Engineer/Mathematician/Student. I’m not insane unless I’m in a schizoposting or distressing memes mood; I promise.

  • 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 28th, 2023

help-circle


  • I would assume the downvotes are more for the “religion is a framework to be shitty” part. I’m also going to get downvoted for a similar reason.

    Religion is justification for one’s moral compass / desires.

    You see people who think it’s morally okay to rape kids or take away women’s rights or the rights of trans people or the rights of gay people etc. These people can’t justify morals (or lack thereof) logically so they use religion to give them a false sense of rationality. Hence you think religion is a framework for being shitty.

    However, there are other people who use religion to justify “good” behavior like compassion and acceptance. These people are still reliant on fallacious beliefs, but their actions are not “shitty” so they get offended. Furthermore, others—who know people in this second category—may also think the remark about religion being shitty is not correct and is rude. That’s why it’s getting downvoted.

    Fun sidenote, we can actually formally prove that religion or at least absolute morality doesn’t matter, and that people will just do what they want no matter what:


    Proof. We seek to prove that people do whatever they want regardless of the existence of a god or absolute morality. We have three natural cases:

    Case 1: Assume neither god nor an absolute purpose/morality exists. Then a person will default to their own morals. Hence, if neither exists, people will do whatever they want.

    Case 2: Assume a god or purpose/morality exists that does not align with a person’s current morals. (For example a god that required you to strangle six puppies every year or required human sacrifice, or raping kids, or blowing up hospitals, or working in finance, etc.). Then this person will not follow that god/purpose because they are a bad god/purpose. Hence, a person will do whatever they feel is right regardless even with the existence of a true deity/purpose when that god/purpose does not share their morals.

    Case 3: Assume a true god or purpose does exist and that it aligns with the morality of a person. Then that person will be living that way anyway, so the existence of the god or purpose has no effect on them doing whatever they want.

    In each case a person will do whatever they want regardless of the existence or non existence of a god or a true purpose/morality. Q.E.D.


    I should note that while I did come up with this proof myself several years ago, I learned later that Marcus Aurelius and other philosophers beat me to the punch by several centuries. But hey philosophy is the study of understanding existence, if we both exist in the same existence we can and should be able to discover the same facts about reality.


  • The whale biologist is one of the best one off characters:

    Well, you’ve come to the right guy. I’m the whale biologist, though personally I hate whales. Especially Mushu

    Then why’d you become a whale biologist?

    I don’t know you well enough to get into that.


    …and the fifth reason whales kill is for the sheer fun of it!

    Anything else?

    Yeah, your suit’s lumpy and you smell awful. Hey, I call ‘em like I see ‘em, I’m a whale biologist.


    The suit was ugly! Whale biologist.


    Introducing Mushu! The educated whale who thinks he’s better than you!


    Stop him! He’s got aquarium property!

    Better do what he says; he’s a whale biologist.








  • hihi24522@lemm.eetomemes@lemmy.worldhow dare they
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    If you assume that a “bullet” is a unit of momentum (the mass and velocity of a bullet) and “square child” is actually just referring to the mass of a child who happens to be square shaped and not the mass of a child squared, then “bullets per square child” is describing valid units for a velocity