🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

Upcoming Board Farm for testing Apache #NuttX RTOS ... Great job Tomek Cedro! 👍

Source: https://lists.apache.org/thread/32twmd3rjl2hbj9h99bn2b7b6oq3wr3t

Important PSA:

Being a pacifist doesn't mean you'll never throw a punch.

It means you'll never throw the first punch.

You should always do your best to throw the last punch, pacifist or not.

If you still have a #Twitter account, consider boosting my posts about the #Fediverse there...

https://twitter.com/RockstarRaccoon/status/1858185244014162136

@JapanProf

> Billionaires funded Trump.

You mean billionaires paid a bunch of every day people (through ads) to vote for Trump... that makes the fault the every day people, the middle class and poor people, for voting for trump and allowing themselves to be bought. All a billionaire can do is pay some guy on tv to tell you you should vote for Trump, he cant just make trump win, that is all our doing.

More over, and this is the more important part, Harris was a **bigger** supporter of the genocide than Trump just based on the numbers. Under Harris we went from 3.4 billion support for Israel to 12.5 billion support.. Under Trump support when down from 3.7 billion at his start to 3.4 billion at the end. So even if Musk didnt spend money to have Trump win and Harris won, so what you'd still have been supporting genocide, even more so.

> I’m talking about the US’s transformation into a complete oligarchy.

Its only an oligarchy because the average american voting public allows themselves to be stupid enough to vote for one of two evil parties rather than one of the three other parties that arent evil all because the two evil parties convinced them of a myth of a two party system that doesnt even exist.

Having a population so gullible you can spend $10 and tell them anything and they will beleive it isnt a Oligarchy its an Idiocracy.

> Trump is their hired gun to destroy any rival to the billionaires’ political regime.

We already took away any such barriers a long long time ago when we started supporting Blue or Red no matter how evil they both got.

> Undoing of human rights as we are seeing in Gaza serves them.

We are literally screaming at them to take our right. I cant tell you how many times on the fediverse the left has attacked me for defending free speech rights or gun rights, nor can I tell you how many times the right has screamed at me for defending trans rights or minority rights. Both sides are screaming at the top of their lungs and going out of their way to elect people whose sole purpose is to take away rights... The billionaires are the least of your worries.

@freemo "holy" means "set apart". So unless you have set a particular moley apart for religious purposes - it is an ordinary moley. A moley becomes sacrilegious when a holy (set apart) moley is desecrated, or an ordinary moley is used to mock holy moleys.

@Ponygirl

> I believe the goal posts are moving here.

There are no goal posts here, that would presume an adversarial attempt to prove you wrong or me right, I dont engage in those conversations. This is an exploration of the topic and I expect the "goal posts" on both sides to move in the sense that as we each learn from the conversation that we adjust our position to match what we learn.

> Your original assertion was that atheism is faith-based and therefore a religion.

Happy to explain what happened, there, and you are right.

It will be more clear if we look at the two definitions for atheism:

1. a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2. a lack of belief in the existence of a god or any gods

Originally I was using definition 1, which I am not refering to as non-agnostic atheism. I realized you were trying to assert exclusively #2, which I called agnostic atheism. Since I didnt care much to debate definitions and the substance of the discussion is more important I deferred debating which of those definitions were valid at all.

So while I understand that may incorrectly look like moving the goal posts it was in fact simply an attempt to use better clarifying language and avoid any debate on definitions themself.

> You can apply different shades of agnosticism to atheism all you want, it still is not faith-based

You are certainly welcome to make that case, but so far you have not made a counter point to that assertion. Please feel free to make that case if you wish.

> Also, have you ever heard of the concept that one can not prove a negative?

I most certainly have, it is one of the most widespread fallacies/myths you will hear people state. I am a professional research scientist so "proving things" is kinda my whole thing (scientific journals are pretty

Rather than get into all the technicals of why its a myth I will give you a very simple example that proves it by contradiction:

present you with a box, I claim "there is no full size american quarter in this box", this is clearly a negative. You can easily prove the negative to be true by opening the box, looking, and seeing there is no quarter in the box. Negatives absolutely can be proven, and they are proven all the time.

> I can not prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. In fact, no one can.

Your language is misleading here. We can not prove a teapot is orbiting the sun **right now**. The reason for that is because the space is too vast and our equipment not sensative enough to detect it, not because it is an unprovable concept. It is perfectly reasonable to think that once technology reaches a sufficient point it would be trivial to scan the solar system and in fact prove that a teapot is not orbiting the sun. This in no way suggests negatives cant be proven, again, we prove negatives all the time in science.

@ryan