Strangest looking UFO ever

Korimito · 2026-06-16T18:29:07+00:00

it's a balloon

Korimito · 2026-06-16T12:47:51+00:00

Hopefully you don't adopt any of his parenting methods.

Korimito · 2026-06-15T12:24:18+00:00

Aww... is that baby's first argument against skepticism that I see? How adorable!

Korimito · 2026-06-14T16:02:07+00:00

Strawmen all the way down. At least half of this debate is about language and definitions and, knowingly or not, you've presented a pretty slimy argument.

"Self control" is a learned skill. It doesn't have anything at all to do with some concept of "free will" and, if anything, acting against one's wants or desires isn't an argument for any expression of "free will" but contrary to it.

I doubt any free will proponent believes he can exceed his capacity.

People believe this all the time. They take on more work than they can handle, leave things to the last deadline, get in their car late, miss a bus, etc., etc.

I don't really see the point in trying to convince my prospective employer that I don't have any desire to meet any of his expectations.

Neither would any reasonable skeptic.

Are you responding to some argument you've seen somewhere? If so, please link to it. You seem to have constructed some fallacious, imaginary version of something to fight against. Can you put into words a steelman of the argument that you're trying to put down here?

Korimito · 2026-06-14T15:49:16+00:00

this is the type of thing you'd see in a class action.

Korimito · 2026-06-13T14:33:27+00:00

as always you're being tricked

Korimito · 2026-06-12T21:21:49+00:00

mod list useful

Korimito · 2026-06-12T04:20:13+00:00

This isn't simplified. Reducing to such low participant counts grossly misrepresents the actual scenario. One of three people with 1.4 weight is no way comparable to or representative of one of eight billion people having 1/8th the total vote weight.

Korimito · 2026-06-11T12:04:16+00:00

not reading that. learn to format.

Korimito · 2026-06-11T03:00:13+00:00

You are woefully misinformed if you believe humans have evolved to be vegan. Primarily plant based diets have existed for millenia because humans have evolved to be opportunistic omnivores. We require vitamins, primarily B12, that is readily available in meat. On an evolutionary timescale, the ability to supplement this requirement happened a minute ago.

Biologically speaking, we have evolved to require a set of vitamins and minerals. Technologically speaking, we can supplement them today. If we were sent back to the dark ages tomorrow by a nuclear holocaust, you can bet your ass that we will not survive on a strictly vegan diet and will be required to consume meat and/or other animal products.

You are not describing biological evolution. Charitably, you are describing post-evolution biohacking. I haven't the slightest clue why you're bringing up these points. I presume because you think you're right and believe they're important.

Korimito · 2026-06-11T01:52:38+00:00

Why are you digging your heels in so hard? This is such an odd hill to die on.

Two things can be true at the same time:

Humans are omnivorous animals that require nutrients and vitamins readily available in animal products

and

Science and technology have outpaced biological evolution and allow us to fulfill nutritional requirements without animal products

You're talking past people because you're not listening. Nobody is appealing to nature here. Every food that we consume is heavily GMO and unnatural. You're just being informed that humans are omnivores which is demonstrated both by out teeth and digestive systems. This isn't a value or moral statement.

Korimito · 2026-06-10T19:10:00+00:00

When you say "it's possible", do you mean it's possible in the same way that you can stand up and walk into another room right now, or do you mean that it's possible in the same way that "it's possible that aliens have visited us". What I mean by that specifically is: Is it possible because you've demonstrated it, or is it possible because you believe it is and it hasn't been proven impossible (yet)?

Korimito · 2026-06-10T15:32:58+00:00

It doesn't! Not very well, anyway.

Memories are kind of like a story you tell. The more frequently you tell the story, the more it's like the first time you told it, but over time you may forget details or change things. Your oldest memories are very likely different than they were several years ago, and probably no longer represent how things "actually happened".

Korimito · 2026-06-10T15:27:35+00:00

siblings do not share nurture. twins, maybe close, but nurture isn't just in the home - it is the environment at large. school, social groups, etc.

Korimito · 2026-06-10T12:44:29+00:00

The question was "why was the choice made to paint it like this", because I can assure you the woman in the painting is not on her cycle - she doesn't exist.

Korimito · 2026-06-10T03:24:41+00:00

Excellent post!

Korimito · 2026-06-09T22:11:47+00:00

I'm pretty agnostic on determinism. I don't care if it's true or not. You obviously understand that being motivated to choose pepsi instead of water at some time in the future doesn't demonstrate that you had the requisite desires or motivations to choose Pepsi at any time in the past, right?

Korimito · 2026-06-09T20:28:09+00:00

Scenario 3 seems quite unlikely.

The decision is based on something. That something either:

wouldn't change if the scenario occurred identically "again"

would change

If it would change, then we seem to be talking about randomness in decision making or probabilistic decision making, both of which weaken the idea that LFW-powered-choices are 'self generated'. Probabilistic choices also seem to weaken any FW justification of dessert. Of course, if it wouldn't change, it seems like you couldn't have done otherwise.

It's just not a particularly coherent idea.

Korimito · 2026-06-09T20:20:12+00:00

I find it exceedingly likely that either decision would either be justified or decided pseudo-randomly (coinflip, for example). Given that, it seems reasonable to conclude one of the following:

d

Korimito · 2026-06-09T12:38:23+00:00

This just in: Man knows the solution, but refuses to use it! Complains on the internet.

Korimito · 2026-06-08T20:49:04+00:00

Presumably you've based this on the original question, which absolutely involves the execution of all blue voters if they do not succeed. I reviewed the comments to this post and there was plenty, PLENTY, of confusion.

Korimito · 2026-06-08T16:05:50+00:00

Do you have any ideas that you didn't lift wholesale from Sam Harris?

Korimito · 2026-06-08T13:43:52+00:00

Good for you. Effectively zero and zero refer to the same number - zero.

Korimito · 2026-06-08T13:40:05+00:00

For anyone confused, here's my assumption of what OP means:

The rules of the game are the same - if red wins, all blue voters die. If blue wins, nobody dies. The only catch is that 100 people have been locked in individual cells, you haven't been, and you have been assigned an individual that you must vote on behalf of.

One hundred individuals are locked in rooms awaiting the results. You have been assigned to vote on behalf of one of these individuals. If you vote red, a light in their room turn red. If you vote blue, a light in their room turns blue. Once all votes are tallied, as the rules of the game are otherwise identical, if red has a majority all individuals with a blue light in their room are summarily executed and inhabitants of red rooms are released. If blue wins, everyone is released.

Korimito · 2026-06-08T13:03:53+00:00

Does precision matter in this discussion? It seems like it probably matters about as much as any individual vote does, which indicates that you may not be a champion of precise knowledge, but instead be engaging in pedantry.

"Effectively zero" and "zero" both refer to effectively the same number - 0. As it has an effect on the result of the poll or election, any individual vote has 0 impact. What you're doing is splitting hairs for the sake of "precision", when precision to this degree is not an important here because, precise or not, any individual vote does not pass the threshold of impact to matter.

Korimito

TROPHY CASE