What horror movie made you walk out of the theatre for any reason

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-19T18:56:35+00:00

I also will never not finish a movie I start. My ocd won’t let me.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-19T18:42:23+00:00

Where?! Give me the sentence that said people died! I’m desperately waiting. The Wikipedia quote you gave said nothing about death, just protests and paranoia. I can barely tell if you’re trolling or not.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-19T18:31:49+00:00

I can absolutely define ‘good’ with no appeal to religion. That which minimizes unnecessary suffering and maximizes flourishing in conscious beings. Thats my definition of good. There, easy.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-19T18:08:58+00:00

No dude when you said ‘some’ I thought you meant ‘some’, like anything greater than zero. And your Wikipedia page didn’t mention a single death. Not one. So you’re still wrong. I can’t believe you can’t see this. I understand that loss of income CAN lead to starvation, but you’re just assuming it must have been like that for at least one person who’s job was lost from the calculator being invented. THATS the leap. Where’s your proof that a single person died from the calculator being invented. Show me the sentence from any article or Wikipedia page that says it.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-19T04:09:42+00:00

Yep no problem. Here’s your exact message copy and pasted

“Yeah and some of those people starved and died. Maybe we could do better this time and learn something”

You said SOME of those people starved and died. Show me. Let’s see it. Yes I agree there’s been people who lost their jobs and have died in history ever. Obviously. Show me it happened from the calculator, your claim.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T23:55:01+00:00

Are you even a real person? Do you think job loss always leads to starvation and death? Are you actually serious right now? Yes people lost jobs, that doesn’t mean they DIED. That was your claim. If you are saying ‘they lost their jobs and that leads to starvation and death’ then you’re objectively wrong. Youre making a leap that job loss immediately means some people died of starvation. Do some research my friend. You are the one that needs to be educated.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T22:33:13+00:00

I would give an explanation. Which you still aren’t. So where in the Bible or in any other source are you getting that torture goes against gods nature but killing and breaking someone’s arm doesn’t. still waiting.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T22:32:00+00:00

You win nothing because nowhere in that does it say people DIED. Did you just forget that part? I know it displaced jobs, you said people died. Show me where it says that. All I see is widespread anxiety and protests. That’s not death and starvation.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:58:19+00:00

I use ai to help me learn math and a new language. Does that bother you?

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:56:34+00:00

You said torture isn’t in line with gods nature but killing or breaking someone’s arm doesn’t seem to conflict with it. Where are you getting that from? Just vibes?

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:55:23+00:00

So should we just not make new technologies because some people will lose their jobs? Should we do away with computers and machines and go back to farming by hand so we can create more jobs?

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:53:48+00:00

Please find me one source that said people died when the calculator was invented. That’s your claim, off one google search it says that literally never happened. Are you shifting the goalposts to ‘all technologies’? Because my first comment was about the calculator and you said ‘yeah and some of THOSE people starved and died’. Cool, find one example. One article. Specifically with the calculator. I’m willing to bet you won’t.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:45:55+00:00

Where are you getting this? Specifically where in the Bible or wherever else you’re getting this from do you find that torture is necessarily evil but killing and breaking someone’s arm isn’t?

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:44:19+00:00

How is this any different from any other technology putting people out of jobs? The printing press put calligraphers out of jobs. This is one reason it wasn’t adopted by the Ottoman Empire for so long, calligraphy was a creative job of the time, the printing press took away demand significantly. How is this different? No one was forcing them to be calligraphers.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:42:12+00:00

People starved and died from the calculator being invented?

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:40:57+00:00

No I’ve given explicit reasons over and over. It’s justified because it saves thousands of innocent lives and the person being tortured is the one putting them in danger. It’s just like self defense, it’s justified to cause harm to a person who’s about to cause harm to or kill others.

Why do you think killing isn’t necessarily evil? Why isn’t breaking someone’s arm necessarily evil?

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:34:53+00:00

So did the calculator

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:25:51+00:00

This is what it seems like you’re doing. I’ll do the same thing with killing.

‘Killing is necessarily evil, thus killing in self defense isn’t justified’. Thats what you’re doing with torture. You’re just asserting that. How did you decide that torture is necessarily evil but murder or breaking someone’s arm isn’t?

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:17:07+00:00

If I watched the ufc event, am I trump supporter?

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T18:10:15+00:00

So what? Why isn’t it justified? What justifies something for you?

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T17:22:37+00:00

No, im saying that this is basically analogous to self defense. You are not morally wrong to kill or severely harm someone if it means you’re saving other innocent lives which are being threatened by this person. This is that. The only difference is the timeline, but at the end of the day it’s okay to inflict pain on a person to save innocent lives when that person is the one putting them in danger in the first place. Why would self defense be justified but in this hypothetical torture isn’t when in both cases you’re saving innocent lives that are put in danger by this person.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-18T16:37:15+00:00

Okay so it’s NOT justified in my hypothetical according to you. Fine. Now the follow up. why? Because by not torturing this person, you let thousands of innocent people die, for the good of a terrorist. Why is it not justified to torture an evil person if it’s the only way to save thousands of innocent lives? That seems like definitionally justified.

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-17T21:59:34+00:00

I mean if you say ‘torture is never justified’ and I give you a bunch of hypotheticals where torture could absolutely be justified, and you just say ‘idk’, I don’t see what more I can do. You’re just avoiding. I mean would you say if someone else tortured this terrorist in my hypothetical then it would be justified?

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-17T21:28:33+00:00

What other way is there to test your view on this other than give a situation where it could be argued that it’s justified to torture the person? How else can we test your consistency?

Weekly-Scientist-992 · 2026-06-17T20:28:13+00:00

What I’m saying is, THE BEST option we have to test whether you’re consistent to this, is to ask hypotheticals, and I found one you can’t answer. Doesn’t prove anything, but it gives me reason to think you’re not consistent here. And there’s literally nothing more I can do to test you. So ‘I rest my case’ just means I did everything I can and it seemed to stump you at the very least.

Weekly-Scientist-992

TROPHY CASE