Patently, this Potpourri of Prose Pivots Precipitously Protracted, so let me simply add that it’s my Profound honor to meet you and you may call me “PP”

There, FTFY.

Perhaps. The issue I perceive is that, for corporations, evil deeds are only illegal if you get caught and the government actually pursues you. Then, the most the corpos face is a fine, and remember: if the penalty for doing something illegal is a flat fine, then it isn’t a punishment, it’s a price.

Thus, this corporation has indicated its clear intent to sell me to the highest bidder. I would not give them a chance to do so. A “do not agree” button is just that: a “do not agree button”.

AH, I see. So, it already existed, but until trees evolved, it wasn’t used to such an extreme extent.

No, they are saying that it would be strange for them to be native here, like how apples are not native here.

They are saying that they would be interested to see the archeological evidence that backs up the oral tradition, because oral tradition is a great way to start your research, but is insufficient as evidence for a scientific claim. Just like how (since we’re talking about European arrivals in the americas) I can say that there’s oral tradition that St. Brendan landed in america in the 6th century. However, since there’s fuck all to support it, that’s not a very convincing claim, but it sure would be interesting if someone discovered archeological evidence for it. The Icelanders claimed to have landed in america for hundreds of years with oral tradition, and few believed them because there was fuck all to support the claim. Then, all of a sudden, they find remnants of viking settlements in Canada, and now its very interesting.

You specifically cited DNA evidence. Then, when someone asked about it, you immediately accused them of European exceptionalism in a ridiculous strawman. So, either your claim can be very interesting, since it’s backed by archeological evidence, or I can treat it with the same amount of credibility as St. Brendan over there in his leather raft.

I mean, how technical do you want to get? Because gravity isn’t a real force, assuming Einstein is to be believed.

To be fair, Newton was suggesting the feasibility of using chemical propellants to create stable ballistic orbits in space as far back as the 1600s with his cannonball example.

An honest and sincere question deserves an honest and sincere answer:

Gatekeeping: Simply suggesting that others need to read more, or that they need to “look into” one of the largest and most controversial philosophical topics in history is a haughty and disdainful way of saying “I’m right, I’m not going to cite my sources, and anyone who disagrees with me must carry the burden of proof”. Don’t leave the justification for your argument as an “exercise for the reader” involving the entire canon of published thought, since that insinuates that they are simply too uneducated to understand how correct you are. THAT is gatekeeping knowledge.

I didn’t say maths was from Europe: Not directly, but you supported your argument for the statement

“[The scientific] method is predicated on European Enlightenment avowals of what constitutes an acceptable boundary of truth… [etc.]”

with nothing but the statements

“2+2 does equal 4. That doesn’t mean valuing 4 as an answer or valuing the act of valuing of the certainty of 2+2=4 is an objective position.”

as exemplary evidence. You are, quite literally, stating that the “valuing” of 4 as an answer to 2+2 is a question of science (otherwise it’s a non-sequitur), and that this is an example of how the scientific method privileges European Enlightenment ideals over others. That is saying that the precepts of mathematics are based on European enlightenment ideals, Q.E.D.

“Where’s the disdain”: I believe that a reasonable person would read this argument and conclude that the disdain is implied, given that you clearly seem to be complaining that the European enlightenment ideals have somehow “privileged” certain perspectives. Now, I happen to agree with that statement, but clearly in a very different way than you do:

It seems to me that, until the likes of Karl Popper’s contribution of the principle of falsifiability as the chief hallmark of scientific practice, the entrenched belief in strict empiricism was being privileged as a leftover of European Enlightenment traditionalism. Perhaps another will come along soon who similarly unseats Popper. To claim, however, that the scientific method itself is somehow predicated on enlightenment ideals appears, to me, to miss the entire point of this original post: that science changes, just as much as how we do science, because science is all about constantly holding ourselves, and our ideas, to ever-higher standards. Most of the principles of the modern scientific method have been around for more than a thousand years, slowly building on one another. The idea of a strict “scientific method” is as much an illusion as the entirety of reality may be, but that’s just because we are always developing new ways of knowing.

*Edited for readability and clarity.

Um, actually, the scientific method as it is currently formulated is best traced back to Ibn Al-Haytham, with elements dating back throughout thousands of years, from the rationalism of Thales to the experimentalism of 墨子. Babylonians were using mathematical prediction algorithms to accurately state the date of the next solar eclipse in 600 BCE. It seems like YOU need to read up on the history of the philosophy of science, and if you claim that 2+2=4 is an “enlightenment” idea, I cannot hope to respond with a level of disdain sufficient to encapsulate your willfully-pompous idiocy.

You say that 2+2 DOES equal 4, and then make claims which suggest that it doesn’t. Certainly, 2+2 can only be said to equal 4 because of the axioms of mathematics, which are, of course, purely postulates, since Cartesian solipsism demonstrates that we cannot truly know anything to be true except that we ourselves exist (oh, but wait, your disdain for enlightenment philosophy clearly removes this, the best refuge for your argument!)

However, to accept as a matter of course that 2+2=4 and then suggest that it is only through subjective perception that we privilege 4 over any other number in that equality is not only a clear argument in bad faith, meant only to make others feel stupid, but is also patently ridiculous, since you are reneging on your own given precept.

So, if you’re planning on gatekeeping knowledge,

1. Do better than “2+2=4, but also 2+2=5 because eurocentrism bad”
2. Fuck. Right. Off.

I always love to see this one when it makes the rounds.

I was under the impression that structural lignin was what really made trees a viable style of growth, and that seems like an odd chemical for a bunch of unrelated plants to all evolve. Is there something I’m missing? Is lignin actually present in all vascular plants?

deleted by creator

Almost. A sudden shift from skill and quality to speed and turnaround wins out in the short run, just long enough to make number go up, cash the checks, and take the golden parachute out while leaving your underlings and consumers holding the bag.

🦭💨

Well, ethanol was, literally, called the “Water of Life”

My time has come. As someone who almost exclusively listens to instrumental soundtrack from movies and games, including from games I have never played, these are the ones that most often get stuck in my head (in no particular order). A plus “+” indicates a song that got stuck in my head regularly before I ever played the game, while an asterisk “*” indicates a song that still gets stuck in my head, despite being from a game I have never played at all.

1. Baba Yetu - Civ IV (+)

2. Hyrule Castle - Breath Of The Wild (+)

3. Lorule Castle - Link Between Worlds (*)

4. One Final Effort - Halo 3 (*)

5. Golem King - Moonlighter

6. Song of the Ancients - Nier Series (*)

7. Dragonborn - Skyrim

8. Far Horizons - Skyrim (+)

9. Dragon Roost Island - Wind Waker (*)

10. Nate’s Theme - Uncharted (*)

11. Gusty Garden Galaxy - Super Mario Galaxy (*)

12. Korobeiniki - Tetris (+)

13. Gerudo Valley - Ocarina of Time (+)

14. Colgera Battle - Tears of the Kingdom

15. This Song - The Witcher 3 (It’s the song Aen Seidhe, but without vocals)

16. Bloody Tears - Castlevania (*)

But finally, the song that I credit with making me obsessed with instrumental soundtrack, because I fell asleep with it playing on repeat for a whole night at the age of 5, and then lost the game cartridge, so I forgot what it was from, and which I would get stuck in my head roughly once a month throughout my entire childhood until I finally found the song THIRTEEN YEARS LATER:

Ω) Town Theme - Final Fantasy II

Healing Wood

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Sure… Repairs damage to doors and furniture…

As someone who is neurodivergent: what a weird fucking non-sequitur-cum-ad-hominem. Fuck you for using “neurotypical” as an insult, like you are somehow better than others because you’re so special. You make us look bad. At least your username is accurate.

In such a case as you describe, this god either:

A) Would not desire faith, as it has concerns far grander than whatever some malformed ape thinks about it.

Or

B) It would not be worthy of faith, because it has the capacity to reveal these machinations in exchange for this obeisance, and chooses to watch us suffer and still expects us to thank it for our suffering.

Or

C) It would not be worthy of faith, because it has decided to test us, like some cosmic Jigsaw. Fuck that.

I hold with Stephen Fry: if I were to discover that god exists after death, my only response would be “how dare you”. If it did exist, it would not be an entity worthy of our faith, let alone love or admiration.

Yeah, there were a couple of tiny decisions, any of which failed you out if you got them wrong, and several of them had deceptive descriptions during the QTE.

I was under the impression that it wasn’t Victorian London, but The Plague Year. IIRC she, canonically, brings a blanket infested with plague lice from here to there, and ends up dropping it next to the ship Catriona, which is how the Catriona plague actually gets started. It was one of those “oh shit, yes, that explains everything” moments for me when I first read the books.