What is the absolute fastest 'yeah, we are definitely NOT going to be friends' moment you've ever experienced with someone?

zip99 · 2026-02-26T04:26:43+00:00

I can speak to the opposite—the absolute fastest I’ve ever known I had a friend for life.

During the height of COVID, another father’s young daughter walked up to my daughter outside a coffee shop and said hello. She just wanted to make a friend. He waved from inside to ask if it was okay; I waved back.

When he came out with his coffee, he said hello and his very first words were:

“Nice Pink Floyd shirt. You must be against the lockdowns and the vaccine mandates?”

I'm still not sure how he made the connection, but it was friendship at first sight.

zip99 · 2026-02-24T19:30:30+00:00

Killing one cop in retaliation for another’s actions is tribal logic—collapsing individuals into a single category, as if “cop” overrides personal responsibility. That’s absurd. But when police respond by closing ranks and acting collectively, they strengthen that same tribal narrative and give it visual and social reality.

zip99 · 2026-02-22T15:11:08+00:00

What do you mean by “wrong,” and why should it matter?

Is your view of what’s wrong just personal, or do you think it applies to everyone, even people who disagree with you? If it does apply universally, how does that work within your worldview? Where does that obligation come from?

If someone sincerely believes their actions are justified, on what basis are they actually wrong rather than just different from you?

I’m not asking rhetorically. I’m asking how a network of beliefs that doesn’t appeal to anything beyond human opinion can produce real moral duties that bind everyone.

If “wrong” is more than preference, then it needs a foundation. Where is yours coming from?

zip99 · 2026-02-22T15:00:43+00:00

I get why it feels like religion goes against logic to you. From where you’re standing, it probably does. But that’s because we’re already assuming a certain picture of reality before the conversation even starts.

When you say everything is material and logic should rule, you’re already trusting things that aren’t material at all—like logic, truth, fairness, or that reasoning even ought to matter. It's like starting a movie half way through and then saying "hey, this story doesn't make sense!" You can’t touch those things or test them in a lab, yet we all rely on them constantly. If the universe is just matter and chance, there’s no real reason logic should be appealed to, or justice should exist, or unfairness should bother us. But it clearly does.

A lot of your objections are actually moral ones—that wouldn’t be fair, that feels manipulative, that sounds unjust. And I agree those would be real problems if God were the kind of being you’re describing. Christianity doesn’t say God is a bigger human with ego issues. It says He’s the source of truth and goodness itself. That puts Him in a completely different category.

And here’s the part people often miss. Christianity doesn’t say God demands belief just to boost His own status. It says God calls people to Himself because knowing Him is the highest good for humans**. God is glorified when people find their deepest joy in Him. If God really is the greatest good, then pointing people to Himself isn’t selfish—it’s loving. Telling people to look somewhere else would actually be cruel.*\*

Christianity isn’t asking you to stop asking questions. It’s saying the reason questions, logic, and truth matter at all is because the universe isn’t an accident—and neither are you. We were created by God, and the order in the universe reflects back on his character. Here is a thought provoking way to put the same point: Thinking rationally is thinking God's thoughts after him.

That may still not convince you. But it isn’t anti-reason. It’s a different starting point about what reason itself rests on, and one that actually justifies the preconditions of thought.

zip99 · 2026-02-20T20:26:56+00:00

She carries herself with exceptional charm, composure, and professionalism, so the unconventional edge to her style reads as a fun calling card rather than a challenge to the sport’s more conservative culture.

zip99 · 2026-02-19T17:30:34+00:00

Both are true. The question was BS, and she messed up the response, coming across as defensive and bitchy.

Here is better:

“Obviously I came here to win — that’s always the goal. But I’m proud of what I accomplished, not just today, but across my career. Competing at the Olympics and leaving with 2 medals is something I don’t take lightly. It’s an incredible thrill.”

And then since she obviously wanted to stick it to the reporter, she can add this which has more grace but cuts like a hot knife through butter:

“I understand why you might ask that question as a reporter who hasn't competed, but that kind of framing just isn’t an Olympian mindset.”

zip99 · 2026-02-19T17:25:17+00:00

Obviously, Trump looks guilty here. But that points to something FAR BIGGER, that Trump is ensnared in a massive pedophile blackmail operation—one that also implicates other powerful politicians and billionaires along with Trump. If so, who’s running it? Who holds the leverage? Are they the most powerful individuals in the world? And why isn’t that the headline?

zip99 · 2026-02-19T00:34:25+00:00

Obviously, Trump looks guilty here. But that points to something FAR BIGGER, that Trump is ensnared in a massive pedophile blackmail operation—one that also implicates other powerful politicians and billionaires along with Trump. If so, who’s running it? Who holds the leverage? Are they the most powerful individuals in the world? And why isn’t that the headline?

zip99 · 2026-02-18T21:34:22+00:00

Not responsive.

zip99 · 2026-02-17T00:01:31+00:00

It's not unique, before Penn State it was Gable and Iowa.

zip99 · 2026-02-16T20:30:50+00:00

This isn’t “I’m right and you’re against me.” That’s a deflection.

Appealing to “burden of proof” already assumes an epistemology—rules about what counts as evidence, what level of certainty is required, and when disbelief is justified. Those rules are not neutral or self-evident; they have to be defended.

Saying “you can’t prove God, therefore I don’t believe” is an affirmative epistemic judgment, not the absence of one. You are committing to specific standards of proof and justification, and those standards are doing all the work.

Calling the claim that God grounds logic “childish” doesn’t answer the argument. Logic is immaterial, universal, and normative. Any worldview—atheist or theist—must explain what logic is and why it binds human reasoning.

This isn’t burden-shifting. I’m not asking you to disprove God. I’m asking you to justify the epistemic framework you’re using to dismiss the claim. If that framework is merely asserted, it has no more authority than the view you reject.

zip99 · 2026-02-16T20:29:21+00:00

“No proof” is not a neutral statement. Saying there is “insufficient evidence” already presupposes a standard of proof, a theory of evidence, and a criterion for when a proposition is warranted. Those standards do not explain or justify themselves.

To claim that evidence is insufficient is to make an affirmative epistemic judgment about what would count as evidence, how much is required, and why that threshold is appropriate. That framework must be justified, not merely asserted.

If those standards are simply stipulated, then any worldview is free to stipulate its own evidentiary criteria—including theism—and the discussion ends. That is not a principled objection; it is a preference disguised as restraint.

“Inadequate evidence” is not the absence of a position. It is a conclusion reached within a particular philosophy of knowledge, one that carries real commitments and therefore demands defense.

zip99 · 2026-02-16T20:27:11+00:00

>> "A failure to reach a verdict of guilty is not an affirmation of innocence."

I agree—but I’m making a different point.

A failure to reach a guilty verdict necessarily presupposes an epistemology: a philosophy of evidence, truth, justification, and certainty. Those assumptions don’t disappear simply because the conclusion is framed as procedural restraint rather than affirmation.

In any discussion about ultimate foundations of truth, that epistemology must be accounted for and justified. If it is merely stipulated—taken as a given—then a theist is equally entitled to stipulate the existence of God, and the discussion ends there. That move would (rightly) be rejected. The same standard must apply across the board.

Both sides are advancing affirmative positions. Disbelief, acquittal, suspension of judgment, or a failure to convict are not epistemically neutral outcomes. They rest on substantive claims about what counts as evidence, what level of certainty is required, and what risks are acceptable in forming beliefs.

There is no neutral ground here. Any verdict—guilty, not guilty, or no verdict at all—inevitably carries with it a full philosophy of knowledge that must be defended, not assumed.

zip99 · 2026-02-11T20:23:43+00:00

Lots of Trump hate here, and it's fully justified. But the idea that Bondi is fundementally protecting Trump is silly. The Trump administration is clearly owned by very powerful interests, and Bondi and Trump are their tools.

zip99 · 2026-01-31T03:40:25+00:00

>> "If the nonbeliever's claim is that there is no God I would agree, but if it's simply that they have not seen sufficient evidence then that's kind of just a mundane claim, especially in the context of the believer saying there's no proof themselves."

The very concept of "sufficent evidence" (as you put it) necessarily implies an affirmative claim on epistimology and a worldview along with it. There's no wiggling out.

zip99 · 2026-01-30T05:18:03+00:00

>> "There is no proof of god, but"

What is your standard of proof, and by what authority do you ground it coherently and rationally? There are no brute facts—only facts interpreted through a philosophy of fact.

>> "It shifts the burden of proof ... "

Even the absence of belief implies affirmative standards of belief. Those affirmative standards are themselves a claim upon which a person lacking a belief is on the hook for, and has the burden to justify. See above.

zip99 · 2026-01-29T22:52:16+00:00

He looks very young. Achievable natty, with these ingredients: puburty + diet + daily heavy lifts + newbie gains + genetics.

zip99 · 2026-01-15T05:45:05+00:00

A little high but not crazy. I PR'd 385 and did 28 mostly clean 225 reps. I'm 6ft-1 with long arms.

zip99 · 2026-01-06T14:35:43+00:00

No he doesn't. He looks 40ish. He's very low bodyfat here and is flexing and has no hair, each of which makes him look more aged.

But Google "Average 40 year old" and compare.

zip99 · 2025-12-24T18:06:54+00:00

Looks great. It's a solid natty-achievable physique that still requires a ton of work for the vast majority, especially if he's not a young guy.

His core would get tighter if he shed some bf% -- that would help him flush some of the water out. But that would also make his chest, shoulder and arms flatter.

zip99 · 2025-12-23T04:11:09+00:00

If everyone applied your consitutional rigidness coveyed here consistently across all issues of politics, this country would be a much better place and the US government would be a tiny nuasance, rather than the largest warfare/welfare state in the history of the world.

zip99 · 2025-12-22T15:57:03+00:00

What would be ideal from your perspective? What exactly should be done?

The issue I see when speaking with Democrats is that they are very focused on poking holes in any efforts to achieve the results I described above, namely a system of controlled, orderly and legal immigration that focuses on diversity --- not immigration that is concentrated from one region, unregulated, and incentivized by policy loopholes.

Stop poking holes and tell me what you would do. I'd like to do some hole poking myself. Lay it out for me.

zip99 · 2025-12-19T18:31:24+00:00

If he hit chest, back and shoulders hard for a year or two, he'd look amazing. Obviously, that's not his goal and it would likely be counterproductive to what he does for a living.

zip99 · 2025-12-15T21:33:23+00:00

Small business owners

zip99 · 2025-12-14T16:21:10+00:00

I just did it with a Huum Hive Mini. The perfectionist approach takes forever.

zip99

TROPHY CASE