sun_the_second
No bio...
User ID: 2725
sun_the_second
4d ago
In a traditionally masculine society, it is solely the responsibility of the foe to acquire sufficient social standing so that he can start a fight while unarmed and expect his opponent to match him. What kind of a man calls out "judge??? judge???????" as he's stabbed for picking a fight with someone he shouldn't have?
sun_the_second
4d ago
I just saw it recently and can second the recommend. It looks about twice as good as Avowed wanted to be (I imagine).
sun_the_second
5d ago
I'd imagine that in those manlier days anyone who challenged you to an impromptu fisticuffs duel and wasn't a gentleman like yourself was liable to get whacked with a handy and fashionable cane you carried without any loss of social standing to yourself. Granted, my knowledge of manlier days mostly comes from Fallen London.
sun_the_second
5d ago
I suppose "I didn't care to fight this guy and I didn't see anything wrong with killing him if he insisted" wouldn't go over so well with the jury.
sun_the_second
5d ago
I wouldn't call it effeminate when most women seem to be absolutely averse to carrying a gun/knife, let alone ready to stab a motherfucker.
sun_the_second
5d ago
I don't doubt that they're currently not in favor of it, but give me a reason to believe that when their vanguard decides it's time to push that particular door open, they'll refuse.
I don't think any words will convince you that normies actually can't be convinced of anything anyone wants at any moment regardless of current belief if you're determined to believe that they can.
I do not know of any place on Earth where a woman or a weaker guy pulling a knife in response to someone bigger "unconsciously clenching their fists" would be seen as anything but an unstable psycho as opposed to "acting proportionally". It is not in fact ridiculous to expect people to prefer being slightly intimidated rather than go for mortal threats.
sun_the_second
6d ago
I recall seeing this post the first time it was published (or something close to it), and just like back then, I fail to see how this observation about the leftists of 1980s squares with the present day. I see normal people (that is, leftists, ranging from basic reddit just be a decent person-ists to transhumanist plural Marxists) quite a lot (admittedly mostly on the internet). In no spaces is any hint of any indulgent relationship between an adult and a child seen as more abhorrent than those normal people (leftist) spaces. The border between adult and child is far from being erased, it is shifted to mid-twenties. And I know how people act when there is something they really think but can't say (I've been on the Motte when it was on reddit), so I do not believe all of them are merely pretending to dislike any crossing of the 18-/18+ barrier.
The worldview of an average left-leaning normie is "no viewing anyone under the age of 18 as a sexual being at all". A minimal detached clinical acknowledgement is allowed, so as to be able to know teens could have unsafe sex, for the purposes of thwarting said unsafe sex. The attitude of the queer community towards educating children on sexuality is, at the worst of it, myopic and selfish, caring more about bolstering their political alliance than the livelihood of those children, but I don't see calling it pedophilic as anything but mental gymnastics.
sun_the_second
6d ago
Well - not quite random, according to the website,
More than 80% of the cures recognised as miraculous have been women.
So I guess either God loves women 4 times as much as he does men, or they get sick 4 times as much.
sun_the_second
6d ago
It wouldn't be religion the same way electricity isn't magic.
My credence in them will understandably be quite low
No, I don't understand why your credence in a random bum promising hell/heaven to you is not hypercharged to infinity the same way a religion's credence is hypercharged to infinity. My credence in religions is quite low, I consider them at best a way for people to epicycle their existential dread away and at worst a way for social egregores to keep downtrodden people downtrodden.
As long as we worry about different levels of infinities, consider Blarg, the god that will send you to hell of cardinality aleph(n+1) where aleph(n) is Christianity's hell, and vice versa for heavens.
Do you think that it's reasonable for me to think that Christianity is more reasonable at least than most other religions (of those that promise infinite rewards)?
I think it is unreasonable to rate religions higher based solely on the infinity of their rewards. Based on what I observe in life, it is much easier to deceptively promise infinite rewards than actually deliver on them, and this should hold for all agents in general. Thus you leave yourself open to all sorts of malicious agents who merely have to promise infinite rewards (or punishment) to capture your attention (but what if!..)
Of course, I suspect that you will not actually up-rate any random beings who promise infinite rewards (or punishment) without showing any hint that they could deliver on it. I suspect that is because Pascal's Wager is a post-hoc rationalization of Christianity for you and not something you could come to Christianity through from zero.
To answer your question: I think that as long as we're picking between gods a non-omnipotent, non-omnibenevolent, non-singular one is more likely than an omnipotent and omnibenevolent single one, so I'd start with the pagan gods of my homeland.
There's also the snag that even if I swallowed Pascal's Wager hook, line and sinker, it would not be Christianity I'd want to follow, because as far as I've been told (aggregating the opinions) the Christian God is merciful and would eventually forgive me anyway. If he wouldn't, then the God is not Christian, and not the kind of God I could worship out of love and faith. We need a new religion for people who hate the very idea that there is an omnipotent being threatening to plunge them into torment for all eternity if they don't follow its whims during their lives that simultaneously don't matter and are all that matters. Perhaps we could style its prayers off The Two Minutes Hate.
sun_the_second
7d ago
"...you fucking kikes are making us Jews look bad!" (c) a joke about Jews.
I've heard it also works for black people.
I suppose we'll have to disagree here because those don't look anywhere near reasonably strong. Any religion can "claim" to be a revealed religion, but if it really was revealed, I'd expect to see some of that revelation for myself. Otherwise, why wouldn't I follow any of the numerous kook cults whose originator managed to swindle 100-1000 people? Or millions, even.
As for largeness, well, many Christians claim their religion is just plainly better for building strong societies, and I grant that, but that's evidence against it being true (since people would have incentive to spread it because it's pragmatic for materialist matters even if they doubted it was metaphysically true).
Did you become familiar with Pascal's Wager before you became Christian, or after?
sun_the_second
7d ago
But is the expected value of investigating other options higher than that of trying to live out a pious Christian life?
Why are you so much more sure that it isn't compared to living a virtuous atheist life, or unitarian, or w/e?
sun_the_second
7d ago
Being in a dominant position follows from it, unless the authorities are powerless.
sun_the_second
7d ago
Wouldn't crybullying require that you're actually in a dominant position while pretending not to be?
sun_the_second
7d ago
Ukrainian nationalists can just maintain their position of maximum fuck Russia or bust. It's not a war of extermination, they can survive the dissolution of Ukraine as a state and it's probably going to feel better knowing they "fought to the last" rather than becoming a cucked rump state.
sun_the_second
7d ago
I have to ask, are you dedicating all your time free of finding sustenance to this cosmically important search, or are you already convinced you've found the most likely true thing? If you are convinced, are you truly convinced enough to do anything but eat, sleep and search?
sun_the_second
8d ago
What would that even mean?
If I consider the probabilities, then assuming there is an eternal existence beyond my single finite life, it is vastly (infinitely!) improbable that I'm experiencing the finite life right now. Therefore either:
- the finite life is not the only one
- there is no eternal existence beyond the finite life
- probabilities are a spook
Also all that jazz about honest skepticism that Substantial said - I promise, I've thought about it before too. I did conclude that a capricious malevolent God who does demand feigned worship over honest skepticism is more likely than the opposite, but that overall he is still too unlikely.
sun_the_second
8d ago
Now I'm going to go and enjoy my hospitable conditions.
My point is Pascal's rant at the irresponsibility of those who "turn away their thought from eternity" is built on the axiom that there is something to be gained by peering into eternity.
sun_the_second
8d ago
This, while apparently true, is the concern of societies, not the truth-seeker.
sun_the_second
8d ago
Then it's in your interest to estimate the probability space and act accordingly.
This appears to me to be a good example of what they call a deepity. Not only do you assume that your advice has not been followed before, but you don't show any acknowledgment of how useless your advice truly is, if taken at face value.
The issue with "there are 1000 religions, which one do I believe" is not that they are all equally compelling, it is that they are all equally sourced by wishful thinking and social engineering.
A common speculation is that the tools were buried because the dead person would need them in the afterlife. That doesn't require that the person had owned the tool in life.
Conversely, even if the dead person had owned it, why bury the tool when the living inheritor could use it?
More options
Context Copy link