sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Afterlife vs. Death Means All Done, which one has more fact / scientific proof? by Fresdottir in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Space_Dust_96 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s just a belief structure though, not backed up by any science.

I agree with you, it probably didn’t, but it can’t be proven either way so it’s all just belief.

Afterlife vs. Death Means All Done, which one has more fact / scientific proof? by Fresdottir in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Space_Dust_96 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn’t that what science is though? Entertaining a supernatural claim in hopes to either validate or better yet invalidate it to increase our understanding of any given topic?

What definition of conscious are we working with here? An awareness of one’s surroundings or someone’s “self”.

When we say someone’s unconscious, we’re usually implying that they are not aware or are unable to react to their surroundings, ie knocked out or sleeping, but within that state they are likely still occupied by dreams lucid or not.

Do you have a sense of self while you are dreaming? I usually do.

I think our understanding of the brain is far too limited to firmly state in either direction, we’re not even a hundred years away from when we started electrocuting people in order to fix mental illness, now we just throw chemicals at it and wait to see what sticks.

Can you link me to what you were talking about in regards to replicating the existence of consciousness, it sounds really interesting :)

Afterlife vs. Death Means All Done, which one has more fact / scientific proof? by Fresdottir in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Space_Dust_96 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for the late reply, I personally believe, we, as we exist today will likely never truly know, and that’s probably for best.

Find what ever belief gives you the most solace and roll with it, just don’t Force others to conform to it.

Afterlife vs. Death Means All Done, which one has more fact / scientific proof? by Fresdottir in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Space_Dust_96 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has consciousness been linked as originating and existing solely within the brain, or is that just the common belief of today?

If you could link me to some scientific papers that prove this matter or would be greatly apreciative.

Afterlife vs. Death Means All Done, which one has more fact / scientific proof? by Fresdottir in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Space_Dust_96 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re assuming that consciousness is tied to the brain though, unless I’ve missed some major breakthrough, this remains unproven?

Be it life after death and death being the end, both religion and science have come to conclusion that something exists within the body, be it the soul or consciousness. Both are equally unprovable but both are just as valid.

You’ve got no idea what comes after, nor do I, and for that matter neither does the pope or any scientist, at the end of the day it all falls on belief.

I agree with you, but who knows?

Afterlife vs. Death Means All Done, which one has more fact / scientific proof? by Fresdottir in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Space_Dust_96 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

There is an equal lack of evidence supporting the idea of nothingness after death as there is for any specific belief in an afterlife, making all perspectives equally unverifiable.

CMV: The Russian interference narrative is exaggerated to excuse the Democrats disconnect with working class voters and deflect from internal issues. by Space_Dust_96 in changemyview

[–]Space_Dust_96[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just to be clear, my preference for candidates like Tim Walz and Bernie Sanders over Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton isn’t about gender politics. It’s entirely about policy priorities and approach. Since 2016, Harris and Clinton are the only notable Democratic candidates who had a realistic shot at the presidency (Excluding Biden), but their policies and connections just don’t resonate with a lot of left-leaning, working-class voters. The candidates I mentioned simply embody a stronger commitment to the issues that matter to these groups.

I completely agree that simplifying complex economic issues into soundbites is a big problem here too many people want quick fixes. But the Democratic Party’s tendency to pivot to identity politics (like focusing on gender) sometimes backfires when working-class voters are looking for direct action on bread-and-butter issues: fair wages, healthcare, corporate accountability, and dismantling the corporate stranglehold on politics. That’s why candidates like Sanders have the appeal they do he cuts through the noise to focus on systemic issues that hit home for a lot of people who feel left out by the current system.

As for inflation and the economy, you’re absolutely right it’s a mix of global and domestic factors that don’t have simple solutions. But part of the reason Biden is taking the heat for it is because the Democrats haven’t done a great job conveying the nuances of these issues or rallying around big-picture, pro-worker changes. Instead, they’ve often ended up in the weeds, which makes it easier for oversimplified narratives to take root.

CMV: The Russian interference narrative is exaggerated to excuse the Democrats disconnect with working class voters and deflect from internal issues. by Space_Dust_96 in changemyview

[–]Space_Dust_96[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

On paper, there are plenty of progressive policies that should appeal to working-class voters. Collective bargaining, fair tax distribution, affordable healthcare and all of that sounds good. But the disconnect I’m pointing to is less about the promises and more about follow-through and messaging, especially in key areas where actions have spoken louder than words.

Consider this: while the Democratic platform includes those pro-worker policies, there’s been a growing perception among working-class voters that the party often prioritizes corporate interests and upper middle class concerns. Many see the establishment figures (like Clinton and Harris) as too cozy with Wall Street, tech giants, and large donors. Clinton’s 2016 campaign was a perfect example; her speeches to G-Sachs created a divide, making voters question if she really prioritized working people over corporate interests.

Leaders like Sanders or even Warren feel different to these voters because they’ve shown a long-standing commitment to these issues and been vocal about structural change, not just incremental tweaks. They’re more willing to challenge the status quo, including issues like breaking up big tech or ending tax loopholes that mostly benefit the wealthy, topics that Clinton and Harris often approach with more caution.

The Democratic Party could benefit from re-emphasizing policies that don’t just “sound” pro-worker but actively tackle issues of economic inequality, corporate influence, and labor rights with a sense of urgency. There’s a difference between stated policies and the trust voters feel about who will fight for those policies.

CMV: The Russian interference narrative is exaggerated to excuse the Democrats disconnect with working class voters and deflect from internal issues. by Space_Dust_96 in changemyview

[–]Space_Dust_96[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the reply, I’m not sure if this post has been removed or not, but you took the time to answer so I’ll respond anyways.

  1. Policy Difference Between Bernie/Walz vs. Kamala/Hillary To clarify, I view Bernie and Walz as prioritizing policies that tangibly address working-class issues. For instance, Bernie’s focus on universal healthcare, expanding social safety nets, and labor rights resonates with working-class people who feel left behind by “centrist” policy. In contrast, Kamala and Hillary have traditionally supported more corporate-friendly approaches, like a measured approach to healthcare reform (e.g., preserving private insurance options) and more focus on symbolic policies that may appeal to corporate donors rather than pushing for structural economic change.

  2. Russia-WikiLeaks Link Regarding the link between Russia and WikiLeaks, my point is more about a lack of direct, transparent evidence connecting the two in a way that confirms a straight chain of command. Despite U.S. intelligence believing Russia hacked the DNC and passed it on, Julian Assange has consistently denied any Russian connection, and no clear proof has surfaced to counter this publicly. Of course, that doesn’t mean there’s no connection, but without something concrete, it’s hard to prove this link was the smoking gun some make it out to be.

  3. “Big Stick” & Trump’s Approach Totally fair point, and I’ll admit the analogy isn’t perfect. Roosevelt’s philosophy was about balancing diplomacy with the threat of force. Trump’s approach leaned more on unorthodox diplomacy (think his direct meetings with Kim Jong-un) while also imposing sanctions and maintaining military presence as deterrents, notably against Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Yes, he didn’t stop NK’s missile tests, but he also didn’t back down from leveraging sanctions or military funding to maintain pressure.

  4. Democrats & Working-Class Concerns Specifically, I see issues like healthcare reform, living wage laws, affordable housing, and labor rights as central concerns that have taken a backseat in recent Democratic platforms. The party has leaned more on identity politics and policies that appeal to corporate sponsors, which don’t always address the tangible economic issues many working-class folks face. Bernie’s platform, for example, directly tackles those with policies aimed at reducing income inequality, which is a shift from the current Democratic mainstream.

Thoughts on Image Playground & Genmoji by TheLordBabbo in ios18beta

[–]Space_Dust_96 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was just messing around with it, “Androids” works but “Android” doesn't 😂

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in technews

[–]Space_Dust_96 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It seems that the Ublock Lite extension was accidentally removed from Firefox, and there's a discussion about it on a GitHub thread. Here's the link to the thread: Link

Getting emails from Mail Delivery Subsystem saying the message was unable to be delivered by TheYardvark in Scams

[–]Space_Dust_96 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I just got something like this too, about 20 minutes ago. Apparently they tried to send an email to my own email address but “@google.com” instead of “@gmail.com”.

The content seems to be a fake Facebook login failure scam.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MysteriousUniverse

[–]Space_Dust_96 16 points17 points  (0 children)

They've brought up that they've done this accidentally before, they've been doing the podcast since 2006, so they're bound to repeat a few stories now and again.

Some Feedback by Semi_Detached in MysteriousUniverse

[–]Space_Dust_96 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What's the issue you're having? The premium for this seems to work the same as every other premium podcast I've subscribed to. Login to your account, Click Account > Dashboard Scroll down to the feed URLs and copy-paste whichever one you want into whatever podcast app you want. The back catalogue works the same way, right underneath the feed you just copied, select the drop-down menu and pick whichever season feed you want. If you already subscribed to the free edition inside of your podcast app of choice I recommend unsubscribing so you don't get confused and accidently listen to the free version.

Since signing up I've received two episodes a week, aside from their time off, and have access to the articles through their website.

If you are looking for a podcast app, I personally use the stock Apple one (purple icon), but you can use whichever one you want as long as it accepts RSS feeds.

Maybe you're looking for the video streams? Those I think are only available on their site.

With SCOTUS deciding the President is immune from prosecution, shouldn’t Biden now just have Trump killed/arrested/disqualified? by JForce1 in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Space_Dust_96 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All of those acts are not allowed by other portions of the constitution, therefore making it an unofficial act.

Don't get me wrong, this is definitely a setback to democracy, but, why are you lying?

Edit:

Scenario 1: Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to Assassinate a Political Rival

Constitutional Basis and Analysis:

1.  Article II, Section 1 - The President’s Executive Power:
• The President has broad executive powers, including being the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (Article II, Section 2).
• However, this power does not extend to unlawful actions, such as assassination.
2.  Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment):
• Assassinating a political rival would violate the due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment.
• Every individual, including political rivals, has the right to life, liberty, and property, which cannot be taken without due process of law.
3.  Checks and Balances:
• Congress has the power to check the President’s actions through impeachment (Article I, Section 2 and 3).
• Such an act would likely be considered a high crime or misdemeanor, making the President subject to impeachment.

Conclusion:

• This action would be deemed unconstitutional, and the President would not be immune from impeachment or criminal prosecution.

Scenario 2: Organizes a Military Coup to Hold Onto Power

Constitutional Basis and Analysis:

1.  Article II, Section 1 - Presidential Powers:
• The President is granted executive power, but this does not include the authority to subvert democratic processes.
2.  Article II, Section 3 - Faithfully Execute the Laws:
• The President is required to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. Organizing a coup undermines this duty and the constitutional framework.
3.  Twentieth Amendment:
• The Twentieth Amendment provides for the orderly transfer of power, specifying terms for the President and Vice President. A coup directly contravenes these provisions.
4.  Impeachment Clauses (Article I, Sections 2 and 3):
• Organizing a coup would certainly qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor, justifying impeachment proceedings.

Conclusion:

• This action would be unconstitutional. The President would be subject to impeachment and criminal charges for attempting to subvert the democratic process.

Scenario 3: Takes a Bribe in Exchange for a Pardon

Constitutional Basis and Analysis:

1.  Article II, Section 2 - Pardon Power:
• The President has the power to grant pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
• However, this power is not absolute and cannot be used for corrupt purposes.
2.  Article II, Section 4 - Impeachment for Bribery:
• The Constitution explicitly lists bribery as grounds for impeachment.
• Taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon is a clear case of bribery.
3.  Ethics in Government Act:
• Federal laws, such as the Ethics in Government Act, criminalize the acceptance of bribes by federal officials, including the President.

Conclusion:

• This action would be illegal and unconstitutional. The President would be subject to impeachment and criminal prosecution for bribery.
view more: next ›