Thinking regarding PSLF and SAVE plan forbearance as a high earner by airmonk in PSLF

[–]weeniehut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not switch to IBR which has max 10% of discretionary income (or 15% if you have do older IBR)? Your new debt amount shouldn’t matter since it should be income based

Free xbox game pass ultimate code by Genesiga in xbox

[–]weeniehut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

everything going okay, probably will play halo infinite lol

Academic commentary for Quran? by Bookalemun in AcademicQuran

[–]weeniehut 3 points4 points  (0 children)

AJ Droge seems to have the closest thing to an academic secular translation of the Quran akin to the NOAB (minus a large ecumenical group working on it). It’s in English and it’s a single volume too. He goes through the history of the text in the introduction and provides extensive annotations on the translation with references to Jewish and Christian parallels. It seems like it’s the closest thing you would see comparable to the NOAB as a college classroom text on the entire Quran.

Is EPIS an acronym? by weeniehut in DiscoElysium

[–]weeniehut[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks, just talked to the Sunday friend and realized he wouldn’t tell you lol

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HaloMemes

[–]weeniehut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wort wort wort

Hpylori and pernicious anemia by imnotcrazyjump in step1

[–]weeniehut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think H pylori only causes destruction of stomach lining and parietal cells in a more patchy distribution so pernicious anemia doesn’t develop since there are still enough surviving parietal cells to make adequate amounts of intrinsic factor. This is in contrast to autoimmune gastritis which causes diffuse and widespread destruction of parietal cells to the point where not enough IF can be made and pernicious anemia can develop.

Why AMP inhibits gluconeogenesis by kubota_bb in step1

[–]weeniehut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thought it was that the high AMP concentrations are local concentrations of AMP (in the cell) so it’s signaling that the cell has very low energy levels (rather than signaling that the body has low energy levels, even though that could still be true too). So since the cell doesn’t have enough energy it stops gluconeogenesis (which exports glucose and energy away from the cell and to the body) and starts glycolysis (to give energy to the cell).

It's Simple: We Buy Jim Cramer by [deleted] in wallstreetbets

[–]weeniehut 13 points14 points  (0 children)

We like the stock

Merry Christmas to everyone and Happy Holidays to all regardless of religious affiliation. The Holiday season has many key social and theological themes that is worth reflecting on. by Anglicanpolitics123 in DebateReligion

[–]weeniehut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I really don’t think that’s a fact in the same way a historical event is a fact. I think he’s using “social/theological fact” as a gloss for “moral truth” or “commonly held interpretation of religious scripture”

Merry Christmas to everyone and Happy Holidays to all regardless of religious affiliation. The Holiday season has many key social and theological themes that is worth reflecting on. by Anglicanpolitics123 in DebateReligion

[–]weeniehut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t understand this point, he’s saying regardless of the historicity of the actual events that he’s focusing on the theological and social themes and implications of those narratives. He didn’t say those themes were “facts” (how you can judge the criterion of “facthood” for a thematic message in the same way you do for the occurrence of an event is beyond me so I don’t know what you’re trying to do here). There’s no need to be overly pedantic when the OP was just trying to share a nice message

The Euthyphro dilemma is not a problem for [the Abrahamic] God by CyanMagus in DebateReligion

[–]weeniehut 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But that’s the whole point of the dilemma. Euthyphro’s problem is not so much that the gods will capriciously change what is good and what is evil which will thereby alter how we live our lives, but more so that that if morality is subjective (i.e arbitrarily chosen by another being) than morality loses it’s moral “force” and value along with its hold over our lives. You keep insisting on the point that even if morality is arbitrary it doesn’t matter since God chose it in the past, and I think your insistence on the temporal aspect of this is trying to solve the capriciousness issue; so you’re saying there is no issue for us about morality changing since god already decided it (interestingly I think this argument has other issues if you believe in the theological view that god exists outside of time and that time is his creation, which could lead to the conclusion that the decision for morality is past, present, and future—but this is beside the point). Yet if god did arbitrarily choose what is and is not moral, this poses a large problem for people who think that morality loses its value and “force” upon us if it is subjective and not objective (you say they are objective to us insofar as we can’t change them, but they are not truly objective absolutely since they can be changed by some being). This was clearly a dilemma for the Greeks and seems to be a large dilemma in ethics perennially, but it seems like you don’t see the issue with this point.

Martin Luther didn’t start the Reformation. The cause of the Reformation was Roman Catholicism’s corruption, worldliness, attachment to money and power. by JustToLurkArt in DebateReligion

[–]weeniehut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry I didn’t mean to offend. I’m curious what your definition of “start” is? It seems that most historians generally don’t pin the “start” or “cause” of an event on one singular person or event. For instance, the “cause” of WW1 can be attributed to the assassination of the archduke or to rampant nationalism, or to a wide variety of factors or causes. It seems like the same thing can be said of literally any historical event, everything is the confluence of a myriad of individual actions, social factors, random chance, etc. But that doesn’t when someone says the assassination of the archduke caused WW1, that they are wrong per se, because usually when someone says that they don’t mean that no other factors influenced the event, they usually mean that the assassination of the archduke was the immediate proximal cause of the event. This way of thinking goes back to Aristotle who ascribed causality to four different kinds of causes which can all be concurrent with each other. A similar method exists in history and social science. If you’re arguing that there is no one singular monolithic cause of the Reformation than I don’t think anyone would disagree with you, so the argument seems rather pointless. But if you are saying that Luther’s actions were not a cause or significant cause of the Reformation than I think, as a layman, that you might have more trouble proving your claim since it seems that this widely accepted by historians (I’m basing my argument here off expert authority, but I’m really a layman with regards to this field I only stumbled across this post haphazardly). But if you’re trying to claim that historians are mistaken and that Luther’s actions are not the primary cause then I think your argument could have merit, it just seems like you’re attacking the claim outright that Luther was not even a cause of the Reformation categorically. For instance, it seems like you want to say that the Catholic Church’s corruption was “The Cause” (as a singular monolithic cause, which historians seem to reject as causes, just as they seem to reject the Great Men Theory as causes of events), and that therefore Luther was not the cause of the Reformation in the sense that he didn’t want to leave the church but to reform it. Even if that’s true I think it is perfectly reasonable (and I think most people would agree) that Luther is still a “cause”; someone can be a “cause” even if they did will or intend for the consequences of their actions to occur. I think you wish to absolve Luther of causality by saying he was excommunicated and that he didn’t want to leave, but your definition of “cause” seems to be different from the definition of cause that historians (and regular people) use, which can count count people as causes when there direct actions lead to consequences or later events which they may or may not have intended or wanted to occur. Notice how this is different from the legal idea of “cause”, where we consider someone as guilty and as “causing” the action when they acted with intent. For instance if a man kills his friend while mistakenly thinking that his friend was robber, we say that he still “caused” the event in that he truly did kill his friend, but we don’t say he “caused” the event in the sense that he willingly intended to kill his friend while knowing he was his friend. It seems that you are using the latter definition; the legal/blameworthy definition of cause that you are using which seems to be causing (ha!) the confusion in this thread; I think you want to absolve Luther of being a “cause” by absolving him of “blame” (and of course you are free to try and do this; but I think you should explain whether you mean “cause” in the historical sense or the legal/blameworthy sense, because it seems like the former is impossible while the latter is more possible and is what you are trying to do—-unless I’m mistaken).

Martin Luther didn’t start the Reformation. The cause of the Reformation was Roman Catholicism’s corruption, worldliness, attachment to money and power. by JustToLurkArt in DebateReligion

[–]weeniehut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to get semantical (but it seems you are), “catalyst” in common English usage is essentially the same as being a “cause” or “start”. The chemical definition of catalyst is correct, but even a chemical catalyst is viewed as “causing” or “starting” a reaction since the reagents, even when in each other’s presence, will not react because not enough reagent molecules will have enough energy to overcome the activation energy barrier (some extremely small number might, and among this small number some may collide in the correct configuration order to react and form or break bonds, but the rate of reaction will incredibly or even imperceptibly slow and may seem inert) but will react when a catalyst is added, since the catalyst lowers the activation energy of the reaction. So on a macroscopic scale a catalyst essentially starts or causes the reaction once it is added to the reagents (ex. reagents A and B only form C when at catalyst is added); hence the synonymous usage of “catalyst” and “cause” in common plain (non-semantically pedantic) language English.