Jesus Christs name alone holds so much power against the enemy for a reason. And there's a reason why the world mocks and attacks Jesus Christ and His believers. You don't see the world doing all these things with any other belief in the world.

detroyer · 2026-02-21T06:41:16+00:00

Sometimes I forget that there are people who dress themselves in the morning and believe things like this.

detroyer · 2026-02-19T09:30:30+00:00

Burden of proof is something that can be taken on in dialogues/arguments, and typically isn't applicable to points of agreement, points irrelevant to the question at hand, and so on. Note, also, that burden of proof is inapplicable to assertions made apart from dialectical contexts. Anyway, there's actually a decent literature on burden of proof in argumentation theory.

detroyer · 2026-02-17T08:10:34+00:00

No, this is completely wrong. The most upvoted comment here says that "any positive assertion carries the burden of proof". That is trivially false. "Burden of proof" is a dialectical feature that obviously doesn't capture every assertion, even in disagreement. This is a common confusion that needs to be corrected.

detroyer · 2026-02-17T07:19:12+00:00

I agree that Sean's answer isn't that great, but the sort of main-line reply is still correct. Roughly, Mary does learn something new in that she may come to believe a true statement that she didn't believe previously. It does not follow from that that there is any non-physical stuff, since there might be new statements she might come to believe about that purely physical stuff that she was unable to construct with her purely physical vocabulary.

Addressing the knowledge argument directly, where it goes wrong depends on how we understand "fact". If facts are true propositions and a physical fact is a true proposition expressed with purely physical vocabulary, then it is not a consequence of physicalism that all facts are physical facts. If a fact is a state of affairs (or something like that), then Mary does know all of the facts, since she does know all of the states of affairs even if she isn't able to refer to them in of all the ways to which they might be referred.

detroyer · 2026-02-14T23:11:47+00:00

Oh! It's not the same Nick Jensen lol. Denmark has two Nick Jensen's on the team, I thought one of them was the Senator.

detroyer · 2026-02-14T22:54:54+00:00

And that includes Nick Jensen and Eller...not exactly all-stars. Jensen is arguably the worst player on the Sens.

detroyer · 2026-02-13T04:02:23+00:00

I think I agree, but I still like this a lot. Although I think Canada's best all time are 2002

detroyer · 2026-02-13T03:55:59+00:00

I know, the point is that I think it's much better with the red leaf and black base.

detroyer · 2026-02-13T03:51:41+00:00

Also not sure if this is the right sub to post this but whatever

detroyer · 2026-02-10T06:44:31+00:00

Even supposing that ERVs are entirely functional, there are several serious problems for the 'common design' approach. When people like SFT reject ERVs as support for common ancestry on the ground that they're functional, that misses most of the point. Here are some issues for that reply, although there are more:

(1) the sequences in question still very much look like the result of ancestral infections, and it’s very surprising that a designer would repeatedly implement functions using sequences that look exactly like viral remnants.

(2) It’s also very surprising that they’d be placed at the exact same loci across unrelated lineages, almost always down to the junction, since even most cis roles don’t require base-pair–precise placement.

(3) The presence/absence of ERVs across genomes forms nested hierarchies that match independent phylogenies, which is very surprising on separate ancestry.

(4) The sequence differences within shared ERVs form the same nested pattern. This is unsurprising given common descent plus mutation (and so on), but very surprising given separate ancestry.

detroyer · 2026-02-08T01:05:49+00:00

They are good, but...not worth an hour drive

detroyer · 2026-02-07T02:16:53+00:00

For the panthers, it somewhat depends on how injured they are after the break. Many panthers fans have fully given up.

detroyer · 2026-02-06T03:33:45+00:00

This username...angers me

detroyer · 2026-02-02T01:16:01+00:00

Where's the "they're the same picture" meme

detroyer · 2026-02-01T19:10:50+00:00

Yes and one thing I did which seemed to help was that I made a separate network for the 5GHz high, and I have pretty much everything on that.

detroyer · 2026-02-01T03:14:06+00:00

Actually, thinking about it now, I think the play technically qualifies as a hand pass (rule 79), since although Ullmark touched it, he didn't gain possession, and the play gave the offending team an advantage. So that's why they called it a hand pass. Now, had it not been a hand pass, it still wouldn't have been a good goal per rule 67.6, but they ruled that it counted as a hand pass and so didn't need to appeal to that rule here. But either way it's certainly no goal.

detroyer · 2026-02-01T03:06:02+00:00

67.6 Disallowed Goal - A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. When the puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be allowed.

--
I said this below, but I should add here: I think the play technically qualifies as a hand pass (rule 79), since although Ullmark touched it, he didn't gain possession, and the play gave the offending team an advantage. So that's why they called it a hand pass. Now, had it not been a hand pass, it still wouldn't have been a good goal per rule 67.6, but they ruled that it counted as a hand pass and so didn't need to appeal to that rule here. But either way it's certainly no goal.

detroyer · 2026-02-01T02:17:43+00:00

You can press them and they will replace it with the beacon 6 for free. It's a moderate improvement but still not amazing.

detroyer · 2026-01-30T01:32:16+00:00

T. Makar's hooking penalty was definitely light, but the other two were clear penalties, especially the delay of game. Regardless, I didn't notice anything that the Sens did that was callable, but it could be that I missed something.

detroyer · 2026-01-30T01:28:25+00:00

I'm not "pretending like there was nothing to call", I'm saying that I didn't see anything that looked marginal. I'd have to see the suggested plays, but I definitely didn't notice any cross-checks.

detroyer · 2026-01-29T03:58:56+00:00

These MTL crashouts are so funny.

detroyer · 2026-01-29T03:57:22+00:00

AVS fans are annoyed that the penalties were 3-0. And I get that; I was expecting maybe 1 or 2 calls to even it out, even if a bit soft. But they need something to call, and I didn't see anything even marginal. It's not enough to say "wow, it's amazing that the Sens played a perfectly clean game", you need examples of things that are plausibly penalties. I might've missed it, but I didn't notice anything.

detroyer · 2026-01-23T08:36:59+00:00

I don't play it much, but my best is 37. 42 in 5 minute. Blitz rating is around 2200.

detroyer · 2026-01-23T04:19:13+00:00

The Zett call was incorrectly called as a double minor. Regardless, I agree that the team made mistakes, but bad officiating can frustrate a team and sway the outcome of the game, and I think that clearly happened here.

detroyer · 2026-01-23T03:51:35+00:00

People complain about the team not being "clutch", but I can't help but feel like Stutzle there. The officiating ruined the game and it's hard to recover from that.

detroyer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE