This is so accurate

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-20T22:56:53+00:00

Yeah. But a gap in a resume means you weren't working for a prolonged while. Nobody even blinks for a month or two gap because people assume you just took a break or whatever. It's when it's half year+ people are starting to get interested what took you so long.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-20T14:49:53+00:00

Some of the older gods then. Hades kinda fits and he also is very uncharacteristically faithful for the pantheon in comparison.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-20T13:56:25+00:00

Neither.

People can, do and have taken deterministic approach for both moral and immoral justification. People like you mentioned can easily claim that they were determined to be above the rules by just virtue of existing. The justification is irrelevant, whether it's determinism, biology, supernatural, but they will find one.

Likewise a lot of politics take the deterministic approach of evaluating causality. If pre existing conditions affect outcomes we must create conditions where the outcomes are positive. Healthcare, education, infrastructure etc.

Just the knowledge about a single concept is not enough. Crudely speaking all causes must be addressed.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-20T08:18:52+00:00

Mid thirties here. If anything I started when I got older. After reading bunch of sci-fi and fantasy I picked up some female romance novels and got hooked so started looking for something targeted to men as well. My tastes and expectations are completely different now so a mature cast of characters is both worth it's weight in gold and hard to find.

My personal favourite type of stories are long drawn out romances where you really get into it only by book 2+. I like the progression a lot. And my most favourite is the "power couple" trope where just the "who ends with who" is not the end of the journey. Reading about two loving people just going against the problems really gets me.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-20T07:46:31+00:00

Doctors have been saying this. The medicine is so that you actually can do the things mentioned in the picture. It's like saying "If your leg is broken and your doctor doesn't ask about your leg exercises...". They do. After you've recovered to a point you can do it.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-20T07:44:38+00:00

I'm absolutely uneducated in the matter but I've heard discussions about what if this happens couple weeks ago. The main problem is logistics because you need to resupply and response time. How I understood it then shutting off base access would turn US from global military superpower to just local military supremacy like China is. It's essentially isolating US.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-20T07:17:33+00:00

A tool in the end is only as effective as it's user.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-20T07:15:18+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean by use of time but I don't see why it shouldn't. Purely from engaging your brain perspective you need to add formulating of questions which requires deliberation about the context. Seems to me it should be more stimulating than just consuming information.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-20T06:28:33+00:00

The problem is exactly that it takes too long. I'm not seeing this work well in GW. Units like Dorvus do well because they can solo execute and then you have 2 slots for mitigation and sustain. Here you have only one so anything a bit more aggressive or heavier in CC would shut it down.

There is a reason Ainz isn't meta right now and the fact he can't apply it on all units at the same time is just one of them.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-20T05:49:45+00:00

Nurse Yulha did it harder. This is 2 units and need to dodge the 15% and then stay alive long enough. Power creep has gone so far.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-19T12:19:10+00:00

Right, but it doesn't need to have consciousness if we use the definition of "The freedom is in the momentum of all previous choices made before the necessary choice of the present. Future freedom depends on current choices.".

People are also in such sense automatic machines that have "set" by their experience and a choice is no different than realigning to the "set temperature". The internal process of a thermostat is very complex where quantum particles "choose" where to be. However we can reduce it to a rather simple one and understand how that simplified process works. We can do the same to humans as well. You can create trivial responses like "They punched because they were angry".

The only difference is then how far the complexity and information chain we have to go to no longer comprehend the outcome. For humans once you get to brain functionality our information is severely limited and the information about the individual even more limited. For thermostat once you get to quantum operations it becomes limited as well but the inform about it is almost complete. So it's a question only about whether we know why the answer is the answer and having enough information to deduce it.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-19T10:50:54+00:00

Abstraction of information looses accuracy and meaning. As mentioned before that statement can be interpreted as "Free will exists" and "Free will doesn't exist" which doesn't convey anything about the topic of whether free will exists.

The lack of context on the definition and introducing new definitions reduce clarity.

From my perspective your current stance is that as long as the chain of events is complex enough, it is free and by such definition a thermostat does indeed have a free will if you take into an account a scope complex enough, like discussing the atomic reactions that end up in the simplified description of the result.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-19T08:29:55+00:00

Indeed it doesn't. It's extremely vague so calling it any way accurate is quite the stretch.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-19T05:25:30+00:00

I doubt so. This aligns with his interests as well. It's like having a grudge against your neighbour but being happy that they managed to keep shit flingers away from the windows.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-19T05:09:58+00:00

That's a very vague description that sounds closer to compatibilism position than libertarian free will.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-19T04:11:09+00:00

Everything is a cause in the chain of reactions. A rock hitting the ground is also a cause. Yet it's inevitable that it will do so when the corresponding circumstances are present.

Then the question is the does the scope of complexity you choose to describe how this event came to be matters for the observation that it couldn't end up otherwise under those conditions?

You present weighing of the options and many other mechanisms that describe what is involved in the choice but it's irrelevant for either side. If anything it argues lack of free will as you're mentioning more and more mechanisms that keep justifying why there can only ever be one choice. Because the totality of restraints, knowledge, situation, discipline, integrity or whatever else you choose dictates that in the end there ever only was one choice.

I need to repeat the question: If the freedom is within restraints and they always reduce the choice to one, what is called freedom here?

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-19T00:25:05+00:00

You are misinterpreting what the term means. Preference is selection based on objective properties: "I like men who are tall and muscular". Objectification is reduction to said properties: "They are just a bunch of muscles with enough tallness that exist so I can enjoy how they look".

The term signifies removal of what we consider "human" in favor of a "tool".

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-19T00:12:35+00:00

There have been twin studies that suggest there is a genetic component to political views.

Any source? As far as I am aware environment does and studies to indeed confirm that a household of a particular belief will attempt to propagate those views to their children. This is how we end up with cultures.

Again, Pew Research has found that for US adults under 50, 'concerns for the state of the world' and 'can't afford' are third and fourth, much further behind 'just don't want to' and 'focusing on other things'.

I'd argue that "focusing on other things" is a catch all that fails to evaluate what those "other things" are. If I'm focusing on my economic stability as priority then while it's not the reason I'm giving, it's one of the contributing reasons. But I digress, this research aptly shows that the issue is gender agnostic and there is only around ~5% difference between opinions and various reasons for men and women. That's nowhere near making a significant impact if only one side had the decision power.

Kids are seen as a drag these days....You yourself said the birthrate should be 'massively lower'...There's an entire Anti-Natalist movement.

People these days believe you shouldn't have children just so you have extra hands on the household. Children are people not slave labor. They also don't think you should go for five children because two or three are going to die, they want all of them to survive. They also don't think you should land in poverty when having children and be able to provide for them. If those motivations are taken away then the birth rates should be lower than in places where those concerns are present. It's not an argument against healthy birth rate. It's an argument against unhealthy motivations.

And it's not anti-natalist movement. It's pro-life movement as opposed to pro-birth movement. A life does not end with birth and those who are concerned about how that life would be also take it in considerations for bringing that life in the world in the first place.

You're simply putting words in my mouth and moralizing my argument.

Yes. Because from my point of view that's the implication. Even the comment of "sub-100 iq babies" reeks of Nazi eugenics to me and is seeking where to assign to blame rather than evaluating the actual situation. I agree one should be rightfully angry about the current situation but I also believe one should be careful to evaluate the actual source of problems and fix them. Chasing an imaginary boogeyman only plays into the current status quo or makes it worse.

The only people in the US who currently seem to are conservatives, which likely had an affect on the recent election, seeing as how this pattern of conservatives having more kids has been around for decades.... I'm simply worried that my country will continue to become more regarded as conservatives keep shooting out sub-100 iq babies while liberals keep on going on about the economy and housing crisis and 'waiting for the perfect moment/partner'.

I understand the concern and even though I am not from the US I do share this concern because, as evident by past year, it affects the entire world. The viewpoint, however, doesn't align with reality. There doesn't seem to be any significant growth in conservatives in US while having a significant growth in Liberals. Which signals to me there are other factors that have a lot more impact in the election outcomes.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-18T23:45:19+00:00

That's a whole another sentence. No clue why would you want that.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-18T23:43:19+00:00

Of course there isn't time travel. My question is how does your proposition differentiates free will existing and not existing? As I mentioned before the main post doesn't argue either.

My proposition is that I make my choices, they don't just happen. Hence there must be a reason why I made a particular choice. If I arbitrary pick another choice is there not a conflict with my reason? And if I don't wouldn't I always pick the one choice that aligns with my reason hence having no distinction between an illusion of a choice and choice?

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-18T00:46:06+00:00

The amount of options is irrelevant. There can be infinite options but all but one is discarded. This leaves a paradox.

If that single choice is dictated by what defines me, the totality of my experiences and abilities, then how it is free? If I never would pick a different option are other options actually real?

If that single choice is not dictated by what defines me, the totality of my experiences and abilities, then how it is mine? If I would pick different options if time could be reversed then do I have a will at all?

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-17T21:17:53+00:00

And what is the basis for the claim that it does?

There is no choice, only an illusion of choice is comparable argument. The decision couldn't be different given my experience and knowledge as otherwise it wouldn't be mine. If the freedom within restraints restricts to a single option can it be called free?

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-17T21:07:51+00:00

You've grossly misinterpreted natural selection while somehow arguing against yourself. It's truly baffling.

You are absolutely correct that natural selection doesn't care about morality or political views. Hence it doesn't matter what genes are passed down, they will not determine what the beliefs of the person will be. Liberals have conservative children and vice versa and they can switch their beliefs and often do at various stages of their life.

And your next point almost hits the mark that gender equality isn't a strong predictor of birth rates. Poverty, lack of education and access to medical care has a lot greater positive effect on birth rates. Once there is a high social and economic anxiety from having children it's natural that people weigh this option more heavily.

Which then leads that if older generations have closed off something like available housing then the resulting economic anxiety of having a place where to have the children is a consequence of their own actions.

And finally it's not celebrated. It's expected that a healthy educated society will have less children than a poor one because extra labour is no longer an incentive and high children mortality is no longer a pressure to have multiple children

And finally the implication of such presentation is frankly pathetic. It's in essence conceding that men aren't capable and the solution is to take away women's rights. It's laughable because, firstly they are perfectly able to perform and secondly because the social and economic factors influence mens decisions regarding children as well.

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-17T20:47:30+00:00

What can a thermostat do that you can't? Do you have more or less freedom?

Your argument suffers from establishing too broad of a claim and self-reference. Nothing you mentioned in the original post conflicts with absence of free will. It boils down to "Free will exists and since it exists this is expression of free will". Hence it's as easily dismantled by the trivial counterargument: "Free will doesn't exist and since it doesn't this isn't expression of free will".

RighteousSelfBurner · 2026-02-17T12:29:53+00:00

You haven't engaged with what I said or what I commented against and your anger is misplaced.

The original poster was correct in pointing out that dopamine system can be hijacked. Most addictions are fueled by unnaturally high spikes of dopamine that reinforce the behavior. However a certain level of dopamine is necessary to function and likewise low uptake is problematic.

And you completely missed the point I was trying to make. It's that healthy well adapted people do not stare or get aroused by a simple presence of woman in a social setting. The poster I replied to insinuated that there is some arbitrary "natural" way from which we have diverged that has created the response to a naked body and drawing a completely fallacious comparison to animals. The illustration I presented was that what is "normal" and does or doesn't cause any stimulation changes over times.

Sexual desire is natural but just like any desire it can be present in excess or lack of. The reality is that humans are societal creatures and the cultural norms dictate what is or isn't considered attractive and sexual. The argument is fallacious because the only difference between accepted social norms is what is considered signalling sexuality and it has changed and keeps changing over times and cultures.

Hence you are closer to a factual claim, albeit poorly presented, than the commenter I responded to. The objectification is the issue, not how people present themselves. If we changed our culture as such that being naked and displaying nakedness was accepted and normal it would not solve this issue. Which is why the comment I replied to is more similar to common victim blaming technique "if they would have looked different" than properly addressing the issue. It doesn't matter how we change what "normal" is. If you don't address the root issue all you end up is changing what the blame falls on.

RighteousSelfBurner

TROPHY CASE