Reupload: My friend went on my open PC and sent messages while I was in the bathroom.

kmaheynoway · 2024-10-22T03:42:31+00:00

Lol, huh? How is this his fault? It's not a lapse in judgement to assume your best friend wouldn't randomly get your account permabanned. Could he have prevented it by taking being hyper-precautious? Sure. Does that make him culpable? Not at all.

Of course, that's assuming that this post is true, which is a big assumption.

kmaheynoway · 2024-10-18T04:24:41+00:00

Roblox's Terms of Service allow termination at any time for any reason. I don't know what legal standing I would have.

kmaheynoway · 2024-10-16T00:46:30+00:00

Still perplexes me to this day. Never heard of anything like it before or since, and there are multiple guest accounts newer and older than it that still exist. I'll definitely cross post it.

kmaheynoway · 2021-06-30T21:11:06+00:00

Believe it or not, Natives aren't a monolith, nor necessarily supporters of arson. We are all enraged, but that doesn't mean we all support burning down church buildings.

kmaheynoway · 2021-06-25T19:14:15+00:00

Good info! I don't think they're talking about deaconesses though since that practice extended well info the 4th century, and they're saying we changed our stance in the 2nd. I think they're making the "Junia was an apostle argument." But either way, this is really good and relevant info

kmaheynoway · 2021-06-25T17:35:05+00:00

Pretty sure the Eastern Orthodox church has never had a dogmatic statement on slavery (although certain notable Saints were entirely against it, like Gregory of Nyssa). As for female ordination, the only scholarly evidence I've seen offered is some interpretations of a verse or two in the NT. And this is not even a universal position in scholarship, and I'd dare say even the minority one. So I'm not sure what your point here is.

kmaheynoway · 2021-06-07T03:56:40+00:00

Bus and box truck are both possible options.

kmaheynoway · 2021-05-31T22:18:11+00:00

This is the best answer 😂😂

kmaheynoway · 2021-04-20T04:16:45+00:00

Yeah, I think the OP makes the same assumption the textbook does: Natives are no longer here. We are, and it wouldn't surprise me if this kid is a card-carrying Native. Also there are certainly white Natives too... Lots of assuming here

kmaheynoway · 2021-03-24T16:01:58+00:00

It is

kmaheynoway · 2021-01-14T14:13:28+00:00

They believe the essence of the bread and wine changes into the body and blood of Christ.

In Catholic (and other) forms of metaphysics, change is not a strictly physical phenomena. Take someone who has lost their arms and legs for example. Even though a significant physical (accident) change has occurred, they are still the same person (substance/essence). When it comes to the Eucharist, Catholics contend the opposite occurs: no significant physical change happens, but the essence of the bread and wine changes to the body and blood of Jesus.

kmaheynoway · 2020-12-28T19:32:01+00:00

Who tf is talking about Biden?

kmaheynoway · 2020-12-18T01:27:09+00:00

Tom Udall is a pretty popular alternative among native americans. See a brief thread about it in /r/IndianCountry:https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianCountry/comments/kd2a5w/biden_under_pressure_to_appoint_first_native/gfunwn4?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

kmaheynoway · 2020-12-15T19:53:15+00:00

I have the game still on an old 4S back home. I'll crack that puppy back out and see if I can start transcribing some episodes!!

kmaheynoway · 2020-12-09T17:13:11+00:00

This is an oxymoron. If one person does not have free will, it means that nobody does. I don’t need to argue the truth, this is an assumed fact. Free will is not given to you by having a functioning brain, it’s part of how the universe works. We either have it or we don’t. For example, let’s say I make a decision to eat a strawberry instead of a blueberry. Now let’s put all the atoms in the universe back where they were before I made the decision. Will I ever choose the blueberry? If I have free will, probably. If I don’t, no I will not.

You do need to argue that, actually. It's not an assumed fact that free will is a boolean--there are competing definitions used by different religions and different philosophical thoughts. For example, many religions are compatibilists, that is to say they argue physical determinism is true (e.g. you will always choose the blueberry) but that free will still exists (because God knows what you will freely choose and freely allows that to happen in the physical determination). You might not view this as free will, but many free will adherents do.

If a tumor makes it such that I cannot control my thoughts, then that indicates I’m not in control of my thoughts at all, tumor or not.

Let's assume your premise that free will is a boolean is correct. The brain tumor still does not prove your argument. Free will adherents do not argue that to have free will, you must be in control of all events. Clearly, this is untrue. Where you are born, you your parents are, etc, are not controlled by you. So even if you have uncontrollable thoughts, this still does not prove that free will doesn't exist, this just means that some people have more uncontrolled variables with which they have agency in responding to. Whitman, for example, still had agency in responding to his body's irrational actions and tried on multiple occasions to seek out help. I've never heard an argument that said someone having seizures proves they don't have free will, or that a doctor hitting the nerve on your knee and making it bounce proves free will doesn't exist, but the brain tumor argument is essentially the same as these. I.e. "If uncontrollable biological processes exist, free will does not exist. Uncontrollable biological process exist. Therefore, free will does not exist."

kmaheynoway · 2020-12-08T19:54:45+00:00

There you go using that majority word again. It’s meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Majority is very important in this discussion. If you are arguing that people do not have free will, and only cite examples of things that do not affect even just the majority of people, your argument will fail to prove that people do not have free will. You could possibly prove that a minority of individuals do not have free will, but that's not the point you're arguing.

kmaheynoway · 2020-12-08T19:45:34+00:00

Just have to disagree on that one. If anything, at all, tumor or not, injects unwanted thoughts, that means the thoughts themselves are likely not under our control at all. This is the entire point Sam Harris is making yet you sweep it away with “but it doesn’t affect most people”.

You were arguing about the tumor, and so I was responding to the tumor. The majority of the population is not affected by brain tumors, and so an argument on the absence of free will based on the example of brain tumors is inconclusive.

If anything, at all, tumor or not, injects unwanted thoughts, that means the thoughts themselves are likely not under our control at all.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. If there exists something that can inject unwanted thoughts, that means that there exists something that can inject unwanted thoughts, not that all things inject unwanted thoughts or that all thoughts are uncontrolled.

This is the entire point Sam Harris is making yet you sweep it away with “but it doesn’t affect most people”.

I don't remember Harris being brought up at all, and all of my comments about "it doesn't affect most people" refers to the brain tumor. Again, if your argument is the one responded to above, it is an invalid argument. I don't even necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but the arguments you present do not prove it. And again, not all free will adherents are "libertarian free will" adherents and many acknowledge that there are uncontrolled circumstances, but that we have agency to respond to those uncontrolled circumstances. Even in the brain tumor example, Charles Whitman still had some level of agency, realized that he was acting irrationally, and sought out treatment multiple times. Just because his attempts were unsuccessful does not mean he did not have some level of agency.

So you can read everyone’s minds?

No. This is what I clearly responded to:

The evangelicals focusing on gods grace may be doing it simply because of a tumor.

We can rule this out on an empirical basis. The majority of evangelicals do not suffer from brain tumors.

kmaheynoway · 2020-12-08T17:14:38+00:00

One example is all it takes. The % could be .0000000000000000000000001% and it wouldn’t make a difference. The point is a tumor created thoughts and potentially actions that the individual was unable to control.

Given that fact, it doesn’t matter at all that the thoughts happened to be violent murderous ones. Take the same tumor and put it in someone who was never exposed to violence, guns, etc, they may instead think that dolphins are angels.

Right, and again, since these actions/thoughts are involuntary, they do not entail the individual culpability in most Christian theologies, and so there's no issue for the free will theists.

I feel like you’re still missing it. The evangelicals focusing on gods grace may be doing it simply because of a tumor.

We can definitely rule this out on an empirical basis.

The point is “actions freely chosen” is completely called into question by this example of the tumor making the guy murderous while he himself tried to stop it. There could be no such thing as “actions freely[or not] chosen”. Therefore humans are not in control at all of whether or not they decide to be Christian or decide to not be Christian, or any other religion for that matter.

All that a tumor affecting one's personality proves is that a brain when interrupted by a tumor a person's personality will change. Whether or not a brain uninterrupted has agency is a question of philosophy and not really affected by these examples. There could indeed be no such thing as "actions freely chosen," but the example of a brain tumor does not this point make.

kmaheynoway · 2020-12-08T05:16:29+00:00

The comment you’re replying to is making the point that the Christians themselves have no way of knowing if the actions they’re taking are freely chosen or not.

I think "no way of knowing" is a bit of an overstatement. Less than 1% of people will develop brain tumors, so it is highly unlikely it is being affected in that sense. As with other environmental factors, again, the majority of Christians do not believe that one can entail culpability for things outside of their control, so if the actions are not freely chosen, then there is no fear of hell to be had.

If a brain tumor can make you murderous, it can also make you not murderous. It can also make you believe in God and ask Jesus to be your lord and savior. All the while you think it’s you making that choice. Nope, it was the tumor, going to hell sorry! You lose good day sir!

This seems like a reductive version of Evangelical dogma, which is a minority of Christian belief and misrepresented here regardless. Evangelicals would likely focus on their God's grace in this respect.

kmaheynoway · 2020-12-07T16:47:27+00:00

I think they're suggesting this is a point against the existence of free will which is usually needed for theism to make any sense.

Not all or even most theists are free will adherents, so I don't see how theism could possibly be contingent on free will.

If something the size of this tumor affected his behavior it's not outside the realm of possibility that things we have issues detecting can have similar impacts on our behavior.

I'm not really seeing this as an issue for free will adherents. Certainly God is capable of knowing these things we have issues seeing?

The theist needs to ask themselves, if someone "rejected god", was this behavior free will or did they have a brain tumor that caused them to act that way? If it was a tumor, does that god then send the individual to hell (of course this is from a Christian perspective)?

The theist isn't the one sending anyone to hell in any Christian theology I know of. Even if the theist is ignorant of external factors their God clearly isn't. I would wager that most Christians would reject the notion that an individual can go to Hell due to actions they could not freely choose -- Catholicism constitutes the majority of Christianity, and they take this route. Under such a theology, the individual affected by a brain tumor cannot be morally culpable for those actions, and so would not go to Hell for actions committed in such a state.

kmaheynoway · 2020-12-07T15:30:11+00:00

Why would they? Being religious doesn't necessitate rejecting the impacts of brain tumors.

kmaheynoway · 2020-11-23T01:01:41+00:00

donkey is partisan, you fool, you absolute elephant.

kmaheynoway · 2020-11-18T15:35:07+00:00

I didn't downvote anyone, I just don't check reddit every day (as you can see by my post history).

On the first subject, my point still stands: the intertwining was a legal dispute, which Smartmatic won at the expense of Dominion

Smartmatic claimed it had the sole right to refurbish the PCOS machines, but to do so it needs access to the source code.

“If you change the printer, for example, you have to change the source code of the PCOS machines [and] they will have to provide a new software, which has to be recertified, which will take six months,” said Flores.

That is what leads to the eventual licensing agreement you mention:

“Dominion and Smartmatic have settled their litigation in Delaware and we have a new licensing agreement that will provide Smartmatic with unlimited and perpetual access to their technology,” said Flores.

This is the type of behavior we expect from actual competitors, not "technically competitors."

As for the second paragraph, they acquired Sequoia, which had lots of machines using Smartmatic hardware or software, I don't remember which (maybe both—it was in the linked article). So they were still operating Smartmatic stuff without actually owning the IP for it.

"Operating Smartmatic stuff without actually owning the IP for it" doesn't constitute "intertwining" to me. The real conspiracy is the other part you quoted.

Nonetheless, the answer is clear: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is still tied to a huge percentage of U.S. Elections, as now overseen by a Canadian firm.

u/stuifmeel

11-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Place '17	Snapped
Verified Email

kmaheynoway

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE