There is no way I can watch every video submitted to GAW. That just isn't feasible.
Lol? Yet you can skim them and comment on them, even after they’ve been removed?
I image the part you marked wouldn't hold up in a controlled setting either.
That’s not a debunk that’s just your own lack of imagination
I've seen mountains of debunks of the "metaphysical."
I’ve seen mountains of debunks of “Q” yet here we are
Anyway, I’ll let you get back to watching James Randi clips
I didn't remove it.
Ah, i just figured because I sent a mod mail asking the reason why, then you downvoted and commented so I though your comment was somehow “the reason”
I skimmed through your video. If an asian man
You shouldn’t skim, you should just watch the part I linked to. Debunk that if you want to try.
Also pointing out a fact isn't gaslighting or mockery.
Calling everything you can’t explain a “trick” is indeed derisive if not mocking. And I called it gaslighting because in a sense, you’re telling us “dont believe your lying eyes”. There’s mountains of evidence for the “metaphysical”. This is just one small slice.
Mockery ✅
Gaslighting ✅
Deleted before anyone could see it ✅
So, which rule did this break?
I’m not sure how open to this subject the forum is, but I find there is a credible discussion to be had that is being suppressed through mockery and gaslighting on a wide array of what might broadly be called “metaphysical” phenomena.
I admit the title of the video is lame, but the video maker himself is great, so I blame the pressures of youtube algorithmic design.
There is some related discussion occurring at c/NonDuality, if the video is at all interesting to you, I recommend you pop in sometime!
That makes sense, and is fitting. For me, it evokes Luke 6:42
“You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Feel free to pop by c/NonDuality, where I posted some related (and longer) excerpts from this book
If the video resonates with you, I’ve written some comments on other .wins that expand on what you see above.
Merry Christmas
Without the intention of fanning any flames, can this all be treated as a bit of an impromptu “intervention”? Clearly Andy isn’t the only person to feel that sometimes moderation on c/Christianity can be a bit...personal sometimes.
Could it maybe be resolved, that we can seek to separate how we feel about a person overall, from their individual comments?
I personally feel I am “baggaged” by my past interactions with the mods. If I make a comment about one thing, someone dredges up a comment I made months ago about something else to attempt to invalidate what was just said. If I repeat a users words back to them I am being “incivil” , etc. etc. ...
How about, instead of rushing into removing comments, you (the mods) post a disclaimer first, laying out the issue with the comment. If objective belligerence is the response, then consider removals, and lastly, bans. Right now it seems like an unfortunate case of “respect mah authoritah” more than “let’s come together in Christ, while seeking to minimize error”...
Just my $0.02
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1327/hubbles-law-and-conservation-of-energy
What part of Hawking’s work are you talking about, Hawking radiation?
Interestingly, if you get into the weeds on this topic, Hubble redshift does violate conservation of energy, but if you read the updated versions of the 2nd law, it says “in a closed, time invariant system, energy will be conserved”
It just so happens that an expanding spacetime invalidates time invariance. Nifty little trick they use to keep their “Laws”^tm unquestionable lol
If you have a mechanism that transcends thermodynamics by increasing order or energy within a closed system, that would be quite new.
The universe is not a “closed system” (which is to say, it does not show Kaluza-Klein symmetry at the universal scale). Hubble red-shift illustrates this, in the loss of energy (“redshifting”) through the expansion of space-time. Thus, to imagine that the “laws” of thermodynamics are breakable in one direction but not the other seems to me the under-supported conclusion, they seem more like strong suggestions than laws.
Thoughts on Rupert Sheldrake’s work on genetic memory / morphic resonance?
Just to elicit the questions “what defines life?” “Are genes in any sense alive?”, that kind of thing
You may be interested in the idea of “the selfish gene”
My point all along has been that you are overly reading into things. This short story is a discussion starter, not “muh cumunist propagender”.
If you can’t see that some degree of sacrifice for the greater good, and some degree of selfishness are required for a functioning society, I don’t get what you’re doing on a forum who’s motto is “Where we go one, we go All”. The discussion is “where are those boundaries”, or, “who has the authority to enforce such boundaries, if anyone?”, or, “what happens if those boundaries aren’t enforced?”, or even “can boundaries be self-enforced once a certain sized body is reached?”. Any of an infinite number of questions, with many in that infinity being interesting and relavent to the board. But your “arguments” if you can call them that are so blunt and hard headed that they attempt to sever the discussion before it can occur.
SAD.
Sorry for the quick repost, just after the heartening replies and discussions in my first GA topic yesterday, I thought it a bit of a shame for this piece to slip by unnoticed.
Hope everyone finds it interesting!
He wrote in 2014 that vaccines cause autism, or atleast implied as such in his inimitable manner. I find it all super sketchy.
Pretty funny how “applicable” this little short story is huh?
“This protein is a savior for the body, and so I shall be a savior of society executing those I deem cancerous.”
You ever seen the movie taxi driver? This is a valid discussion, quit shitting all over it.
It’s literally the background story for a video game lmao
Great minds think alike...
and Fools seldom differ
Fair take!
You raise excellent points. From my burgeoning understanding of my own faith, I understand the Bible refers to what could effectively be understood as our “remaking”, when and if the gates of Heaven have been reached upon our death, [edit: also, there is at least one person I know who was raised up to Heaven “whole”, Enoch, as stated in the Book of Jude] but like I imply I’m hardly a theologian others should turn to for questions about dogma or doctrines. Maybe c/Christianity would have some interesting answers to the questions you raise however.
“Are things really black or white” is a question I continue to struggle with, in many realms lol
Cells get more than they “need” every day, in most humans living in the industrialized world. More salt than they need, more sugar than they need, more of all kinds of things than they need. These “selfish” cells are not being “lined up and shot”. The short story is discussing cancerous cells. Cells which break the very laws that raised them. These aren’t mere trespasses or transgressions, they are distortions so great that their greed and corruption spreads beyond themselves and poisons the entire being. It rewrites the laws themselves to ensure its undiminished growth.
Although, that’s just my interpretation. Isn’t the proof that it’s a genuine question evidenced in our vastly different answers?
Are policemen necessary? Why or why not?
Here, I’ll blow your mind for you, but I want you to give your thoughts on the record first:
Is it possible for a human to control their body or limb temperatures (significant shifts of 15 or more degrees) through nothing more than conscious will?