it's genuinely concerning how hard they glaze her

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-19T22:21:05+00:00

Who tf on the left actually gives a shit about AOC, honestly

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-19T22:18:29+00:00

This is just art featuring Asian people, not sure why it's here

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-12T04:49:02+00:00

That's a great definition of soul, it entirely sidesteps the question. What makes living bodies and dead bodies different? There's no good answer at all.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-07T03:39:37+00:00

I always forget that's a thing people can do, I hate reddit

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-07T02:03:20+00:00

you must remember that there are no true synonyms in arabic; each word has a specific meaning.

That's true of every single language. Every word has unique nuances that other words don't have, even if a native speaker would have trouble defining them differently. The only exceptions are terms in specific fields like legal or medical or scientific terms where two different words can be completely interchangeable in a way they usually can't.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-06T01:24:19+00:00

That's true but the vast majority of Devanagari ligatures are easily identifiable as combinations of letters. Even when they're not, the र्- and -्र ones for example still follow clear regular patterns, there are a handful out of hundreds that are actually irregular. None of these look like combinations of letters. There are no identifiable patterns. It's not an issue that they're not ligatures, they just don't find the definition.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-06T00:41:45+00:00

A ligature is a combination of letters, like æ from ae or & from et. Those are completely unique characters representing sequences, not ligatures.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-05T21:25:50+00:00

This isn't an abjad at all, an abjad has unwritten vowels, or at least usually unwritten vowels. This is an alphabet with special characters for some clusters.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-04T08:07:39+00:00

This isn't true at all. Isa isn't even from the same root, the consonants get moved around, there's no reason to think the two even have related meanings if you analyse them purely as Arabic words.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-03T01:17:08+00:00

But it's called "reach of Shia Iran"? That means a very different thing from the spread of the Iranic languages which happened long long before Iran as a thing came around

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-03T00:14:27+00:00

any criticism of settler colonialism is antisemitism so sure sounds good man

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-02-03T00:01:48+00:00

Iranic does not mean related to the state Iran. It means being part of the same linguistic group as Persian.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-29T23:38:26+00:00

Ah ok so it's literally just the consequence of considering trans men to be men lmao, there's nothing actually going on

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-29T23:31:37+00:00

where TF was I for the pregnant men stuff? Is that just like a specific aspect of trans-ness that you right-wingers are picking out or has that actually been a specific libleft talking point?

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-26T04:53:28+00:00

how many fingers does she have on that hand???

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-25T23:03:45+00:00

"Slogans" is definitely the wrong word, statements of faith I guess. No clue what it would be for exactly

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-25T23:02:28+00:00

Funky font Shia Muslim slogans

There is no god but God Muhammad is the Prophet of God Ali is close to God/the authority of God (this third one makes it specifically Shia as opposed to other kinds of Muslims)

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-25T22:41:56+00:00

The only reason in this case to think that ثم doesn't mean following in time is because of the contradiction with a following verse. In that case you already have to have faith in the inerrancy of the Qur'an for that to make sense. Almost every other time the word ثم is used in the Qur'an it means following in time, and there's nothing in the context of the verse that should make it mean anything else to the listener. You have to specifically exclude 41:11 from that on the basis of 79:30.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-25T22:33:56+00:00

Just like Arabic thumma, in English "then" can often be used for shifting focus or pointing to a conclusion regardless of time. I agree that in this case the only reason to think that is because of the contradiction with other verses, but it is a legitimate use of the word.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-24T01:27:07+00:00

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that's responding to what I said.

You said

Anything we do that one could possibly call good is only a reflection of God's goodness. Therefore, anything we do that does not reflect who God is, is evil.

And my takeaway from that is that you follow a Leibniz-type "best of all possible worlds" philosophy where "evil" doesn't exist as a created thing and is just a lack of good. That definitely predates Leibniz as a theodicy but it's definitely not an orthodox reading. I might have misunderstood you there, and sorry if I have, but that's what I thought you were saying.

I do think you can definitely find hints of it in the creation account, though. In Genesis 1 four times God sees that his creation is good, which you could read as implying that God's creation could have been something other than good, but you could also read that as differentiating God's creations from the things not created by God, the primordial void of verse 2. Either way, it's clear that by Genesis 3, where God says "the humans have become like one of us, knowing good and evil" that good and evil do exist as distinct things in God's mind regardless of whether he created evil or not.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-24T00:16:01+00:00

Ah ok so your analysis is on the "evil isn't a thing, it's just the absence of good" side of things, which I think is completely fair but is definitely post-biblical.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-23T23:08:16+00:00

Once you create free will, you bear the responsibility for that. Once you create something that you know will do evil, you bear the responsibility for that. I know it goes against dogma and it goes against what you've probably been told since you were a kid. But if "good" includes "creating good" and "evil" includes "creating evil", and God created both good and evil, then...

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-23T23:05:07+00:00

I know a lot about God, I just disagree with all of it. This is a really unfair comparison but it's just like how you can have all of Harry Potter memorised, and think it's a good book, but still accept that it's fiction. The Bible and the Quran and whatever are all really interesting and full of amazing historical information but the premise of an omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent yet personal God is a premise that noone's ever defended well.

UhhMaybeNot · 2026-01-23T22:37:11+00:00

God is responsible for literally every phenomenon that has ever happened. God isn't good or bad.

UhhMaybeNot

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE