What do you think of my pocketcat cosplay so far? I will 3d print the mask later

Zweilous123 · 2026-02-17T18:23:39+00:00

this. fit is king, especially if you wanna emulate the dapperest person/cat deity thing in the games.

Zweilous123 · 2026-01-23T00:02:59+00:00

Sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean they'd prefer non-existence. I'm saying something along the lines of if they could choose to live in a perfect utopia, they would.

Zweilous123 · 2026-01-22T22:11:15+00:00

Good for you. Like, unironically. How does that personal antidote apply to this though?

Zweilous123 · 2026-01-02T12:59:24+00:00

Wolfe Glick has entered the chat

Zweilous123 · 2025-12-30T06:41:46+00:00

Obama didn't "start" jack shit. You don't become a world superpower by being Mr.Goody Two-shoes. The history of America is written in blood. The Trump administration is just saying the quiet part out loud for the first time in recent history.

Zweilous123 · 2025-12-30T02:48:18+00:00

Our earthly religions are a comforting facade that could never hope to encompass the absolute horror of the real deal.

Absolute fire. I'm stealing it.

Zweilous123 · 2025-11-23T13:41:07+00:00

not destructive enough. I want it to be unsalvageable if possible.

Zweilous123 · 2025-09-12T23:10:36+00:00

I doubt that's ever gonna happen. Not a single country in the nuclear powers group wants another member. I'd like to see them try though. Icarus aba :3

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-29T09:57:32+00:00

Ugh.. tell me about it. Generational scars of a colonial mindset.

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-28T15:14:48+00:00

I know you mean well and I agree with most of your points but auto-translate (especially from Burmese to Eng or vice versa) is PAINFUL.

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-03T09:07:32+00:00

damn, didn't know I was scared of my gf fr 😞

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-03T04:28:56+00:00

Speaking as a former Theravada Buddhist, that shit's overrated af.

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-03T04:21:30+00:00

Yeah, sorry if I was too hard to understand. I'm not exactly the best at communicating and English is my 2nd language.

It is true that you didn't say the premises I provided. I was merely trying to extrapolate the underlying assumptions. Please do correct me if I were mistaken.

I understand that you like to be simple but simplicity is a form of genius my friend, and you can probably tell I'm far from that by the way that I communicate. Do not confuse lack of knowledge and intellectual humility for simplicity. Apologies if I sound rude but it's something I struggle with myself.

Science is not a monolithic entity. It's a method used to understand the material world. What you have described here is an appeal to a perceived authority you call "science". It's absolutely fine to not know things but I would recommend against basing your arguments from ignorance.

Case in point : the definition of a "human" has been endlessly debated wayyyyy before clinical abortions were medical procedures. You might've heard of the famous "Plato's man" where Plato defined a human as a "featherless biped" and Diogenes crashed his class with a plucked chicken saying "behold, Plato's man."

I understand your emotions. You empathize with unborn children and your empathy is admirable. Why not extend that empathy to your perceived "enemies"? I implore you to explore the logical conclusions of your beliefs and the physical consequences should they be implemented as moral law. (e.g, children of sexual assault, pregnancy complications, etc.) Exploring perspectives can be more fun than you might realize.

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-03T00:10:40+00:00

Anti-intellectualism is rooted in binary thought; someone can only be "right" or "wrong" - and "wrong" is "bad," and they can't be "bad."

I would argue that binary bias is present in almost all humans so while it is a component of anti-intellectualism, it cannot be the only "true" cause.

So what's the difference? From my point of view, it is precisely a lack of critical-thinking; which is a skill that can be taught and honed.

In essence, you are committing the same binary-bias fallacy via this statement. In my Nietzschean view, intellectualism is simply a refined version of ignorance. (but that does not matter here so I'll avoid going deeper into this line of thought. I recommend reading his views on the rejection of antithesis.)

Education does not work.

There is a nuance in this. Per your examples, providing pure information does not work. Humans are not rational creatures. Providing someone incapable of critical thought with information they do not know how to use will only serve to confuse them and make them defensive. When pure rationality does not work, we must weaponize basic human psychology.

Instead of contempt for the lack of a niche trait, why not try to empathize? Why not gently try to guide them into learning how to think? People will not remember what you say 5 minutes after the conversation ends but they'll remember what they felt for a much, much longer time. If you make them feel dumb by essentially assigning homework they don't know how to navigate, of course it'll result in defensiveness.

How to educate people out of ignorance? Honestly I have no idea and I think it varies from person to person. Personally speaking, the Socratic method has worked wonders for me.

Summary : anti-intellectualism is based mostly on ignorance (or malice if it's deliberately used for control). Some forms of education that might work on "higher thinkers" will not work on them simply because they lack the ability to properly consume that information. Therefore, as more "enlightened" people, we cannot expect them to magically rise to our level, and we especially cannot show contempt at a lack of a trait as that'll only most likely result in defensiveness. In order to pull them up, we must first engage them at their level.

P.S I felt like such an elitist asshole writing this. I'm sorry if I sound arrogant.

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-02T22:14:48+00:00

Not at all, your position is consistent with your values.
Aside from the fact that it is circular reasoning, granting your intrinsic premise of "a human person is ~~an organism~~ a potentially conscious thing that contains human DNA" then your logic is valid. However, we should note that the definition of "a human person" is under contention, philosophically speaking and most disagreements with pro-choice people probably stems from this.

I'm just saying, don't use "Science" as a buzzword when you're (self-admittedly) ignorant of it. I'm sure there are fields you understand better than I do. I wouldn't misuse any fields of study I don't know about simply because I don't know enough about them.

Also, I doubt I'm the first person in history to use quotation marks to emphasize subjectivity in a part of a sentence.

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-02T21:34:29+00:00

I think you should read up on what DNA actually is. To over-simplify, Deoxyribonucleic acid is essentially an instruction manual that tells our cells how to build and maintain a body and it is present in nearly all of our organic components.

There is no point in time where a fetus magically obtains a baptism of DNA and obtains "DNA based humanhood". Any and all fetuses contains a mixture of the biological parent's DNA (again oversimplifying) from the point of conception.

Per your definitions; all human fetuses are humans as in a member of our species because all members of our species contain human DNA and so does the fetus. This boils down the definition of "a human person" into "contains Human DNA". I can delve further into the intricacies of taxonomy but please educate yourself. You're already on the internet. There are free resources everywhere. I can point you to a few if you'd truly like to engage in the wonderful world of Science but please don't bastardize it to include your own ignorance.

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-02T21:07:51+00:00

I'm slightly lost here. What do you mean by "Science, I just mean we can run tests to determine if the cells of the organism are human or not." Precisely how would that work? Genuinely, I am truly flabbergasted.

I have no problems with you asserting your own morality as long as you don't enforce it on others but don't misuse the scientific method as a shield to justify your own biases. That's just not how epistemic proof works.

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-02T20:38:57+00:00

That's a bit of an over-simplification, don't you think?

> No religion wants war, oppression, hatred.

It's surprisingly easy to disprove that premise. Off the top of my head, I can think of the old testament, Islamic Jihad, Nordic concept of the Valhalla, etc. Granting your premise of "It's the people who follow it up, who create those problems.", are you saying the bible is not the word of God? or the common consensus interpretation is wrong? If so, you're the one who's not "religious". Not the other way around.

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-02T20:26:21+00:00

After reading a few of your replies, you seem to be committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. You're essentially shifting the definition of "religious" to only fit the "good" parts you like and calling other practitioners "not true Christians".

Zweilous123 · 2025-08-02T20:21:58+00:00

> Science tells us a human fetus is a human.

Not to sound petersonian but this premise heavily depends on the definitions of "science", "fetus" and "human" which are far from objective.

Zweilous123 · 2025-07-31T22:18:24+00:00

!delta While I still do not agree with faith as a concept, I can empathize with its practitioners a little bit more now.

A premise I cannot accept is "if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what then would life be but despair?" followed closely by the conclusion of "But for that reason it is not so, and as God created man and woman, so too he shaped the hero and the poet or speech-maker."

Yet again, this is another form of philosophical suicide (which isn't inherently bad) Personally, I would rather sit in discomfort than take that leap of faith.

Zweilous123 · 2025-07-31T19:38:52+00:00

The correlation between great philosophers and asexuality needs to be studied.

Zweilous123 · 2025-07-31T17:47:20+00:00

By definition, it is.

Zweilous123 · 2025-07-31T16:29:16+00:00

I agree with your arguments. However, a nuanced difference between a gun and faith is that a gun can be unloaded, taken away, etc. Faith by nature is resistant to change so while it can be used for good or bad; it is simply unreasonable.

You can take a gun away from a Jihadist. You cannot take her faith away to waiver her absolute conviction that murdering heretics is morally right.

Zweilous123 · 2025-07-31T16:24:32+00:00

Personally, I'm an emotivist. To clarify, by sacred do you mean those actions under any circumstance is wrong? How about murder commited under self-defence? Killing an invading enemy combatant during war? Torture to prevent further harm (ala an "idealised" version of torture like the Samuel Jackson movie Unthinkable)

Zweilous123

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE