JadedAtheist

♦ Diamond Patron ♦
  • Content count

    2,665
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

JadedAtheist last won the day on September 5 2014

JadedAtheist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

890 Outstanding

About JadedAtheist

  • Rank
    The one and only

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southern Hemisphere
  • Interests
    Typical nerdy/geeky things.
  • More About Me
    Check the "About Me" section.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    No.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,382 profile views
  1. Perhaps it was white nationalist. I'd have to double check, but I am to lazy to do so now. Basically it was a rally that had counter protestors, when the rally members were forced to leave it was just the counter protestors that were left and who were stuck by the car AFAIK.
  2. Google firing of the Straw bigot

    The reaction to things like this are what is pushing me to the right if I'm perfectly honest. I can understand that we need to be careful with how we discuss certain topics, and I totally get the concern by the leftists that many will interpret this memo as saying women are less suited for STEM roles than men and run with that but that doesn't give you a free pass to mischaracterize the document as a whole so that it'll be an easier argument to take down. That said, I don't really agree overall with what he is saying but it's frustrating to see that no one has actually dealt with the real memo so far when critiquing it. EDIT: I've found some critiques. Here's one by psychologist with a PhD. TL;DR the sex differences are negligible.
  3. From what I understand the neo nazi crowd left, and it was the "leftist" crowd that was mainly left (heh). I'm guessing it was a neo-nazi that plowed into the crowd but I'm sure more news will come.
  4. The Vanishing American Adult

    I haven't got the time to watch the video now, but I'm also a millennial. I'm assuming this video in a nutshell is "millennials are acting like acting like children for far longer than previous generations", along with some other shade no doubt. I had no interest in moving out of home till my mid 20s, and really it's only been the last couple years where living by myself would be viable. By that I mean, having enough money to pay not only for rent, but also be able to save up for and pay for other bills as they come. If I wanted to move out of home prior to this, I could've done it, but I would need a roommate if I had any intention of having spare cash. Thus, staying at home was the best solution for me. I'm sure things in the US are very different, but after landing my first full time job at 19 it wasn't really that hard to get jobs after that. There were a few rough periods I'll admit, but I was never forced to work on a casual basis or part time for that matter. I say this as a high school drop out. Now that I've just about got a degree behind me, with years of experience I don't have any issues. I do get the impression that some millennials in Australia are a bit whiny. There are complaints about affordable housing, and look; everyone wants to live close to work and when you live in a city of 4.5 million people that means there's a lot of demand so prices are going to go up. You have to adapt. Either live further out from the CBD, work closer to home for a bit less money or move to a smaller city. In the city I live in now ( < 100,000 people), I can buy a nice home and pay it off comfortable in about 10 years by myself. If I was going to buy it with another person, this would be obviously about half the time. I think the problem with some millennials (the ones vocal enough to make it seem like there's a consensus) is they're entitled. Would it have been great to live in a time and place where I could work part time, pay for college and then buy a home after a few short years working at a place where I'll be for the rest of my life? Sure, but I'm shit out of luck. There's no point in bitching about what could've been. You gotta make the best out of what you got and go from there. No it's not fair, but hey, that's life. Like I said before, adapt to the circumstances. Consider yourself lucky if you were born in a first world country, at least being poor there is helluva lot better than being poor in the third world.
  5. Yeah, I figured it'd be a line issue at this point. We had a storm a couple years ago and my speeds dropped to about a quarter of what they were before. It took a lot of pressure to convince them there was a line fault since my speeds were still past the minimum speeds guaranteed in the contract. Long story short, they finally there was an issue at the point I was connected on at the exchange and they moved me to another one. Instantly went back to my normal speeds (if anything, they were slightly higher, by about 2mbps). Here's hoping they'll find the fault and fix it on up for you.
  6. So, you've done most of what I would've recommended doing at some point, but I would've started with isolation tests. In other words, making sure there was only one device on the network and testing its speeds, then doing the same with another. You'd kinda need to do this several times during the day over several days to get a good idea of whats going on. If all the devices you tested with showed similar speeds and variances, then you can safely say that the issue is not to do with anything internally after ruling out the router and internal cabling. At that point it could be an issue with your lines, could be network congestion or it could be your ISP throttling you.
  7. I wish

    The fear of hell isn't something one can drive out of them by purely reasoning over it. That's not to say it doesn't help, but it's one of those things you have to take time to process. From what you've said, Zehn it seems to me that you have 2 things which you're giving credibility to hell. The first is that you've had, and have read of others who have had supernatural experiences and the second is that you view the Bible as having some historical credibility. Before I deal with these 2 points I'll say the following: If Christianity were real, you're already fucked. If salvation is dependant on faith, do you really think what you have now is faith? That God considers you only sticking around because of the fear of potential damnation in hell as the faith required of salvation? You're already damned in this system. I don't mean to come on heavy, I'm just pointing out how emotional aspect is keeping you from recognising the rational one. Onto the first point. People see all sorts of things. Depending on the region you're from, people have religious experiences based upon the dominant religion of the society they're in. Isn't that coincidental? Look up how near death experiences are dependant on the context of the individual. While the specifics differ in detail, the overarching themes are all the same. At best you could argue that some deity is manifesting itself in imagery best understood by the person receiving the message they want to give, but all that does is discredit all religions rather than confirming any of them as being the one true faith. Furthermore, people see all sorts of things, as mentioned earlier UFOs are now a thing with people saying they were experimented on and all that nonsense. As a Christian you might be tempted to say your religious experiences were valid, and those of other religions are invalid/satanic, but we both know this is a lame excuse. Whatever the answer is, it isn't "this proves Christianity". Secondly, just because the Bible deals with some historical figures and takes place in historical regions doesn't automatically make it a historical document. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is not a historical documentary for example. This is a big one to tackle, but there is so much evidence against the Bible being accurate. Read about higher criticism of the Bible, contemporary religions of the period and history outside of the Bible and you will see that it's just a bunch of garbage.
  8. Thoughts On Crying?

    I'm not an American, so I can't really speak for perceptions there but here in Australia I think it's somewhat similar. I'm not a sociologist (or a psychologist for that matter), but I think the negativity stems from the fact that crying is perceived as a weakness of character. For example, if you have a rough time at work and it upsets you enough to cry over it then you're seen as weak as your threshold for that response is seen as being too low. The threshold for crying is basically anything around death, serious illness or your life crashing down around you. Below that, and you're considered weak because you're not "strong enough" to process your difficulties "normally". If you're a woman, you don't have the same expectations of character. You're expected to be weaker, less resilient. Still, there's a limit and you go too far you're seen as hysterical. For women I think they are not perceived in terms of "strong" and "weak" but rather "cold" and "crazy". They need to do more balancing then men do I think. Men just need to go in one direction. As for how long it's been like this? I think this is just an extension of people judging others based on general norms. Whenever you don't toe the line, no matter how inconsequential there's going to be people out there judging you for it. I would be very surprised if men crying was ever considered acceptable except for times of great distress. As for my thoughts on crying? I try not to judge people for it, but I'll admit I get pretty uncomfortable when people cry. My mother suffered depression and schizophrenia for most of my childhood. Whenever she got bad enough to start crying (and she'd be crying constantly once she started) I knew my trip back to a foster home was imminent. So, if I see someone crying it fucks me up a bit, but that's more to do with me and my issues than it being them. Anyways, I think the problem here is that mental illness is an invisible issue, and like "invisible disabilities" people get unfairly treated and judged because people can't see the pain. It sucks, but people gonna people.
  9. 13th Doctor a woman: Jodi Whitaker.

    My mistake, I was thinking of River and while the plot is somewhat focused on her, she is not a lead, no. Sure, and just to clarify I wasn't intending on saying the were doing it in this particular case, I just mean in general. EDIT: One mistake after another.
  10. What Foreigners think of Americans

    I think you might be misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that she is a poor English speaker. She's fluent, but she hasn't lost her German accent. That's not a mark against her or anything, it's pretty hard to lose an accent and I also don't think an accent is bad. I'm just saying that if I only heard her voice you'd never be able to convince me that she wasn't German. Like, there's not a remote doubt in my mind. Some people pick up accents really well and you might have trouble guessing where they're from, she's not one of those types. Once again, not a mark against her ability or fluency; just that she has a noticeable accent.
  11. What Foreigners think of Americans

    Definitely strong IMO. Maybe our mate Thurisaz can back me up (or not). It's strong, but whatever region she's from means that it's more easily understood than if she were from some other places which make it harder to understand them (not familiar with the names of the regions where the accents come from, but been exposed to enough Germans to know that certain regions have worse accents than others).
  12. What Foreigners think of Americans

    I did understand your point. The reason people "trolling and egging you on" is because your reply came across as you being butt hurt about what I had to say when the point of the post was to solicit opinions of people. I have no problem with what you said, I was giving my 2 cents on why they were said (which I've said numerous times now), and I am continuing the back and forth because I am amused. You're allowed to get annoyed, and I'm allowed to be amused by your annoyance. As for how you should express yourself, I'm not telling you how to talk. I'm telling you how I've interpreted what you've said (and as we can clearly see you both dislike and disagree with my interpretation). I'm not declaring my observations to be fact, after all, only you know your intentions; I can only make educated guesses at best based on observation. Like I said previously, your reply was really weird given the context and gives the impression that you're butt hurt, or you're trying to come off as some sort of intellectual (or both). Our entire exchange thus far is really amusing to me because I'm surprised at how offended you are. Simply expressing a negative interpretation of your intentions is not an "attack". In any case here, are we making any grounds in this back and forth? I think not. Let's move on and let the topic go where it needs to. Feel free to PM me if you really wish to continue the exchange.
  13. 13th Doctor a woman: Jodi Whitaker.

    I don't watch the show enough to really care to be honest. I don't have anything against female protagonists, it just rubs me the wrong way when they make a spectacle of it. 3 of my favourite TV series of all time have a female lead (Dark Angel, Buffy, Firefly) and what I liked was the fact that they weren't constantly parading around the fact at "look at me, I'm a strong powerful woman and isn't this surprising!". That was one of the things that irked me about the latest Star Wars film was how the female lead kept beating a dead horse in making the point that she wasn't a maiden that needed to be saved. It would've gone far better had they not did this at all and just treated her as the strong female lead that she is.
  14. What Foreigners think of Americans

    I'm not going to waste too much time on this, but there are loads of pages that define ad hominem. Let's choose one from https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem To quote the page at length: As we can see here the whole point of an ad hominem attack is to undermine an argument you're making. Notice at no point did I say I disagreed with your point. In fact I said "obvious point is obvious". The other statements were my interpretations of your intentions behind making the point. Which, to be fair, in of itself could be cause for an ad hominem attack but once again I am not doing so in order to disagree with your point. I don't know how more clear this can honestly be, but hey you do you man.
  15. What Foreigners think of Americans

    Yep that's my bad, misread what you said in terms of prompting vs being prompted. As for the rest, as I stated already; your point about generalizations is obvious which is why I said I didn't see the need for that as a reply. I posited my opinion for the reason for you sharing the reason, which was the intention of seeming intellectual. You're not exactly doing yourself any favors by consistently using "ad hominem" despite the fact that I am not using a personal attack against you in order to dismiss an argument you're making. If you mean that I am personally attacking you, say that, otherwise you're making yourself look silly (despite your intentions). You'll notice nowhere in my reply that I disagree with your argument; I'm simply stating it has no purpose. Nor am I dismissing your argument based on the observations I made (that is to say, that I think you're posturing). You don't like how I've interpreted your actions which is fair enough but please use ad hominem correctly.