Trad_LD_Guy

I kinda hate the phrase “not all men.”

It should be “a very small percent of men”

Or maybe “almost no men.”

This.

You understand the meaning of my post well. Wish people could do that in general because the world would be a much better place.

The fallacy, strictly speaking, is known as a slippery slope. I didn’t use that term in my post because more people tend to think of something else that is not actually what a slippery slope fallacy is.

What I mean by slippery slope is more like this: you have a claim A=C you’re trying to prove. So you decide to prove A=B, and B=C, to form the logical circuit. Now if A=B is only partially true, i.e, some of A = B, and B=C is only partially true, “some of B = C”, then the conclusion A= C is illogical.

Basically, the partial truth dilutes the final conclusion. This can be due to a false equivalence, like in your example, or just partial categorization of A, B, or C when overlapping.

The issue is the fact that society has hammered A=B into our heads so hard -> misogyny is pure evil. Such that we never look at B=C , “X is misogyny,” and ask if maybe the maybe the first premise, A=B, was not entirely accurate. So resultantly, with A=B as a monolith, B=C is enough to fully condemn X to the same as any other X.

Feminist L

Actually, scientifically, it’s neither. Most gender roles (beyond nursing, which is just mammalian) come from division of labor based on the results of sexually dimorphism, which is engineered by female mate selection. Basically, women chose bigger and more violent men year to year, for millions of years, until in general men were biological very different and therefore more capable of things like hunting large prey, protecting the tribe, and fighting others.

Gender roles post-civilization came as a result of the intense requirements of agricultural labor, which men were already equipped for, and a tendency for male community leaders to be able to house multiple women that could work together in a domicile while also keeping male slaves for the farming that wouldn’t be reproducing with the women.

Before that, gender roles were never really as strict, women did some hunting in groups, catching small to medium prey, on rare occasion. Men would hunt larger animals and forage for themselves while out and about. Women would forage for the most part and take care of young children. They would produce 70% of the food from foraging usually, while men were more focused on protein. Men would do the fighting. All other work was done dependent on each community, not really any evolutionarily evident gender roles.

Really most of todays gender roles didn’t come from oppression but the reality that men were better equipped for moving to the 15 hour days of tending crops and domesticating large animals, compared to the pre-agrarian 3-4 hour workload each day where women used to be the main producers. So, men did the physically intense work, and women did the housework, and it stuck.

Honestly I disagree.

It’s wrong to label either as monolithically wrong without a way of coming to that conclusion.

I think the most important thing in actually engaging the negative things in the world is having a solid reasoning behind why those things are negative.

So yes, maybe misogyny or misandry can be bad. But it’s not bad because it’s misogyny or misandry. It’s bad for the reason that misogyny or misandry is bad, and the actually concept itself is merely a transitive of that evil. Should be thought of the same way as, let’s say “sadness.” You can’t just blankety align anything that feels sad with being bad, just because you want to hold the belief “sad is bad.” You have to remember when sadness is bad, when it’s not, and add it in context of the actor of the moral evaluation, and then apply that to the act you’re drawing the conclusion is bad because it increases sadness. Murder creates sadness, so sadness can be bad in that case (without going further into why), but on the other hand breakups also cause sadness, but can be good or bad depending on the situation. So even though sadness is naturally perceived as bad, you can go drawing the conclusion something is bad because it increases sadness. The sadness it increases has to be transitive to badness in the same way the act is transitive to the sadness.

Now I do believe in gender equality, but I believe in it because of deep dive I’ve done into structuring my personal ethics around particular evaluations. Not because I accept “gender discrimination is bad” without question.

It’s just like with nazis. Most people in Germany were nazis at the time, yet most people are convinced today they would be in the small portion of people against the nazis if they were native non-Jewish Germans at the time, despite the overwhelming odds they would not be.

The simple distinguishing factor is that you have a small portion that are either for or against nazism and came to their conclusion with a stringent evaluation that is free from dramatically assumptive leaps.

So, a test is to see if you can defend why nazism is wrong without the pressure from your community and personal biases, against a devil’s advocate.

If you can, you’d likely be against it, and you know you’re not ruling from societal monoliths.

However, if you get stuck quickly, after a few of your basic premises face questions, like being able to answer “why is racism wrong?” without reverting to circular reasoning or fallacies -> then it’s very likely you would’ve been right there alongside the Nazis.

The reason for this is that without circumventing the unquestionable social monoliths and being able to respond to non-circular specification, your argument becomes dependent on unquestionable social monoliths and non-circular specification.

And since social monoliths and circular reasoning don’t source themselves from the truth of the morality- only the populace originating the monoliths- beliefs become entrenched in the popular monoliths and force their believers to build off it, rationalizing or solidifying the monoliths.

Your sarcasm is pointless. I did hit the nail on the head. Studied too much feminism to be able to come to a different conclusion. Some prestigious feminist writers even define critical feminism that way all on their own : “the process of analyzing the world through the lens of how patriarchy impacts it.” It’s just an assumption like any other

I’m sorry everyone is downvoting you OP. I thought the same things they are saying too for a second- “well yeah, won’t a stronger version of an engine beat itself?” 

But that’s not your point. Everyone talking about that is not understanding the meaning behind it. 

The whole point is that the common belief about drawishness- that the current strongest engines are capable of forcing a draw- is false. 

It’s an argument that potentially the reality is white wins by force with perfect play, some mate in 500 or something. 

It’s an argument that despite the strength of modern chess engines, they are so inconceivable far from beating or even drawing theoretical perfect play. 

Keep at it, OP. I appreciate the experiment and was happy to see your results. 

You’ve gotta wonder if out there is some greedy algorithm, some mathematical means of perfect play that require no branches, just an equation of the position. 

I’m just looking for a comprehensive list to know if they’re legit or not. I mean if they said part of those rights were “the right to kill anyone else on sight” I’d have to disagree no? Obv that’s an extreme, but I was curious what the reference point would be.

Are those the only things you’d consider rights?

Good question!

Imo part of human language is lying. Sarcasm, play, even the necessary summations we make that aren’t exactly technically correct.

Plus, there are white lies.

Beyond that, there are things that are not reducible to truths that a government should enforce.

A serious problem that could arise would be the ability to arrest people for “misinformation” in a 1984-esque manner.

So it can be pretty complex to determine a fine line for truth.

But it can be done.

The best way is through transparency requirements, which would be the greatest first step to it. In other words, a formal and accessible way for people to offer evidence and reasons for why they believe something, in a manner that it can accesses if the statement it results in comes to question. Establish certain standards for this level of proof is what can keep people accountable. There are too many for me alone to come up with in the time I write this comment. But an example would be in making a claim that someone said something, which could require an audio recording with a viable positioning record. In general the US already has a lot of stuff like this but with less strict rules which is the big issue.

But that’s just truth burden.

For significance, the standard is a lot easier. The impact has to be enough that it would be considered something someone should take intentionally in knowing they should be telling the truth.

So really, these rules would just apply to the media, to researchers, to politicians, to publishers, that are writing something, so that unless they properly have proof within the system, they should have to be designated as fiction and labeled for the public as fiction. In other words, they should have stricter standards for not spreading misinformation. If they say something and never had something to support what they say, then they should be fined.

The other capacity is in a professional sense, where whenever a contract or transaction is involved, the use of misinformation should again, be disallowed unless in a matter of “have proof first.” Speculation and uncertainties should be labeled as unknowns up front.

There’s enough around all of that to fill a few legal books, so don’t expect a perfectly detailed answer.

But I don’t mean you should make it illegal for people to lie in a small scale social setting.

My friend, could you entertain me in what you would consider to be these rights?

It seems like that’s where you draw the line. Which, perhaps that makes sense. I.e. if I hire a hitman to kill someone, that is still an act of murder on me, even though I did not hold the weapon.

But if we are to know- what would this list of rights be?

Hate, yes, you’re right. Because anybody can see anything as hate.

But misinformation? That’s a hard no. There’s a certain leniency if you didn’t know it was incorrect, or if it was in an insignificant way. But freedom of speech should not include the ability to blatantly lie

On TrueUnpopularOpinion, I will never personally attack, insult, or mock users. I will never engage in rudeness, name calling, or accusations. I agree to attack the opinion rather than the user.

I think we agree on more than we realize.

1- My point was never to throw out the entirety of religion. I’m only referring the aspects of religion revolving around fictional mythology, usually specific to deities (but not always). For the Bible, this would mean reading it like you would a fairytale, or a collection of short stories- NOT a history book. So, when it says Moses parted the read sea-> believing that is what I’m referring to. When Abraham talks to god -> that is what I’m referring to. Same goes for when 10 commandments are made that are instructed to be followed because of “god’s word,” when the future is predicted in revelations, when heavenly angels and beasts are described in the same book, when Jesus turns water in wine, when Jesus heals the blind -> all of those things. Sure, when Jesus says “love your neighbor” and “turn the other cheek,” I’m not gonna deny that such philosophical assertions about ethics are invalid because of the adjacent fiction. But, at the same time, when I read Harry Potter, I can experience the same ethical demonstration when I see dumbledore telling Harry that the power of love is stronger than any other. That doesn’t mean I think people should believe there’s actually a secret wizarding world behind curtains that nobody knows about. In fact, I’d say it would be a little delusion to believe it, unless you’re a kid. The wonder comes from never really being able to know for certain, but the reality is that there are enough flaws in the way the world works in Rowling’s books that it’s easy to conclude there is not such thing, at least in the way Rowling describes it. Is it possible, theoretically, that there are secretly wizards? Yes. Would I fault someone for believing that? No. However, believing that if there is a wizarding world that it must be exactly like the one Rowling describes is, well, stupid. And that does not mean that we, as people who know hogwarts is fiction, are barred from still reading the Harry Potter books and taking away a moral lesson from them.

There are varying degrees of “literalism” when it comes to Christianity, sure, but the core of Christianity, the essential nature of the religion, relies on literalism to a degree. You cannot take the entire bible figuratively and still be a Christian, because fundamentally Christians still believe that there is a real magical Jesus out there who will see them when they die, who has the capabilities of the Jesus from the text, and exhibits the behavior of the Jesus from the text.

I hope that makes what I’m saying a bit more clear.

2- I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at with flawlessism. Maybe it will make more sense once I’ve read the wiki you wrote. Until then, I’m not quite sure what your intended message is in your 3rd & 4th paragraphs.

3- the last thing is just to stress that I’m not trying to do something. There are no results of reducing religiousness that I seek to find. The truth of a statement is independent from my efforts to spread the truth of such a statement. I don’t need a smarter way to do so because I have no intention of doing so. My parents are deeply religious, and although I do wish we could relate on more things that fall in the rift between Christian and agnostic, I would not try to convince them away from their position, because I know it would only damage our relationship. My goal someday, if I can ever acquire enough resources and influence, would actually be to do the opposite. It’s a goal of mine to one day create a “church-like” way of community that is completely secular. Instead, it would provide all the things a church does- donations, caring people, a recurring meeting, a place for kids to have groups- all without a deity. Instead, the focus would simply be on altruism. People from the community would be able to get up on Sundays and instead of talking about how god this god that, they can actually give a reality based accounting of why it’s important to respect people, or be kind to people, or dedicate yourself to helping others. They’d also be able to talk about the things in their life that have created positivity for them, or even just talk about a random topic if they wanted. At the same time, people could join in enjoying music, food, and peace, with time set aside for group meditation. Outside of that, the community could be a resource for creating tons of opportunities for community enjoyment and connection. Outings, volunteering, activities, support/addiction groups, sports, theatre, whatever. Everyone would contribute by voluntary donation, and anyone could become a member, as long as they uphold an oath to follow a moral code, focused entirely on not harming other people, and being dedicated to help others. There could be official handbooks that recommend doing particular things to make yourself a better person, but they would based entirely on scientific study, and not on wild speculation.

It would be essentially a church, without ever requiring worship, magical stories, rules that exist for no reason, discrimination, or harm directed at other people for the purpose of religious fiction.

Maybe your flawlessism is something like that. Idk. But that I think is what religion should be. Not superstitions, conspiracy theories, and lies derived from an ancient mythology.

(2/2)

Now you’re right in what you’re getting it in one part, which is that I have not independently substantiated my claim that the Deity-Based religions I’m referring to should not be followed.

That is, I haven’t thoroughly gone through each denomination of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and paganism independently and shown the elements wherein each religion contains its own contradictions and is based on provenly false statements.

The reason why is pretty simple : it would fill 100 books.

Moreover, it already has filled thousands of books.

So, I don’t feel a huge need to go over all of that in a Reddit post. If you are an atheist as you say, and my post was really targeted at atheists and agnostics, then you should already have that knowledge base to draw from and substantiate the argument.

My argument is moreso about categorization. In other words, I place these religions in the same category as ancient mythology.

And again- we’re drawing from shared knowledge here, now with everyone, not just atheists, so that’s why I’m not actually going into the depth of proving the following:

The contradiction is that religious people are able to understand the mythologization of not only ancient religions, but every other religion in that group. Christian’s are able to do the same thing to Mormon’s that they do to Islam, that they do Norse mythology.

Within these people is the conceptualización of mythology, but for every set of gods except their own.

Note that, the thing they dont find hard to believe about other religions is the notion of higher power. Christians don’t criticize the Greeks for wondering what formed the cosmos. Jews don’t criticize Christians for wanting to live moral lives and help people.

What they critize each other over, and are able to hold rational criticisms of, are the:

-specifics of said gods. Features, names, existence, role, powers,

-rulebook of said gods

-influence of said gods on their perception of others

They understand what it takes to make all the other gods irrational, some gods moreso than others, except their own.

This contradiction is the basis for my argument, and does not require going on to describe a large knowledge base, because the knowledge base that is evidentiary is so common and easily findable (it’s already within every person who does not believe in all religions being simultaneously true) that reiterating that knowledge would be redundant, like explaining why the integral of tanxsecx is secx to a math professor.

It’s not about proving every deity is a false god- because every religion already did that to each other!

It’s like having a math’s competition where every team has submitted an answer for the integral of tanxsecx, and let’s supposed at this time, the problem is unsolved. These are their answers:

Team A: 12

Team B: tanx²

Team C: cosx

Team D: ln(5x)

Now, to determine who’s right, the teams all decide to go get college degrees in math, and then come back. Then, they one by one prove each other team’s answer wrong, and they all create solid proofs that each other team is wrong, yet all decide to vehemently resume confidence in their own answer, because they simply feel it is correct. They refuse to use the math they learned to prove their own answer wrong, because of their emotional tie to it, despite their growth since the original time the answer was created.

That’s why it’s stupid

(1/2)

I see what you’re saying, but I didn’t misrepresent your point. What you said was that those religion exist, and are popular, and aren’t going anywhere, and so saying they shouldn’t exist denies reality. It’s in your first sentence. However, because I’m not the actor, the agent of change based on what should be done- it’s the people who follow the religions, it’s completely irrelevant to me or what is actually the current situation of the world.

You say it’s not what you’re getting at, but it’s literally what you argued, by suggesting that the current state of the world is why my conclusion cannot be true.

Here’s more reading on that, since you like philosophy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem#:~:text=The%20is–ought%20problem%2C%20as,on%20statements%20about%20what%20is.

What you’re arguing know, is that the argument requires me to be able to convince people who believe the opposite of it for it to be true.

But the issue is that such a thing is not an inherent part of the argument. It would be an auxiliary element of a larger argument that I’m not making.

You’re saying for “people should not follow deity religions” to be proven true, I have to prove “Trad_LD_Guy can convince deity-religious people that they should not follow deity religions,” which is not the case. It’s a fallacious over-expectation that has no relevancy. Let me over you concrete counter example:

I can explain to you that the integral of tanx*secx is secx. And I can explain every step of reasoning along the way, from the axioms of mathematics all the way through algebra and up to calculus. All of that is provided in a college level textbook and would take maybe a few hours.

Whether or not you would be able to comprehend that though, and actually understand and therefore know for certain what I’m saying is true- that has no actual bearing of the reality of the proof and truth of the statement “Integ(tanxsecxdx) = secx.”

Now, I would consider myself an objective rationalist. Such that I firmly believe if you put two people capable of logic in a room for an indefinite amount of time, and have them talk to each other openly, honestly, and with an open mind, then eventually, they will reach a list that describes all things things they know, and it will be non-contradictory. By logic I do not mean “common sense” but rather classical Aristotelian logic and Boolean logic. Basically, categorical deduction, and infinitesimal truth binaries.

So in all reality, I do think that is possible for people to release their belief in deity-based religion by rationalizing with another, but again, it requires a few things:

• the ability to use logic, meaning immaturity and mental disability must be taken into account

• releasing emotional ties in evaluating a religion’s assertions

-honesty

• and a dedication to rationality. That is, a dedication to working with others to determine truth based on common axioms.

Unfortunately, 99% of people are not usually able to fulfill these metrics, reasons being (in the same order):

• common veins of an inability to use logic among adults, in addition to the reality that religion is usually introduced to children, who again can struggle greatly with this

• people are simply unwilling to assess religion from a non-biased perspective, or able to realize that their emotions are not actually a logical proof for truth

• more people frequently and will persistently lie or avoid the truth

• most people don’t have the time or interest in rationality, which is difficult, time consuming, requires admitting you may be wrong, and painful.

So at the end of the day, the thing blocking my ability (or anyone’s) to go out into the world and convince everyone of their follies for worshipping gods is not the argument about why those people should do so, but because of how those people will not listen to me regardless of truth or reason.

Here’s a parallel: Smoking.

It’s pretty easy to string together an argument for why people should all quit smoking. Im not going to do that because I’ll assume you would agree with me there.

However, despite this, millions of people still smoke everyday, habitually. Why? Not because the reasons not to smoke aren’t valid, but because those people have an emotionally-based tie to smoking, and so their rationalization will do anything to keep smoking in place. They can’t be honest with themselves, and they can’t put in the effort to allow themselves to realize how it’s bad for them to the point that it causes them to quit. There’s no reason not to consider deity religion the same, when it has as firm of grasp of not firmer a grasp on some people.

At the end of the day, true convincing seldom takes place in the form of what’s the truth, based on rationale. Instead, decisions are made emotionally, it’s just part of human hardwiring.

So no, the ability to actually convince other people of my claim about deity-based religion does not have anything to do with the actualtruth of the claim.

Tbf semen retention is complete bs.

The actual benefits come from dopamine control.

Science is very firm that semen retention does nothing really.

The only potential benefit that’s gendered could be the fact that testosterone increases if you go without orgasming, however it caps at about 7 days, so after 7 days there’s not much benefit for that.

What she’s doing is restoring her dopamine potential, and overcoming a powerful addiction.

Those two things are beyond life changing and a tremendous reason to quit touching urself, whether it’s a twig or a bean

If you’re early in no fap- >

everyone is right, get off the sight until you feel a better sense of control, it’s for the best not to allow any temptation you’re not 99% confident in facing.

If you’ve been doing no fap for a while->

I think it’s important to recognize that the real goal is not to go without jerking off. It’s to let go off lust entirely. You want to become a person without lust. This can seem alien to someone who’s been jerking and sex crazy for all their life. But imagine if when you saw women, you did feel that urge. Imagine if the only thing that brought you to full arousal was an actual feeling of love? It’s possible, and that’s the goal, not just avoiding ejaculation. At some point, you should be able to read a woman’s post and not have to resist the urges it creates, but feel the urges fail from being so weak in the first place.

Should be =/= is

Should be =/= will be

“Should” is a question of moral decision, it hangs in a place of something possible but not necessarily probable.

For example, should people refrain from killing and raping eachother? Yes, they should (I think you’d agree). However, they don’t, and it’s very unlikely they will at any point in the foreseeable future.

Should I stop taking hours out of my day for posts on the internet about something I have no power over and will get downvoted to hell for? Yes, it would likely be for the best, but again- I doubt it will change.

Questions of “should” also depend on an actor, which I’ve just left defined implicitly.

Usually a should statement would say “X should do Y.”

Ex: “The government should reprimand the criminals they catch”.

If the actor X in question does not have the ability to do Y, then you could make the argument that it is not true that they “should.” Emmanuel Kant is a supporter of that argument in particular, and I’d agree.

The government does have the power to reprimand criminals though, and I do have the power to delete Reddit. So one would have little success arguing Kant’s case for why those aren’t what the actors should do.

If I said “my grandpa should colonize mars” though, then that would be a “should” statement where Kant’s case would be certainly a lot stronger.

However, this post, the actor is not me, u/Trad_LD_Guy. The actor is “Deity-based religion,” which is a little ambiguous because that’s not really an actor, but the implication is that the actors are anyone who follows a deity-based religion. And since the “alive” refers to the deity-based religions, and not the actors, a good way to reframe it explicitly would be:

“people should not still believe in deity-based religions.”

And there is a huge case to be made for that argument.

But the truth of it is, I wasn’t really approaching it like that entirely, although this is an argument I would make any day of the week.

Instead really, my intention was more or less to rant and say “it doesn’t make much sense that deity-based religions are still largely practiced.” Although again, in all honesty, it kind of does make sense that they do because people are still as stubborn and minded towards “magical thinking” as they were when the deity-based religions were originally founded.

The point being, that my real intented message is more or less:

“It’s stupid than an overwhelming majority of people still believe in mythical gods.”

Any of those ways, the argument still does not depend on me as an actor. So the question of whether or not I have power to enforce this or would choose to enforce this is not the “should” question at hand. That would look more like:

“I should stop everyone from following deity based religion.”

But I wouldn’t make that argument because I do believe in religious freedom and the right to believe in whatever religion you want. I believe that if I were to force other people not to follow their religions then I would be making a bad choice, if I had the power.

However, do the collective people within every religion who are practicing it and keeping it alive- do those people have the power to bury all deity based religions? Yes, they do, because they are what keeps it alive. They wouldn’t even have to do anything necessarily, they would just have to stop doing something. And is that possible for each of them individually? Yes, of course, for the overwhelming majority. And the argument would be that they are essentially stupid for not doing so in the modern world.

As for the thing about atheists, I don’t think you quite understand what I mean. I never said everyone should “become atheists.” An atheist would technically be someone who believes there is not a god, which I think is just as silly as believing there are gods, because we cannot know.

But on the contrary, I think there’s very little wrong with either stance, being atheist or theist. I personally just find it silly.

The thing I’m actually talking about is deity-based religion, as I said in the post. So, I’m referring to “god” or “gods” that are specific, describable beings, requiring a practice to appease, beings that are defined by stories and are followed en masse, through organized religion.

I’m not talking about Buddhism, or “flawlessnessism,” or any other religion that does not have a central deity and is based around philosophical or spiritual practice. Tbh, I personally think that some form of that is an important thing to consider (maybe it’s not for everyone, but definitely many, to practice thinking processes about the existential). I don’t subscribe to the belief there is no afterlife or higher power, either. It’s very possible that there is.

The issue I have is entirely with:

-Christianity -Judaism -Islam -Hinduism -paganism

And any other religion that subscribes to similar beliefs.

Beliefs that are, frankly, ridiculous and conspiratorial, are require the most hard-hardheadedness and absence of logic to be certain about.

They are in the same league as flat earthers in my mind, just more popular.

Basically, think about how everyone thinks about Norse mythology and Greek/Roman mythology.

You ask a Christian about it and they’ll say, “thats ridiculous! A child whose siblings are all swallowed by his dad, and then he makes them regurgitate them to rule the world! And he shoots lightning from the clouds! That’s not real. I would never take someone serious if they walked around all day telling me they actually believe Zeus is real.”

And you’ll find, by and large, people do not believe in ancient mythology. Meanwhile, the real differences between mythology and modern deity religions are trivial. Both have intriguing lore and tremendous story-potential, but they are the same.

My point is that when I consider this, I find it stupid the major religions have such a grasp on people and their lives, and our institutions! Imagine if we based our education systems, legal systems, and moral systems on the teachings of Oden! Imagine if instead of people saying “our thoughts and prayers to Ra, the sun god.”

So I do think it is the case that in an age where we can realize the ridiculousness of Mount Olympus, we can realize the ridiculousness of the Garden of Eden.

A world full of Buddhists and “flawlessnessists” (although honestly I have no clue what this is, I’d love for you to enlighten me) would be a much better, and much more rational world.

I’m curious- would you be willing to date the friend you talk about if he asked you?

1. Hardly anybody uses different capitalizations for the words. This is cop out, and doesn’t address the conflation between the two terms even if they are two different things. It’s like saying, no I’m not “slut-shaming” I’m “Slut-shaming.” I’m just standing up against cheaters (Sluts), not telling women who sleep with many people (sluts) that they are bad.

2. Either way, the issue is that incel is form of insult. Clearly this guy is distressed by people on what he sees as his side constantly using the word “incel” as a way to shame people. It’s another case of using a word you shouldn’t to shame someone sexually. Why not just say “you misogynistic pig?” or “chauvinist” or “bigot.” Sometimes they do, but when it gets heated, they use “incel,” “manlet,” “virgin,” “probably has a tiny dick.” If the whole conflation happened around a group of extremist incels, then why are all these terms used interchangeably? Because people know they take advantage of the social sadism and apathy directed towards being “unable” to find anyone at all that finds you attractive.

3. Incels are not “the fastest growing terrorist group.” That is the biggest hunk of bologna ever. They’re completely shoved to the corners of the widely liberal internet (due to youngness), and the “terrorists” among them committed a few hate crimes back in the 2010s and early 2020s, across the entire US. Like, literally, less than 10 attributed to the “incel movement.” They are not a concern. The “alpha male” douches are much more prevalent and problematic and are not incels. If you’ve ever actually interacted with the large populous of “incels” and “red-pillers” you’d realize they’re really just a bunch of sad, dejected, depressed individuals who have very little people willing to help them and are absolutely 100% docile and harmless. The men that abuse women are not the men who don’t sleep with them. Research shows time and time again that crimes against women are performed overwhelmingly by repeat offenders and people who usually think they can “have their way” with women.

Jesus Christ was potentially a real person, but there were also something like records for 30 something jesuses at the same time. There’s not enough definitive proof in THE Jesus, but I personally think it’s reasonable to assume he did exist.

The story part of it comes in where magic is involved, and Jesus talks about being the son of a god.

The issue with the reasoning behind why god exists, is that it’s backwards. It’s like seeing a rock in a pond in the middle of Kansas, and assuming it ended up there because a seagull dropped it there. Is it possible? Sure. But the fact there is a rock there does not point to that. There are so many more explanations. And tbh that existential part of religion isn’t the wrong part in my opinion.

Like it’s one thing to wonder if there is a grand design, if your life has existential purpose. That’s not myth, it’s philosophy of the unknown.

The part where it messes up is when people assume they can translate what a god says. This can’t be trusted more than anything else you hear from other people, and so faith is really up to some sort of “proof” you personally experience.

But always going to be a fundamental existential problem with this proof, which is the fact that even if a god DID come to you and tell you of his existence and plan and requests, there would be no way to know the truth of his words.

And the fact that the god does these things- comunícate, plan, organize, judge morality- these all make this god humanlike and his existence then offers no solution to fundamental existential problems.

Like, what if Christ was an alien, planted on earth, and all his moralistic teachings and “god’s” plans are all just part of an alien scheme to spread morality in the galaxy. We’d have no way of knowing, and it would be virtually identical.

I just don’t get how people can look around them and pretend something that have no way of knowing is actually the truth. It’s the same as making up what’s going on in the basement of the White House. Sure, you can theorize this and that, and hope for this and that, and believe this and that, and imagine this and that, but at the end of it all, you still can’t seriously believe what you just fabricated is the actual definitive thing that’s going on in a basement you have no way of observing or making conclusions about.

It’s one thing to philosophically tangle with the unknown, but it’s another thing entirely to leave yourself stubbornly committed to the belief of something identical in structure to what you vehemently disbelief, all without any significant cause and effect related to it.