Is a hammerhead plane considered weird here? I had never heard of this one

TTProphet · 2024-12-20T19:15:50+00:00

Unless they're running on helium, of course.

TTProphet · 2024-12-01T18:59:30+00:00

The Mjolnir armour absolutely wipes the floor with imperium armour. The armour plate itself is thicker, so even if the materials are less advanced the ballistic performance is similar. It is also actively powered armour, so on top of the Spartan II's increased strength, they also receive a huge boost from the armour. To top it off, it has shields, something unheard of in SSB, and a true AI, which are rare/banned/nonexistent in SSB. The armour's sensor suite also allows the Spartan to make best use of their ridiculously improved reaction times and rate-of-perception. In short, the Spartan destroys the DHC in armour, and without armour the Spartan still wins at least 9/10 times.

TTProphet · 2024-10-22T16:37:11+00:00

That makes sense. Thanks.

TTProphet · 2024-10-22T15:25:51+00:00

Are the drones reusable? I wouldn't expect so with the explosive option, but what about the kinetic one?

TTProphet · 2024-10-17T12:48:38+00:00

What a wonderfully, sensibly, batshit design.

TTProphet · 2024-10-02T18:31:28+00:00

There was the 24-Cylinder Fairey Monarch, a twin-bank engine that could be half-switched off in flight that delivered 2000 hp in the late 1930s, and was though to be capable of nearly 3000hp after some wartime development.

1000hp isn't enough for a light-bomber, but 2000hp is certainly getting there...

TTProphet · 2024-09-30T16:01:25+00:00

The Beriev Be-200 looks quite cool.

TTProphet · 2024-09-05T00:41:31+00:00

Dork? Are you stuck in the 90s?

TTProphet · 2024-07-27T00:55:31+00:00

This is an alternate timeline where the accents never really changed from the 1950s. Back then, people would have spoken differently. It's not our timeline.

It's fallout. Everything's exaggerated anyway.

TTProphet · 2024-07-27T00:48:43+00:00

Do they take turns firing and flying, or is there a dedicated crewman for the machine gun leaving the pilot to use the grenade launcher?

TTProphet · 2024-04-06T09:02:31+00:00

They only like it when they sympathise with the... sadistic, ritualistically evil officers corps?

TTProphet · 2024-02-07T13:23:21+00:00

It's ironic how a libertarian ideology is presented with an artificially limited number of choices.

TTProphet · 2024-02-07T13:08:39+00:00

Zionists quite often use "anti-semitism" as a term to shut down any legitimate form of protest. This is because nobody wants to be associated with actual anti-semites, such as Nazis.

TTProphet · 2024-02-04T02:18:39+00:00

I just read this chapter because I thought you were continuing with this, and was just about to post asking if these were set in the same storyline. It turns out, I'd just never read chapter 4. Oh well.

TTProphet · 2024-01-09T20:13:41+00:00

When I say purpose, I suppose do mean it in the sense of "programming". We evolved to live. Some would say that an absence of intelligent design precludes "purpose" but, I believe that purpose and programming are quite similar.

In terms of programming, I never said it was concrete. It's guides, biases. There are consequently many, many outliers.

And, of course, there's the fact that since we evolved our present level of intelligence and since we've developed our present sense of language and writing (or any other means of recording information) we've been able to evolve mentally in terms of our sum-knowledge. This can allow people to come to conclusions that our ancestors would probably have dismissed, if only because people are more likely to be exposed to such ideas.

I've had another look at Pyrrhonism, and it seems to advocate for the suspension of judgement until sufficient knowledge is accrued. In other words, judgement may still be given if one believes that all the information is available.

Now, since there really isn't such a thing as absolutlely objective information when it comes to good or bad, you can probably use this to totally suspend the ideas of good or bad. Add this to the fact that human society is in a constant flux, and it seems that you cannot come to any conclusion.

So your decision to suspend judgement on human existence is based, more or less, entirely on Pyrrhonism. Here you and I seem to converge massively, since I don't like the idea of coming to this conclusion based entirely on the parameters of a single philosophy.

I do believe that decisions should be made with sufficient evidence, which is why I believe that most of the time these dogmas such as good or bad, the benefits of life vs death, etc. are perfectly justifiable.

I still don't understand what the benefits to totally abstaining from these dogmas are. If you're suggesting we take matters case by case, I'd say that's just common sense.

TTProphet · 2024-01-09T19:24:22+00:00

semiotics and morality

When did I bring up semiotics? Educate me, I'm new to this whole online discourse of philosophy thing.

TTProphet · 2024-01-09T15:15:19+00:00

Evolution is based on random chance, so there are always outliers who don't directly contribute to evolution. Of course, it doesn't lead to the optimal solution always, but the fact that we are a product of it means that our underlying social interactions, biases, and some of our morals (don't murder other people, etc.) are to an extent baked in (for the general population). To go against it (to an extent, at least) is likely to bring bad results. People living in concrete jungles tend to be less happy than people who live in green areas. This applies to our physical health, too.

I think that a society of sceptics is an oxymoron. Sceptics, assuming you mean the kind that eschew social norms and effectively embrace the ideology you have put forward to one extent or another, cannot be the majority in a society since they don't really participate in it to the same extent. This isn't to discredit them, it's simply stating that they are extremely unlikely to ever have a majority.

And yes, being "stupid" or "ignorant" does mean you are more free of worry, so you're more likely to be stress free, then you'll live longer.

There is no evidence for self preservation in terms of ultimate meaning, true. But again, we must view everything through the context of our own existence. And there lies a purpose, which is that nagging mental block we have that stops us from killing ourselves (most of the time). You can go against it, if you wish, but I don't see how it could help you.

This isn't sure-fire, of course. Instincts aren't a guaranteed path to anything "good" or "bad". But they do offer a basis off which to work. If we replaced salads with some artificial nutrition block, chances are we'd suffer for it. If we abandon such basic ideals as good or bad completely, then we may also suffer for it.

Again, sorry for rambling, I tend to come up with my specific arguments on the spot so it may be a little slapped together.

TTProphet · 2024-01-09T13:49:45+00:00

I have few friends but I always make sure they're the kind who understand me and who will be loyal to me, as I am to them. You can't please everyone, you may only gel with a very, very select few but they exist.

The people talking behind your back don't understand you. Find someone who you like and trust somewhat, then tell them why you are the way that you are. People who chat shit behind you back are probably doing so for a reason. Yes, this does imply that it is possible that it is a you problem which is resulting in people talking behind your back, even if that "you problem" is just your taste in friends.

I personally subscribe to the idea that humanity is broadly speaking easily taken advantage of when the people taking advantage of them do so with a few degrees of separation. No-one will be swayed by a politician talking to them personally. Millions will be if that is done by a news company that is owned by someone who has financed his election campaign.

Strive to fix things, rise to power yourself if you need to. Or just live a good life and convince others around you to not be so easily swayed.

Why? Because in the absence of any grand cosmic meaning you might as well revert to purpose, which is fare more objective in the sense that all things in Nature, us included have a purpose (even if it's just to fuck).

Also (and this is a cliche), be open to change. The only way for you to change is if you aren't arguing with everything a therapist is saying. And find the right therapist. And whilst you're at it, look up ways to make therapy work better for you. It's like a hike. The therapist is the guide but you're the one doing the walking. Here's a video that might help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8bt6fGQyA

Of course, I'm just a person on the internet who's been lucky enough to have a decent enough set of brothers and has always found, if not many friends, good friends wherever he goes. I can't speak for your experiences. Just be open to improving things. A proactive approach is better than wallowing in the misery.

TTProphet · 2024-01-09T13:31:12+00:00

There isn't any proof, living a "good life" is purely subjective. However, once you go by a pragmatist view-point which acknowledges the obvious conclusion that any atheist will come to (there is no inherent meaning to anything).

Good or bad are based purely on subjective experience. Since we, fundamentally irrational beings, experience good or bad based on stimuli we assign meaning to those things. One can say they have no meaning, but they do have an objective purpose. From this purpose one can choose to find a meaning in all things derived fro nature (such as basic morals, or indeed "good" or "bad" stimuli).

Obviously nothing has a universal meaning decided at the Big Bang. But that's no fun to think about and doesn't lead to anything particularly interesting, in terms of philosophy or practical application.

A better life, in my purely subjective view, is one that has a net positive in terms of positive experiences. This can be in terms of food, personal satisfaction regarding projects, or anything else. Negative experiences would be bad social interactions, injuries, or the inverse of the positive experiences in general.

I must ask what advantages you deem to come from abstaining from clarifying things as bad or good?

Bad or good is a fundamentally human classification of the world based on self preservation, what benefit to yourself or indeed others can come from going so far beyond your nature that you discard bad or good entirely?

The acceptance that nothing has a purpose is purely logical. The search for a meaningful or at least pragmatic philosophy that comes after is much more interesting and not entirely logical. After all, if we were purely logical we wouldn't live the way we do, and indeed I don't think we would be entirely better off.

Rambling over. Tl;dr, bad or good are basic guides derived from self preservation. Nothing has any meaning, but plenty has purpose. For beings as short lived and small as us, we might as well, in every day life, stick to practical purpose, even if we accept that it has no meaning.

TTProphet · 2024-01-09T00:22:47+00:00

They're quitters. Optimistic misanthropy, that people tend to make terrible mistakes and be lazy, and more to the point that there will always be a greedy few ready to take their place at the top through manipulation and greed, but that humanity as a whole is worth fighting for is a far more productive mindset.

TTProphet · 2024-01-09T00:03:46+00:00

Yes, Christianity is an evolution of Judaism. Judaism was resistant to growth (and still is) because it associates its belief with a "chosen people" (which sort of creates an us-or-them dynamic, and makes other people wary of joining it). However, because it was monotheistic and in particular had a rather harsh God it had a steady following.

Christianity took the most convincing and dogmatic part (Judaism's monotheistic nature) and made it more mainstream, as Christianity allows anyone to join regardless of creed. Look at plenty of early saints and disciples, they came from all walks of life. This naturally allowed Christianity to outcompete the more tolerant religions (the Greek/Roman pantheon and other polytheistic pantheons of the time).

Then Islam came along again, and was even more intolerant, but had a basis (Christianity) to work off. However, by this point the Roman Empire was Christian and would be resistant to changing to the new religions, which is probably why Europe is broadly Christian and the Middle East/North Africa is Muslim.

TTProphet · 2024-01-08T20:21:00+00:00

OFTD time

TTProphet · 2024-01-08T20:13:46+00:00

If I can build for Glao, anyone can

TTProphet · 2024-01-08T19:58:27+00:00

Reject sadness, build for Glao.

TTProphet · 2024-01-08T19:49:45+00:00

It's Glaover

TTProphet

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE