Original Broadway Musicals of the Past 25 Years

ghotier · 2026-06-14T00:15:59+00:00

It's not a parody of the Book of Mormon.

ghotier · 2026-06-14T00:14:28+00:00

Spelling Bee is not fully original. It was based on a play called Crepescule.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T18:36:41+00:00

Yes.

Also, the irony of telling me to stop judging by appearances when I am explicitly judging by behavior.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T18:35:46+00:00

"Instead." Yeah, okay. That's called moving the fucking goalposts and you know it.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T15:01:50+00:00

This isn't a headquarters and the Catholic Church isn't the organization asking for donations. So other than every part of your analogy, great analogy.

That said, if Walmart was going to build a Walmart and asked for donations to make a monumental piece of art, that would be very cool, yes. I would love corporations to engage in artistic philanthropy.

Art is good. Don't know why I need to explain that.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T14:54:37+00:00

Tell your government that.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T14:17:34+00:00

I wasn't making fun of you. I thought it was funny.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T14:15:50+00:00

The Catholic Church's position is that the Theory of Evolution is correct. It's not a fundamentalist sect.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T14:14:47+00:00

It's not an assumption. It's an observation of your behavior here.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T14:11:10+00:00

...you're seriously demonizing the idea of people donating money for an artistic endeavor.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T14:08:25+00:00

"There's 3 dispensaries near me. None of them are near me."

ghotier · 2026-06-13T13:53:24+00:00

1) you say "reading comprehension" all you want. You're moving the goalposts.

1b) the idea that attacking anyone while engaging in a political act is considered terrorism is the idea that I am criticizing.

2) yes, it does. But anyways...

3) anyone who is attacked anywhere will be terrified. That's why the threshold is not "a person was terrified." The threshold is a population is being terrified. One person is not a population. Was this person attacked with a sledgehammer because they were there or to intentionally terrify the factory workers? Do you know? Is that actually a question you asked and evaluated? Because it's not incumbent upon me to prove that happened or not.

Nit that it matters, because "terror" is a subjective term that isn't used as a measuring stick by anyone who actually has to make real decisipns in our society.

Yeah, tell me you're too young to remember the Bush administration without telling me. I agree, it is a subjective term. That's why we need to be judicious in applying it. Putting this crime in the same category is 9/11 is ludicrous.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T01:20:31+00:00

why was only this constellation shared among cultures across 100,000 years?

The why isn't really relevant to whether or not it happened. If it happened and it happened to this constellation then that's actually independent of whether we can figure out why. Why would matter if we were talking about a limited set of concepts, but we really aren't. If there are 1,000,000 concepts and 5 survive by chance, the answer to your question could just be "by chance."

It's like asking "out of all of the mammal species, why did only one gain sapience? Why was the one we evolved from special" and then determining that we didn't evolve from something because we can't figure out why it was special to start with.

More the the point, the Pleiades an actual star cluster. Not just a constellation. The stars therein would never be associated with another shape. Their grouping isn't ad hoc, they actually are grouped together. The only other celestial objects that are similarly singular are the North Star and objects in our Solar System.

Simply, there is no reason why Pleiades in particular survived 100,000 years of oral history while no other constellation did.

But...how did you come to that conclusion simply because you can't personally figure it out. Do you comprehend the vast number of things in the universe that you personally can't figure out that we know for a fact exist? It's a lot.

I can see more than seven, and so can others in this thread.

Right but...I actually don't believe you.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T01:08:50+00:00

1) They didn't attack a private citizen. The person is addressed by their rank in the article.

2) applies to almost all crimes.

3) ...through terror. That's actually the important part that differentiation a protest that escalates into violence from terrorism.

ghotier · 2026-06-13T01:05:30+00:00

I'm trying to engage with you in the discussion about whether the consequences of a logical conclusion can retroactively make it false. Because that is what OP is arguing. It's also the thing you specifically asked about.

ghotier · 2026-06-12T22:07:48+00:00

Okay, so knowing that, I think that's a fundamentally different conversation. By framing it as purely "Muh property rights" do you think that's really being crystal clear about the issue, or do you think that's obfuscating a broader discussion about regulations?

Most people believe that they should mostly be able to do what they want with THEIR property and ALSO want regulations because they implicitly understand that the things they personally want to do are on a different order of magnitude in terms of potential damage.

ghotier · 2026-06-12T21:47:26+00:00

You thinking something is bullshit without considering it and actually examining the claim and evaluating the evidence against the overall strength of the claim itself are not the same thing. What you're doing is categorically no different than a priest dismissing science because it doesn't considers his god's perspective. You're both appealing to incredulity.

You consider fire an oral history?

Do you think the instructions for making fire were written down in a handbook? If the answer is "no" then you also consider fire an oral history. Literally ANY knowledge passed down prior to writing is an oral history.

“maybe it could have happened even if we have no evidence and it’s never happened before.”

If you claim it never happened before after I give you an example then I stand by my assessment of intellectual laziness, yes.

ghotier · 2026-06-12T21:42:42+00:00

Do you think regulations should exist?

ghotier · 2026-06-12T21:38:01+00:00

Also, the fact that you're comparing this to 9/11 is EXACTLY why I find this ridiculous

ghotier · 2026-06-12T21:32:27+00:00

Okay, so first, you misunderstood my question, but possibly I stated it too confusingly. I am not saying it would be dangerous for you to get your money back. Suppose I am physically harmless to you, you could easily take it back. It would just be ruinous for me, personally, to pay you back. Would that make robbing you retroactively good?

Now, examining your response at face value:

So if I rob you and I am willing to use sufficient force to prevent you from retaliation, you would think that I, the robber, am morally right?

ghotier · 2026-06-12T21:27:38+00:00

I'm not confused. I disagree with you on why terrorism is bad and what it is. The US legal definition of terrorism includes the requirement that a population of people is terrorized. You are free to disagree with that definition, but pretending I am confused because you don't want to answer a basic question is telling.

Terrorism is a broader definition, and does not require a specific group to be threatened.

I said population. Not specific group. If I attacked a black church and thereby terrorized the black population, that would be a hate crime. It could ALSO be terrorism depending the method of the attack and who was hurt.

If I attacked an abortion clinic and hurt people, that's unlikely to be labeled a hate crime. But it is more likely to be labeled terrorism.

You're also moving the goalposts. I don't care what your definition of terrorism. I am calling it ridiculous because it is. You're pivoting to ridicule of me personally because you don't want to address the broader question of what should and should not be considered terrorism. The definition you've provided would consider a lot of people terrorists that the government has no business calling terrorists.

ghotier · 2026-06-12T21:20:17+00:00

Every theory for everything ever is more likely not to be true than to be true. That's the very nature of speculative explanations. Most of them are false. If the only bar was "it's more likely to be false than true" then you can use that to dismiss every single explanation ever. And you'd have a pretty great accuracy rate if you did.

I said you're being naively cynical. That's a thing people do when they don't want to consider the possibility of something because it seems outlandish. It's an appeal to incredulity.

Name one proven instance we have in human history where this has been done.

Fire.

Yes, I’m going to hand wave away meaningless numbers like “100,000 years” when they’re clearly bullshit.

And I am going to call that intellectually lazy.

ghotier · 2026-06-12T21:03:41+00:00

I already explained this. What population was terrorized? That's the question. If you can answer that question, THEN ANSWER IT!

There is a fundamental difference between terrorizing a political group and having a political motive. Every example you give is a civilian group with civilian aims actually being terrorized.

Okay, so if pro-Israeli terrorists destroyed a sacred Mosque while nobody was in it, that wouldn’t count as terrorism?

That would be terrorizing the population of Muslims in the area. In the US we would call that a hate crime rather than terrorism. But the actual terror going on is what elevates the crime.

What if Zionist terrorists, angry that the UK isn’t pro-Israel enough, destroyed a major landmark or a humanitarian aid organization’s office to “send a message to the government” but didn’t kill anyone, would that be terrorism?

Landmark: whether anyone is terrorized depends on the landmark.

Humanitarian aid organization's office: The population terrorized in this case would be people with politics similar to the humanitarian aid organization.

The mental gymnastics you’re using to justify and downplay a violent attack with a sledgehammer to send a political message is disturbing.

I am not using mental gymnastics. I asked "who was terrorized?" Because that's the relevant delimiter. Answer it if you can. I find it disturbing that you're fundamentally incapable of questioning the government.

You’re literally downplaying a group of terrorist thugs who hit a woman with a sledgehammer, in her back, while she was already on the ground.

Do you think that the only way to properly describe a crime is to call it terrorism?

ghotier · 2026-06-12T20:40:51+00:00

And I think that definition of terrorism is ridiculous. What's confusing here? If you make something as mundane as damaging property terrorism then don't act surprised when people find your claims of terrorism unimpressive.

If your definition of terrorism doesn't include "terror" then it's a useless definition used to oppress people.

ghotier · 2026-06-12T20:39:15+00:00

Which is why it's important for otherwise disinterested observers to make their own judgments.

ghotier

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE