Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Judaism

0 (0%)

Christianity

17 (23.3%)

Islam

1 (1.4%)

Hinduism

0 (0%)

Taoism

0 (0%)

Buddhism

0 (0%)

Scientology

2 (2.7%)

Other (please tell)

7 (9.6%)

Athiest

35 (47.9%)

Undecided

1 (1.4%)

Agnostic

10 (13.7%)

Total Members Voted: 70

[Imic]

There is no Protestant/Catholic divide in Ireland. Or, more specifically, the Republic of Ireland in which the law exists.

It was explained to me that the Protestants were all passive-aggressively expelled from the South, though I don't know the truth of that. Regardless, less than five percent of people in the Republic are Protestant.

Edit: A quick skim of wikipedia reveals that hearsay is, on this occasion, correct. Passive aggressiveness it was, though other factors as well.

My village has no less than three churches,one catholic, one methodist, and one protestant, and they're all full every sunday.
We've got four churches if you count the ruined one outside of town.

[TD1]

*Shrug*

One village is a drop in the pond.

Edit: Also, given that's the case, you're probably a fellow Ulsterman, right? Or pretty darn close.

[smjjames]

There is no Protestant/Catholic divide in Ireland. Or, more specifically, the Republic of Ireland in which the law exists.

It was explained to me that the Protestants were all passive-aggressively expelled from the South, though I don't know the truth of that. Regardless, less than five percent of people in the Republic are Protestant.

Edit: A quick skim of wikipedia reveals that hearsay is, on this occasion, correct. Passive aggressiveness it was, though other factors as well.

Isn't the Protestant/Catholic divide the reason (well, one of them anyway) North Ireland is a thing? Though I've heard that North Ireland is actually becoming more Catholic.

[TD1]

Catholic families tend to be larger than Protestant ones, so they're being outbred so to speak

And in my opinion, everyone overstates the importance of religion in the divide. Northern Ireland stayed in the union because of culture, economics and, as a third, religion. The Republic left because of culture, historic and present abuse of native Irish (including political issues), and as a third religion. This is a rather broad statement on my part, though.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Northern Ireland. As my last post began, "there is no Protestant/Catholic divide in Ireland. Or, more specifically, the Republic of Ireland in which the law exists." You know, the whole separate countries, separate government thing, hehe.

[Imic]

*Shrug*

One village is a drop in the pond.

Edit: Also, given that's the case, you're probably a fellow Ulsterman, right? Or pretty darn close.

No, Munster. Sorry 'bout that.

[Ibid Straydrink]

""

Weird, you have an enthralling perspective on this subject. May I share your story, crediting you, with some associates of mine?

[wierd]

If you wish. I don't mind.

[Rolan7]

Another thunderstorm out of nowhere is here, lighting up my room, the rain occasionally coming at such an angle that it wets my desk.

Of course I have the window open.  I didn't, for a long time, but that lapse of faith-

Such a perfect peal of thunder, it rumbled for maybe 20 seconds.  The mountains.
Gods and spirits are nonsense, and this is mine.  In my darkest times I ignored it completely.  But for a couple months now I've thanked it.  Under my breath, somewhat embarrassed.

Gaia- thank you for the rain.

[Egan_BW]

If Zeus wants to smite some fools right now, who are we to argue?

[Rolan7]

Been listening to Slowbeef's "Visual Novel Book Club", which is what it sounds like: 5 people chatting about a visual novel they play between sessions.  They went on a tangent about the Star Trek Teleporter dilemma.

It's a problem I used to encounter a lot in sci-fi short stories, but I hadn't considered it much recently.  Then I watched a humorously animated short story about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc
It was pretty standard up till 3:10, where it added an interesting question:  What if the clone was painlessly destroyed instead?  It's pointless, but is it actually worse than not using the machine?  Why would destroying a thing be worse than never creating it?

Of course, if you believe there's some part of a human that isn't being copied, the argument doesn't apply.  I'm not sure about that.  Am I a spiritualist, or merely a coward?

My favorite two short-stories that used this trope:
A man wakes up in a computer simulation.  He knows this because he just scanned himself.  Again.  After illegally disabling the opt-out self-destruction routine.  He was determined to figure out why his copies all kept using it.  He had a girlfriend (but now he's a copy).

A man is created at a distant space colony.  FTL travel is impossible, only information.  His "original" keeps licensing his engram for these outworld projects.  I don't remember this one clearly, but it addresses the video's 3:10 point:  If *you* are guaranteed to be fine, is it amoral to spawn a clone in a worse situation?  Not even hellish in this case, morale is a recognized concern, it's just hard
work in a new world.  Cut off from everyone you ever knew.  (I think the story involves him discussing all this with his original for some reason).

Edit:  I do like that there's an appropriate SMAC quote in the comments:  "And what of the immortal soul in such transactions? Can this machine transmit and reattach it as well? Or is it lost forever, leaving a soulless body to wander the world in despair?"

[Egan_BW]

What immortal soul?

[Dunamisdeos]

Well, it depends on the functional mechanics of said immortal soul!

Is it permanently tethered to the concept of self? Will it fragment according to the number of copies, AKA Harry Potter? Is it bound securely to the original instance, and therefore considers the first instance of Star Trek-esque beaming to be "death", freeing the soul? In that case, does the new "clone" have a soul? Is it a law of the universe that a soul must exist in a sentient being? Maybe its a natural byproduct of the existence of a sentient being, and a new being is created upon each transport. This could apply to clones as well!

I like this question, but I think it was sufficiently demonstrated with Riker's double in TNG that if two separate instances of one being exist, they are in fact completely separate. If the soul does exist in this scenario, it seems likely they would each have one.

[Descan]

Honestly, unless there *was* such a thing as a soul, I don't see any way such a machine would work to get the current me anywhere but dead. At least with a soul, there's a vehicle in play that could serve to transfer continuity. Without, it's just some bloke who thinks he's me, and the person writing this right now is as dead as Stalin.

(also, fuck you if you're gonna go on about the "but your consciousness goes away when you sleep!" That's the wrong consciousness, *obviously* wrong consciousness, there's the "I am awake" consciousness and then there's the "I have thought" consciousness, and we're talking about the latter. Dreams count as thought, you know. There's signals coursing through your brain continuously from birth to death, *those* signals are the things that continuity is important about. "lolyousleep" is a stupid response and just shows you don't understand the basic premise of the problem. It's not a clever riposte, it's throwing your sword into the pond and falling over.)

[Criptfeind]

I think I'd be willing to commit suicide for the convince of teleportation.

[Arx]

I have to ask: Descan, if there's no soul, does it matter whether you're "you" or some exactly identical guy made up of different components? I really don't see the issue here. What about cryogenics? Or inducing medical death and reviving? Thought stops there.

Though this might be off topic.