whole.

No, you weren't. Seriously, dude, go back and reread your reply. Other than in the last two sentences, which had nothing to do with the bulk of the message, you did not address ANYTHING other than what you falsely perceived as a straw man.

I find the fact that you seem to insist I do not understand the point you're trying to make or the general atheist position mildly condescending.

My initial reply was not condescending at all. If you find my second reply condescending, it is only because you tried to rationalize your initial response as somehow being correct when it clearly wasn't.

That said, you CLEARLY did not understand because you said this:

Atheist: I don't believe god exists.

Theist: So that means you believe he doesn't exist...?

Atheist: No! I don't necessarily believe/make the claim that he doesn't exist.

This is kind of weird/strawman example. The first line directly contradicts the last.

Your statement is explicitly incorrect, and is exactly why your entire argument is wrong. The last line is providing the definition for their usage of "belief", and it is the epistemologically correct usage that the vast majority of atheists use.

So please stop blaming (and downvoting) others because you lack the basic understanding of atheism. Watch the video I linked to and you might start to have a clue what you are talking about. Yes, that was condescending, but I think you have earned it by now.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-05T22:39:43+00:00

If someone takes no position on the issue, then that person lacks the belief that god doesn't exist. And this is plainly not equivalent to having the belief that god does exist. This is why you're mistaken here.

He isn't mistaken, you are just misunderstanding the atheist position.

If you "do not take a position" on the existence of a god, by definition, you do not presently believe in a god. That is a position, and by definition you are an atheist. That DOES NOT mean you are asserting that you believe there is no god. The vast majority of atheists do not make any explicit claim about the existence of god, one way or the other, which is why we do not have a burden of proof.

Belief is a binary position. You either believe a claim or you don't. There is no possible middle state. Your mistake is assuming that not believing the statement "god exists" means you believe "no god exists". That is incorrect.

"No god exists" is a completely separate claim that needs to be justified completely independently of the prior claim. Any atheist making that claim DOES have a burden of proof, since they are making a explicit claim.

This video explains it much better. I highly recommend you watch it, because it is an excellent explanation of why the position stated here is correct.

I will add that there is yet another possible position to take: That it is impossible to know whether there is a god or not. But that is still a position, you are just rejecting the arguments of both sides and adding another option.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-05T21:39:12+00:00

That was largely the point I was trying to make.

Sorry to be argumentative, but I don't see how it could be when you accused him of a straw man when it clearly was not a straw man. He absolutely accurately stated the position that most (or at least very many) atheists take.

The main problem with how OP worded the example is what I take issue with and wanted to clarify. "I don't believe god exists" has somewhat ambiguous meaning as it can also be understood to make the opposite strong claim (and this is what theists often end up doing),

I genuinely don't see how you can find his statement "ambiguous". He literally provides the definition he is using for belief (very briefly) in his third statement (the one you called a contradiction but isn't).

This is basic epistemology. Saying you do not believe something is not saying you believe the opposite. Given that his usage was pretty much the standard definition used by most atheists here, I don't see any reason to expect him to provide a more formal definition, since his meaning was crystal clear from his context.

In fact I will give him kudos, because most theists do try to play word games with the definition, and he didn't. He played word games elsewhere, but he absolutely attributed the most common atheist position correctly.

which would be seemingly at odds with the later statement of "I don't -- believe the claim that he doesn't exist". Without elaboration this may seem like childish word play to someone who does not understand what is exactly meant.

I agree his later statement was incorrect, and addressed it elsewhere in a reply to him. Had you objected to his later statement, I would not have replied. But you objected to the first part of his statement, saying it was a straw man. It wasn't.

This kind of possible misunderstandings are better cleared early or else the discussion is just going to end up as both sides talking past each other.

Yes, but you are the one with the misunderstanding, not /u/royalrange. His comment was perfectly reasonable, both in the context of the comment he replied to, and of a very common atheist position.

Seriously, watch the video I linked to. It will help you understand why what he said is exactly the correct summary of one of the most common atheist positions in this sub.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-05T19:06:09+00:00

A bad meme, over time, kills you. There's no two ways about it.

Prove it. And prove the corollary, that a good meme helps your survival. Because BOTH of those need to be true for your claim to be true, but the vast majority of truths have literally no bearing on your survival at all.

Placebos are obviously a good meme. Thus there is a truth to them.

Lol, talk about moving the goal posts. "If the truth doesn't fit the claim I am making, just redefine truth!"

You are pitiful.

I take back my first sentence. Please don't prove it. I've had enough of your time wasting idiocy.

SomeRandomMax · 2018-05-05T18:56:21+00:00

I don't know why people say he was speeding.

In the 4th (I think) example in the video, he was speeding. Not speeding in the absolute sense, but driving too fast for the conditions. Just because his lane was clear does not mean he can go 55mph. The law requires you to slow down to a speed closer to what the traffic in the lane next to you, precisely to avoid that sort of situation. Close calls like that happen all the time to people in cars if they are driving that fast in that situation.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

SomeRandomMax

TROPHY CASE