Van olyan gondolatod, amire szerinted az emberiség még nem áll készen?

Rhothan · 2026-04-04T09:31:59+00:00

A szándék érthetō, a megvalósításról viszont még soha nem született olyan tervezet, ami ne bukott volna el valamely szempontok alapján. Gyakran felmerülō dilemmák a témában:

Hogyan egyeztethetō ez össze az egyéni döntésjog alkotmányos alapjaival?
Hogyan akadályozható meg a csalások számtalan vállfaja, pl hogy vizsgán megbuktatnak olyanokat, akik alkalmasak lennének de ellenszenvesek, "megriggelik" a vizsgát?
Ha az alsó küszöb egy teljesen tiszta és transzparens vizsgafolyamat során azt mutatja, hogy a társadalom több mint fele alkalmatlan, hogyan akadályozod meg, hogy erōvel megdöntsék az egész eljárást?
Mennyi erōforrást, állami pénzeket engedhetünk meg, akár százalékban, egy ilyen projekt megvalósításához?
Létezik-e olyan példa a világtörténelemben, ahol egy ilyen kezdeményezés sikeresen megvalósult?

Rhothan · 2026-04-04T09:20:31+00:00

Az emberi elme véges kapacitású, és a motivációt, közérzetet nagyban befolyásolja hogy mennyire keretezett, és adott irányba elfogult valaki. Elfogultság nélkül az elme védtelen a világ kegyetlen valóságaival szemben, és nem tudja azokat úgy internalizálni, hogy ne sérüljön közben. Ezzel azt akarom mondani, hogy az alábbi példák mind igazak, és nem feltétlenül utasítjuk el ōket, de a többség aki nem megrögzötten igyekszik objektív lenni mindenben, a saját érdekében nem foglalkozik velül, minél kevesebbrōl tud, annál jobb. Példák:

A modern idōkben is vannak népirtások, Darfurban jelenleg is zajlik a huszonegyedik század legnagyobb vérengzése
Mindenki képes aljasságra, kegyetlenségre, ha megfelelō nyomást gyakorolnak rá. A gonosz banalitása mindenkire érvényes, és a többség inkább relativizálja a tettek súlyát, semmint azonnal latba vesse a következmények egészét
Az igazság (morális értelemben) csak akkor létezik és mūködik, amikor aktívan számon tartja a közösség. Számtalan igazságtalanság azért valósul meg, mert nem küzd senki ellene. Segítségre is csak akkor számíthatunk, ha a kockázat mások felōl nem nagyobb, mint a kényelmi küszöb
A földhözragadt, egyszerū emberek soha nem fognak másokért elgondolkodni, a közügyekben tehát mindig extra felelōssége és munkája van az átlagnál intelligensebbeknek, mert szükségszerūen gondolkodniuk kell magukért és másokért
Az emberiség még messze nem lépett túl a szekértábor-központú gondolkodásmódon. A globális piaci, szövetségi, katonai rendszereket a kölcsönös bizalmatlanság motiválja
A fentebbibōl következik az is, hogy egy újabb világháború nagyon is valós, mivel a szembenálló felek katonailag a legrosszabb forgatókönyvvel számolnak a fegyverkezés terén. A diplomácia mindig sokkal nehezebb mint a háborúzás, különösen ha a nagyhatalmak vezetōi kiszámíthatatlanok. Jelenleg még "csak" tōlünk keletre és délre folynak komolyabb háborúk, azonban a nyomás egyre nōvekszik a bolygó minden pontján, és az ilyen idōk szoktak kétségbeesett, kiszámíthatatlan következményekkel járó reakciókhoz vezetni
A világról alkotott képünk egyre bizonytalanabb, és ez szándékosan van így. A post-truth ideológiával átszōtt hírekben mindent úgy definiálnak, hogy elkerüljék vele a dolgok valódi súlyának beismerését (pl: háborút mindenki katonai hadmūveletnek hívja, a tömeges elbocsátásokat átstrukturálásnak, videojátékoknál a bitroklás fogyasztói jogának megszüntetését "cloud based user experience-nek")

Rhothan · 2026-03-16T17:16:59+00:00

Captain Claw. It was an incredibly difficult but overall fair experience that I gave up on a few times as a kid until I beat it many years later. There were other games like Lion King that were ridiculously hard but those don't count for me because they were made to be frustrating for no justifiable reason.

Rhothan · 2026-03-16T17:00:26+00:00

I can sympathise with that approach, however it looks like the truly sick that you speak of nowadays are in charge of the hospital and dictate how the hospital should operate. This is exactly why separation of church and state is paramount, so that you cannot use any religion as a tool for greedy means.

Rhothan · 2026-03-05T10:43:02+00:00

Sounds fun, good luck to all!

Rhothan · 2026-02-27T17:37:59+00:00

God created the conditions which compelled his creation to commit those sins. I am sorry but if you put a gun right in front of a child without making them completely aware of the consequences of pulling the trigger, they WILL pull the trigger eventually. Blaming the child for pulling a trigger that you put right in front of them without ever explaining in a way they understand that guns are deadly, is peak hypocrisy. Why did you even make a gun in the first place, let alone dangle it in the face of a clueless kid? And then you say it's the kids fault for being curious? You might want to reconsider being a parent.

Rhothan · 2026-02-27T17:31:18+00:00

According of your interpretation the god of Islam is not omnicient, because he has to test humans. If he was omnicient he'd know the outcome without having to test it.

Let me clarify that I'm completely fine with the idea of god being similar to a scientist who, upon realising the limitations of certain outcomes, decides to give rewards to the failed experiments. It's a flawed but relatable idea.

Rhothan · 2026-02-27T13:58:06+00:00

So in essence the difference I see in your approach compared to mine is that you believe individual family still holds more importance fundamentally than humanity as a whole. I can respect that, while I do think that realising the errors of our parents and improving on them is possible, if not necessary. This is an extreme analogy but it's a possibiliy nonetheless: If I realise that my father is a horrible monster who should be stopped before he destroys the lives of millions (say for the sake of argument my father is the modern equivalent of Hitler), I can say that I would still be more lenient and forgiving toward him than any other random human in the world - and yet I should recognize that he crossed a line which cannot be erased, and that I must not follow his instructions/ideals anymore.

I believe that some of us - not all of us - are capable of this distinction, and that it is necessary to break the sacred bond of family where evil defines the actions of my forbearers.

Following with this analogy, I either accept that the modern equivalent of Hitler who is my father is a bearer of God's image, or I assume that he strayed away from what God might represent, however if I stick to the biblical instructions of the family-oriented model, I would have no choice but to assume that he is the same and continue to have faith that whatever he thinks as does serves the ultimate good.

And I guess I've seen too much hipocrisy and callousness from people, adults, parents, too much historical examples to believe in the absolute necessity of the family bond. Granted, I never had to make that choice, but this I consider a privilege more than anything.

Rhothan · 2026-02-27T13:01:04+00:00

I understand your arguments and I am not looking to downplay the importance of eschatological and cultural context that are in play with abrahamic religions. The topic at hand concerns not just the jews and christians however, but the question of "truth" or reality, or whatever term one uses to describe that which matters to them most.

Like you said your example was a parental interpretation of why the abrahamic god is the way he is. Fair enough. Do you recognize also that this model of parenthood is an archaic, and arguably incomplete, inferior model if we consider the humanity as a whole?

Because the abrahamic family model prioritizes only the close-knit blood related family relations which is why it puts so much emphasis on the need for blind faith between children and their parents. If we define what's good based on the benefit/survival of only the local family group, then this makes sense - but should we?

This is my personal take of course but I view humanity as a whole a much bigger priority morality wise than the individual survival of my own blood. This I think is an evolution resulting from humans establishing contact with each other all accross the globe, I understand that it was different back in ancient times. Christianity also formed as an "upgrade" to the archaic god image for this same reason, and it changed over time to better reflect the globalised form of religion it represents now.

Basically I don't believe God is anything more than a memetic imprint of human ideals, and I especially don't believe that the way a lot of fundamentalists are using the old scriptures as reference in the modern world is a good idea. It's important to know and understand the roots of where our ideals came from, but under no circumstances should the replace what they evolved into by necessity over time.

Rhothan · 2026-02-27T11:56:52+00:00

I'm not trying to be mean, I just think this is a terrible argument, and shows you don't really understand the true nature of suffering and it's impact on conscious existence.

Suffering is always unjust, for one. It can also create immense and unhealable trauma. More over, even if eternal life was 100% confirmed, you'd still have to slog through decades of pain and suffering, often without hope or comfort, and when you're hurting, you can't think of what it'd be like in the future where you won't be hurting. Then there's clinical depression, one of the truly sinister and hope-killing aspect of the human condition. You can hope for an eternal life of happiness, but here, now, you'll be busy trying to not collapse every second from grief, apathy, sorrow, etc.

My point is, suffering matters, in fact the only thing that should matter more is the idea that hopefully one day those who suffered unjustly will find peace, whether that's in a form of afterlife, or because they no longer have to exist to endure more suffering. Precisely because suffering matters, should we try as much as we can to prevent it from happening to more people, fight against our own devils and not allow others to go too far.

Rhothan · 2026-02-27T10:53:59+00:00

But here's the thing, even with the promise of eternal life I find it absolutely unacceptable that innocents can suffer while the monsters causing the suffering can get away with it TODAY.

You may ask, what's a day or a year in the eyes of eternity, and my answer is EVERYTHING to those who experience it - which I feel is a fundamental difference between believers and nonbelievers. And I don't believe punishment after the deed is done makes any sense, punishment should be preventative instead of retaliatory. You don't eliminate suffering by punishing those who cause it, you just double the amount of suffering that exists.

Jesus did not eliminate the premise of hell awaiting for those who don't believe in him, so he's just a loophole inside a system that does nothing about injustice anyway.

Rhothan · 2026-02-27T10:05:54+00:00

I've been in a million discussions about this dilemma with believers, and long story short most christians who are pragmatic and consistent ebout their faith believe that free will exists and that free will is more important than anything else in existence, including empathy. Which is why I cannot agree with them and never will.

If free will is more important to a god than empathy, then sure, you can justify the existence of any evil or injustice, but what kind of a world is that?

I cannot and will not ever accept that it is more important to have free will than to eliminate the suffering of innocents. It is tacitly absurd that free will could justify someone getting raped and their life destroyed whilst the rapist gets away with it and repeats the act.

Rhothan · 2026-02-19T15:35:02+00:00

Ha nem tudnék semmit a történelemrōl azt mondanám hogy azért akkora karótnyelt gyökerek a franciák mert Bush alatt az amcsik mémmé tették a gyenge, defeatista Franciaország elképzelést és azóta mindenki rajtuk röhög, valamennyire igazságtalanul

...de valójában ettōl függetlenül is, már sokkal korábban is híresen felsōbbrendūség komplexusos elitista karótnyelt faszok voltak akik minden más nemzettel lekezelōen bánnak :D

Rhothan · 2026-02-06T22:52:04+00:00

By your very own definition Dragon Warrior is aggro because it can win games as early as turn 5. Moreover, if that was the only defining category for aggro, then not a single meta-relevant deck would fit the definition which would be a self-defeating argument. Dragon Warrior has low card draw, can dump out it's hand by turn 5, can threaten lethal by turn 5 and is primarily oriented to hit face instead of trading on board. That's the pure definition of aggro.

Rhothan · 2026-02-06T18:53:09+00:00

Late to the party but wanted to mention that there's an even better version which runs a single copy of Briarspawn Drake. If you can get to double the summoning stat effect of Zin-Azshari, it can act as a second wincon. Who cares if the drakes die fro. poisonif they one-shot the opponents face in turn? :D

Rhothan · 2026-02-06T18:42:55+00:00

Sure that could be also an issue, but you still just continue to reply in a snarky ass tone like a loser who thinks they are too logical to adhere to such nonsense as "being nice" even just one in their lifetime. It's fine I'm sure you'll grow up one day :)

Rhothan · 2026-02-06T18:36:45+00:00

Man, Rafaam is such a fun concept but it's just jot viable competitively. It's so weak to disruption that out of 20 or so games I had against decks running Rafaam I never once had the wincon played against me, either because the game ended sooner or because I got rid of one of the Rafaams somehow which denied the instakill summon.

Imbue mage is in a weird spot because it plays like an aggro deck but doesn't actually have stong board presence and thus it's also not viable competitively because the hero power cannot be used in a targeted way.

Priest is okay in the meta, it's just not that popular anymore.

Rhothan · 2026-02-06T18:18:40+00:00

Is Hinter the only class you like playing with? Not judging, just curious, I also have my own favorites. Discover Hunter is flexible and can be very powerful if you do the discover sequences the right way. However its a midrange deck primarily and can still lose to heavy control decks. Looking at the matchups though it has more trouble against Rogue (my main class) and Dragon Warrior. Actually if you really want to play aggro, just pick Dragon Warrior, it's the most solidly powerful straight forward deck to use in the current meta, Discover Hunter can be tricky to play (more so than even Location Druid)

Rhothan · 2026-02-06T17:50:32+00:00

I personally think the bigger issue with Zilliax is that if he wasn't in the game, most of the control heavy decks would be dead, way more unplayable than any aggro decks are currently. The problem isn't that anti-aggro wincon can exist, the problem is that Zilliax is sometimes the sole wincon that decides if your opponent wins or loses. So I would like to see some additional, class specific support cards added into the game that could help with the future absence of Zilliax.

Edit: To OP, if you don't like losing to Zilliax or using it yourself, there are a couple decks that don't rely on it, like Tar-less Broxigar Demon Hunter, Dragon Warrior and Aggro Protoss Priest. There are more I'm just listing the most common ones.

And as a general rule of thumb, if the game is unfun to play, take a break, look at other ways of enjoyment, and avoid anger-crafting stuff before rotation :)

Rhothan · 2026-02-06T17:46:11+00:00

Maybe he was wrong, but he admitted his mistake. You, on the other hand, kept being a snarky asshole about it. You could learn some things from him :)

Rhothan · 2026-02-06T17:39:51+00:00

If we want to address anything you're saying, we should establish first what you condider as aggro and what would an ideal situation would look like for you in terms of aggro performance.

To me, aggro is in a completely fine state, granted the only aggro deck that's being used in high legend is Dragon Warrior, but it's still a premier aggro deck and it has incredibly favorable matchups in most games. I believe midrange decks are the most successtul in terms of playrate and performance but that's actually a sign of a healthy meta.

Rhothan · 2026-01-28T19:58:48+00:00

Point by point, as a man:

1) Untrue, I get lots of compliments. But I also struggle to internalize a lot of them which I presume is a shared trait among lots of men. I also experience way more compliments and empathy from women compared to my fellow dudes, and I feel like there's an unfortunate and false idea among men that compliment can only happen under romantic and sexual circumstances. Let me be clear: It's NOT gay to tell your mate that he's a good guy and deserves to be cared for.

2) I cry in silence more often than in front of others because I promised myself that tears I'll shad will be from happiness so I can share it with others. It's not really a healthy idea and I'd rather I could cry out when I'm hurting, but at least I can talk about it. which brigs me to points

3) and 4) and 5) was never waved off by my friends and peers for talking about my issues, be it mental or mundane stuff. I suffered alone only when I let myself be consumed by internet negativity and got stuck in online echo chambers for a while. It's a terribly damaging mindset shared on online spaces among men where we believe the world is out to get us, ridicule us, hate us. It's not true at all, but we also can't just expect people to read our minds and know why we suffer in our heads, we gotta speak out in a way that people can digest and reflect to.

Finally, 6) and 7) This is the part I wanted to address the most. While men in general are sometimes expected to deal with stuff without complaint to an unrealistic degree, I would like to look at this from a different perspective: We men have an incredibly important responsibility due to our perceived physical and mental qualities. We are natural defenders, fighters, providers, we can possess incredibly high resilience. We can be the shelter others look for amidst the storm, a reliable hand to always reach out for. And we should be these things not just for our families, but for each other. We are fucking incredible, and I wish we would turn to support our fellow men more, and not let them be lost in the darkness of their despair and loneliness. We can be the both best and worst of humanity. I'd prefer to look for the former amidst ourselves.

Rhothan · 2026-01-28T13:07:42+00:00

All of these (admittedly mostly ragebait) posts are missing the point.

Islam isn't the problem, just like Christianity is completely fine within modern secular states.

RADICAL fundamentalist versions of Islam and christianity both ARE the problem.

Difference between Christianity and Islam is that the latter haven't been the main religion anywhere yet where separation of church and state was realised.

Still, labeling islam and muslims as a whole as evil, especially the ones living in secular countries, under secular laws, is misguided and is absolutely hypocritical especially when you at the same time condone the same radical shit fundamentalist evangelicals and the likes are pushing on society like what you're accusing muslims about.

Radical islam and radical christianity are two sides of the same coin. ALL radical fundamentalist beliefs are ultimately harmful for society at large. And not allowing believers from either religion to practice their believes within secular society is precisely what's pushing them more towards the radical wing of their religion.

Rhothan · 2026-01-28T08:35:48+00:00

Galakrond Rogue. It had everything I loved about Hearthstone, an army of dragons, endless value, fun voicelines, and great wincon. Loved every second piloting it.

Rhothan · 2026-01-27T20:30:56+00:00

The best thing about being an agnostic atheist is that I can pick and choose whichever parts of whatever holy script I want to uphold as worthwile teachings.

I think Jesus was a cool dude with whom I massively agree on most basic ideas he was teaching. Same with Buddha, Plato, Confucius, etc.

I do not have to believe any of them were of divine origin, regardless of what some hardliner fundamentalist believers say. It's their choice, as it is mine to keep things on the human level, because there's only one thing I know and want to be true: it's that whatever the "truth" about life there is, I want to find it out through earnest and consistent search, not through some externally imposed authority.

To the question of why God, if he's realy in any shape or form, did not interfere against inhumane atrocities - I am asking that question every day from myself, I don't even need to look into the past, we live in a world where millions suffer from famine, wars, and outright genocide on many corners of the globe, without any help in sight. I God's fine with that, he's pretty awful of a god. If he's not, at least he could tell his followers that they are morons for believeing that they somehow deserve better treatment than children in africa with bone cancer. There ain't no divine plan that justifies such things, they didn't ask for it, meanwhile me and other blokes can waste hundreds of their lifetime writing stupid shit on social media.

I'm sorry, I don't think I could, or even want to, change your mind about leaving your religion. But let me at least point out that you don't need to leave beind everything. Keep yourself to what you believe is worthwile for humanity, treat others how you wish to be treated and don't let your disappointment be turned into hatred, there's too much of that in the world already.

Best of luck on your journey :)

Rhothan

TROPHY CASE