Zagorath

Fwiw Stanford was basically a scam. The story as it’s usually told is a lie, and its results are in serious contention, even beyond the usual replication issues psychology studies have.

Milgram is a good study, and even seems to have survived multiple replication attenpts, but its results are often overstated in their broader applicability. Notably: there are issues around the idea that it is “authority” that causes people to comply, as is usually claimed, instead of a belief in “expertise” or trust in the system (e.g. that a university-authorised study is obviously not going to kill people). Still, the conclusions are good enough for the purposes of your comment here.

Ah, but postage stamps are completely fungible.

I was thinking of the HTTP verb, you’re right.

You forgot the third group, !fuckcars@lemmy.world

Some even have sinks in each stall so you can go from wiping your ass straight to washing your hands

See, I emphatically do not want that.

If I could rely on everyone else washing their hands properly it would be great. But I don’t want to have to touch the stall door that has Aleppo been touched by people who haven’t washed their hands after I’ve washed mine. I want the hand washing to be the very last thing I do before exiting, preferably via a push door that I can push with my foot or in a spot that fewer other people would push it.

Why would someone on a help desk be expected to know what POST is? A software engineer, sure, but helpdesk? If it’s needed knowledge…that’s what training is for. Businesses’ expectation that people will come into the job already knowing exactly how you do things and never require on-the-job training is absurd.

doesn’t mean that it should be used without consideration for its generally accepted meaning

This is my point. You are deciding that your “accepted meaning” must be the “generally” accepted meaning. That’s prescriptivist. I understood what was meant, because my understanding of the word comfortably allows for this. And since dictionaries generally aim to describe real-world usage (usually listing “archaic” or “rare” where appropriate, which most dictionaries will do with alternative definitions of rape—see attached image), I feel pretty comfortable in asserting that your attempts to prescribe a more limited definition are wrong. Especially given this was seemingly an attempted execution—in a country with rule of law, it would very likely be tried as attempted murder.

To be clear: at no point did I make any reference to rape or the definition thereof. I was only referring to how you and others were using lynch.

We all know the connotations of these terms

Do we? Because I didn’t have any issue with the word as used. To me, a lynching is a violent, usually race/ethnicity-based mob attack on a person. And this pretty well fits the bill.

You’re the one doing linguistic prescriptivism here. The only difference is that what you’re prescribing isn’t what’s in the dictionary, it’s what’s in your own head.

Except that in the context “lynched” is being used in this case, even with a strict “death only” definition, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that “attempted lynching” would have been appropriate. Given that context, and the fact that actually “death only” is not the definition of lynched, can you not see how crying about definitions looks an awful lot like downplaying the severity of this crime? Like when zionists cry about being accused of genocide?

Children dying of cancer is not “good”, and frankly the fact that you seem to think it is is fucking disgusting.

It’s not about “want” at all. It’s about figuring out what’s true. And what’s true is that the Abrahamic god, as understood by modern Jews, Christians, and Muslims, is very clearly impossible, unless you choose to define “good” as including children dying of cancer.

First, you’ll note that I started this conversation by conceding free will and concentrating my discussion of evil on evils that are not performed by humans, but by the planet itself, or by fundamental biology.

But as for “the concept of life as a test”…why is something supposedly omniscient performing a test? It should already know the result of said test, thus making the test itself irrelevant. That’s what omniscience is.

If there is no evil how can there be good?

Easy. You take the world as it is right now…and then remove the evil things. Evil is a metaphysical concept. We often use analogies of light and dark, but it doesn’t literally work that way.

But why is that all good? Why couldn’t he have earth be good?

I’m upvoting because I thought this was done good engagement with the premise and you don’t deserve to be downvoted for it.

But fundamentally, you’ve missed a pretty big step. What if god just…didn’t create a situation where children get diseases that can only be cured with one rare tree?

Or, more importantly, what about diseases that cannot be cured? What about natural disasters? Yes, some types of natural disasters have gotten more common and worse as a result of human action, but they still happened before climate change, and if anything were more disruptive to people before we had modern building practices.

We’re talking about a god that is literally capable of anything. It could just wave its hand and delete all disease from existence. It chooses not to.

What shits me is Christians (and Jews and Muslims, but it’s mainly Christians who do this) who just handwave away the problem of evil. Like fine, I can accept that some evils might arise as a result of human decisions and free will. Things like wars and genocides are done by people. It’s difficult to swallow even that much with the idea of a god who supposedly knows all, is capable of doing anything, and is “all good”, but fine, maybe free will ultimately supplants all that.

But what I absolutely cannot accept is any claim that tries to square the idea of a god with the triple-omnis with the fact that natural disasters happen. That children die of cancer. You try telling the parents of a child slowly dying of a painful incurable disease that someone could fix it if they wanted, and they completely know about it, but that they won’t. And then try telling them that person is “all good”. See how they react.

I find religious people who believe in the three omnis after having given it any amount of serious consideration to be absolutely disgusting and immoral people.

lemmit.online? I think it was the first instance I blocked that hadn’t been defederated by my admins.

Safe, sure. Efficient? Not even close.

It’s far, far more expensive than renewable energy. It also takes far, far longer to build a plant. Too long to meet 2030 targets even if you started building today. And in most western democracies you wouldn’t even be able to get anything done by 2040 if you also add in political processes, consultation, and design of the plant.

There’s a reason the current biggest proponents of nuclear energy are people and parties who previously were open climate change deniers. Deciding to go to nuclear will give fossil fuel companies maximum time to keep doing their thing. Companies which made their existence on the back of fossil fuels, like mining companies and plant operators also love it, because it doesn’t require much of a change from their current business model.