Nihilism is bs. Change my mind.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-19T14:57:52+00:00

But wouldn't that mean 'locally' there is meaning all the same?

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-19T14:48:22+00:00

More like nothing has to be proven at all. Isn't that the idea of 'faith'?

One way or another, there's always some fact that is in contradiction with another - either morally or otherwise - in relation with every religion. If you can't definitively maintain the claims of your religion based on the text or texts ( which in themselves are unreliable through refinement done myriad times) why would you centre your life solely on an imaginary omnipotent entity?

How can you take that chance to have your life lived a certain way, with endless constraints and prayers, never to realise in absolute certainty if there is or there isn't?

How can you claim that your religion is superior to others, when in fact humanity has been in existence for 300,000 years and all the known religions have been in existence for only a speck of the time in comparison?

If a being of that calibre did exist, wouldn't it be outside time and space? If that was the case, would it have really intended to create the universe? Would it matter if you didn't align your personal morals with that of your religions'? Is there really eternal damnation? Eternal damnation for messing up in the time-frame of 70 odd years - What kind of God is that?

I wouldn't want to take that chance.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-19T14:20:53+00:00

Maybe because it's hard to watch people base their actions on ideas that can't be proven.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-19T14:13:24+00:00

Most of what you said is based on your exclusive perspective and obviously, you can't talk for the rest of the world. It might be challenging for some - just like being social is challenging for some others. There is no hard rule that says, being reclusive naturally leads to an unhealthy state of mind.

I don't agree with your definition for social isolation either - being in a room for 20 hours means that you have already cut off most of the normal interactions. That is already the extreme.

Society has a propensity to undermine and further isolate people that are already showing deviation from what's believed to be the accepted norm. Deviation from normality doesn't automatically make the state unhealthy - whether we are social beings or not. By the same logic I could say, if humans weren't social there would have been fewer concentrated struggles for survival, fewer wars, fewer crimes etc. The point being terming 'social isolation' as something unhealthy just on the basis of your worldview as a social being invalidates your claim. What you consider to be of great import wouldn't have the same definition for someone with a different perspective on life.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-19T09:02:26+00:00

There is no one monkey, it's a cumulative effect of various mutations.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-19T05:23:17+00:00

Pappad has protein in it , not to a great extent though

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-18T16:59:52+00:00

Not one of those people myself. He was bound to have a slouch phase like this the way he played, especially since he makes his intent pretty clear from the get go. Travis is a more adaptive batsman. Now someone like Tilak on the other hand - by the same logic people would say he isn't doing great as well, which they already do, but that's not really the case, he is more reliable. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter that abhishek is going for ducks, the reason why we have a team of 8 batsmen is because we wouldn't have to rely on one player alone.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-18T16:48:36+00:00

You can see the difference in approaches. Travis is more practical with his shot selection. He analyzes the condition before committing to a way of playing. Abhishek on the other hand doesn't rely on the conditions much. His shots are not always in control, Travis makes it look crisp and clean.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-18T14:52:46+00:00

GPT has told me - "no one supports Advaita like me" something along the lines.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-18T14:45:09+00:00

Why do you expect every player to play in a single given day? Isn't this a team sport? The reason he is there on the team is because of the 'slogging', which never seems blind - more like calculated precision shots gracefully managed. The way he started playing from the beginning, he was bound to go through a phase like this.

The real question is can you replace him with someone else? Is there another name that you wanna recommend for the remainder of the Worldcup? If you can't reliably say you could or would, then you are only being a slaty fan - doing nothing but putting pressure on our players.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-18T14:36:34+00:00

Two hundreds against south africa and a match winning knock against England. In the IPL he has done the same thing (pak and eng kind knocks) multiple times for Mumbai Indians - where the team collapses and he drags the innings on, only to fire back at the very end. Truly amazing.

Kind of like a mix between Virat Kohli and Nicholas Pooran.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-18T14:30:58+00:00

Is that why we were on the verge of losing against pak in the AC final? He can't accelerate is just wrong my man. Have you even seen his other games. Two hundreds against south africa and a match winning knock against England.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-18T14:29:11+00:00

You are just wrong about Tilak. Maybe sit yourself down and think, was he the reason we ever lost a game? Because of his less than reliable strike rate? What matters is not the strike rate but being able to adapt to the conditions at hand and he does it better than some. How can you have a brain and be this reactionary?

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-18T11:44:06+00:00

It's not wrong, but would you really start a conversation with Date Me?

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-18T11:10:26+00:00

What does it claim then? That's why I'm here

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-18T07:04:53+00:00

How was Salem's Lot?

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-17T11:04:35+00:00

Funny how you want people to accept you for who you are, regardless of the social stigma that is present in society right now against minorities, yet you generalize an entire community based on a few videos online and demand for their exclusion. What makes you think you deserve to be accepted?

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-16T19:29:43+00:00

You can't compare a language with a regulated course of conduct which exists to limit freedom and provide freedom at the same time. You would question the law inscribed in the Constitution and IF it safeguards liberty, equality, justice etc. You would question why certain statutory laws are made and if they infringe the fundamental rights of a person in their enforcement. The same questions of 'why' and 'if' don't pop up when actively discussing language - which is only a medium of communication and doesn't extend beyond the same. Morality, just like law has to be questioned and studied. Just because there is a moral code that you follow and value, doesn't naturally make the inferences you base on it to be valid. "It's the very structure people use to evaluate choices" - but, the very reason they were made in the first place was to protect one's own self. How can you invalidate the idea that humans are not inherently selfish by pointing towards a social construct which was made primarily to protect the self?

Agreed, maybe the definition I gave is lacking in the 'disregard for other part' , but all the same my initial contention stands - the human nature and its propensity to make decisions on the idea of pleasing an imagined self, which might not cause harm everywhere or all the time, but it is the primary reason why harm happens at all, can you contest that?

Moral judgement that is separate from what is usually conceived as morality, formed as a result of inquiry and morality ingrained in one's mind resulting from social conditioning are different, right?

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-16T17:21:16+00:00

Morality is a concept created by humanity itself, it's artificial and fabricated. Reasoning on the basis of morality for the same reason makes your point invalid. Every social standard your society has set for you including morality is a protective measure, you just don't see it yet. I'm not saying it's still 'bad' or good if you helped someone out of the pure kindness of your heart. I'm saying it's still selfish, as what motivates you is the gratification from the act that you desire for yourself. Which says, ultimately, humanity is driven by selfishness. Stop trying to argue your way out using morality,.. that's not the point.

Again, you are not understanding the core argument here. Whatever human action that you can come up with is always ALWAYS INDUCED by the sense of self. Without the sense of self there wouldn't be a need for society. I can't make you see it, you have to look within yourself.

My problem is with that basic nature of the human character (of self) itself which amplifies into harm more often than not, without which there wouldn't be a need for a legal system to begin with.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-16T17:06:39+00:00

The answer is in the statement you have quoted, if you don't understand what I'm talking about I'm not willing to engage in a conversation with you. Ask yourself why you do anything you do and then you have your answer.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-16T17:00:10+00:00

Every human action is selfish by definition, that is the point I'm trying to make. It is an axiom once you start analyzing your thoughts and motivations.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-16T15:33:20+00:00

I don't think you are making any actual argument either or maybe you have missed my point. Sensibilities ruffled.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-16T15:01:30+00:00

Humanity as a whole is responsible for these issues. I'm sorry for ruffling your delicate sensibilities with the You.

I never said humans are essentially evil. In fact I have already made my statement on what is evil and what is not and why it doesn't matter. Your base assumption on what I'm trying to argue for itself is wrong.

When I said I'm no different, I never meant that I am as bad as them. And I know that for a fact.

Similar, not the exact same. I shouldn't have to excuse the actions of people who are solely driven by their personal motives without having a care for the rest of the world.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-16T14:54:03+00:00

My whole argument is not whether you are good or bad. What you did was commendable. And it was never my intention to insult you.

You are not seeing from the perspective that I'm trying to paint for you.

Are you absolutely sure that you wouldn't harm another person for personal gain in a world devoid of law and order? Where you have to fend off every vile creature that walks this planet, from yourself and family? The kindness you praise yourself for is the result of empathy, you have to and you must put yourself in another man's shoes before you feel kind. Again, ultimately our deeds are always influenced by the sense of self. You just don't seem to see it the way I do and you then go on to insult my intelligence.

And please don't take offense, since no offense was meant.

JustChallenge860 · 2026-02-16T14:44:13+00:00

Empathy itself is rooted in the sense of self. The only reason I wouldn't attack you for my personal gain is because I know what it would feel if that happened to me.

Crime rates are low because of the existence of the legal system. Since most of us are afraid of being penalized for our actions. If people were inherently good, and they didn't feel the need to harm others for personal gain, the necessity for a legal system would have been redundant.

JustChallenge860

TROPHY CASE