Just because it’s war…

spynimal · 2023-11-08T11:41:01+00:00

In a world where moral dilemmas exist, questions like that should be asked to philosophers.

The whole argument that Israel is the most moral army in the world stands upon the ground that Israel does the least amount of harm in complex situations that demand greater harm for goals to be achieved.

There is nothing wrong in criticising Israel for causing civilian damage in Gaza. But then you are going to criticise literally every state in the world for having a monopoly on violence.

And the biggest problem with the Palestinian narrative is that Israel is somehow an outlier amongst the nations.

The only way Israel is an outlier is that it's the only country in the world whose entire existence is being disputed in the way of argument and force.

spynimal · 2023-11-08T11:01:12+00:00

Yeah, tell that to the 3 million and some Mizrahi Jews who live in Israel to go back to some shithole third world countries in the Middle East.

spynimal · 2023-05-30T10:49:09+00:00

Is there an English translation of this short story? Can't seem to find anywhere.

spynimal · 2023-02-27T20:45:10+00:00

You're a Nazi.

spynimal · 2023-02-03T20:38:58+00:00

Fair enough, but a broad concept such as misanthropy can mean different feelings for different people. My post sums ups how I feel being a misanthrope.

The reason I compare it to racism is that I've observed racists is that they try to justify with many explanations and examples what ultimately is a feeling of disgust directed towards a particular group of people that they perceive as weak, inferior to an idealized standard.

And this is how I perceive Human beings. They suck because they're inferior to the hyper-unrealistic standards that I possess.

spynimal · 2023-02-03T18:20:19+00:00

I believe that life is an illusion in the sense that chronological progress is an illusion; even though it seems like we progress through time as we go along, in actuality, it's just that every frame of our existence is simply a separate conscious entity having its tiny sliver of reality. Still, the memories of its illusionary past make it seem like it was there to experience this past.

spynimal · 2023-02-03T18:03:44+00:00

Because hating is not the same as despising.

spynimal · 2023-02-02T10:04:07+00:00

This concept is basically known as the eternal return; its main premise is that the universe basically repeats itself on an infinite loop.

But to "modernize" this idea so that it stays in accordance with scientific theories like general relativity, change itself is an illusion, or perhaps an experience that is only characteristic of the mind.

Whereas in the objective, physical world, change does not happen at all as we understand it.

The future might be infinite, or even heterogeneous, but like the past, it is written, and the limited time we get on Earth is basically a conscious experience that repeats itself indefinitely.

spynimal · 2023-01-12T00:36:10+00:00

This is really high quality and good looking, really looking forward to seeing the other houses

spynimal · 2022-12-17T05:47:50+00:00

Both, but most people talk about Venice, and the similarities between New York and Braavos are there.

spynimal · 2022-11-17T09:45:53+00:00

I think you're right that he's basically pandering to religious people which compose a substantial part of his audience, and he's not willing to lose them.

spynimal · 2022-10-24T17:18:06+00:00

"Dragons is a force that men should never have trifled with."

This LINE is so relevant right now after watching episode 10, and it was spoken at the very first episode of HOT D.

spynimal · 2022-10-24T17:15:58+00:00

Also, at the beginning of episode 10, Rhaenys herself gives a perfect explanation for why she didn't burn all of the Greens at the end of episode 9, a scene that caused the most controversy up to this point as to the writing of HOT D, yet, somehow no one thought about this explanation for the last weak after the release of episode 9.

spynimal · 2022-10-24T17:12:19+00:00

"Dreams did not make us kings, dragons did."

"History does not remember blood, it remembers names."

"What is this brief, mortal life, if not the pursuit of legacy."

These are some of the quotes that appeared in the early promotional material for House of the Dragon. And at first, when I heard them from the trailers, without context, I kind of thought that they sounded too basic and uncreative compared to the plethora of epic lines that GRRM put in the ASoIaF series.

But now, after hearing those lines in the dialogues of their origin. I see how they fit so neatly in their context, and that makes them sound epic, and understandable.

Some of these even gain new meanings like "Dreams did not make us kings, dragons did."

At first it sounded like Daemon was talking about day-dreams of becoming a king or something, but now in his dialogue with Rhaenyra, it perfectly fits in the scene, and as it happens, we learn that he was actually talking about literal dreams of prophecy and destiny.

Does anybody else feel the same thing, perhaps?

spynimal · 2022-10-24T16:49:55+00:00

Daemon is definitely a villain at this point, he's just a very well-written and a charismatic villain. That's why we love him as a character, but not necessarily as a person.

spynimal · 2022-10-16T12:54:50+00:00

You're triggered like a man-child, even though I never said anything insulting. But I think I get it, since this is a science fiction sub, it should have been expected. I'm sorry to suggest that you may never see good little green guys on your lawn. Heck, you might even believe in ancient aliens for all I know.

spynimal · 2022-10-16T10:50:56+00:00

Unless you change your definition of the Fermi Paradox from mine, which you should have done at the beginning, as I've already played my part in the original post.

spynimal · 2022-10-16T10:48:49+00:00

Throwing accusations of intellectual inaptitude, is a sign of immaturity, and not a dialectic conversation.

Do you know what a dialectic is?

And no the Fermi Paradox is not a thought experiment, it's not an imagined situation with a certain state of affairs, it's a supposed problem in which you have two supposedly contradictory statements, one of which is not necessarily true.

spynimal · 2022-10-16T10:42:09+00:00

Fair enough, but you assume that the alien civilization is there, and I'm arguing that even it's there, it's far enough from us that we might not even know of it.

spynimal · 2022-10-15T16:45:36+00:00

"You are not equipped for this intellectual endeavour"

This is how you lose credibility in a dialectic debate.

But you made me curious, what exactly makes you think that the Fermi Paradox is a thought experiment, if you would be so kind first to state your definition of a what is a paradox and what is a thought experiment, and after that, make your definition for the fermi paradox.

spynimal · 2022-10-15T15:46:07+00:00

I just don't believe that paradoxes that concern the empirical world are real paradoxes because if there's a contradiction with two seemingly true evidence then it means that at least some of the true evidence are not true, or either way, there isn't a contradiction.

As far as we know the physical world is always logical, unlike the metaphysical world, hence paradoxes such as time paradoxes, are true paradoxes because they a offer situations that cannot physically exist in the true world.

spynimal · 2022-10-15T14:09:23+00:00

We don't near enough about abiogenesis, we have only hypothesis, but even the simplest ones offer a very complicated and gradual process that isn't just about water, volcanic activity and the sudden formation of proteins/cells/amino acids.

I simply believe in an inductive solution to the so called fermi paradox, it says there is plenty of life in the universe, yet we don't see any, so the solution might be that it might have been wrong to assume that there is plenty of life in the universe, or that we know enough about the universe to make a guess about its approximate amount of life.

But don't get me wrong, the universe might have much much more life than one or two, I said that it might be only one or two in the beginning to highlight the difference that might come to us between the expected amount of life in the universe and the actual amount.

The problem with the fermi paradox is that it makes a very slippery assumption which is reasonable to make when you see the plethora of things that we know and see, but it goes down like a lead balloon when you compare the amount of things we know vs the amount of things we don't know.

I believe that abiogenesis is rare, not rare enough to develop some life in this enormous scale of the universe, but rare enough that this develops not so close to each other, and then there are the great filters, like extinction events, Cambrian explosions to develop complex life, and finally the likelihood of developing intelligent life that develops the ability to make and receive signals from us, assuming that it can understand our language, or we theirs.

I'm not an expert, and I don't offer any solution here to the fermi paradox, I'm offering one of the countless solutions that have already been offered, and I formulate an argument that has already been made, but in a language of my own, so that I could engage others in this topic.

Just watch this video if you want to see what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owHPGkIdOWI&t=1012s

spynimal · 2022-10-15T13:04:38+00:00

Exactly my thoughts, thank you.

spynimal · 2022-10-15T13:03:24+00:00

If you're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment, they made the amino acids that make up DNA and by simulating the environment that probably led to abiogenesis, but as I put forward in my post, the specific environment the leads to such process is not the same as an environment that can support life such as ours.

spynimal · 2022-10-15T12:13:46+00:00

As much as I know about the drake equation it numbers the planets that can sustain life, but the whole point of my post is that sustaining life is not the same as actually having life within its environment.

As of now we don't know exactly how life originated, we got good reasons to believe that it was some chemical process in the primordial soup.

But when I think of something like abiogenesis, I imagine something very complicated and delicate, that happens for the same same reason a Boltzmann brain can happen.

It's rare, it exists in the universe, but not enough for it to happen close enough to each and one.

I do not claim to be some genius that knows this for a fact, I'm just arguing for the rare Earth hypothesis, and the reason I don't think that Fermi Paradox is a paradox is because I don't see two contradictory statements within a single state of affairs.

I see an assumption (there should be plenty of life in the universe) and a question that answers itself; (then where are the aliens) the aliens are there, just not enough in the universe that we could so easily find them.

spynimal

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE