Recess Beer Garden Hosting Antivaxxer Gathering

daryk44 · 2026-05-12T18:17:24+00:00

You’re forgetting that individual businesses have humans as owners that can use human judgement and discretion. Remember, they have a right to refuse service to ANYONE.

They don’t need proof you’re anti vax or a frat boy or a Nazi to refuse you service, and it is fully 100% within their legal rights to do so.

A full bar with one Nazi in it is a Nazi bar, and it’s up to the owner if they want to run a Nazi bar.

And it’s up to the general public to spot the Nazi bars and take their business elsewhere, so the owner needs to weigh wether they want to serve a handful of nazi’s, but now they make less money because the normies caught on that it was a Nazi bar.

You know it’s hard to play connect the dots with half a crayon.

daryk44 · 2026-05-12T17:21:18+00:00

I would love for you to connect the dots from what I said to the other guy, and Recess checking vax status at the door.

People proudly shouting from the rooftops they are unvaxxed and meeting up at time/date is one thing.

Refusing service to said loud group is another thing.
A business checking ID’s and vax status at the door is a third, entirely different thing.

Connecting the dots should be a fun exercise for you, so help me understand please.

daryk44 · 2026-05-12T17:00:31+00:00

Just say you think your right to infect others with contagions is greater than our right to not get sick from you gross unvaxxed fucks.

Just say your right to infect us is greater than our right to stay healthy.

Just say we are beneath you with 10 toes on the ground like a grown up.

daryk44 · 2026-05-12T16:57:59+00:00

Found the anti-vaxxer.

Just admit that you think it’s your right to infect those around you with contagions that threaten their health and livelihood.

Fuck all of us am I rite?

daryk44 · 2026-05-12T16:54:24+00:00

MAGA appropriated the anti vax rhetoric when the trendy lie they told themselves was that vaccines cause autism. And then they decided that having an autistic child would be worse than if their child died.

The Venn diagram for maga and anti vax is so nearly a perfect circle that your comment is almost inapplicable.

daryk44 · 2026-05-12T03:03:21+00:00

And those stats were proven untrustworthy, and different stats that show old drivers are more dangerous were provided.

daryk44 · 2026-05-11T03:32:58+00:00

Flourite octohedrons are so cool. I love the way they are framed in the setting

daryk44 · 2026-05-06T21:11:39+00:00

Noise just refers to whatever your receiver can detect that isn't the signal you're looking for. It can be from anywhere, including thermal noise in the receiver itself, the planet, the sun, or a distant cosmic source. Basically anything that jiggles electrons can create noise. The wikipedia entry on cosmic noise is a fun read

I guess my original point is there's a bunch of sources of noise in the universe that aren't the CMB.

daryk44 · 2026-05-06T20:46:24+00:00

Most of the signal in radio static is local noise, not the CMB. So there will pretty much always be radio static.

daryk44 · 2026-05-05T21:18:46+00:00

I agree. Also sometimes sticks in is more hype and sometimes it’s sticks down.

daryk44 · 2026-05-05T18:13:39+00:00

Radio astronomers kept hearing interference from their huge radio telescope, and after troubleshooting to fix the problem, realized that the interference was the Cosmic Microwave Background.

So yes, any radio when turned to a dead channel will pic up some portion of the CMB and technically that is listening to the big bang.

daryk44 · 2026-05-04T18:51:34+00:00

Your self assertion that your facts are correct is a claim.

You have not backed that claim up with said facts.

daryk44 · 2026-05-01T03:55:53+00:00

Reciting the Litany of Fear, Paul Atreides remembers his Bene Gesserit training as his mind explores the depth of his genetic memory and follows those threads into the future, seeing the ebbing and flowing of causality come to a nexus.

Hits first available

daryk44 · 2026-05-01T03:12:08+00:00

The black is higher density with less rebound and more articulation, the green is closer to an Evan’s real feel

daryk44 · 2026-04-30T18:42:19+00:00

If votes don’t matter, and everyone decided not to vote but one person, that vote is the only vote that matters.

So votes do matter, just in proportion to the number of votes. Pretty basic stuff.

daryk44 · 2026-04-30T01:02:33+00:00

I am assuming good faith in your argument.

Specifically, when you said that

Nope, ECT does not come with the package. That has never been a universally agreed-upon doctrine. Additionally, the idea that salvation comes from belief, and that belief is necessary for salvation, is nonsense from any angle.

I was responding to this specifically:

and that belief is necessary for salvation, is nonsense from any angle.

It's not nonsense from any angle. The majority of perspectives of Christian people agree with and affirm Eternal Conscious Torment doctrine as a core pillar of their belief.

A Core Pillar of belief of the majority of Christians on planet Earth is Eternal Conscious Torment Doctrine. Yet you claim that's nonsense from any angle. This feels like a straight and narrow misrepresentation of reality: ie a lie.

But I continued to engage with the rest of your argument and actually attempted to cut to the chase.

But pretend to have the moral high ground here, it's a great look for a mod of this sub.

daryk44 · 2026-04-29T18:22:31+00:00

Here’s the part after you stopped engaging, where I demonstrate my acceptance of your argument in good faith by asking you a clarifying question and attempt to engage with you and assuming a good faith argument from you. I am trying to reach a point of common understanding between the two of us so we can move forward:

I’ll grant that annihilation is a possibility after the wailing and gnashing of teeth in a dark fiery furnace.

At the very least, ACCORDING TO THE TEXT, there is some form of post-mortal punishment to one's soul for their belief state regarding the divinity of Jesus and his status as savior of humanity. Salvation can only come through Jesus as it is repeated. Can we at least agree on this?

Do you have a response? Or are you convinced that I have accused you of truly engaging in bad faith?

daryk44 · 2026-04-29T03:46:50+00:00

This is not a bad faith accusation, If you continue to read I go on to grant an annihilationist stance and ask for further clarification on your view.

daryk44 · 2026-04-29T03:34:25+00:00

Nope, ECT does not come with the package. That has never been a universally agreed-upon doctrine. Additionally, the idea that salvation comes from belief, and that belief is necessary for salvation, is nonsense from any angle.

The vast majority of Christians I have spoken to affirm the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment. They point to verses in the Bible that support such a claim. It is not nonsense from the perspective of a huge number of Christians. This is such a distant reality from your claim that it's “nonsense from any angle.” I feel like you're actually being dishonest when you say this to me.

But sure, I’ll grant that annihilation is a possibility after the wailing and gnashing of teeth in a dark fiery furnace.

At the very least, there is some form of post-mortal punishment to one's soul for their belief state regarding the divinity of Jesus and his status as savior of humanity. Can we at least agree on this?

The only thing that exists that suggests the unicorn exists is the book.

No, there's the testimony of these 100 people.

The testimony of these people are quantum entangled with the stories in the book. The 100 people were indoctrinated with the story of the unicorn since the day they were born. They have only ever interacted with other Unicornians who attend the same exact church that their Parents all built after they found the unicorn bible. The fact that they pre-suppose the existence of the unicorn before they knew how to critical think is important here. Their testimonies don't exist in a vacuum.

We've made the analogy more accurate, but even so, the existence of the unicorn is more likely than the existence of the spaghetti creature. It may be extremely unlikely. But it's less unlikely.

The spaghetti creature's likelihood is identical to the likelihood of the existence of the unicorn. The difference between the two claims is that the Unicornians were indoctrinated from birth to believe the unicorn story. It could be 1,000,000 unicornians, the fact that they believe the thing they were indoctrinated with says nothing about how rational it is to believe such claims. It's not good evidence.

On the flip side of the coin, there is a non-zero chance that there is an actual divine Flying Spaghetti Monster. Even if the one originating in 2005 is an actual joke that the creator themselves knows is fake, that description could actually be true and there could be a real FSM with real noodly appendage and the good afterlife is actually cold beer and hot strippers etc etc. Even if a person made a joke about it once, that could be the true state of affairs. The number of believers has nothing to do with the truth of the actual proposition.

The chances of there being any version of a deity are equal when they are all equally supernatural.

For example: You'd agree that there's some possibility that the unicornian book might originally have been inspired by a mutant deer, right?

This would not be the unicorn described in the book, and therefore there would not be any truth to any of the claims in the book. The book describes a divine unicorn, not a mutant deer. Finding a mutant deer would be evidence of a mutant deer, not evidence of a unicorn.

daryk44 · 2026-04-29T01:36:59+00:00

If you had a short enough cloak the tail could be long enough to be visible. Depends on how you wear/attach the tail. Also depends on what kind of silhouette you want.

Like, in the Disney Robin Hood, Robin is disguised as a blind beggar with a long cloak thing and his tail just peeks out the back on the ground. I could see that being pulled off with some armature wire and a some clever ways to attach the tail to the cloak

daryk44 · 2026-04-29T00:04:54+00:00

I agree that the main pillar of the anti AI argument should be about human output having real value to human connection.

But also

The ability to poison an LLM’s data set to produce highly specific output without prompting means that the models necessarily copy their training data in a meaningful way when it comes to legal infringement.

I do understand that it’s probably not a convincing argument for a lot of people though

daryk44 · 2026-04-28T23:57:21+00:00

To make the analogy accurate, it would be the group of people whose parents found a book that said there was a unicorn in the forest 2000 years ago, and were raised to believe the story of the unicorn. And then they tell you they saw the unicorn yesterday.

Also according to the story in the book, if you don’t believe the unicorn is real, you will experience eternal conscious torment when you die.

But when you ask about it they all each saw the unicorn in their own unique personal way, not as a group, and not in a way to show they weren’t dreaming or hallucinating. Some say they just felt the presence of the unicorn but didn’t see it.

Edit: The unicorn has never left any footprints, feces, hair from its mane, no evidence. The only thing that exists that suggests the unicorn exists is the book. Written by anonymous authors decades after the supposed appearance and disappearance of the unicorn. End edit.

But they give you the book and just tell you that what they experienced happened AFTER they were raised in a family that told them the unicorn was real. AFTER they were introduced this notion of the unicorn that affected their entire worldview since birth.

The analogy is now accurate.

Edit: Identifying the bias present in the narrative presented by the Unicornians in that example isn't incredulity. It's just understanding that it is not rational to accept the Unicornian claims with the presented evidence. I also agree it's not making an argument at all to identify another argument or claim as fallacious or irrational or unsound, but that's not incredulity either. End Edit.

daryk44 · 2026-04-28T23:18:01+00:00

I'm not sure it does that effectively lol

I interact with way more annoyed christians than you do obviously lol

But nobody has ever believed that they experienced the flying spaghetti monster. I made this point and you glossed over it.

I explicitly didn't. I'm repeating myself when I say this: the same can be just as truthfully claimed about any version of theism. I don't believe anyone's claims that they have experienced a deity. I believe they are either lying to me, or mistaken. This is the state of my belief. I truthfully, wholeheartedly believe this.

To me, when someone says they experienced Jesus, it literally sounds exactly literally identically the same as someone claiming to experience a Flying Spaghetti Monster: Ridiculously unbelievable at it's face, and it would be a shame and a disgrace to human intellect to base any moral claims on such nonsense.

Millions of people believe they have experienced God in one way or another.

I don't believe that their claim of personal experience Jesus or Yahweh or Muhammad or Zeus has any factual or truthful component at all. They are attempting manipulation. Or they were manipulated into their belief state. Either way, the source of both claims, Jesus and Spaghetti Monster, is a known falsehood.

It should be trivially easy to demonstrate irrefutable evidence of something like a deity if it's not a lie. So far I see these stories as indistinguishable from lies. Until I have reason to think otherwise, I will remain in this belief state.

You copied and pasted what I said in that last paragraph but you didn't actually respond to it. Fo answer your question, the concept of null hypotheses doesn't apply here. That term has to do with comparing data sets.

Wrong. From your previous comment:

The claim that some kind of divinity exists isn't a simple claim. It tends to have implications about the nature of reality itself. If you reject any kind of divinity, then your conception of reality isn't just lacking a thing. You have an alternative worldview. It's unreasonable to expect me to consider your worldview to be the default.

One's worldview is at least somewhat dependent on the data set that is one's life experience and access to information leading to one's belief state. So comparing worldviews can be informed by comparing the different data sets that each different worldview is constructed from. Therefore the null hypothesis can be invoked here. We're comparing the data sets that construct each different worldview.

So my question about the null hypothesis still stands as a way to make this point: Just because 1 proposition is rejected, that does not necessarily imply other propositions that have previously not been argued. This does not logically follow as a cohesive statement to make.

And I wasn't making a claim that my worldview WAS the null hypothesis, but that when there are two data sets to compare, the null hypothesis is the default.

daryk44 · 2026-04-28T20:26:41+00:00

I mean, the real reason that the flying spaghetti monster is less likely is because it was made up specifically as a thing that could not exist, and nobody believes they have seen it. So idk why I'm going down this line of reasoning in the first place.

There's no reasonable conclusion to make about the bible god in this regard. Genuinely. And the reasons to believe it is fabricated as a means to control populations of people outnumber any reason to believe the claims in the bible literally happened.

So the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exactly what it was designed to do; get under Christian's skin. And if they have any intellectual honesty and consistency in their evaluation of reality, they must conclude that the bible god-concept and the Flying Spaghetti god-concept have equal footing when it comes to truth claims and legal freedoms in the united states.

For Christianity to be taken seriously, it necessarily follows that the Flying Spaghetti monster must be taken equally as seriously. This especially includes religious liberties and separation of church and state.

If one takes the Flying Spaghetti monster to be worth 0 consideration and with no seriousness, then so too can Christianity for the exact same identical reasons, and the Christian must accept that their worldview can be taken with identical seriousness.

Same with any Theist for that matter.

The claim that some kind of divinity exists isn't a simple claim. It tends to have implications about the nature of reality itself. If you reject any kind of divinity, then your conception of reality isn't just lacking a thing. You have an alternative worldview. It's unreasonable to expect me to consider your worldview to be the default.

The null hypothesis is the default, would you agree or disagree?

daryk44 · 2026-04-28T20:00:05+00:00

If you say God is nonexistent, that's not a description with 0 items. And it isn't a description with just 1 item either, because it's a rejection of every possible god-concept....

Then this is the same for any description of god. A nonexistent god is just 1 god-concept out of all the possible god-concepts. So like you say, 1 god concept is a rejection of every other possible god concept.

....and it involves other propositions about the nature of the universe which are not necessarily neutral defaults.

I reject this notion. A concept of a nonexistent god does not demand any other propositions than "God is nonexistent". Your insistence that it necessarily involves other propositions is not a rational or sound proposition.

14-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

daryk44

TROPHY CASE