There are centuries of religious thought by mystics developing upon the texts inspired in part by those stories. The parts based on common ancient legends comprise a relatively small part of religious texts.

And still, if anything that’s supportive evidence. The ancient legends that pop up again and again, that survive centuries of canonical revision, probably reflect deep and spiritually apparent features of reality.

They contradict each other on many aspects.

Yes, which is why I said to compare them to see where they don’t contradict each other.

So either only is from God or none of them are.

Never said any of them were from God. They’re all from humans attempting to describe God.

The Bible, and the Quran, and the Vedas, and every other religious text are human attempts to describe God. None of them are going to get it quite right in every detail, but you can learn a lot by cross referencing them to see what they agree on.

Ignoring the AI part, since it doesn’t even know it’s gaslighting you.

Maybe read some Buckminster Fuller. He opined to some length about trends in real-world changes.

Isaac Asimov as well, just for a general sense of the approach.

But overall probabilities are kinda arbitrary when applied to specific events. They work fine for a whole lot of similar events (e.g. pulling colored marbles out of a bag) but they don’t really have any tangible meaning for unique events. Either you guess wrong or you guess right.

If you want to predict future events, you need to have a good grasp on current events, past events, and systemic behavior in general. There isn’t one methodology that yields results generally. You need to tailor your approach to suit each prediction.

That’s not something you can learn from one book, course, or series of exercises. It relies on broad scholarship.

Narrow the scope of policing. Have more social services and emergency mental health resources so cops aren’t expected to do all that.

“Defund the police” never meant “Remove all funding for police”, it means “Reallocate potions of police funding to more comprehensive social services”

How bout the power of flight, that do anything for ya?

I chose my wife in large part for her honesty. It’s much easier to teach a brutally honest person to be more tactful than to teach a dishonest person to be honest.

It’s spicy, salty, heavy on a particular ingredient, anything that might be off-putting to some.

What is the soup of the day?

“Soup du jour”

Mmm, that sounds good.

This is an actual exchange I had.

Especially roasted

I’m on Sync, dunno about anything else.

I have gone through phases of blocking very vocal idiots, but then as you said I feel at an informational disadvantage.

I’ve gotten recently into tagging people with descriptions of repeated behavior. That way I still know what’s going on, but I know what to expect from them.

Guillotines are too tame for modern audiences. Wood chippers are fresh and exciting.

Only pedantically. Economic systems have to run on something, whatever that something is will flow to the top.

America is soft on white collar crime. It’s tough as nails on anyone with a net worth under 7 figures.

Technically, the first time was me misdialing my mom at work. Her number was 91x-1yyy, and I missed the x.

The first time I intentionally dialed 911 was to alert them of a dead deer or something in the middle of the road that I almost hit. Probably should’ve used the non-emergency line, but 911 is a lot easier to dial while driving.

The problem with most problematic habits and behavior is that they feel really good. People don’t generally engage in harmful behaviors that also feel bad.

I know what consent is. I’m saying that applying the concept of consent here is nonsensical. Consent is so logically impossible that it’s irrelevant. This is the part beyond understanding.

That’s why I bothered to go into any of the rest of the concern. The prior consent angle is meaningless, so the next place you go is retroactive consent.

I do want a biological child or two, but I do also agree with prioritizing adoption. I plan to adopt/foster several children after my biological children grow up. Personally, I feel that’s a bit more ethical, as I’d like to establish my parental skills with the benefits of raising from birth and biological similarity, before I presume to handle the additional complexities of a child with a past.

My point is the anti natalists have the perspective that the risk of suffering is not worth imposing on a new human.

You saying that assessment is overblown does not change their perspective

The real part I didn’t understand is the “prior consent” part. Like I said, before you have the child, there’s nothing to ask for consent. It doesn’t make any sense.

But as to the rest, I’m saying that the assessment is so overblown that it ceases to be rational. A fraction of a fraction of a percent of people will never get fulfillment from life, so no one should ever have children?

There’s always some risk associated with everything. To never do anything because there’s a minuscule chance it could be disastrous is ridiculous.