galanthus
@galanthus@lemmy.world
- Comment on Who here does NOT have intrusive thoughts? 1 week ago:
Ok thanks for the reply. When you said you had aphantasia and no inner monologue I thought you were a philosiphical zombie. I guess I was wrong, but there is no way to know I suppose.
- Comment on Who here does NOT have intrusive thoughts? 1 week ago:
That’s interesting, I myself can sometimes think without a monologue. I did it just now, and I am not sure if I do not use words, but I do not actually hear them, but I know the thoughts are there somehow. It often happens on its own when I have a lot of thoughts at the same time or think really fast about something.
But usually I talk to myself in my head, this is either a monologue or a sort of dialogue, and I often tell myself to shut up out loud when no one is around. I also imagine music, and I can enjoy it this way, and I do so pretty accurately. I play by ear.
- Comment on Who here does NOT have intrusive thoughts? 1 week ago:
I am sorry for the questions, this is really interesting.
What about maths? How do you do geometry? Do you have to have a drawing or can you manage without it? How do you understand geometry if you can’t see it’s objects?
- Comment on Who here does NOT have intrusive thoughts? 1 week ago:
And what happens when you read a description of something? Do you just have an idea of what it is, because if so, it seems to me that some of the value of literature will be lost. Do you actually feel anything when you read a description of something beautiful, for instance?
- Comment on Who here does NOT have intrusive thoughts? 1 week ago:
Interestingly enough, silent reading was historically uncommon due to the fact that literature was less common than it is now and, most importantly, the lack of separation between words.
The ability to read silently was considered very unusual.
- Comment on motherfu.... 2 weeks ago:
The first one is hotter.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
Surely you can freely discuss this in blue states, right?
- Comment on Some eggs for my 'murican friends 2 weeks ago:
How else would you describe it?
- Comment on Some eggs for my 'murican friends 2 weeks ago:
What you described is the normal one. The american one does not have solid chocolate at all as I described.
- Comment on Some eggs for my 'murican friends 2 weeks ago:
I prefer the normal sized ones.
Or do you mean you will buy the american one?
- Comment on Some eggs for my 'murican friends 2 weeks ago:
If I remember correctly, they don’t even have chocolate in solid form, and the plastic egg splits into two halves, with one having the toy inside and the other some kind of white thing with two balls.
This is not really a kinder egg tbh, it is too different and loses the cool part about it which is the toy being inside the chocolate egg.
- Comment on Would this be a red or green flag? 4 weeks ago:
Where is this from?
- Comment on Would this be a red or green flag? 4 weeks ago:
Oh, that is sweet. I suppose I kind of get the reason why you did feel ashamed, but I do not think this way generally. I might feel pity for someone like that, but hardly guilt, since if they took the job out of self interest, it would be worse for them if I didn’t offer it. The only thing you can do to help them then is give them the money they want without making any demands of them, but all wage labour functions in such a way, that it offers a monetary reward for time and labour, it is hardly worse to work as a maid than to work in a factory. If you want to do charity, you do not have to fire your maid.
I am not quite sure: did you feel guilty because you was uncomfortable with hiring another person to do your bidding, or because you thought it was excessive to hire them and so it is wrong because making someone work to fulfil such an unnecessary need is unethical?
But I do not mean to say you were wrong to feel guilty about this. I am just sharing my thoughts on it, and I think that your sentiment was noble, in a way.
- Comment on Would this be a red or green flag? 4 weeks ago:
I see your point, but asking someone to value someone over themselves in such a way is a bit much. Charity to such a degree(giving away your money whenever you want to spend it on unnecessary labour/goods) is for saints.
A lifestyle of bourgeois decadence is something that is difficult to refuse. Are you sure you would be able to?
- Comment on Would this be a red or green flag? 4 weeks ago:
Oh, but is it not better to not have to do housework? If you could hire one, wouldn’t that be preferrable?
- Comment on Religion 4 weeks ago:
Yes, gods are different in different religions, but why would you, to determine whether something is a god in christianity use pagan standards?
My point is, that within the logic of christianity you can not say there is more than one god, it is unreasonable to say that christianity is polytheistic.
Also, “one divinity appearing in multiple forms” is not a polytheistic thing, since you only have one divinity. The trinity does not consist of three gods, but of three hypostases of the same god. My point is that it can only seem like those are three gods, but if you have more deep knowledge of christianity you will never say that.
- Comment on Religion 4 weeks ago:
Ok, I will concede to you that pop culture should be considered, however I would not say angels are gods.
The christian God is the supreme power, he is the monarch of the universe, so to speak, everything is under his authority. An angel is not a god, because he is a creature, not the creator, he is subordinate. He is not all-powerful, he is a servant. Within the logic of christianity there is absolute difference between god and everything else.
In greek paganism Zeus was the king of the gods. However, he was not allpowerful(there were some henoteistic tendencies, however), other gods were still powerful in their own right, and there were gods he was afraid of(in a famous passage from the Iliad that I do not quite remember, it is mentioned that he was afraid of Nyx). There was a revolution when Kronos was overthrown, as you mentioned. So those two religions are quite different.
In Jainism, the so called “gods” are a different thing altogether, no need to mention it.
I do not know much about mormons, aren’t they christians? I thought they were.
- Comment on Religion 5 weeks ago:
Google “theodicy”.
- Comment on Religion 5 weeks ago:
Well, the way Satan is depicted in pop culture has little to do with actual christianity, and I am not sure why you felt the need to include him, despite the fact he is a very minor character in christianity, and also even in the popular depiction he is not nearly on the same level, as he was created by God, is not omnipotent, omniscient, unlike God, etc.
- Comment on A job well done 1 month ago:
He did not come up with the principle of inertia, it was already employed.
- Comment on Rainbolt never misses 1 month ago:
The continuous US states are 8,080,464.3 km2
- Comment on He should have kept smoking 1 month ago:
Start smoking.
- Comment on Rainbolt never misses 1 month ago:
“all of Europe could fit inside the 48 continental states alone” - are you sure about that, fam?
Maybe if you had a clue about what is going on outside of your country you would want to leave it, but alas, you don’t.
- Comment on 2025, still no flying cars! 1 month ago:
You are not the only one.
- Comment on Me posting to lemmy 1 month ago:
this
- Comment on M*crosoft's search engine is borderline unusable 5 months ago:
Can’t you add it manually?
- Comment on [deleted] 5 months ago:
Firstly, I would like to say that what happens in the animal world has no bearing on morality. You said it yourself, morality is a human thing. So a lion is not a moral agent, I would not judge it for eating a zebra, nor do I believe that we should try to prevent it. However, just because animals do something, it does not mean it is not immoral for us to do so, it is as natural for certain animals to eat humans, as it is to eat other animals. That does not mean that murder is moral now, suddenly. Similarly, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.
Secondly, the words direct/indirect do not mean intentional/unintentional. I do not think it is sensible to claim that the more removed you are from the consequences of your actions, the less moral responsibility you bear, but it seems to me like you are excusing the behavour of carnists(that word is, as another commenter put it, metal as fuck) by claiming that most of them are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but this has nothing to do with how “direct” the act is. I would like to add that the reason for the ignorance of most meaters(meat eaters) with regards to exact is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 months ago:
Why do you think direct immoral actions are worse than indirect immoral actions? I don’t buy that. Hell, you are even saying that you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it, and not doing it personally. Most people just deny animal abuse happens at all, or come up with ridiculous excuses for it, but you admit it is immoral, but shift your blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them so that you can eat them.
This is like saying "x has hired hitmen to killed seven people, but my parent forces me to eat broccoli every day, so since x is commiting a indirect immoral action, my parent is the worst one of them.
I am not a moral person. I, quite frankly, do not care about animals, and I would like to think I would be able to murder an animal myself(for food), since I am doing it now, albeit indirectly, and if you can’t live with the consequences of your decisions, why make them? Weigh the consequences of your actions. Do not run away from them like a coward(a lot of moralizing for a self-proclaimed immoral person).
I respect vegans. If you care about animal welfare, and are opposed to cruel treatment of animals you should not eat meat, and that’s what they do.
