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.

Google “theodicy”.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/theodicies/

He is clearly an American, as he used “we” in the first paragraph talking about Americans.

This is a classic case of Americans thinking they are a uniquely big and culturally diverse country, despite the fact there are a number of countries that are bigger(including mine), and the US is not culturally diverse at all compared to many, many other countries(including mine).

You should leave your country once in a while.

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.

The continuous US states are 8,080,460 square kilometres.

Europe is 10,186,000 square kilometres.

I am not sure if maths has reached north america yet, but saying that “Europe can fit in the continuous us states with room to spare” does not increase the percieved intelligence of the average american.

Europe is actually bigger than the entirety of the US, including alaska and overseas territories, but who cares about facts, right? If you can manufacture ridiculous reasons to feel better than others, who needs them?

In what world is that “not far off”?

Start smoking.

“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.

You are not the only one.

this

It was a matter of time until the public found out about this. They couldn’t think in the long term, by not accepting a bit of backlash, exposing the scam they unknowingly participated in they only opened themselves up for more later.

They are not only evil, they are stupid too, which is worse.

I understand that idiots can misunderstand something if it is ambiguous, but that does not mean that ambiguity should be forbidden. If at the end of “American Psycho” there was a title saying “this film is a criticism of capitalist culture and its effect on people”, it would be worse as a film, a work of art and a statement than it is now. It would be ridiculous and disrespectful towards the audience.

It’s literally in the name, “american psycho”, it is almost stated explicitly, but they STILL do not get it. What is it that you want exactly? Our media and discourse to be made with only unintelligent people in mind?

Ok fine, I can accept this can be used SOMETIMES when you need to make something completely unambiguous, but more often than not you want the opposite - amd most things don’t have anything to do with nazism, and sarcasm can be picked up easily usually as well.

Is this an actual reason for why people do that, an ad hoc explanation, or a view that just a few people hold?

I partly agree with your second point, but the thing is that you have to figure out the person does not mean what they say - that’s the point. If you state the sarcasm explicitly it is not really sarcasm. And while in some contexts it can be hard to know for sure whether something is sarcasm, I do not think this is a problem, and it is more often than not, like in this case, rather obvious.

Also, for the “antifascist” thing to work you would have to take everything everyone says at face value to make sure there are no ambiguities. So if made a joke withut the “/s” or “/j” or whatever you would assume I am being serious? Honestly, making our communication more primitive just so that fascists are marginally easier to spot(I mean you can probably figure it out without the “/s” anyway) is, in my opinion, absurd.

I feel like the “/s” thing always ruins the joke. For me, it’s the ambiguity that makes it funny, if sarcasm is stated explicitly it just doesn’t work that well.

I see it a lot nowadays, so my comment is not targeted at you, do not take it personally. Just a thought I had.

The two rhetorical questions in your first paragraph assume the universe is discrete and finite, and I am not sure why. But also, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You think that if you show the computers and brains work the same way(they don’t), or in a similar way(maybe) I will have to accept an AI can do everything a human can, but that is not true at all.

Treating an AI like a subject capable of receiving information is inaccurate, but I will still assume it is identical to a human in that regard for the sake of argument.

It would still be nothing like a college student grappling with abstract concepts. It would be like giving you university textbooks on quantum mechanics written in chinese, and making you study them(it would be even more accurate if you didn’t know any language at all). You would be able to notice patterns in the ways the words are placed relative to each other, and also use this information(theoretically) to make a combination of characters that resembles the texts you have, but you wouldn’t be able to understand what they reference. Even if you had a dictionary you wouldn’t be, because you wouldn’t be able to understand the definitions. Words don’t magically have their meanings stored inside, they are jnterpreted in our heads, but an AI can’t do that, the word means nothing to it.

If the only thing you feed an AI is words, then how would it possibly understand what these words mean if it does not have access to the things the words are referring to?

If it does not know the meaning of words, then what can it do but find patterns in the ways they are used?

This is a shitpost.

We are special, I am in any case.

They wouldn’t be able to get it out otherwise.

The superiority of german aryan ports proven once again.

(this is a joke, nazism is evil and I hate it)

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 from doing so. 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 how the animals are treated is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.