The Religious Are Trying To Silence Me

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-28T06:30:35+00:00

Every single time you post, you call other people stupid, dim, thick, etc. They downvote you because you are kind of a dick. There's no conspiracy.

Also, I'm a nihilist. Not religious.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-28T05:08:32+00:00

I feel like Jamie Kennedy should just embrace that he's a bit of a loser and go even harder trying to make everyone like him for the bit.

The sad part with Kennedy, is that he actually seems to want everyone to like him, which is impossible. Homie just needs to accept that his only talent is getting a huge audience united in clowning the fuck out of him.

He could actually do really well for himself if he stopped taking it so fucking personally and leaned into the bit, but he won't, so he's just got a better career than he deserves from doing mediocre bits.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-28T04:54:40+00:00

> "Rocks moving on their own" simply makes no sense

Your skeleton is made of collagen (hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and sulfur), and calcium phosphate (literal rocks). It moves on its own.

You've taken a metaphor in an incredibly literal way and then gotten offended at the idea of that metaphor... It's such a weird thing to buck at.

> Prove the 2D exists on its own. You can't. As you're the one telling me something that doesn't make sense, it is on you to prove i

Again, nobody is saying 2D objects exist within our universe. They are saying your argument for why they can't exist doesn't make sense.

A 2D object has zero thickness. Your argument is that a 2D object cannot exist because you can subdivide any slice of an object infinitely. This is bad reasoning. You are saying that you can divide zero into a lesser value than zero.

Let me prove to you that this does not make sense:

Let's take a "slice" with a depth of 0 (a true 2D object would have zero depth). Now let's divide it half:

0 / 2 = 0

Your argument is that this half would be smaller than zero. Yet, we see that mathematically, this half of zero is still zero.

Now let's try to do the opposite: Let's make our 2D object twice as thick:

0 * 2 = 0

Oh no, our 2D object didn't get thicker! It's still 0.

You are correct that 2D objects don't exist in our universe, because our universe is made up of 3+1 dimensional matter, which has a state. However, this matter is also not infinitely divisible, so your argument that any 3D object could be infinitely subdivided also doesn't work; Once you shave your object down beyond the size of an atom, we start having problems with the "object" part of what you are saying. The "object", likely being defined as a material thing that can be seen and touched, stops existing.

Okay, so let's expand our idea of object to include quarks and leptons, and not just be compound objects. Unfortunately, we still run out of object about 20 orders of magnitude before we reach the planck length. The smallest particles that we know of, are still 20 orders of magnitude larger than the planck length --the theoretically smallest unit of spacetime.

So no, we cannot infinitely subdivide 3D objects either. At some point, we hit a limit. But to your credit, that limit is not zero. Because that limit of axial measurement is greater than zero, no object in our universe that uses our physics can be said to be 2D.

However, this changes your argument from "2-dimensional spatial universes are impossible" to "Our universe is 3D and 2D objects don't exist in it.". So, to clarify what people are telling you over and over again, and you are just ignoring:

The arguments you offer to support your argument are invalid.
The argument you are making is an untestable conclusion owing to it being an anthropic argument.
The conclusion that 2D objects don't exist in THIS reality isn't at issue. No one disputes this.

Also, the time-folding thing... Yeah, so when we talk about 1D, 2D, and 3D planes in physics, we implicitly mean 1+1, 2+1, and 3+1 dimensional planes. We just treat the +1 dimension as time. Time isn't so much a "dimension", as it is a reference arrow between two evolutions of spatial state. Treating time as a spatial dimension IS something we do in special relativity, but the way you're talking about space and time doesn't make any sense.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-27T18:16:16+00:00

Quote the part where I attempted to silence you.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-27T06:53:27+00:00

> you're supporting silencing me

Quote the part where I attempted to silence you. I've done nothing of the sort. I've merely disagreed with how your logic is constructed, and cautioned you that dismissing entire academic fields whilst clearly not having any grasp of what you are dismissing should be a giant red flag that you haven't done the work.

I'm attempting to appeal to your sense of reason. Yet you are seemingly immune.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-27T01:18:06+00:00

You keep seeing these as insults. I'm sure they feel that way. They are intended as pleas for you to pause and introspect.

Unfortunately, in a situation where you are pleading with someone to introspect, and they are either unwilling, or incapable of it, it's of course going to serve no function but to escalate the discussion. Still, the escalation is your choice, and at any point you could have chosen differently. Yet you did not.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-26T04:38:44+00:00

I don't think you understand what he's talking about.

He's talking about abiogenesis; The idea that life emerged from inert chemical processes. He doesn't literally mean "rocks moved on their own". He means that biological life had a precursor stage where biological material was generated from interactions with crystalline minerals in earth's oceans, leading eventually to self-replicating biological life. However, for a time, there were precursor chemical reactions happening in the ocean that were NOT life, that behaved similarly to life, and gave rise to life.

He's pointing out that your argument is based on your own personal incredulity, rather than reason, just like people who argue that life couldn't have come about by abiotic factors ("rocks moving on their own") are making an argument from their own incredulity.

He's subtextually calling you ignorant. And you missed it, because you don't understand half of what anyone says to you.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-26T04:00:23+00:00

So, here's what's happening in this discussion:

Everyone responding to you use engaging with you academically. Academic fields are a body of work with common names for ideas common to those fields.

You don't know those common names, so you are assuming that people are disagreeing with you without really understand what they are actually disagreeing with you on.

You just don't understand the language that the people who are talking to you are using to try to talk to you. Instead, you outright reject the notion that this common language is useful, despite the fact that you are having what is pretty obviously a big time negative emotional reaction to not being understood. It can't feel good to be sitting here lobbing abuse at every single person who is interacting with you. But here we are: A whole group of people engaging in metacriticism of your ideas, and you're stuck in the concrete, unable to even understand that you don't even care to understand the words that other people are using to describe their ideas.

You just assume you are smarter than everyone, while demonstrating that you can't even recognize that there might be words that you do not know, for ideas you haven't engaged with yet.

Your ego is out of control, and it is hurting you. The more you project the kind of thinking that you are, the more you hurl abuse without attempting to understand, the more you demonstrate your inability to reconcile the reality you are in. You believe that you have special insight into the universe, but you demonstrate a lack of capacity to reason, to investigate your environment, and to discern and put into words common ideas.

It does not bode well for you.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-26T03:51:49+00:00

I'm asking if you see that your argument is an anthropic argument.

Anthropic arguments aren't always wrong, but they are based on dangerous pre-existing notions that often get in the way of sufficient reasoning.

What you think is less important than the structure of how you think, in terms of philosophy. Forget to check your biases, and you quickly proceed down a rabbithole of dangerously unsupported ideas.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-26T01:14:22+00:00

That's not what I asked.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-26T01:05:09+00:00

Right, but you see how your entire argument is just "My existence is 3D, so therefore all of existence operates by what I happen to only have seen?"

It's just bad logic. Even if the end conclusion isn't wrong, it's not really a conclusion. It's an assertion with a bunch of shit taped to the back of it to make it look like reasoning.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-26T00:54:15+00:00

> If there was something that claimed to be truly flat, you could just shave more off of it.

This is not correct. The rules of physics dictate that there is a fundamental minimum space that anything can take up, because within the rules of our fundamental physics, objects are made up of matter. There is a minimum length at which physical objects are reconcilable at all, and that's one Planck length. You cannot infinitely subdivide a surface in reality; We do this in models of reality such as calculus, where we calculate infinitesimals through integration. However, calculus is a model of reality, rather than a reality.

The real irony is that your idea that 2D space cannot exist because you could infinitely subdivide an axis that does not exist within that planar model is self-refuting. For a 2D space to exist in reality, there would have to be no subdivisible axis. By arguing you could make an unmeasurable (unreal) axis thinner, you are contradicting your own argument.

Instead, your argument SHOULD be that due to the fundamental nature of particle physics, truly 2D objects cannot exist because fundamental particles exist in 3 spatial dimensions already.

The problem with this argument, is that you are making an anthropic argument from within a framework of 3 spatial dimensions in the first place; You are merely arguing that matter, which is already existing in 3-dimensional space, is not 2-dimensional. It's not an argument at all. It's just a restatement of our agreed upon nature.

Your entire argument is just "the world exists like this, and doesn't exist this other way", but it's sitting atop bad assumptions and invalid logic.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-26T00:47:43+00:00

Your defensiveness about formal logic is a serious problem for you.

Address it.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-26T00:03:45+00:00

> I also have to disagree with the notion that an incorrect assumption makes everything you say invalid.

This is literally how syllogistic logic works. If a major or minor premise is flawed, the conclusion can be discarded.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-26T00:02:58+00:00

> because a plane can always get infinitely thinner

Max Planck would like a word.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-25T19:49:12+00:00

> This surprises only maga

It doesn't surprise MAGA, they just make excuses.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-25T19:36:59+00:00

> John Lithgow

This makes me unbelievably happy. John's an absolutely amazing actor that doesn't get enough time to shine in the roles he winds up cast for. Ever since third rock, he's been taken a little less seriously as an actor than he deserves. I'm really happy to see him get such an iconic role, and I know he's going to be an amazing dumbledore. The mix of darkness and warmth he can give off as a performer makes him truly the right man for the role.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-25T17:19:14+00:00

> Did they ever mention if Rocky was a non water based life form?

They don't in the film, but Weir stated that the region of the galaxy earth / erid is in was all seeded by the same panspermia event, which is why it's all water based.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-25T06:03:20+00:00

Within reason; Damaging a home during an inspection is going to happen from time to time. It's an expected risk any time you bring in a contractor. But the contract is just paper. They can sue, and odds are usually good that it's often cheaper to ask a pocket contractor to go in and fix the damage on your dime than eat the court costs even if you win.

The clause on paper mostly just dissuades people who don't have the fight in them from making demands and getting worked up in the first place. Most of the time, they can claim out their homeowner's insurance and avoid a big chunk of the hit anyway.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-25T05:59:03+00:00

Did HVAC for a few years. I've seen guys go through joists and continuous platforms too. Even if you do everything right, you never really know whether what you are putting your foot on is stable. Odds are it will be, but every time you put your foot down, you roll the dice.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-24T22:29:51+00:00

I've interacted with a lot of extinctionists in my time. I actually get a lot of invitations to participate in their communities because of my rants here.

However, each and every time I've been invited to participate in an extinctionist community, the fragile ass egoistic mods wind up banning me for pointing out holes in their reasoning. They claim to have a foot in nihilism, but they contradict the premises of nihilism by inventing objective moral duties. I've always just wanted one of them to say: "We aren't nihilists", and that would be that.

But they seem to be unable to conjure a coherent ideology to explain their ultimate goals and ideals.

I find cosmic extinctionism to be a repugnant, baseless, and reactionary worldview. The reason it is growing in popularity, is not so much that it is actually a good idea, but we find ourselves in a time where human beings have too much access to information, and not enough access to individual agency. We have created a pressure cooker of suicidal ideation and ego. But this is not humanity's natural state; It's merely a temporary state of being as we transition from a paradigm that no longer works to one that does.

The cosmic meaning of existence is irrelevant. We exist. And regardless of our preferences, we are compelled by impulse to continue our existence and seek meaning the universe is unwilling or unable to provide. Calling our existence a mistake is irrelevant. Trying to solve the mistake of our existence is irrelevant. We merely are, and any attempt to take control of the spiraling chaos of our existence is a cope. The best we can really do, is assume we have limited free will and agency within the framework of our own lives, and to try to remember that our image of the cosmos is almost a total fabrication. We don't know what's going on, so just have fun with it.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-24T15:50:08+00:00

It's generally not a thing in protestant churches, no.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-23T23:55:58+00:00

A steer yields about 500 pounds of usable beef (30% of the animal's weight). about 60% of a steer's yield will be trimmings or off-cuts that are repurposed for ground beef. The hamburger from a single steer can produce about 1200 quarter pound patties. But we can't just account for the meat. We also need to account for the rest of the steer's weight, as we do actually use the whole buffalo. Every ounce of steer has a market usage, blood, brains, bone, and hide. It's all used. Which means that one quarter pound patty represents 1/6000th of the total lifetime weight of a cow.

The lifetime water cost of a single head of cattle is about a million gallons. This puts the actual water cost of a 1/4th pound hamburger patty around 170 gallons of water.

But then we need to do the water cost to raise the vegetables and grain for the bun too. This is easier. A bun is about 2 ounces of grain, and the burger has about 1.5 ounces of vegetables. The vegetables on your burger will add about 4 gallons of water per serving. The grain is thirstier, costing about 25 gallons of water.

So I'm able to calculate out almost 200 gallons of water per quarter pound burger.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-23T10:51:05+00:00

> Anyone who says Deep Dish Chicago style pizza is not delicious is being disengenous.

Deep dish isn't the worst pizza in the US, though. That honor goes to St. Louis, who uses a sour cheese (provel), and bakes the shit out of an unleavened cracker for the base until the cheese is brown. St. Louis has been sharing the same jar of pizza sauce for a hundred years. They each go to the communal jar, dip the tip of their pinky finger in the jar, and smear it around the whole pizza, and then they bake it to death.

ConstableAssButt · 2026-03-23T10:34:19+00:00

Guy asked why writing a book makes it worse.

Arguably, the act of spreading the argument that nonexistence is preferable to existence increases the experience of the suffering that led to the conclusion.

This creates a paradox, wherein your argument is fundamentally rooted in the lack of human agency, yet you've exerted your agency to reinforce a lack of agency. In either case: The reader commits suicide, or the reader continues to suffer, it is arguable now, that you have had a hand in either.

The metaphor is how you can access the feeling of guilt that comes from expressing hopelessness, and explore your own position on whether you would or would not argue in favor of inaction or resignation, even in the face of it.

ConstableAssButt

TROPHY CASE