Fanghole

Classical Greece was just one of my examples. My main point is that, even if all documented groups had spirituality and religious practices (which I don't refute), is that you have not convinced me of the cause and effect between morality and spirituality in human society.

1. I do believe people did not need a modern formal education or a ton of free time to reflect and think at a high level. If that belief is an issue, then we fundamentally disagree on that point.

2. You continue to state that all societies have documented spiritual and religious practices, and I apologize that I didn't make it clear enough that I understood you meant all societies and that I was only using a few societies as an example, but you have not stated why that means spirituality caused morality or needed to have caused morality. Genuinely, could you explain to me how it is implausible that any moral principals found in those religions were the product of societal morals of the time and not the other way around? Even if morals are subjective, religious interpretation is also subjective. As far as meanins to humans and structure goes, neither is more objective than the other in my opinion. Or maybe morals are more objective if we assume they were developed as guided by survival of the species rather than as guided by religion.

3. If you want to ignore everything else, here's as simple a summary of my question as possible: Why do you insist religion -> morals? Why can it not be morals -> religion?

Garry's Mod. There is a centralized location you can all get the relevent files from, or uploaf them to (Steam). Your game could be on a publicly accessable server. But, you are able to and pretty much must host the server yourself (or you could use a hosting service, but GMod won't do it for you).

I feel a lot of the people disagreeing here are making assumptions about your beliefs, missing the point, and then simply refuting you to refute you without providing explaination. I think this is a fair and interesting premise. I disagree with it and will ecplain why, though do note I am not invested enough to specifically look anything up so if I say something inaccurate, please evaluate if the logic falls apart or not.

I think the first part of your main justifications has been hard to refute. Most, if not all societies we have known have had religion or spirituality. However, I think your following conclusion, "those societies must have then used morality based on those religions", is where the flaw is. I think most societies had religion as a form of a "God of the gaps" and used it to explain phenomena they couldn't. I would say that is the main reason they did have it. However, that doesn't yet mean they didn't use it for morality. To see that, I'd ask you to look at Greek and Roman mythology, or as known to them, religion. Now I believe, Zeus turning into a swan and doing Zeus things doesn't have a moral (or not a useful one, it's mainly that Zeus is an asshole).. Likewise, Aphrodite turning Arachne into a spider didn't really inform some Greek moral of don't be too pretty, just showed Aphrodite is, for lack of a better word, a fucking jealous bitch. Let's similarly look at Norse mythology. Loki makes Fenrir and tries to kill other gods and generally does shenanigans. There's not really a moral attached to that, he kinda just does shit cus he's a hit of a dick.

My main point here is that while these religions existed, they did so to explain phenomena or were then essentially fanfic extensions of the reasons/personifications of those phenomena, and often were not the basis for morality of a culture (but very well likely were themselves molded by a cultures morality in a reversal of causation). Because Greece, Roman, and Norse cultures were more secular, they could therefore have stories without morals that just had assholery abound. Because the time around the formation of the Christian church was more tyrannical (now I'm guessing), the bible had much more heavy handed morals (ten commandments, 7 deadly sins etc).

I hope that was a better argument for disagreement. And, I don't think your premise was as outlandish as so many others are making it out to be, despite my disagreement.

Yes

Just in case this isn't a bit: OP, the structure in English should be "adjective noun." The opposite to most romantic languages where you say the noun then the description word. So a cat girl is a girl (assumed human) that can be described as a cat (has the traits of a cat). A girl cat is more reasonably a cat that is a girl, though you'd probably say "female cat" more often. For allergies you'd want to look into hypoallergenic cats like the hairless sphynx.

Obviously it depends on the deck, but in general you want a large number of item cards and less pokemon and energy.

Item/trainer cards provide a lot of ways to draw/recycle and support your pokemon/energy and you'll likely want to see a bigger ratio of them in your opening hand. Especially since you're not going to go through too many more pokemon than you have prize cards and you can only have 1 active pokemon at a time with 6 total in play.

So the exact ratio depends on the deck and the pokemon you are trying to support, but essentially you shouldn't be running more the 15 pokemon and 15 energy on a high end. 12 pokemon is pretty standard. Most of the rest of your deck should be search and draw cards which there should be plenty of.

Disclaimer: I don't play this game.

Find rope

I would increase the landmass on Earth such that the Earth itself was only 50% ocean. I would do so in a grand display of power utilizing some sort of ancient and supreme Titan, one that brings into undeniable question the foundation of all world religions and even evolution itself. Now having shown that I possess the power of a god. I would descend upon Israel and the surrounding lands and demand all of them migrate to one of the many new landmasses, so that I may reign in my new palace from a place of former conflict, symbolically showing that increasing the amount of landmass in the world helps end conflicts. Should any people resist, I shall simply displace them forcefully with a shower of Precipice Blades. The water displaced for the new land masses would be evaporated into the atmosphere, leaving behind a large amount of salt and eventually precipitating back down as fresh water. While in the atmosphere a large amount of the Earth would be covered in dense clouds cooling it and causing an Ice Age that staves off Global Warming, but creating harsh temporary conditions that the Israelites and Palestinians must learn to live and overcome together as they worship their new god... Me. Eventually power will corrupt me and I will grow tyrannical. Then the either binary son or daughter of an Israeli-Palestinian couple will stand up to me, capturing other beings of power to fight me in a grand battle, at the age of 10 uears old.

That's not the same logic though. His logic is "Noun A is part of noun AB, that does not mean noun AB is equal to or a subset of A." While the way you're interpreting it is "Noun A is part of noun AB, thus AB is not equal to and not a subset of A." The important part is that his logic only dictates that the relationship between A and AB are independent of eachother, while your interpretation states that A depends on AB in an inverse manner. Ie: "We cannot say popcorn is or is not corn based on name alone," vs "popcorn cannot be corn because corn is in the name."

Not taking a side on social justice, the logical comparison you attempted just bothered me. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Wooo! Guanxi!

Thank goodness they're bringing in Mr Sanjome more. I really liked it when he did that one thing that one time some number of chapters ago.

Glad we're finally getting more of Mr Sanjome. He's been in a lot of chapters since the beginning, and did that one thing that one time, but it's good he's getting a more involved role now.