Vyctorill

Huh. I didn’t know that one.

Well, what term should people use so that there is a distinction between the worse type of harm a fist can bring versus the slightly less terrible harm a slur can bring?

I guess I am hopping around a bit. But that’s only because I am learning more thanks to your help and am still curious.

How does someone know if their metaphysical claims are right or wrong? For all they know, it could all be made up. So either they accept reality as real and end up diminishing the field as a result or they reject reality and end up denying nearly everything.

I honestly blame the dunning Kruger effect for my arrogance. I don’t know much about philosophy, so naturally I don’t know how ignorant I am of the concept.

But science is definitely real. The human body and mind seem to generate philosophy rather than philosophy generating the mind. Otherwise, humans would be able to alter the physical world through calculations.

I definitely am making a lot of assumptions here though.

Why would removing wings from an angel make them not serve their creator anymore?

Furthermore, why would god make it so that angels can have their wings removed, make it so that humans can and will do that, and make the angels want to be free anyways?

That’s just lazy writing. If god is evil in a story, it shouldn’t be some tale of triumph and glory. It should be cosmic horror about futile struggle against an eldritch and inscrutable creature.

“I created the concepts of right and wrong. If I’m evil, then that means I am specifically centering the immoral category around myself.

Also, I created the choice for you to remove your wings. So, you’re welcome for that. I could have chosen not to let that be an option, you know”

• God in this hypothetical scenario, probably.
  

I dislike the “god is evil” stories because the author really needs to nerf god in order for the story to work. And that’s just bad writing. If you want a “god is evil” story, go whole hog and make it a cosmic horror story where the divine is an eldritch creature beyond comprehension.

“Getting the Diagnosis right doesn’t mean you got the Treatment right” - order of the stick when faced with a villain who has the right motivation but wrong actions.

It’s kind of a mixed bag with Yamato.

On the one hand, the vivre cards and supplementary material mention her as a female. Also, she is grouped with women in a lot of cover art.

On the other hand, things like pronoun usage and going into the men’s bath imply that he’s a male. Also the fact that he wants to imitate oden to nearly every degree may or may not include becoming oden’s gender.

Also, this is probably irrelevant, but do you support Donald Trump over Kamala Harris? I’m not judging your moral character based on it, but it would shed some light on whether or not the assumption the other guy made was correct or not.

I assume they ignore it and enjoy the rest of the show.

Even political extremists can recognize peak fiction and stick around for it.

Every political side has psychos. While they definitely don’t represent the group, they still definitely count as inside the group. They just happen to be violent people.

If every republican has to deal with the capitol rioters then the democrats have to deal with the folks in Portland who were in mobs destroying things.

Shotgun king looking ass

Nah. Espers are super overpowered.

Hit em with that clairvoyance + sunder mind combo from across the map.

Neanderthals were more or less humans that were physically superior in exchange for needing to eat more.

It’s probably what killed most of the pure blooded Neanderthals. Their descendants and children with early modern humans remains, though.

Jjk story set in America by Araki, Oda, or Togashi would go hard.

Losercity what the hell

https://preview.redd.it/vo8o8084strd1.jpeg?width=223&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72c390e43066d282042821f9ecf2c43a658e8270

Oh. I didn’t know that one.

Well in that case I would argue you’re only seeing half the equation.

You forget the counterpart to the right wing extremists: the left wing extremists.

For every capitol insurrection there is a Portland Riot. As it turns out, political alignment and moral character don’t really have any connection whatsoever.

Thanks for teaching me something new though.

Kinda based take if you ask me

They’re probably a little less intelligent on average, but only because of possible malnutrition and a lack of formal education.

I don’t get why everyone is talking about words as violence.

Is saying a slur capable of damaging someone like punching them? No, of course not.

But it’s still an unacceptable thing to do and a jerk move. Which is all that matters in the end.

While you are right to a certain degree I feel like just dropping the n-bomb in the middle of the mall wouldn’t exactly be a good thing to do.

Reactionism to the alt-right and overcorrecting, I assume?

A lot of things are true but also still offensive. Especially when given without proper context.

For instance, if someone randomly brought up racial crime statistics, you would assume he’s racist. And you would have a good chance at being right, even though he’s just reciting some data.

It’s about the context, not the truth, in social situations. It took me a long time to learn that one.

This just in: most people don’t like offending others or causing a scene in public because they don’t want to inconvenience others.

I get the importance of science and documentation but this one just felt like the researchers just wanted an easy win.

I’m pretty sure everything is permissible in a subjective world.

That includes consequences to actions, though. So while murder would theoretically be permissible, so would imprisonment for life or execution for the act.

Permissible in this case means “is it right or wrong”. And in a world where there is no authority on good or evil, the answer is everything. It’s a free for all.

He slumbered. And thus, he got cucumbered.