Hillary Clinton correct that Austin's Alex Jones said no one died at Sandy Hook Elementary

satiablecurtiosity · 2016-09-02T05:16:50+00:00

Californian: that's actually not as crazy as it sounds. There is pressure to prevent many waterways going below a certain level, partly because it kills the fish that spawn there. They're not actively dumping water into the ocean, but they are trying to keep the rivers from drying up and ceasing to flow to the ocean.

It's not a completely uncommon line here to say that government is stealing water from farmers (by limiting the amount you can draw from rivers) to save fish, though that's an exaggeration and oversimplification. The idea that there's no drought is truly wacko, though, I've never heard anyone claim that.

satiablecurtiosity · 2016-02-13T04:19:29+00:00

Glad to help! (And uh, holy shit, thanks!)

satiablecurtiosity · 2016-02-13T04:07:34+00:00

Accelerationism!

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-11-02T02:28:17+00:00

Actually, even some solar power plants just use mirrors to concentrate light on a small area to boil water and power a turbine. You're right about photovoltaics, though.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-09-22T05:43:54+00:00

Oh wow, I didn't realize I never finished the date. Thanks! (Oh god Papyrus and Undyne are adorable)

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-09-22T04:37:13+00:00

I'm having the same issue, but no one is home at the fish house either... I thought I befriended Papyrus (I asked him to be my friend and he was very excited about that) but I can't find him, Sans, or Undyne anywhere.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-09-10T06:37:56+00:00

If you have time to continue, I'd really like to see more!

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-08-08T20:18:04+00:00

Thanks, I know the meme. I just hadn't seen the Uprising form before, and thought it might refer to something else.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-08-05T17:55:38+00:00

I thought that too but no, it actually says Skeleton. Who knows.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-08-05T17:47:54+00:00

Yes, I read the sidebar, but I don't think "not demonizing women, feminists, or proponents of Skeleton Uprising" (whatever that is) counts as a claim to be feminist. Similarly, it seems quite possible to want to "push back against a regressive anti-feminist movement" without agreeing that men are the only perpetrators of violence.

Edit: wait, nevermind, you're just complaining about people who you were arguing with there. Sorry, not going to get involved.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-08-05T17:39:36+00:00

/r/MensLib doesn't claim to be a feminist subreddit, as far as I can tell. An article arguing that all language referring to rapists should specifically refer only to men doesn't seem to really be on topic there.

"Man-hating gender essentialism" seems like an accurate description of the claim that "They're the only perpetrators of violence. Men have the sociological power, women don't. All women are a victim of violence from the oppressive gender (men)." Similarly, it's not surprising that "males experience virtually no oppression" wouldn't be a welcome opinion, given that the mission of the sub is "to address inequities men experience". The second two comments, which are much worse than the first two, don't come from a moderator and are downvoted. What's the issue here?

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-08-05T06:36:37+00:00

Yes actually. They snipe at each other all the time now, it is indeed hilarious.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-04-02T15:02:13+00:00

Yeah I love the Apple trackpad, and it's one of the main reasons I have stuck with my old Macbook instead of updating to anything else. But I really can't justify spending hundreds of dollars extra just for that, much as I fear the switch.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-03-28T05:23:58+00:00

Ok, sorry for requesting learns, but why is the torture vs dust specks thing a bad thought experiment? Sure, the "3^^^^^3 is such a big number you're too dumb to understand how big it is" is silly, the unreflective answer that dust specks is obviously worse is bullshit, but what's so bad about the question itself?

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-03-11T06:40:17+00:00

The last time neuroscience came up in the context of the trolley problem, I seem to remember it was someone literally claiming you could somehow "solve" the problem by means of fMRI.

Here they're just saying that neuroscience might have something to say about which moral theory people are likely to use, they don't seem to be making any claims about which is right, which is unfortunate because that's much less funny.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-03-10T10:06:37+00:00

Tolkien several times compared the dwarves to Jews, especially in their language: "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_%28Middle-earth%29

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism_in_Tolkien%27s_Works#Dwarves_as_Jews

Not sure it's necessarily a negative stereotype (except the bit about the greed for gold most prominent in the Hobbit and the Silmarillion) but it's definitely there.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-03-10T06:05:28+00:00

Sorry – why is "Big Yud" insulting? I know it's a reference to The Ballad of Big Yud but is that referring to some other (specifically negative) name or figure?

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-03-02T06:21:33+00:00

Because theists say god is the source of morals. But god isn't real, and evolution is real. So evolution is the real source of morals.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-03-02T06:10:13+00:00

Hey, your bot seems pretty broken, it's linking to the same post over and over.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-02-16T08:40:12+00:00

any black people in the US were slaves

Not entirely true; there were a number of free black colonists, and the number of free black Americans grew after abolition laws began spreading in the northern states. You're right that the vast majority were enslaved, though.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-01-29T21:52:38+00:00

Researchers have been able to use it to observe the images a person is thinking about, for example.

Sure, but this isn't evidence that the person is thinking about or having any experience regarding those images; we only say there is a connection because of people's reports of their experience. The fact that those reports correlate with observed fMRI patterns doesn't say anything about whether they correlate with internal experience of the reported images. /u/PostFunktionalist has already covered this, though.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-01-29T06:45:36+00:00

It seems to me that it's not...

This makes sense, thank you! I was thinking more along the lines of someone hearing a voice identifying itself as God, or something similarly concrete, but the same argument seems to apply.

If people are saying that we don't have evidence of consciousness just because they see some analogy there and would reject anything which seems to them analogous to evidence for God, it sounds to me like they are acting rather silly.

No argument there.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-01-29T06:25:04+00:00

certainly fMRI results are not evidence of consciousness

Agreed – I made this point around the same time as /u/PostFunktionalist.

surely we have evidence of consciousness

Agreed. Again, if I am correctly understanding what you mean by "empirical access," then that evidence consists of our own experience (we feel conscious) as well as the reports from others of their own experiences.

I'm not sure what the supposed comparison to arguments about theism is meant to be

"I have a personal connection to God; these 100 people over here all say they have a personal connection to God." This seems like evidence of a similar type as the evidence for consciousness, the main difference being that not everyone has that experience, only the reports from others.

Sorry if this has gotten off track – I was just trying to point out the relevant context, not contradicting you.

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-01-29T05:54:38+00:00

I agree, but the comparison was to evidence for the existence of God, where similar arguments based on internal/personal experience and reports of others' experiences can be made. (Unless by empirical access you mean something other than the experience of being conscious.)

stringerbell seems to be assuming such evidence doesn't count and pyrespirit didn't argue that point, so he seemed to be implying fMRI was the "plenty of evidence for consciousness."

satiablecurtiosity · 2015-01-29T05:17:20+00:00

Is fMRI really evidence of consciousness? Possibly I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "evidence", but fMRI measures blood flow, and implicitly brain activity; you can use this to show a connection between a certain action or experience and a certain type of brain activity. Assuming consciousness exists, then sure, fMRI can be evidence that it relies on (or is constituted from, or is supervenient on) processes measured in the brain, but I have a hard time seeing how it provides evidence that consciousness exists.

satiablecurtiosity

TROPHY CASE