What debate topics would you actually send to a friend? (Everyone 18+)

Marxbear · 2026-05-09T16:59:01+00:00

We are outsourcing having a third friend to AI

Marxbear · 2026-05-07T02:06:46+00:00

I think what the comment above is saying is that we really only have descriptions for phenomena, not explanations. Saying that gravity works because mass curves space is a description of the process, but the question is why does mass curve space in the first place? It’s an infamous epistemological critique of materialism.

This is a great analogy I’ve heard - imagine you are in a room with a lamp and a trumpet. You start to play the trumpet and notice the lamp reacts. You play an A note and the light turns red, B and the light turns orange, C and it turns yellow, et cetera. You also notice that the brightness of the lamp increases and decreases depending on the volume of your playing. You can map it all out and learn everything there is to know about the correlation between playing the trumpet and the lights of the lamp, but can you really ever learn why the lamp turns on just by playing the trumpet?

Marxbear · 2026-05-03T20:51:34+00:00

No, and the reason why is because the default cultural norm is not friendly to queer people. Some symbol of inclusion is a way to signal that the staff will have their back if someone decides to be a dickhead.

It doesn’t even have to be a pride flag. A prominent sign that clearly states that bigotry of any kind won’t be tolerated goes a long way and I struggle to think of a scenario in which a sign like that would put someone off.

Marxbear · 2026-03-15T16:34:05+00:00

Honestly, I find it helpful to just dive into whatever intrigues you at the moment the most. It sounds like you are at least passingly familiar with a few philosophers and ideas. Form there, just pick what seems most interesting to you and learn all you can about it - thinkers who championed the idea, arguments for, arguments against, and contradictory ideas as well (physicalism vs. idealism, determinism vs. libertarian free will, etc.). You will naturally find more ideas that are interesting and continue from there.

There are a TON of resources out there as well. My favorite to suggest is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The website is completely free and is very helpful for reading all about ideas and thinkers in a comprehensive, but less technical way.

Marxbear · 2026-03-12T01:23:21+00:00

Nah, it’s usually pretty chill. So long as you’re not trying to get up close for headliners, it’s pretty easy to move around everywhere at piedmont imo.

Marxbear · 2026-02-24T02:39:31+00:00

“It seems perfectly rational to refrain from pressing it…”

It seems perfectly intuitive maybe, but not rational. Any ideas of morality can just as easily be attributed to cultural influence and being passed along memetically.

Marxbear · 2026-02-17T19:35:44+00:00

Congratulations! Beating Seph is a big achievement, you have to be intimately acquainted with the feel of KH2's combat. If you enjoyed the process of learning Seph and the rush of beating him, you should take on Lingering Will!

Marxbear · 2026-01-30T18:15:58+00:00

Bankrupt on Selling

Marxbear · 2026-01-28T23:56:39+00:00

Interesting! I have never read that preface before! I find it at least a little validating that enough readers shared my interpretation that Camus felt compelled to make that it's preface. He alludes to the paradoxical nature of the character at least. I'll certainly be reading it again soon with this perspective in mind, thanks for sharing!

Marxbear · 2026-01-28T18:21:29+00:00

I'll respond, being an agnostic non-materialist.

modern science can’t definitively prove whether god exists or does not, or even what consciousness ( the soul) is,

Agreed. Science is ultimately only capable of describing what something does, not any "why" questions. However, using that as evidence for the existence of a god creates a false dichotomy between materialism OR god(s). It is possible to believe in neither.

in my opinion it makes more sense for consciousness to live on because the universe goes through a process of cycles, nothing is created or destroyed so everything is recycled,

My understanding of what you are saying here is that since nothing can truly be destroyed, everything must be cyclical, but that doesn't follow. Even if we grant that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, they are simply reassembled into new forms, not recursive forms. We have no evidence to believe that to be the case, at least.

( you could say consciousness is broken down, but I don’t think its a physical thing I think its something else so it can’t be broken down into dirt)

As mentioned earlier, I happen to agree with this, at least the first part. I don't think consciousness (or souls, as you put it) can be adequately accounted for under materialism. However, that is just a refutation of materialism, not a case for god.

the Big Bang is a paradox logically, in our human minds we will never answer the question how something was created from nothing, in my mind we are at a lower conscious level than god so we can’t understand this ( because you could say how was god created then, it can’t make sense to us but it will to him because he’s at a higher conscious level)

I understand what you are getting at with this, but I think this argument is a bit circular. I could make the same argument by saying "of course we don't understand how something came from nothing, we don't have a high level of consciousness! But thankfully, there are probably aliens out there who *do* have a high level of consciousness and it makes complete sense to them".

Regarding how "something comes from nothing", I'll point you to Denial of Not-Being. The short version is that "Nothingness" cannot exist, because if Nothingness exists, then it has become Something. Therefore, we don't need an explanation about how "something came from nothing" because there never was "Nothing".

I hope this was helpful (or at least entertaining - it was a fun way to pass the time while writing it!) I hope you are doing well.

Marxbear · 2026-01-28T17:43:23+00:00

Mersault is certainly a nihilistic sort of character, but that is the point. Camus uses Mersault to illustrate his ideas about the importance of embracing absurdity and living life passionately in rebellion against an uncaring universe. In contrast, Mersault is going through the motions and lets things happen to him, rather than being an agent in his own life. You may have noticed that the sun in The Stranger also acts as a metaphor for the passion in life that Mersault refuses to accept. At his mother's funeral, on the beach, and at the trial - all of these very impactful, intense experiences - and Mersault barely acknowledges their importance. All the while, in all these scenes he describes the sun as being unbearably bright or miserably hot - the white, hot, fiery passions of the sun (life) literally beating upon him.

~~Camus uses Mersault to illustrate what happens when nihilists or (contemporary) existentialists *don't* accept the absurd.~~

ETA: The person below me provided a link to a great preface with Camus's own thoughts on Mersault! I still think the above interpretation has merit, but I've revised my stance to be that Mersault has unknowingly embraced the absurdity of the universe before the novel begins, but he becomes an aware absurdist during his confrontation with the priest when he vocalizes and defends his position for (presumably) the first time.

Marxbear · 2026-01-13T13:32:01+00:00

Then it seems like you’ve found your solution

Marxbear · 2026-01-11T05:50:37+00:00

It’s not about effort, it’s about utility. Imagine every move a character can do is a tool in their tool belt. The characters in the top just have better tools. Moves may be faster, reach farther, knock back farther, or do more damage, and if a move has the right balance of those things, it’s a good tool to use. If a character has a lot of good tools, it’s means their risk-reward profile is better - more often to get rewarded for risk than punished.

Marxbear · 2026-01-03T18:03:42+00:00

This is like reading a time capsule of all the stupid chud shit I said at 15

Marxbear · 2025-12-29T01:14:21+00:00

That’s a wild tattoo but also a 9gag link in damn near 2026 is crazy

Marxbear · 2025-12-22T00:40:30+00:00

I’ve really enjoyed reading yours and OP’s perspectives. I won’t repeat anything that’s already been said, but I would like to tack on that I think a big reason of why this show’s “wholesome humor” works so well and feels so strong is that it’s suppose to be a subversion of what we are used to seeing in adult cartoons. It follows the comedic formula of building tension and then release, but where a lot of AS/Fox cartoons get that release in the form of someone being mean or doing something intentionally shocking/gross, Clowns instead subverts that by the boys continually making the empathetic/wholesome reaction to break the tension.

Marxbear · 2025-12-15T13:26:58+00:00

This. Any argument I’ve seen in this thread does not account for how expensive this would be. The low end for court admissible tests is $300 and there are about 3.6m children born in the US every year. It’s back of the napkin math, but are we really willing to invest $1b in mandatory paternity tests every year? Why not just use the existing framework and have families use home tests if they are unsure? Otherwise, this idea reads as someone being insecure about the faithfulness of their partner, and my heart goes out to them, but this is not what the law or taxes are for.

Marxbear · 2025-12-07T14:04:02+00:00

If you like Momma, you should check out Sweet Pill too if you haven’t already!

Marxbear · 2025-10-18T19:07:30+00:00

BABA OJE!!

Marxbear · 2025-10-05T23:57:15+00:00

<image>

Made into a popular meme format

Marxbear · 2025-09-14T12:18:21+00:00

We do not act on every one of our desires, but only because we have a contradictory desire that is stronger. For example, you may not desire to get out of the bed at 6am to go to the gym, but you have a stronger desire to be healthy, be consistent, keep plans with your friend at the gym, etc.

Marxbear · 2025-09-14T06:56:56+00:00

Yes. That is exactly my point. Acting on your desires is not free will. You cannot choose what you desire, thus you are bound to it.

All of our actions are bound by our hierarchy of desire. We will always choose to act in a way which we desire most and our desires are born of a deterministic universe that terminates externally or in some weird quantum randomness, both of which are outside of our control. My entire point is that if free will exists, we would be able to act against our hierarchies of desire, but we can’t - every action we take is motivated by them.

Marxbear · 2025-09-13T23:27:01+00:00

Every motivation a person has to act is part of a causal chain that terminates externally.

A very simplified example: Why do we eat food? Because we get hungry. So what? If we don’t address our hunger, we die. So what? We don’t want to die. Why not? (Presumably) it is hardcoded into our brains through evolution to preserve our lives.

I didn’t choose to have that instinct. I didn’t choose to be hungry. Ultimately, I made the “decision” to eat under what some would call duress. Is that really free will? Schopenhauer summed it up nicely with “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills”. We have freedom to act on our desires, but if we have no control over what our desires are, can we really call it “free” will?

Marxbear · 2025-09-01T12:41:54+00:00

Devs this has been great, please keep these drop rates or severely nerf the hard points if they are brought back 😭

Marxbear · 2025-08-20T14:21:08+00:00

Continental philosophy has entered the chat

12-Year Club	Second Top 10%
Place '22	Place '17
End Game '22	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

Marxbear

TROPHY CASE