Instalează Steam
conectare
|
limbă
简体中文 (chineză simplificată)
繁體中文 (chineză tradițională)
日本語 (japoneză)
한국어 (coreeană)
ไทย (thailandeză)
български (bulgară)
Čeština (cehă)
Dansk (daneză)
Deutsch (germană)
English (engleză)
Español - España (spaniolă - Spania)
Español - Latinoamérica (spaniolă - America Latină)
Ελληνικά (greacă)
Français (franceză)
Italiano (italiană)
Bahasa Indonesia (indoneziană)
Magyar (maghiară)
Nederlands (neerlandeză)
Norsk (norvegiană)
Polski (poloneză)
Português (portugheză - Portugalia)
Português - Brasil (portugheză - Brazilia)
Русский (rusă)
Suomi (finlandeză)
Svenska (suedeză)
Türkçe (turcă)
Tiếng Việt (vietnameză)
Українська (ucraineană)
Raportează o problemă de traducere
'science can't explain X, therefore god did X' isn't a good argument
i think i tried like 300 different approaches to get him to understand
one method i tried was to ask him if "a magical unicorn did it" was a good explanation for antimatter asymmetry and he copy pasted an article of 'appeal to ridicule fallacy' as a response
why do i even try to be patient with these people
"Even though X is overdetermined, it isn't logically necessary, so I'm going to believe ~X"
"X is shown to be the case through human reasoning and perception, the only things we can base our beliefs on, so I'm going to believe ~X"
Not sure what on earth is going on here, but if you believe plants are sentient, you should go vegan so you kill less plants.