Split What is Genocide, holocide, neologisms for other -cides (split from “presuppositionalism question”)

[excreationist]

Well I think the following statement of yours doesn't have good evidence:
"There are eight billion people; 449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference."

Sometimes it seems you're saying ridiculous things to get a reaction out of me.

What is it that you feel lacks evidence?

That there are eight billion people? Google will find you dozens of sources that agree that that's a good approximation of the reality.

That 449/8,000,000,000 is a number close to zero? I use a technique from arithmetic - you might have heard of it, it's called "division". I don't think many would disagree that 0.00000006 is 'close to zero'.

Sometimes it seems you are acting dumber than you can possibly really be.

You said "449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference"
You didn't say it "practically makes no difference" you said it makes no difference. You were talking about nuances earlier.

So if 449 out of 8 billion were tortured to death is it reasonable to say that it makes no difference to being zero? If so then there is no reason to worry about that torture.

I use a technique from arithmetic - you might have heard of it, it's called "division". I don't think many would disagree that 0.00000006 is 'close to zero'.

On a thing called a "computer" there is a thing called "floats". There is a value that is close to zero - it is called "epsilon". It is 1.401298E-45 i.e. it has about 45 zeroes after the decimal point before the 1. "floats" are a rough approximation of floating point numbers. A more accurate one is "doubles". Its value for "close to zero" is 4.94065645841247E-324 which means it has about 324 zeroes after the decimal point before the digit. So your "close to zero" number often isn't shared by programmers.

Obviously you wanted to wave away the 449 views by saying that it makes no difference to zero. Well it at least seems to be an original argument.

 

[bilby]

Well I think the following statement of yours doesn't have good evidence:
"There are eight billion people; 449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference."

Sometimes it seems you're saying ridiculous things to get a reaction out of me.

What is it that you feel lacks evidence?

That there are eight billion people? Google will find you dozens of sources that agree that that's a good approximation of the reality.

That 449/8,000,000,000 is a number close to zero? I use a technique from arithmetic - you might have heard of it, it's called "division". I don't think many would disagree that 0.00000006 is 'close to zero'.

Sometimes it seems you are acting dumber than you can possibly really be.

You said "449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference"
You didn't say it "practically makes no difference" you said it makes no difference. You were talking about nuances earlier.

So if 449 out of 8 billion were tortured to death is it reasonable to say that it makes no difference to being zero? If so then there is no reason to worry about that torture.

I use a technique from arithmetic - you might have heard of it, it's called "division". I don't think many would disagree that 0.00000006 is 'close to zero'.

On a thing called a "computer" there is a thing called "floats". There is a value that is close to zero - it is called "epsilon". It is 1.401298E-45 i.e. it has about 45 zeroes after the decimal point before the 1. "floats" are a rough approximation of floating point numbers. A more accurate one is "doubles". Its value for "close to zero" is 4.94065645841247E-324 which means it has about 324 zeroes after the decimal point before the digit. So your "close to zero" number often isn't shared by programmers.

Obviously you wanted to wave away the 449 views by saying that it makes no difference to zero.

Thank you, Lieutenant Obvious. Keep up this level of work, and you might even get that promotion.

 

[excreationist]

Obviously you wanted to wave away the 449 views by saying that it makes no difference to zero.

Thank you, Lieutenant Obvious. Keep up this level of work, and you might even get that promotion.

So you were waving away the 449 views? I thought you were saying you genuinely thought that 449 and zero views makes no difference....

 

[bilby]

Obviously you wanted to wave away the 449 views by saying that it makes no difference to zero.

Thank you, Lieutenant Obvious. Keep up this level of work, and you might even get that promotion.

So you were waving away the 449 views? I thought you were saying you genuinely thought that 449 and zero views makes no difference....

I am, and I was, and they do.

What you think, and what is true, have apparently very little relationship to one another. I don't care what you think.

 

[excreationist]

Obviously you wanted to wave away the 449 views by saying that it makes no difference to zero.

Thank you, Lieutenant Obvious. Keep up this level of work, and you might even get that promotion.

So you were waving away the 449 views? I thought you were saying you genuinely thought that 449 and zero views makes no difference....

I am, and I was, and they do.

What you think, and what is true, have apparently very little relationship to one another.

So was what I said about epsilon and "close to zero" not true?

I don't care what you think.

So what is your purpose of replying to me? To have some fun teasing me?

 

[Jarhyn]

Obviously you wanted to wave away the 449 views by saying that it makes no difference to zero.

Thank you, Lieutenant Obvious. Keep up this level of work, and you might even get that promotion.

So you were waving away the 449 views? I thought you were saying you genuinely thought that 449 and zero views makes no difference....

I am, and I was, and they do.

What you think, and what is true, have apparently very little relationship to one another.

So was what I said about epsilon and "close to zero" not true?

I don't care what you think.

So what is your purpose of replying to me? To have some fun teasing me?

"Close to zero" is relative to what your sensitivity in the situation and the relevant math looks like.

 

[excreationist]

"Close to zero" is relative to what your sensitivity in the situation and the relevant math looks like.

My problem is with "449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference". In the case of site visits perhaps a visit of less than 0.5 makes no difference to being 0 (if you're talking about averages).

 

[Jarhyn]

"Close to zero" is relative to what your sensitivity in the situation and the relevant math looks like.

My problem is with "449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference". In the case of site visits perhaps a visit of less than 0.5 makes no difference to being 0.

449 views is in the realm of "their friends and family and odd accidental google clicks and maybe some students that were sent there that one time by someone with social ties".

"Makes no difference" is apparently figurative insofar as the influence and reach of the opinion is not widespread.

My husband gets more clicks on a tweet about enamel pins with animal characters wearing diapers than this guy gets on their views about the interaction between holo- and -cide.

There is a fair bit of momentum in the root Holo-'s historic application towards specifically human existence, though I don't think even that fits.

One of the reasons it's so hard to even seen the evil of the flood because it was so mind bogglingly vast.

But believing the myth because the myth says it's true is like believing that Prince Humperdinck was defeated by Westley, AKA The Dread Pirate Roberts: none of that happened even if it is an entertaining story.

Something happened involving a very large flood, but it wasn't the global destruction of all life.

 

[excreationist]

449 views is in the realm of "their friends and family and odd accidental google clicks and maybe some students that were sent there that one time by someone with social ties".

"Makes no difference" is apparently figurative insofar as the influence and reach of the opinion is not widespread.

That means that page on english.stackexchange.com with 449 views on that particular topic makes no difference to the 0 visits for x5m43x13-n7.info? By "makes no difference" I mean literally not figuratively.

My husband gets more clicks on a tweet about enamel pins with animal characters wearing diapers than this guy gets on their views about the interaction between holo- and -cide.

That doesn't prove it "makes no difference" to a site with zero visits (like m66sadf3.click)

Also if it makes no difference to 0 then what if you had a million of those pages..... does that also mean it has no difference to 0?

 

[Jarhyn]

449 views is in the realm of "their friends and family and odd accidental google clicks and maybe some students that were sent there that one time by someone with social ties".

"Makes no difference" is apparently figurative insofar as the influence and reach of the opinion is not widespread.

That means that page on english.stackexchange.com with 449 views on that particular topic makes no difference to the 0 visits for x5m43x13-n7.info? By "makes no difference" I mean literally not figuratively.

My husband gets more clicks on a tweet about enamel pins with animal characters wearing diapers than this guy gets on their views about the interaction between holo- and -cide.

That doesn't prove it "makes no difference" to a site with zero visits (like m66sadf3.click)

Also if it makes no difference to 0 then what if you had a million of those pages..... does that also mean it has no difference to 0?

Fundamentally, you keep pointing at, and somehow missing the point: "close to zero" has to satisfy a contextual requirement, namely to be below some contextual lower bound in a system with a zero property.

In integer division, .9 has no difference from 0, even though in rational or division of reals or complex numbers, .9 has less difference to 1 than 0.

Context matters. Here the context is what meaningfully impacts public use of a root word.

Bilby and in fact all the majority of users and uses of Holo encode intent to point towards "everyone" from apparent uses of Holocene and Holocaust.

450 views worth of stray interest just don't amount to shit compared to that.

 

[excreationist]

449 views is in the realm of "their friends and family and odd accidental google clicks and maybe some students that were sent there that one time by someone with social ties".

"Makes no difference" is apparently figurative insofar as the influence and reach of the opinion is not widespread.

That means that page on english.stackexchange.com with 449 views on that particular topic makes no difference to the 0 visits for x5m43x13-n7.info? By "makes no difference" I mean literally not figuratively.

My husband gets more clicks on a tweet about enamel pins with animal characters wearing diapers than this guy gets on their views about the interaction between holo- and -cide.

That doesn't prove it "makes no difference" to a site with zero visits (like m66sadf3.click)

Also if it makes no difference to 0 then what if you had a million of those pages..... does that also mean it has no difference to 0?

Fundamentally, you keep pointing at, and somehow missing the point: "close to zero" has to satisfy a contextual requirement, namely to be below some contextual lower bound in a system with a zero property.

My point is about bilby saying "449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference"

In integer division, .9 has no difference from 0, even though in rational or division of reals or complex numbers, .9 has less difference to 1 than 0.

Context matters. Here the context is what meaningfully impacts public use of a root word.

Bilby and in fact all the majority of users and uses of Holo encode intent to point towards "everyone" from apparent uses of Holocene and Holocaust.

450 views worth of stray interest just don't amount to shit compared to that.

But does it make NO difference to having zero visits? bilby used the term "no"... not "practically no" but "no difference". That's like wondering what pages have a similar number of visits to 449 views then having thousands of results show up that had zero visits.

I wonder what is the point of considering 449 views having no difference to zero views? For bilby he was just trying to argue that 449 views is the same as nothing.

 

[Jarhyn]

bilby used the term "no"... not "practically no" but "no difference"

There is nothing lost in being figurative here, because Bilby knows they are being figurative and YOU know they are being figurative, and it's not like we're using figurative speech to paper over things like "possibility".

The idea behind the slight hyperbole doesn't rely on the absence of counterexamples. It relies on their relative unimportance, in addition to the fact that we can all clearly understand when bilby says "Ye Olde Fluddie was a Holocide" what they mean, and that this is consistent with Holocaust and Holocene.

 

[excreationist]

bilby used the term "no"... not "practically no" but "no difference"

There is nothing lost in being figurative here, because Bilby knows they are being figurative and YOU know they are being figurative, and it's not like we're using figurative speech to paper over things like "possibility".

The idea behind the slight hyperbole doesn't rely on the absence of counterexamples. It relies on their relative unimportance, in addition to the fact that we can all clearly understand when bilby says "Ye Olde Fluddie was a Holocide" what they mean, and that this is consistent with Holocaust and Holocene.

Perhaps it could be argued that 449 is no different to 1 but saying it is no different to 0 is another thing. 449 and 1 are both examples of something. 449 visits involves hundreds of people looking at the page (since most would only make one visit). You seem to be encouraging the use of hyperbole in other people when I'm trying to be serious. bilby also said "I don't care what you think". It's not a very good discussion when the other person says that. Yet you keep on defending his ridiculous assertion. ("449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference") Perhaps you might also want to defend his swearing even after I said it was offensive.

 

[bilby]

Obviously you wanted to wave away the 449 views by saying that it makes no difference to zero.

Thank you, Lieutenant Obvious. Keep up this level of work, and you might even get that promotion.

So you were waving away the 449 views? I thought you were saying you genuinely thought that 449 and zero views makes no difference....

I am, and I was, and they do.

What you think, and what is true, have apparently very little relationship to one another.

So was what I said about epsilon and "close to zero" not true?

Not relevant ≠ Not true

I don't care what you think.

So what is your purpose of replying to me? To have some fun teasing me?

https://xkcd.com/386

 

[excreationist]

Obviously you wanted to wave away the 449 views by saying that it makes no difference to zero.

Thank you, Lieutenant Obvious. Keep up this level of work, and you might even get that promotion.

So you were waving away the 449 views? I thought you were saying you genuinely thought that 449 and zero views makes no difference....

I am, and I was, and they do.

What you think, and what is true, have apparently very little relationship to one another.

So was what I said about epsilon and "close to zero" not true?

Not relevant ≠ Not true

You talked about "close to zero" and epsilon is the absolute minimum possible value that is non-zero.....

I don't care what you think.

So what is your purpose of replying to me? To have some fun teasing me?

View attachment 39983

https://xkcd.com/386

Yeah I think you've been wrong.

 

[Rhea]

75 posts arguing about whether Yahweh is a genocidist or a holocidist have been split from

presuppositionalism question

I've been reading about Presuppositionalism on the internet. one thing that strikes me is how they reject any form of sure and certain knowledge of truth unless it's in the Bible. one thing that came to mind is that the preachers assert the Bible is the truth and it trumps for instance science...

iidb.org

 

[excreationist]

75 posts arguing about whether Yahweh is a genocidist or a holocidist have been split from

Genocide means:
"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group"

God was clearly commanding genocide in Deuteronomy 20:16-17 - though quite a few people also consider Noah's Flood to involve genocide.

Holocide has two different meanings depending on which of the two people are using it. (killing everything vs killing all humans). Both of these would apply to Noah's Flood.