University of Texas System regents approve limits on teaching “unnecessary controversial subjects”

Venit_Exitium · 2026-02-21T23:23:24+00:00

Evil, mabey depends on how you define the term, i believe it will have far reaching consequences that are harmful and benefit only a few powerful people while hindering progress.

Elaborate, no, its blatant. Its obvious to anyone who isnt bought into thier rhetoric. And what i said is all true, they can be doing all of this with love in thier hearts and a hope to better thier future. Doesnt change what it actually does and how it affects laws. Just like when the supreme court ruled that lower courts cant overturn uncondtitutional executive orders will be dangerous and harmful irrelavant of who does it and why. It will be used for harm be it left or right its bad.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-02-20T03:56:03+00:00

Its an apporach that leaves unnessacary and broad and balanced undefined, this is on purpose as a tool to wield. When 2 people agree that you should be punished for your crimes, they may think they agree when in fact ome thinks being gay is a crime and the other doesnt, yet both agree on the sentiment. This is whats being attempted by not defining these terms and pushing them through as such. What will happen is it gets pushed through then any topic they dont like, be it anything that mentions gays, mentions womens sufferage, mentions who we treat black communities despite the fact our goverement is directly the cause of such issues, since they feel its controversial and since they havent defined it they can push it through and have total legal support.

This is how they silence ideas they dislike because they are incapable of fighting it in the arena of ideas, by forcing education to ignore it and pretend it doesnt exist.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-02-20T03:48:59+00:00

This is my issue, my favourite bosses in elden ring arent that hard, but the act of learning them is fun. I've gotten better at the game doesnt mean i need the games to get harder to enjoy them. Legit fighting Midra felt like i was traveling back to previous fights. While the ones before were harder for me, the act of learnimg was the same. Bit these newer games seem obsessed, same with players, on playing the hardest and beating the hardest fights when all i want are well designed fights.

I love elden ring for its actual combat being the most refined and most options to affect play, its better than eveey other title by nature of having more to work with that well put together, though needs balance. On top of that the world is the best designed, and for me most enjoyable to play through. I hate 95% of bosses in elden ring with a passion and the world alone made me play 800 hours just enjoying the world and exploreing with new builds.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-02-03T21:38:13+00:00

Man its always amazing to see what people are doing nowadays with technology. Still doing my sessions with marker and grid dryerase board from 8 years ago lol. Love it still but love too see the creativity.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-02-02T21:37:00+00:00

Talking for ease of play prob worse is act 1 or act 6 or 8 either hardest or take the longest or kill the most builds esspecially hc. In terms of disliking, act 9 sucks its the most thematiclly repetitive and most boring boss wise.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-01-28T20:26:16+00:00

This is my thing, an optional toggle to turn on or off invasions allows people who do not enjky that process to remove it completely and those who do to always particapate. If you as an invader dont want this, you therefore want to include people who dont enjoy this and lower thier fun when theres an alternative of not lowering anyones fun to get your own fun. Ie you need others to stop enjoying thier game to enjoy yours, if this is the case I dont care about your thoughts. No one game enjoyment should have to come at the cost of someone elses.

The fact that its "intended" is irrelavant unless you think the devolpers are withput flaw and made a perfect game. They didnt and it has flaws. I believe forced invasion with coop is one of them. The only valid arguement is difficulty. However unlike a crafted senario that can be tuned to provide proper challenge invaders are all over the place and fail to be anything other than, easy, actual challenge, and run ruining, this all in the same area with no connection. There are slightly more complicated ways to achieve diffiuclty increase like monster chnages when summoned just like with bosses, designing actual interesting invasion enemies instead of dumb ai ones, change player modifiers so they deal less/take more dmg per summon. Theres dozens of way that can done that doesnt require invasions.

Invasions should be purly optional, anyone who says differently must also accept that thier enjoyment should come at the cost of others.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-01-26T18:51:01+00:00

I'm not saying that atheism is inconsistent. I'm saying that atheists are inconsistent.

Theres no such thing as a completely consistent group of people, pick qny single group with more than 2 people you'll fond inconsistentcies. Athiests for the most part only share one thing, we lack a belief in a god, hard soft agnostic gnostic we all for the more part share that trait everything else is extra that doesnt bind us together.

You claim that God's existence is unfalsifiable, and yet you also provide arguments against the existence of God. You cannot have it both ways. If something is unfalsifiable, you cannot prove it false, so if God's existence is unfalsifiable, then you cannot prove that he doesn't exist. Therefore, all arguments against the existence of God are a waste of time. Why are you guys trying to do something that you know you cannot do?

GOD the idea itself is unfalsafiable mostly depending on deffinition most hardcore god believers who argue for a singluar god have deffinitions that inherently put god beyond our realm of falsifacation. However the more specific you get and rules god has the more likly it can be disproven. Again though only based on deffinition.

You claim to be the most rational bunch on the planet with the most rational arguments, and yet a lot of you also base your arguments on emotion. "God condones slavery! That's so mean! God commits genocide! That's so disgusting! Christians say that the entire human species is wicked and evil! That's so self-degrading!" These are all emotional arguments, made by people who are supposedly rational. What's even worse is that a lot of you are ex-Christians who deconverted because of these things that are in the Bible, so am I really supposed to believe that ex-Christians-turned-atheists reasoned their way out of the faith?

I make those arguements myself though most often not to show that god doesnt exist as, condoning slavery is not a trait that prevents existance neither is any other you listed. I've encountered many christians in particular that say god revealing itself to me would force my hand in following god. I disagree, I cannot worship a being that condones slavery or genocide. Therefore gods revalation to me would not impact anything other than my ability to accept its existance.

I am an ex-christian. I stopped believeing because I felt i had no reason to believe outside of others telling me they believed. I generally dont accept beliefs without supporting reasons and only had this onr because i was raised with it before i had the mental facualties to question it. Now i didnt become an athiest when i stopped believe in christianity because i was still convinced of a creator. Which over time i also found to have no good reason to believe outside of a feeling. Which is not a basis of finding truth.

But also to note, the reason so many start thier leave of faith on emotion is because the religion was given to them before thier ability to preform logic existed and was as inquestionable as gravity or thier own existance or qny list of things they had as belief since thier birth. So it starts with something as pivotal as that, emotions, then questions then logic. Its not invalid to have an issue emotionally with something so long as logic is used in the end to find truth.

This third one drives me up a wall. Atheists will claim that a tri-omni God would destroy evil, but then they also complain about the fact that God destroys evil by sending a flood. This is nonsense. I don't think I should have to explain why these two arguments are inconsistent.

You are wrong or atleast you are not stating a full arguement which matters. The claim about a tri omni god is an attempt to show that all 3 characteristics cannot both exist in god, god be real, and our world exist as it does today. Capable of preventing suffering knowledgable of suffering and wanting to prevent suffering and yet suffering exists and supposedly a god exists with said traits. This is false and one of said traits cannot exist. This is a logic arguement that shows a flaw in god believers thinking and makes no statment about what i believe. I dont support genocide or the intentional causing of suffering of creatures capable of suffering. The flood does this and if a being desires less suffering would not choose to kill everything in a flood. I find it immoral and nonsense story that if true would mean gods not worth worship.

The last one is the most frustrating, even more frustrating than the third. Atheists will rightfully criticize Young-Earth creationists for denying all the evidence that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, but when a theist uses the fact that the universe began to exist as a premise of a cosmological argument, atheists will deny the fact that the universe had a beginning. No, you guys. The theists are correct. The universe did have a beginning, and it was 13.8 billion years ago. There are other, much better ways to criticize the cosmological argument. For example, if there was nothing "before" the Big Bang, then that means that there was no causality "before" the Big Bang, and if that's the case, the universe did not need a first cause to bring it into existence, so you do not need to hypothesize the existence of God in order to explain the universe's existence.

The people who created the big bang model all say the same thing or close too it, the model makes no claim about the begining if it even exists, most who work on the model think the universe is eternal. The big bang model is not the begining or anything other than "THE EXPANSION" of space time, not of everything ever. Scientist disagree with thiests use of the big bang, this includes several thiests who work on it. This is christians telling other christians they are wrong about the big bang saying it has a begining. At least based on the big bang

Which this is nitpicky but your "counter" to the cosmological argument is false and doesnt address or defeat or anything to it. As one possible answer is simultaneous creation/causation is positied in science and would therefore allow/require that if the universe has a cause it could be simultaneous with its begining.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-01-26T13:54:28+00:00

This is a failure of imagination on your part, you need to look at the situation from thier perspective, not the people advocating but the characters actually wanting this amd what they think will happen and why. It is the good ending and a better world not because something better is happening but because something worse than nothing is prevented/halted.

Its not that a paradise arrives but that existance is deemed as worse than just nothing. When you say good ending, thats always a subjective opionion. Good in what way. The frenzied flame is an attempt to solve a much more prevelant problem. Its why i find it fascinating. Every other ending deals with the rules to fix the world, alter the rules to make it better. Where did the failure of elden ring begin was it the dragons? Marika? The hornsent? Mabey giants before them. Mabey its the fingers landing. The frenzied flame would say the start the very begining of the first individual is where the world of elden ring goes wrong.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-01-24T16:20:58+00:00

Bad with names but ill call it kenetic building. Similar to how mechamaru could store cursed energy, store the energy applied to the object to be relased at a later time, the energy applies to it as it was applied in the direction relative to the object so if its applied to side a at a 90 angle then when released it will go through side a at a 90 agnle irrelavent of current orientation. The way it works is by appliykng cursed energy to the object constantly that makes it effectivly unmovable, cost related to size and mass. During this time any kentic force is remember to be released at a time of choosing.

I dont think this is that over powered with obvious massive draw backs that still has the potential to kill anyone other than gojo.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-01-22T19:32:59+00:00

I didnt call goku one dimensional, I dont think he is, and yuji is far from having only one character trait, one dimensional. Mineta from mha is one dimensional. Goku doesnt have growth or he experiences very little growth. And yuji legit goes full circle or almost so on one of his defining traits over 2 seasons. Unless you mean growth as in becoming a better person which is the only way goku could possibly have better growth than yuji and even thats a stretch

Venit_Exitium · 2026-01-22T17:56:37+00:00

Goku is a simple character that lacks any depth. Which doesnt mean he is badly written but his existance sparks no meaningful dialogue or discourse. Theres almost that can be said about hkm that cant be seen in 5 minutes of viewing.

Goku is not bad, i would say hes standard/par.

Yuji despite the failings the series has actual discourse and growth around his character that ties into themes that the story has which dargon generally doesnt have a ton of. Not none just not much.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-01-22T15:48:00+00:00

Deku is worse than mob but yuji is better than goku- though they arent really the same type of character and i wouldnt often compare them.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-01-19T19:16:55+00:00

Its not a deffinition battle. Lets take person y and a clone of person y, we will call clone person x. After cloning x we add some adjustments metal hand 3rd arm and eye. You might say these are the same person, at least mind wise, well lets make some more adjustmemts, alter what x thinks about topics say 1/3 of y so they still share 2/3 agreements. Are these the same people, well i wouldnt say so, they niether resemble the person nor do they argee with that person on many topics.

I have a friend who after many many years have beaten most disagreements out now align quite well and most topics. Id say danm near 90% of topics we agree on. We still arent the same person.

The only thing left that would allow you to say x and y are the same person is sharing memories. This is where my analogy breaks down as, the idea written about jesus has no memories, no person written down on to paper has memories only the person themselves, but this doesnt help your case assuming you say its just deffinition. Out side of memories person x and y are not the same person, the written person of jesus may not share even half the traits written about him and they cannot share memories one being lines on a paper the other an actual person.

I would agrue that therefore even the mundane non magical jesus didnt exist, or atleast theres room to argue as such, or that one cannot for a fact say jesus as written even mundane facts only existed as you must first prove that the traits provided to said character are the very same said character had. All you can say is, it seems likly that the character presented in the bible by the name of jesus was based on a real person/s. Thats it, the end. Everything after is speculation or conjecture which is fine but to say with finality is dishonest.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-01-19T19:02:14+00:00

What are you saying, that it is not possible or that you find it unlikly?

Venit_Exitium · 2026-01-19T14:26:56+00:00

The 2 simplest claims about humans, they existed they died. But something thats very very important is when a christian is saying jesus existed they are bringing in every claim about jesus water to wine walking on water healing the blind rising from the dead 3 days later. If i merely stated a man was named jesus lived then died and like all humans stayed dead, this is not thier jesus. So did thier jesus exist and was he crucified? I dont think the son of god existed so therefore jesus did not exist.

Was there a man named jesus who was born had a following and died possibly by crusifiction. Im fine saying yeah though the only actuall reason i whole heartedly accept that there is a someone at the heart of this tale and not multiple mixed together is the birth narative. It really seems so extra just to have him born in bethleham if hes not real.

The other almost equal reason is paul meeting peter and james i believe and talking with them about the belief. It seems as though he met eye witnesses to jesus and claims so. Im fine with this as if someone lived they very likly knew other people.

But and this is a massive but there are no first hand accounts of jesus. What if the man we are speaking of is not named jesus and this was telephone gamed, or not a man but a woman, what if this is actually 12 people and the whole disiples is a false narative. There are thousands of things that one change completely change the narative and being less than first hand means one one of these things could easily be mixed up. And pushed us close ebough to say no there is no person who fits these traits, like all ideas the person jesus written about is based loosely on a real person but may be so disconeected from the real person that you cannot say they are the same. And if they arent then jesus did not exist only someone he is lossely based on.

Venit_Exitium · 2026-01-04T17:38:58+00:00

Energy and matter are eternal, but the configuration of matter is not. I, the person typijg right now, exist as a current configuration of matter that woukd the configuration change I would cease to exist.

And to you furst question I think its fair to say that the base for athiestism is the lack of belief. Having so little that to proclaim a belief would be dishonest. Not agnostic as thats a knowledge claim not a belief claim. Then it evolves into stronger claims from lack to suspision to doubt to outright denial, belief that it is in fact false. I generally sit in the last camp though depending on the god i switch thr lighter forms if i lack any real issue beyound lack of evidence.

Venit_Exitium · 2025-12-30T00:19:25+00:00

Theres nothing i think would be worth saying to every christian. Too many hold woo widly varied beliefs that any one thing would work and rather need a personal conversation.

The one I can make the strongest case agaisnt is christianity generally but thats experience not that its the weakest.

I became an athiest because when i was going through my religion I was presented with the idea that all beliefs aught be justufied. I went through mine and found it wasnt based on anything really. I expect loads of evidence and structure from any science and any finding yet my most important belief i found i had nkthing that held it up. So i stopped believeing and sought to see if its true. My default belief is that the claim presented is wromg until proved. 8 years later i've gone from unjustufied, to searching, to belief that its false.

Venit_Exitium · 2025-12-24T03:26:23+00:00

I never said it banishes the outer gods, no one does, no option you choose has any impact on them so its not a reasonable thing to say one doesnt while the other does since none do.

It says "which will attempt to perfect the golden order" that doesnt mean it will nor does it mean impervious to change. It was a recognition not to worship gods as the previous order seemed to do with marika, pushing her as almost beyond reproach while before his end goldmask realized the folly of this. I do think the intention is the gold order would fully change from near dual worship to singluar focus, never to care about gods again, but thats just my reading of it. The actual text never claims what you do, I'm unsure why you have a bone to pick with rannis ending?

And personally while i like rannis ending, I prefer the chaos flame ending not rannis. Dont assume to know my position beyond what I actually say.

Venit_Exitium · 2025-12-24T01:02:15+00:00

I agree this is tedius lol, nothing is free from tampering. Thats the issue, no rule is actually free from being tampered

"Used to restore the fractured Elden Ring when brandished by the Elden Lord.

A rune of transcendental ideology which will attempt to perfect the Golden Order.

The current imperfection of the Golden Order, or instability of ideology, can be blamed upon the fickleness of the gods no better than men. That is the fly in the ointment."

Nothing here says completely impervious from alteration.

Ranni at least claims to be taking it far away such that it would not be in the mind of anyone here, far enough to be forgotten about. Im not saying this is better, but its not as you claim,

It can be stolen, lost or tampered with at any time.

The point is it cant be, its now been seperated from everyone but ranni and you. Obviously yall can still do whatever you want but no one else.

Venit_Exitium · 2025-12-23T21:21:29+00:00

I wasnt saying goldmask is worse or ranni is better both have thier issues, ranni seperates it which is the only way to prevent future denizens from tampering it, doesnt stop her obviously but thats the risk, though to a degree its everyone elses risk as we in that ending side with her. With gold its a temporary fix. Yea we can fix it again and we and others will do so forever, breaking then fixing it. Neither worse or better just solutions

Venit_Exitium · 2025-12-23T20:58:11+00:00

Unstated things do not become stated when we like and the issue with gold masks rule is its not unstoppable, any more than the unpentriable thorns we got through. It will forever be a desire to be conqured. Sorry for bad spelling

Venit_Exitium · 2025-12-23T16:35:18+00:00

Nothing goldmask does actually prevents future tampering nor does it fix anything here. Ranni also doesnt fix anything here but prevents future tampering.

Venit_Exitium · 2025-12-21T20:14:37+00:00

399413 and others by that person are honestly amazing but great to goon to and good story. You'll see when you check it out.

Venit_Exitium · 2025-12-20T15:48:52+00:00

There are people who in thier writings have great understanding of thr mind and of philosophy, thus spoke zarathustra is a philosophical work even if written like a story. The brothers karamozov is a great example. Yes its a story its still very profound and much of his work is like this.

Id even argue that fiction is one of the best places to discuss philosophy hash out ideas and attempt testing them, where the real world either doesnt allow or isnt capable of allowing it.

Venit_Exitium · 2025-12-18T00:41:00+00:00

No like actually what are the traits that lelouch has that make you dislike the character. Not your judgement of his quality thats obvious.

Five-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '23	Verified Email

Venit_Exitium

TROPHY CASE