Random Notes

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can the alt right compete against MGTOW (rhetorical)?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A Regular Lament

You know, I think I'm just going to keep making a point of it, since it keeps coming up↑ in my life↑.

(ahem ....)

• If you wish to "help" me cook by changing things to the way you would do it if you were cooking, then go ahead and do the cooking.​

If you're going to tamper with what I'm cooking, you can simply take over.

You want to help, great.

You want to screw up the food because the way I cook isn't the way you do, just tell me and I'll get the fuck out of the kitchen.

 

Lana Lokteff is smart and beautiful.

 

“To say that God is omniscient is to say that He possesses perfect knowledge and therefore has no need to learn. But it is more: it is to say that God has never learned and cannot learn.” ― A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy


“In order for a god to be all-knowing, he must know even the fact of his own omniscience. But can he do this? He may know the totality of facts constituting the world; call this Y. But in order to know that he has mastered Y, he must also know that 'There are no facts unknown to me' — and this is beyond Y.


It seems impossible that a god (or anyone) could ever be sure that nothing exists beyond his ken. It makes no sense to imagine [a god] arriving at this limit, peering beyond it (at what?), and satisfying himself no further facts exist. But without this certainty he cannot be sure of his own omniscience, and so does not know everything.


A theist might argue that his god has created all the facts in existence. But an omniscient god would have to be sure of even this — that he is the sole creator, and that there are no facts unknown to him. And how could he come to this knowledge?”


― Roland Puccetti


“Can omniscient God, who

Knows the future, find

The Omnipotence to

Change His future mind?”


― Karen Owens

 

Smoke Detectors

(1) Later, I will look up this brand of smoke detector and make certain to never again have one in my house.

(2) The problem with the PSA recommendation to change all your smoke alarm batteries at once ought to be obvious.

(3) In case point (2) above is unclear, it is one in the morning, and every smoke detector in the house has decided to start letting us know it's time to change the batteries.

(3)(a) At least one unit has seen its battery changed and is still pitching a fit.​

(3)(a)(1) This would suggest none of the smoke alarms are actually reliable; that is to say, at least one is malfunctioning, so I can no longer have confidence in the rest.​

(4) Given the fact that these things have constant charge to them, someone remind me why we need to keep changing out the nine-volts? Is there no rechargeable battery technology that can endure a power failure? Is there no rechargeable battery technology reliable enough to put in a smoke detector?

(No, seriously; we have one potentially functioning smoke detector right now, and a CO alarm that may or may not be working. You know, when I was a kid, I used to get mad at companies because their boards were a bunch of evil people. These days, I get frustrated by the proposition that making certain a product works is bad for business. My, how we've lowered our standards over the years.)

 

Political Science Professor: Odds Of President Trump Range BETWEEN 97% AND 99%

Political science professor forecasts Trump as general election winner

 

A simple proposition:

If you are not going to call a plumber because today is Sunday and you don't expect anyone to come out, then don't start taking the freaking plumbing apart.​

Just sayin'.

 

If anyone is interested, it is not a good idea to allow your friends to convince you to pick up an eight ball for "old times' sake" at 55 years of age. After abstaining for 25 years. Just sayin'...

 

I have to wonder what people on the Alt Right think about when it comes to the issue of freewill. If they always appear or seem to use the notion of Black on White violence as one of their reasons or justifications for the segregation of races, do they not see an acknowledgment of some kind of function of non-change? Are they suggesting or implying that the so-called problems associated with racial diversity cannot be fixed? Are they acknowledging some kind of biological determinism or even just “general determinism?”

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Jourdan Miller (model):

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A random thought that's been bugging me off and on in recent days, and I have no idea why:

• Why do some people try to present systematic as if it is random?​

It's like this person I know who can't have a conversation with anyone, ever, that does not involve finding a reason to change the subject and tell that person what to do. To the one, sure, this person is just talking about whatever comes to mind; to the other, it is observable that "whatever comes to mind" is what the other is doing wrong and needs to do in order to satisfy the one. This behavior is systematic; it persists despite diverse, disruptive applicable factors.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Katie Couric was beautiful back in the 90s.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then you have to wonder why Celebrity Types listed her as an ENFP.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If I was God and I had an infinite amount of time to design a world with life, I'm pretty sure I could come up with one where there was no predator-prey relationships and there would be no competition among life forms, be they plant or animal. Every animal would be vegetarian, there would be no population over-runs.

 

My favorite movie and characters:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!