𝓔𝓻𝓲𝓷 ∘₊✧˚ 🌹🌱🦋

The amount of step-sibling coded porn concerns me but not as much as “barely legal” porn, braces, youth-coded clothing, “first time,” and acted-out surprise/ignorance. The whole *world* is full of fucking pedophiles and it’s not talked about enough. Call it a fantasy all you want but WHY is it? 🤔

Oh fuck that’s better than cheese ALMOST

knows shit, though we can know more tomorrow than we did today. Just enjoy the pursuit

Sorry for being drunk and overly uh, idk. Let’s go with goofy lol

Gn my friend

My friend, I am the child, you are the child:

“A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;
How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more than he.

I guess it must be the flag of my disposition, out of hopeful green stuff woven.”

(Whitman)

None of us 🧵

Daily! Isn’t this the life? Arguably, TO LIVE? Ok that was cheesy 🧀

“the set of all sets that do not contain themselves” is as much nonsense as “the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.” So no, a FEELING of conceivability is not the same as conceivability, and we must justify THAT some concept is conceivable, coherent, and cognitive.

Paradox). It’s a nonsense string of words that definitely doesn’t form a coherent concept, even though it forms in our minds the illusion that it does. We know what a “set” is and we know about sets of sets (like the set of even numbered Star Trek movies), but it turns out that the utterance 🧵

some string of words that SEEM like they make sense (we get this feeling of conception), like “There is a set of all sets which do not contain themselves.” Every word makes sense to us and we get this feeling that the utterance is conveying some coherent concept. But it’s not (see Russell’s 🧵

the described state of affairs (a mind w/o body) is conceivable. Is it? We have this feeling of conceivability, but when asked for specifics, we have to waggle our fingers and talk about spirits and blah. What does it mean to have a disembodied mind? To make my point, I brought up that we can read 🧵

I think his argument really just presupposes that the feeling of conceivability is enough. Regarding nonphysicality, he said that we can conceive of minds without bodies, so therefore it’s modally possible. While I don’t necessarily object, I do object to his argument: it’s not just granted that 🧵

of things all the time that we actually don’t. We *feel* like we conceive of what a billion of something represents, yet I don’t think anybody actually does conceive of that. So I think with modal arguments we have an onus of proof to demonstrate that something is actually conceivable, whereas 🧵

that all modalism (possibility, for laypersons) requires is conceivability: that if you can conceive of something, then it possibly exists. While I’m not saying that’s false, I don’t think it should automatically be granted as true in a strong sense. I think that we *feel* like we conceive 🧵

mathematical and logical realist in that I think mathematical and logical objects exist and are discovered rather than invented: “two” doesn’t have mass/energy or spatiotemporal extension, so it’s not physical, yet I’d say it exists. Anyway, defending THAT aside, I took umbrage with his position 🧵

I am in a debate with someone that is making a modal argument against physicalism (that all that exists is physical). Now, I am not a physicalist. I don’t think that all things that exist have mass/energy and spatiotemporal extension, which is how I would define what it is to be physical. I am a 🧵

My fiancée said Cate Blanchett can’t be our cheat third. Wedding’s off

(Not really)

GET IT!! Excited for you

a woman in a red dress is sitting in an office chair with money falling around her . ALT: a woman in a red dress is sitting in an office chair with money falling around her .

My car is PAID OFF

Aaaaaaa I can’t wait 🥰

Also, fiancée! So used to typing gf 👀

time many of those hardships are self-inflicted by stunted maturity it seems like. Now at the same time I try to understand surrounding factors, mental health, things like that. But at the same time we have our own struggles, we do not need to be drawn into immature drama.

other once in a while, and just like, damn. I hope he gets the help he needs but at the same time we were like “okay not answering any wya texts by him anymore.” Some people have not figured out how to be an adult yet and I feel great sympathy for the hardships they experience, but at the same 🧵

I may not live in a McMansion or have a huge savings account but I like to think I have my shit mostly together. Gf and I had an old friend show up while we were out and it was just strange and toxic, made me feel like I was at a high school lunch table. She and I just lifted our brows at each 🧵

I remember this from one of James Rolfe’s videos (the Angry Video Gam Nerd), I think from his Board James videos

This hobby started small back in the day, it has gotten more complex 😅

cast Providence… like Sultai.

I could still mix in hybrid cost cards that I can cast with Sultai mana base. But I think three is better than trying to do five. Plus with 5-color bases so many lands enter tapped (triome style lands) and counting on drawing Spelunking or something is eh.

If I want to mostly mana base with three colors rather than trying some haphazard 5 color base, some work and some don’t. For instance Esper is out because I can’t cast Providence with Esper (one of the costs is {R/G}). Mana fixing can fix that, but it would be easier to just do a trio that CAN 🧵

Building a new Brawl commander, but I don’t think I want to try to go 5-color. Thinking…

😬

How do you prove anything is safe to an anti-science moron? They can just accuse your coffee of having leprechauns in it. You can’t win with morons which is why you usually don’t play ball with them in the first place, but here’s my dumbass country putting them in charge