Content/context lost in the “simplification”:
The speaker no longer feels they are in a vulnerable age. The speaker has a more formal relationship with their father. The “something” is specifically advice. The advice can change meaning depending on your perspective of it.
While it’s great as an introduction to a language, it’s NOT the same story. Not to mention, we already have things like SparkNotes from humans who have broken these stories down.
Sometimes, being bizarre and confusing is the point. In high school, I remember that our English teacher took an entire lesson taking us through a single page of prose. After reading it out loud once, we had no idea what it meant because it was written in a stream-of-consciousness format. He explained to us that the entire page takes place in the time the main character steps off of a curb, and to re-read it with that in mind.
So many thoughts race through the main character’s head and get intermixed with real-life details that pop up as she sees them, and it makes for a chaotic mess. After reading it several more times, those details become more apparent, even if they’re full of racing, half-formed thoughts. You also get such an intimate understanding of the main character and how her brain works.
You’re never going to get that when everything is simplified down to its base components - You miss out on the rest of the flavor.
“Give me your entire life and I’ll give you rewards beyond your wildest dreams… that you can only see after you die.”
One of the greatest grifts in all of history.
Oh no, I believe in a deity, I just believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being that created the universe. Have you heard the goodness of his noodliness? Forever and ever, r-amen.
Because if you can see how ridiculous that argument is, you can see how ridiculous I think yours is too. English is my first language and I grew up in the church. That’s why I don’t care about your ‘arguments’. I’ve heard them before. I’ve used them before. Then I grew up and learned better.
You’re correct that you cannot prove a negative, which is why the burden of proof is on someone making a claim. You claim there is a god, but cannot prove the existence of him, so I have no burden to believe you just like you have no burden to believe me when I claim there’s an all-powerful coalescent ball of spaghetti that controls the universe. “Just assume it’s true and then marvel at how cool and strange things would be” isn’t actually a persuasive argument.
Jesus was a cool guy, but lots of people are killed for standing up for what they believe in. We don’t make religions out of them, though.–
You argued both sides of “jesus is god” and came to the same conclusion. You realize that’s an argument against God, right? If the story works without him being “divine”, there’s no reason to assume he was.
Also, like I mentioned in the other comment, Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the situation and only ordered the crucifixion because the crowd demanded it. You can question “how could they think that”, and argue that it’s “really quite a narrow range of people”, but the story is still that there were enough of them to demand the crucifixion of Jesus, and succeeded soo… What’s your argument here?
No, Pilate literally washed his hands of the matter and was only talked into it by the crowd. He said he could find no wrongdoing and only ordered the crucifixion to be done with the matter.
People agreed with this so much that at the time, they murdered him for it.
So, in the screenshot where it says it was “submitted by [deleted]”: I can’t be 100%, but I’m pretty sure that’s what it looks like when the post was deleted entirely. It wasn’t a ‘blank’ post. It was a rant against GIMP in the GIMP subreddit as someone else posted here.
A whistleblower is the type of person to refuse such an NDA, regardless of buy-off price. They would understand that if Boeing is willing to pay them 10 million or whatever, that the information they have, should they release it, prevent over 10 million dollars worth of damages to the public.
I just don’t see someone like that committing suicide in a hotel parking lot out of state the day (two days?) before they are supposed to testify. That would go against everything they were doing up until that point.
They wouldn’t just… go home instead?
Yeeter/yoinker