Exactly. Its not about convincing non-believers, its about constantly reminding believers "you're right, atheists just want to sin, no need to think about it".
Hello, I am not this entire thread. I am only two, now three, comments in this thread. Do not blame me for the things other people have said.
Literally all I did was ask you for a single source to your claim which sounded very exaggerated to me, and you have since called me uneducated, unreasonable, irrational, maga, and an animal. Meanwhile I haven't attacked you a single time.
Who's the one arguing in bad faith again? Be serious.
And you expect me to what, educate you on basic neuroscience?
No, I expected you to give me literally a single source, which you said you have. That's it. Shouldn't be hard.
This one was always really funny to me. As if their supposed god himself hasn't explicitly commanded (and even committed) both of these sins on numerous occasions.
Oh, but since you brought up good faith. In response to simply asking for a source, you attacked my character, tried to gaslight me into thinking I'm in the wrong, and then tried to move the topic into private DMs so nobody else can see it and so you can look like the adult here. This wasn't even a real offer though, because nobody is going to politely DM you after getting their character attacked out of nowhere like that.
The fact that you're not willing to publicly show your source about the things you're claiming in bold are empirical facts tells me that you don't actually have a source, and are in fact the one not engaging in good faith.
Stick around for a few more months and you'll remember them no matter how hard you try to forget. They're one of the most active users on Lemmy. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to find out they are the most active commenter.
This was me a few hours ago with the word incentivize. I had to try like 4 times before I got it right, and even then I looked it up before sending the message just to be safe.
TBF, her original comment was about being able to beat up strippers in GTA5, not about T&A specifically. Not that the context makes it any better. You can beat up just about anything in GTA, taking issue with specifically the strippers is just looking for things to be mad about.
I don't think there ever could be observable evidence of a changed timeline. Especially nothing stupid like Marty slowly fading out of existence in Back to the Future.
But tbh, I'm not sure going into the past to change something is actually possible in most cases without creating some sort of time paradox. Interacting with the future shouldn't cause any problems, but the past is probably set in stone. After all, if I went back in time to assassinate hitler, there is no reason for future me to go back in time to kill hitler since he was already killed, causing hitler to never get assassinated. And on and on it loops.
"What's that, how did the unique, one of a kind golden claw that I just returned to you end up in my inventory? You're mistaken this isn't the golden claw. It's the.... gilded claw. Very different. Wanna buy it?"
But therein lies the difference. And it's not just saying the quiet part out loud, it's doing the quiet part out loud. Sure, it's never been great, but 30 years ago the president wasn't a cult leader openly trafficking people to offshore torture camps and proudly disobeying court orders while getting cheered on by his followers.
Nelots @ Nelots @lemm.ee Posts 0Comments 627Joined 2 yr. ago
Yeah that's fair