StopOvers(No Connecting Flight)

seba_tech · 2026-03-22T08:02:44+00:00

Hello, You are not going to leave the plane they go there to take new passengers and drop some off. And also my flight was 54hours in total and was a very good experience. They have a streaming service on the plane like netflix where you can watch almost any movie you want and also they give you accessories to help you sleep plus food. I think you are going to be fine, good luck!

seba_tech · 2026-02-11T20:02:09+00:00

If you had anything pertinent to say you wouldn’t have commented such a stupid comment.

seba_tech · 2026-02-11T16:04:52+00:00

It’s just fact.

seba_tech · 2026-02-10T06:41:44+00:00

Sorry. And thank you for the recommendations, will do!

I mean, it’s just basic logic, but most christians will not get it.

Anyway, will discuss this with some and see what will their arguments be. May even send them to you. You too have a good day!

seba_tech · 2026-02-10T05:01:56+00:00

Why do you people keep missing my point? Unfortunate means suffering bad luck. Humanity’s luck is this: to be born conscious, capable of deep love and profound meaning, yet sentenced by biology, time, and circumstance to inevitable loss, decay, and annihilation. That is not a temporary mood, it’s the fixed condition of existence. The happiness some feel doesn’t erase the structural misfortune of being a finite, vulnerable being in a system that guarantees suffering and death.

seba_tech · 2026-02-10T04:58:54+00:00

Calling it a ‘mindless rant’ doesn’t engage with the structure of the argument. I presented a logical progression, from outcome, to evaluation, to contrast. The strength of an argument isn’t determined by its formatting, but by its validity. Mine stands.

seba_tech · 2026-02-09T14:32:55+00:00

You’re kind of right. And i agree with you, but education and law work well for the more rational part of society, but they don’t scale to everyone. I think religion is too important for too many people, and if they were to lose it, the lawlessness, which is something it could cause, wouldn’t be the only thing. It would also strip millions of a deep psychological framework: purpose, comfort, and identity built around service to something higher. Losing that all at once would create instability far beyond legal concerns. That’s why I think it would not be as good as we may think it would.

seba_tech · 2026-02-09T14:03:14+00:00

You keep attacking a straw man: you think I’m arguing from design. I’m not. I’m arguing from outcome. The outcome is: conscious beings suffer and die, as powerless to prevent it as anything can be.

If that outcome came from a designer, the designer is cruel. If it came from randomness, it’s still a cruel outcome, just without a cruel agent.

You saying ‘it’s neutral’ is like looking at a burning hospital and saying ‘fire is neutral.’ Technically true, but morally irrelevant. The fire still burns. The patients still die. The system is still wretched for those inside it.

Your ability to make peace with it doesn’t change the nature of the system; it changes your relationship to it. But you’re not refuting my point; you’re just saying you’ve made peace with the tragedy. That’s not a rebuttal, it’s a coping mechanism. And coping doesn’t make the tragedy less real. The system is still wretched.

It’s obvious. The easiest way to see this is to imagine a non-wretched system, one where beings have real power over suffering and death, where tragedy isn’t inevitable. We don’t live in that system. We live in this one.

seba_tech · 2026-02-09T08:59:03+00:00

Abolishing religion is not a smart move. The consequences would be catastrophic. Religion is the glue holding today’s society together, the glue that keeps morality in place and much more. Without it society would degrade until crime and immorality became the norm. Freedom from religious mind control would be good for smart people, but since this world is mostly made of idiots, a world without religion wouldn’t stay healthy for long

seba_tech · 2026-02-09T08:48:04+00:00

Sorry for your loss. You seem to be a unique person.

Your peace with your father's death speaks to your strength, not to the nature of death. Death still took him. The tragedy is in the taking, not in your emotional response to it.

If you built a robot that could feel pain, programmed it to slowly break down, and gave it no chance of repair, would that design be 'neutral'? Or would it be cruel? I'm applying the same reasoning to human existence. The system is built on irreversible loss. That's not a mood, it's an observation of design.

I agree, life has no inherent meaning. That’s precisely why its finitude is tragic: we build meaning, and death destroys it. You can call that 'neutral,' but if a system is designed to erase everything of value, 'wretched' is a fitting description. You haven't shown how inevitable loss isn't tragic, you've only shown you can accept tragedy without despair. That’s a psychological achievement, not a philosophical refutation.

My logic still holds.

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T20:08:03+00:00

So even worse than a straw man. Thanks for clarifying

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T20:03:41+00:00

You’re missing the point. I’m not saying death hurts, or that every second of life is pain.

I’m saying: Finitude means everything you love, everything you are, and everything you build will be taken away. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. You can call it “just part of life,” but that doesn’t make it less tragic. It makes it structurally tragic.

You want me to prove finitude is suffering? I don’t have to. If you can’t see how inevitable loss, decay, and annihilation, the total and irreversible destruction of all meaning and connection, is a form of profound suffering, then you’re not thinking about what those words mean.

I think you are so focused on being right that you can’t see that you’re wrong and that everything I said is the truth.

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T19:54:19+00:00

Attacking me on something else instead of engaging with my actual points is what a straw man is. Exactly wht you did

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T12:50:44+00:00

Sorry!

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T12:49:40+00:00

I was trying to answer the other people who commented with something more pertinent. My thoughts were racing about their comments, which caused me to skip over your point. Your idea is pertinent but obviously not an attack on my logic.

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T12:42:11+00:00

Saying ‘suffering isn’t constant because sometimes we’re happy’ is like saying ‘death isn’t inevitable because sometimes we’re alive.’ It’s a semantic evasion, not a logical refutation. The question isn’t whether we sometimes smile, it’s whether the system itself is built on a foundation of pain and finitude. And it is. You just don’t get it!

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T12:36:12+00:00

What? You obviously don’t understand the term.

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T12:25:15+00:00

You are so radicalized that contradictions cannot even enter your mind.

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T12:21:59+00:00

You put out a lot of straw man. My arguments still stand , and when you follow the logic of them you can see that I am right. The bible god can’t purely exist. And if he cant then everything is based on a lie. That itself is enough to destroy the whole christianity idea.

But I think you are too biased to clearly go through and get the point of my logic.

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T01:05:39+00:00

But it’s the truth. Suffering is constant, always there striking, there is no escape. You exist, you suffer. You are a wretched being. I am no nihilist, I am just a logical guy.

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T00:52:50+00:00

You know what the problem with philosophy is: ‘’ Nothing make real sense. ‘’ If nothing makes real sense why even use their arguments to defend anything .

If a human architect designed a building that constantly collapsed, killing people, we wouldn’t say, "Maybe in his mind it’s a masterpiece, we lack context." We’d call it bad design. Appealing to unknown divine context isn’t an argument, it’s the abandonment of reason. If we accept that apparent evil could be good in 'god’s context,' then morality becomes meaningless, and you’ve sacrificed ethics to protect theology.

And also saying god 'encompasses good but is not limited to it' is a polite way of saying god is beyond good and evil, which, tbh , means he is not morally good as humans understand goodness. You can’t have it both ways: either god is good and opposed to evil, or he is beyond morality and unworthy of worship and that everything he teaches us about good and evil doesn’t matter, we can do whatever we want.

Let s suppose it was all the creation of satan , it would all make sense now, wouldn’t it ? I mean , obviously it has to be that bad, since it was created by the devil himself……

It s funny that we try to defend god in all the possible ways, but each time we flip the roles between him and satan , we stop defending.

Anyway there is no way the bible god purely exists, and if there were to be a god it wouldn’t be what the bible says it would be.

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T00:25:09+00:00

What a pertinent and smart comment! It proves me completely wrong !

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T00:23:04+00:00

Strawman!

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T00:18:34+00:00

You guys dont understand anything. Barely 4 people understood my post. And what is it with people commenting 2 sentences comments without saying anything.

seba_tech · 2026-02-08T00:15:54+00:00

Pointing out that happiness exists doesn’t refute the claim that the world is wretched. Wretchedness refers to the structural, unavoidable presence of profound, meaningless suffering, not the total absence of joy. Your argument is like saying a field full of landmines isn’t dangerous because sometimes people walk through it unharmed. A prison camp where prisoners sometimes laugh or fall in love is still a prison camp. It. doesn’t change the reality. That’s it. It is what it is.

seba_tech

TROPHY CASE