So trying to destroy it and making sure its accurate and complete turns out to be the same thing

Damn that hell of a good explanation, thank god I can use those holy words in the future with their whole blasphemic potential. Ironically, it will prolly make me sound like a christian…

That makes sense. Your doc wouldn’t try to convince your shit explains the universe tho

I never understood how “hell” and “damn” are considered forbidden words by christian-conservatives. The stem directly from their own vocabulary, they are all about those categories, yet they don’t want to see them in discourse

Thank you, this justifies to introduce myself as campaign porn producer from now on

(What I’m trying to say is you have my bow)

Succesfully iniating this from the fediverse would be such a massive boost in public visibility and discoursive strength of the project of collectivization of information infrastructure (like lemmy).

Imagine we fluffin freed science from capital and basically all the scientists openly stated how useful this was

Oh man this is kinda tiring… Of course it’s not evidence. I’m trying to foster fair culture of discussion that’s all

After all, we’re trying to have a “better internet” in this niche community of lemmy, don’t we?

No, the “if it were true we probs wouldn’t have evidence”- part

To be fair, it’s something else than “made the fuck up” when they do provide a line of reasoning.

“Logic insists” is imo too strong of a formulation for that level of speculative reasoning, but it’s still not entirely made up, especially when they provide a reason why you’d have to be speculative about the subject.

I think for perfect fairness of discussion that last part would have to be challenged before attacking them speculating that harsh

Okay I dont know much about dino categorization, but let’s say: The category “dinosaur” is a sum of descriptions of objective properties of dinosaurs and their relation to other species’ properties (idk, no milk, thus no mammal…). Those properties and relations existed as the dinosaur existed. So I would agree: to that extend the categories existed, without us.

Let’s say the category “poetry” describes a relational phenomenon that occurs when a combination of words or an arrangement of things (sunset, fossils) sparks an aesthetic experience.

This is not just discovered and described by humans, but it can exclusively happen when humans are present. As with dinos: the category “poetry” didn’ exist before us. The difference I’m all about: What the category describes also did’t exist before humans. Yes, there were fossils, but they alone would have never evolved to be a part of poetry without humans, the way dinos were dinos without humans.

You also rock.

You rock.

To the haters: I dont question your experience of (this) poetry. That I would be sorry for.

I questions the hypostasis, that is declaring your experience of the thing as a property of the thing.

No. By my logic human existence is the point in wich poetry exists.

Yes, we almost agree, I just argue: Poetry is not what sparks. It’s the spark.

Sunrise exists: no poetry. Sunrise sparks someones mind: poetry.

Did anyone look this up?

Yeah nice, but also no not quite… Before humans and before words there was no poetry. Just stones and bugs and stuff. It needed humans cognitive capacity to emerge/create (not discover) aesthetic categories, like poetry

Sorry for fact checking your poetic meme, but it made this claim that might be understood factual and unreflected mystification of nature is still quite a thing

Wasn’t sure if you were joking. But after 3 minutes of research I see you weren’t. Thanks for that info. … turns out they don’t euphemize their euthanize.

I’ll see myself out