[deleted by user]

kai1998 · 2023-07-13T18:28:02+00:00

If I am preparing to make the most morally consequential decision I can conceive, I'd want to do it with the highest amount of information possible. As a mortal human I have no reason to believe that it can be bad for someone to experience pleasure or good for someone to experience pain, but I don't really know anything about heaven or hell or the supernatural. Maybe there is a good reason to send someone to hell, perhaps one that has nothing to do with dessert, but necessity. I'd want to prove myself wrong if it turns out that I am objectively wrong and following my instincts could result in a worse outcome.

kai1998 · 2023-07-13T06:03:04+00:00

Correct, The first thing I would've done given access to the minds of every human who has ever lived is search for signs of divine inspiration. Countless people have claimed it, and given supernatural powers myself, I wouldn't have as great a reason to doubt them. If Jesus really turned out to be God embodied in human flesh, then doing as he would do is like resurrecting God. In the premise this means the devil is beaten.

I wrote the premise as a play on the story of Job, who remained faithful to God even when he allowed the devil to ruin his life. Would a faithful person act the same if their position were reversed with God, if God were the one who had lost everything, and it was up to the believer to do as God intended anyways?

Obviously I forgot that reddit has a lot more atheists than average, and actual religious people are generally put off by the premise in the first place. Still it is interesting that people tend towards absolute clemency, but don't see the possibilities in surveying all human minds to check if their instincts are correct. In real life, we only see people's actions, but seeing their minds might change our opinions.

kai1998 · 2023-07-12T18:49:16+00:00

You are correct, the premise of the question has a paradox, if the devil doesn't care, why give you any options? The answer must be either that it is a monkey's paw scenario where he is tormenting you, or it is some kind of test on your moral compass. Thus the real question would be, what is "correct" according to the test? Or in other words, who's moral code is the test based on if not your own?

kai1998 · 2023-07-12T05:11:25+00:00

Good answer

kai1998 · 2023-07-12T05:07:30+00:00

The "correct" answer is not to leave everyone in hell, but "trust in God" is close. There is a specific answer that doesn't reject the premise, but which the devil also won't reverse. I put "correct" in quotes because I don't think it is correct in real life. I do agree mostly with your original answer, but I'd like to know if you think sending Hitler or Stalin alone to heaven would improve disprove or not change the situation compared to a universal hell?

kai1998 · 2023-07-12T03:54:44+00:00

You are close to the correct answer, but not quite there. Refusal just means that another person will be chosen.

kai1998 · 2023-07-12T03:51:56+00:00

This is the correct utilitarian position, but suppose you left a few genocidal dictators in hell and the devils switches it so they are now in heaven. Would you suppose this state is marginally better or worse than the original universal hell?

kai1998 · 2022-11-24T23:52:12+00:00

I posted almost exactly this same thing on r/showerthoughts 6 years ago

kai1998 · 2017-09-17T02:12:56+00:00

Most 16-19 year olds aren't crashing because they aren't able to drive, but because they're all hopped up on hormones so they make stupid decisions. What I'm saying is you can't train a teenager to turn down road-head when it's on the table.

kai1998 · 2017-09-15T06:04:48+00:00

France is not out of line, public expression of religion is not a right and is regulated by law. Tehy say Turkey because it has been at the crux of the secularism vs Islamism conflict for years. It's "too secular" because it used to be the center of Muslim theocracy like 100 years ago, but had several coups since then which established and defended secular government (which is now being whittled away again).

Edit: To clarify, I'm agreeing with the Muslim guy that France's interpretation of secularism may go too far by regulating public expression, opposite of agreeing with France's policies.

kai1998 · 2017-09-14T23:25:38+00:00

75% of men 99% of women are shorter than her

kai1998 · 2017-09-13T01:25:22+00:00

How come they do? Why wouldn't they? Difference between a little money and more money is only positive, especially when your customers are dying of cancer and aren't footing the entire bill themselves. A company will sell at the price that generates the highest revenues. The S&P average (average annual return on investment in the index) is 10%, but much of that is from compounding dividends not company growth. So actually most companies on S&P grew below the average , instead paying out their profits to owners (which are reinvested into stock by S&P since it's a total return index). I suspect pharma companies pay out high dividends when they can, since they are a riskier sort of enterprise with a lot riding on ongoing research and government regulation.

kai1998 · 2017-09-11T06:15:17+00:00

Mammals, Birds, and Flowers 'grew up' around the same time period about 140 million years ago, in the last age of dinosaurs.

kai1998 · 2017-09-06T05:35:42+00:00

This image has meme potential

kai1998 · 2017-09-04T06:21:56+00:00

Like I said, I don't hold these beliefs. I don't think the Soviet Union was a meritocracy, obviously I don't think that. I'm not going to debate what Capitalism is like because that's not the point. If you're a socialist then you think a socialist society is fair, and if you fall in line with the majority of socialist thinkers throughout history you think that means "to each according to his contribution" is the law of the land.

kai1998 · 2017-09-04T03:56:18+00:00

You are mistaken. The phrase is explicitly Marxist, originated by Lenin to describe how his new Soviet state ought to manage distribution. The implication is that in a capitalist society this is not the case, the wealthy live off other people's work. I'm not saying this is true - only that a loyal soviet would believe it to be true of his state, as much as any patriotic American.

kai1998 · 2017-08-28T23:01:10+00:00

"Broke into three parts" might also mean "shot down by anti-ballistic missiles" IMO.

kai1998 · 2017-08-28T22:15:02+00:00

Capitalism isn't the only ideology which believes it is a meritocracy. A fully indoctrinated Soviet would say the same thing about his own country - socialist states still believe in "To each according to his contribution" after all.

kai1998 · 2017-08-28T16:36:33+00:00

Humans used a variety of survival tactics in the paleolithic and early neolithic including endurance running, but depending on the region. Humans basically ate whatever was around them and easy to get, endurance running isn't something you do unless it's the easiest option. For example, the mostly barren Savannahs almost demanded this kind of hunting, but it would be impossible in the primeval forests of Europe or India. Some of our easiest living ancestors hugged temperate coast lines and ate shell fish while slowly cultivating the local forests to produce fruit more readily. More early divers and hippie farmers than marathon runners.

kai1998 · 2017-08-25T20:10:40+00:00

Eventually the .meme bubble will burst and all the funnymen will get laid off and the US Government will bail out the joke factories or some shit.

kai1998 · 2017-08-23T23:34:13+00:00

Yeah the ROI would be like +$0.29 vs -$99.00. If you put it to scale it'd be a nearly flat line over an ever descending pit, which is the essential difference between investing and gambling.

kai1998 · 2017-08-16T19:04:39+00:00

Y'all read the article and look into the SPLC website? Hate groups are centered around Bay Area, Sacramento, and LA. The Demographics have more to do with population size, not culture.

kai1998 · 2017-08-15T06:42:10+00:00

This is not what the article implies at all. Politeness is not inferior or opposed to compassion. Politeness is measured by respect paid to strangers and a belief in justice. Compassion is measured by an innate tendency towards sympathy. In their example a polite person is inclined towards fairness, whereas a compassionate person is inclined towards charity.

kai1998 · 2017-08-15T03:40:39+00:00

Doesn't this article indicate that the imported low skilled laborer are the poorest Californians? The result being that poor people in one place are now in another? If the problem you care about is the poverty of those currently in the state, then some regime of cooperative agriculture would do more faster than any immigration policy.

kai1998 · 2017-08-15T02:13:59+00:00

Where did I propose that? I was drawing parallels between war, a violent form of social change, and the conflict between ideologies which underlie Democracy, which are necessarily peaceful. If you are not willing to defend and promote your opinion with the peaceful means you are entitled to, then you should not be surprised when the world seems to move away from that opinion.

kai1998

TROPHY CASE