jibal

14 ms·

361.
by jibal 4mo ago
Indeed, that accusation of bad faith is such blatant projection ... essentially "It's bad faith to disagree with me, and there's no need for me to justify my claims." This whole diversion is off topic and can be seen as
362.
by jibal 4mo ago
No, the first one is true. It's the copycat comment that is vacuous and doesn't even make any sense -- "in the right" has a clear meaning, "in the left" is nonsense.
363.
by jibal 4mo ago
I expected it to be fiction from the title, and knew it was from the structure, before even reading any text.
364.
by jibal 4mo ago
Those are all states that humans can be in and repeatedly have been in. Being a bat is not such a state.
365.
by jibal 4mo ago
Many people (e.g., Daniel Dennett, myself) think it's a terrible paper that has done a huge amount of damage. Unfortunately, that too makes it a landmark. Likewise for Searle's Chinese Room argument and Chalmers' "hard p
366.
by jibal 4mo ago
Which says nothing at all that is like your claim.
367.
by jibal 4mo ago
None of that is in the ruling.
368.
by jibal 4mo ago
> not “the text itself is somehow hypocritical because people misuse it”. I should stick with not responding, but I never said anything of the sort. And despite my many criticisms of religion and the religious, I have never in my life ha
369.
by jibal 4mo ago
> The system does not allow good candidates to make it through to a vote. This simply isn't true. What is true is that there's a strong bias which makes it harder, but hyperbole is a form of lying. > There are other, more ef
370.
by jibal 4mo ago
> It's not intellectually lazy Of course it is, naysayer. > it's being intellectually tired. Perhaps that's in part a cause of the former in your case ... but you aren't everyone and I was referring to bothsidesing
371.
by jibal 4mo ago
Programmers aren't necessarily people.
372.
by jibal 5mo ago
"can" != "necessarily does", but you said "can't", which is what I refuted. And I think your assertion here is even more baseless, frankly ... there's zero indication that they offered the quote to bu
373.
by jibal 5mo ago
The common criticism was > Probably to show you can pick any choose any bible verse to make whatever point you want. Explicit contradictions aren't the only basis for that, but for those, bible-defending pedants can see password4321
374.
by jibal 5mo ago
The common criticism was > Probably to show you can pick any choose any bible verse to make whatever point you want. Explicit contradictions aren't the only basis for that, but for those see password4321's comment that started
375.
by jibal 5mo ago
The Contract On America as many of us called it. And Newt's legacy has metastasized into even more virulent forms.
376.
by jibal 5mo ago
How is it possible to not be familiar with this common criticism? e.g., Leviticus prohibits wearing clothes woven of two different types of fabric and calls for killing adulterers, anyone who curses their parents, etc. etc. which millions o
377.
by jibal 5mo ago
But they weren't touting the bible or offering it as an authority, just saying that one particular statement was "aspirational" but has practical problems ("To isolate children from the iniquity of the parent would requi
378.
by jibal 5mo ago
[flagged]
379.
by jibal 5mo ago
Of course one can quote the statement that one agrees with and not the statement one doesn't agree with, unless the intent is to review the work that contains them, which it wasn't.
380.
by jibal 5mo ago
Your citation refers to the register keyword and trigraphs, among other language features -- the author seems to have forgotten his own point, among a number of other inconsistencies and contradictions, and at times seems to go out of his w
381.
by jibal 5mo ago
First hit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hancom
382.
by jibal 5mo ago
A web search will give you a faster and better answer than you will get by asking here.
383.
by jibal 5mo ago
Indeed. Aside from being extraordinarily intellectually lazy, bothsidesing actually enables corruption by failing to identify it, or failing to distinguish degrees of corruption that are so severe as to be more differences in kind than diff
384.
by jibal 5mo ago
Who said anything about being easier? This way of providing energy evolved because of evolutionary pressure to see better.
385.
by jibal 5mo ago
They improve efficiency in their airborne and tree crown niches, whereas mammalian traits are optimized for their respective terrestrial or aquatic niches. And so on and so forth for every species.
386.
by jibal 5mo ago
> Soo evolution doesn't always optimize for biochemical efficiency in isolation. How could it? Evolution "optimizes" (as far as local hill climbing can go) fitness , which is the ability to produce viable offspring. Genes
387.
by jibal 5mo ago
Evolutionary biologists disagree. Adaptations are the result of numerous evolutionary coincidences, but not all evolutionary coincidences are adaptive. Not only are most survivable mutations neutral, but there are traits that are truly &quo
388.
by jibal 5mo ago
You complained about the article's talk about "inefficiency" -- you quoted it. But as I noted, THEIR mention of efficiency/inefficiency was ALWAYS about the chemical process, not about efficiency of vision. Now you'
389.
by jibal 5mo ago
A split is a split. Archosaurs split into a crocodile line and a dinosaur/bird line--"the avian lineage" (birds being a kind of dinosaur, and the only ones still living) ... that's what "the avian lineage had spli
390.
by jibal 5mo ago
Note the word "lineage". That would include the dinosaurs that were ancestors of birds. Birds are dinosaurs, so reword the statement as > the dinosaurs had split from crocodiles Birds and crocodiles are both archosaurs (which i

More ›