That is a nice way of doing it, have to remember this one. Thanks for sharing!

As somebody who grew up without religion: I never really cared about all the metaphysical stuff. I was always interested in learning new things and wanted to understand how the world works. Yet that stuff never even brushed my mind to my knowledge. Maybe I asked my parents when I was smaller which I can’t remember anymore, but I definitely didn’t get anxiety over it. I accepted what I saw with my own eyes, that was enough for me. I don’t need something else besides this world.

And regarding their child converting: a cousins child is raised atheist and in elementary school got interested in Christianity since most of their class mates went to church. So the child asked the parents, they said: innour opinion there is nothing, but if you are interested, feel free to go to church to learn about their explanation. So that’s what they did and last I met the child, they weren’t a bible thumbed but still went to their religion class, so the result is not yet in.

While it was still an okay end for me, your points are also what I didn’t like about it.

While I appreciate the internal look into the psyche of why somebody can become such an asshole, he was getting off too lightly in my opinion. His opening up to ribbit was well acted, I liked the portrayal of that.

This is a really mean thing to say out of the blue. You’ve assumed malintent when there wasn’t any.

This you?

If you know any teenagers/young adults who would enjoy “baby’s first psychological horror” this is a good recommend.

Calling teenagers babies is condescending. Could have just left that word out and write “first psychological horror” or “introduction to psychological horror”.

And regarding why say something: because they want you to learn about your behaviour and be able to learn and grow from it. So they care and think that you can improve instead of being a lost cause, where you just down vote and move on.

Sure, you can see it that way. I was just answering your question.

Nonono, Christ is only invoked to shame people, never to follow on his teaching and care for those less fortunate.

Problem in most countries is the speed of decline. A lot of old people, who can’t work, need to be cared for by a lower number of young people. And the normal work needs to be done too, if we want to keep our level of living standard.

That is the neutral version.

Less work slaves for the Epstein class is the reason why newspaper owners are caring for that problem.

All Hail the Abh Empire!

I mean they are even right. If they would really believe in their ideas, they could throw money at us and we would be far more accepting of their LLM bullshit. But they aren’t, so they don’t.

Do birds worry about their hair? Well… They dont have hair, so probably not.

But do birds worry about their plumage?
Yeah, probably they do.
Because there are many examples of birds using their plumage to attract mates, best known is probably the peacock.

In short, my thinking is that you need sexual procreation and a certain minimum intelligence to care for their outward appearance (e.g. I don’t think ants care for outward looks). So probably all mammals and a lot of birds definitely do care “about their hair”. But insects and fish do not.

Memetic osmosis.

Lots of people know 42 is the answer of everything, but don’t know it comes from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

“Single lunatic voted in” did a lot of damage exactly through unanimous vote. That’s how Orban stopped a lot of good things.

Unanimous vote can work with a group of maybe 5. With more than that and you always will have too much bickering and blocking.

Thing is: yes, not a beautiful face, but for sure an interesting and memorable one. I will not forget his character when I already forgot who pretty face #256 was.

Because you have watched too many silly internet videos that butcher our beautiful language.

BITTESCHÖN, GERN ERKLÄRT!

I mean, we don’t want it in the hand of some entity that hallucinates, is detached from reality and doesnt care for human life, so Meh, can’t really be worse than now.

Yeah, convenient. Just like the terrorist attacks right before the last German elections, which afterwards mysteriously stopped. But could also just be random chance of course. One data point is no data point and all.

I think they just meant that it is true for all countries, since every culture in earth is affected that way. So the distinction “people here come from countries,…” is redundant.

Look, I will quote wikipedia for you:

straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

Calling somebodies god a sky daddy or invisible sky friend is not a fundamentally different thing than calling it god. It is disrespectful, but not a strawman. Nobody is questioning your belief in your god, they are just mocking it.

To give you an example of what actual strawman fallacy looks like, here is one from wikipedia again:

Another example of a strawman argument is U.S. president Richard Nixon’s 1952 “Checkers speech”.[13][14] When campaigning for vice president in 1952, Nixon was accused of having appropriated $18,000 in campaign funds for his personal use. In a televised response, based on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Fala speech, he spoke about another gift, a dog he had been given by a supporter:[13][14]

It was a little cocker spaniel dog, in a crate he had sent all the way from Texas, black and white, spotted, and our little girl Tricia, six years old, named it Checkers. And, you know, the kids, like all kids, loved the dog, and I just want to say this right now, that, regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.

This was a straw man response; his critics had never criticized the dog as a gift or suggested he return it. This argument was successful at distracting a number of people from the funds and portraying his critics as nitpicking and heartless. Nixon received an outpouring of public support and remained on the ticket. He and Eisenhower were later elected.

Soooo… still Elves then?

That is not how speed works in relativity. Even moving with 10 times the speed of light, you still take “forward time” to move to your end point.

What will be happening though is that your point of reference will seem to travel backwards related to your starting point IF you travel away from your starting point.

So you move with FTL from A to B, then you will see A’s past light, which you overtook while traveling to B, arriving at B, thereby seeing your past “as happening now”, but only at point B. But the time will still be ticking forward. And while you travelled to B, you raced against the light coming from B, meaning you travelled faster into the future of B.

If you then travel back with same speed from B to A, you will still be in the future from when you started in the first place. But you will see yourself standing at B. And again, while travelling from B to A, you raced against the light coming from A, meaning you saw that future happening at FTL speed.