u/PetrteP

I have recently tried mixing two flashpowders, specifically using KNO3 and Sr(NO3)2 with magnesium dust as fuel. While doing research into their safety, I also (among other things) asked AI, which insisted that these mixes are highly sensitive to friction and static electricity, and that the only way to safely mix them would be using special static proof paper and stuff. Now I'm used to AI being a bit stupid, but I still wanted to ask if anyone has experience with these sort of mixtures and their sensitivity.

So far, I've handled small quantities (under 10 grams) of the stuff, using normal paper to mix them (not thoroughly mind you), and got pretty good results. I'd love to mix them more thoroughly, but for that I want to be sure that it's not gonna blow up in my face.

Hi! Thought I'd make a quick post for people who might be looking to get rid of a half full gas cartridge (mainly if you're no longer on the WHW and can't access a campsite). We've struggled quite a bit but apparently the outdoor shop "Tiso" accepts them at any stores. I didn't see this information anywhere online so I thought I'd leave it here.

Edit: while the staff I met did say they would take it anywhere, I can't actually find that online. But it's at least worth a try nonetheless, the other outdoor shops didn't take them apparently.

So we've just finished the WHW today, and we're wondering where we should leave our gas can (since it's a no go on planes). I've had no luck in Fort William (apparently even the recycling centre doesn't accept full ones), but we still have 2 full days in Glasgow and like a half day in Edinburgh. Do you know of any places we could leave them at? I've heard that hotels sometimes have a sort of donation box, I'll see about that later today. Thanks!

I have struggled with a part of the old testament and more specifically some of the defences people give for them. I'll focus on slavery for the purpose of this question.

​

The old testament famously gives rules for how to own a slave, and seems to be unfazed by the practise. The whole spiel about taking slaves from the countries around you, piercing their ears, or taking inhabitants of a sieged city as plunder/work force. This is in contrast to what we believe now. At least I assume the consensus is that God does not like slavery and finds it immoral. Why then did he not explicitly make it a sin? Why did he instead give people exact rules on how to own slaves, or why did Jesus not say something clear cut?

​

I've heard one specific defence of this. And that is simply that God does not like slavery, but was only policing a practice so that it's not too bad, while waiting for society to advance and mature to be ready to abolish slavery. So it was a policy back then in preparation for abolishment. So he couldn't ban it because.....his followers would have a hard time? I mean yeah sure, since slavery is ancient, his people probably had a long tradition of slavery and wouldn't like or want to abolish it, but who cares? I thought following God is not supposed to be easy, especially on something like this.

​

So I want to ask, is following God actually supposed to be easy? Because if not, I don't see why God couldn't be clearer about how to do it properly.

I'll be taking about a specific argument, but there are plenty more that also don't work, which you're free to put in comments and I'll gladly debate them :D.

First and foremost, while I lean towards morals being subjective, I am also agnostic, since I think we can't really find that out anyway and we can only believe in what feels right. While this argument can be done without religion, I've heard it be used specifically for Christianity. Also I think once you believe in objective morality, that is basically some form of god, and that's why I think it fits on this sub.

I've heard time and time again a line of reasoning that's something along the lines of "was Hitler bad, or is it just an opinion that he was". Usually, this leads to a thought experiment that's something like "if Hitler won, would he still be bad or not.". I think this argument misses the mark completely, and I can't believe how people don't see that. When we ask that question, we're asked to judge a scenario by some moral standard. Our current moral standard tells us that Hitler is bad, and therefore from our perspective, obviously we'll say he's still bad. But those morals should not play a role in that scenario, right? We're trying to find out if Hitler is objectively bad. Judging a world where he won by our current standards is flawed, because if our current standards are actually subjective, we'd still feel like Hitler is bad, and kf they are objective, the same feeling would arise. I hope I'm making sense, in a way I'm arguing for moral relativism, and again taking our morals, judging a separate universe by them, and then making conclusions based on that.

I'll try to ilustrate with an example. Let's say there's a universe where people decided that the word for "table" actually means what we call "chair". The table objectivist would then ask "would a table still be a table?", but he'd judge the word by our current language to prove that it's objective. Same with morals, although obviously it's more complex.

Pretty much what the title says. I believe lolicon isn't bad for mainly these reasons:

1. It is art, not reality. If it's not based off of actual csam, then I believe it should be allowed to exist. We should distinguish art from reality. Many countries draw the line at the art looking "realistic" enough, which the anime artstyle doesn't.

2. It doesn't cause real world harm. While there is limited data on this, what data we do have supports my view. And while people will definitely use loli material to groom children, we should treat that action itself as bad, not the art. A good analogy would be if someone drew your house with the adress and then posted it online inciting people to come to your house. The action of drawing houses shouldn't be illegal, the threat should.

3. While I understand it feels disgusting to many people, these are impulsive emotional reactions which should not base what we ban/outlaw.

4. Pedophilia itself isn't "bad", since people get born pedophiles and can't change that. What is bad is taking action and hurting actual children. Simply looking at drawings while having pedophilic thoughts can't therefore be bad, because no actual kids have been harmed. It could technically be an outlet for those desires (but I'm not sure research supports that).

I'd like to hear peoples oppinions, since basically all of the arguments I've seen relate to point 3.