How can we stop going around in circles with these corrupted nihilists? (basically an extreme religious-nut but in reverse; no meaning, no value, no good/bad, nothing matters) I've compiled some of my thoughts/comments.

But first If you are not caught up yet:
1 Re: Vegan Gains ...The Militant Vegan Raffaela Interview - (May 12, 2024)
2 Vegan Gains is a sub-Jerkivest [5/11/24]
3 Moral Realism Debate w/ Inmendham - (May 16, 2024)
4 WTF #899: The vegan gains debate ... Value realism - (May 19, 2024)
5 Vegan Gains ...Denialism is the only nihilism [5/19/24]
also saw this Controversial Topics with Vegan Gains (Horse Riding, Bivalves, Depression, and much more!) - (May 11, 2024) ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ (he thinks in terms of some dogmatic religious brain-rot morality source of right/wrong, but a kind of reversed/opposite conclusion of it's absence, nihilism)
the very reason religion was invented in the first place was because humans by nature had a value-engine driving them & NEED for meaning, that's the irony. value gave rise to religion, religion never needed to grant value. The fact people can't grasp this. 🤦 ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

Now onto the various arguments, sorry how long and out of order it is But the idea is to provoke you coming up with better ideas/arguments, and if you can critic and strenghen my and ultimately inmendham's arguments. The GOAL should be to Create a formal argument AKA a syllogism, modus ponens. Something clear and concise that can't be taken out of context or misinterpreted, as happened with the debate...

On the subject of Efilism, tread lightly, the philosophy and argument extends beyond merely focusing on suffering; it also includes the critical issue of consent violation. Its proponent and creator, Inmendham, argues for value realism, which contrasts starkly with the notion of subjective morality which I find illogical. While objective morality is full of baggage... often linked to outdated religious doctrine so on face value it's not fun or easy subject to broach... many contemporary non-religious ethicists ground it in realism. Personally me, inmendham and others see no use for the term "morality" as it's tainted. value-realism is the subject. Is it a value-laden universe or not?
it is not necessary to call TRUE/REAL right or wrong Objective, because if objective is defined as mind-independent than without minds there's nothing right/wrong to happen to, therefore THE discussion should be just regarding what is TRUE or NOT, subjective doesn't necessarily mean mere contrived opinion or preference but can be logical conclusion, e.g. you can conclude 2 + 2 = 4 as we understand these concepts of numbers to model reality but can you call it objective or mind-independent 2 + 2 = 4, or that math exists? Not really. As you require a modeler to model reality, an observer to make the observation, a mind to come to such accurate conclusions. To me, claiming there is no real right or wrong is akin to asserting that moral standards and ultimately the subject of Ethics is as fictitious as religion or Santa Claus, you just believe it cause you want to or have preference to. Why maintain this pretense if it's all a mere fabrication / contrivance?
Regarding subjective judgments such as determining "What's the tastiest potato chip or the most beautiful painting?", these are not factual assessments about the things themselves, The question itself is misleading, because the thing itself has none of those qualities objectively, Instead, such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by the interaction of our bodies and minds with these INPUT items, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences. You might get off more on certain female body part than another, it doesn't matter, the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant... not what specific fun or hobby gets you or them off or pushes their buttons.
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to that personal individual, or gross to another, and we can talk about intersubjective truths with averages overall. But one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually, as you are likely not even sharing the same exact experiences to judge differently. And one's very perception or framing of the experience changes the experience itself, no way around this truth. Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
It's important to recognize that differing opinions of personal taste do not inherently conflict in the way ethical contradictions do. With ethical matters, asserting that two diametrically opposed views are equally valid is problematic, either one is right and the other wrong, or both might be based on flawed reasoning. Pretending 2 opposing ethical views can be both equally right/true/correct is utter contradictory mush, either one of them must be right / wrong, or both are contrived meaningless nothing opinions, just made up. you wouldn't say whether one believes in god or not IS mere personal opinion/preference and such 2 opposing views can be equally right at same time, that's utter contradictory nonsense, by saying 2 opinions that gRAPE is both good & bad at same time are equally right opinons, right loses all meaning and you might as well say neither is right and both are wrong, they each have their own contrived fairytale delusion.
Now with Ethics of right / wrong, it does not depend on one single individual's preference or opinion, but taken as the whole, if you violate one without consent you still have to account for that since you are seemingly putting the weight on the preference otherwise preferences are utterly meaningless and irrelevant.
ALSO, Do you call whatever you prefer what's right, or do you prefer to try to do what is right?
Do you prefer to seek out what is the right most accurate conclusion given all the facts of reality, or contrive right to be what's in your preference/interest or personal gain?
I don't think VG or most these talking heads understand value-realism (problematic events within subjectivity/a non-physical but REAL reality of the mind). Obviously there's no objective divine or otherwise prime-directive moral-rules we must follow. Unfortunately Religion has poisened the conversation so much with archaic ideas and mushy terms like 'Morality'. Understand there is no 'moral truth', let alone an objective one, ofc if you pigeon-hole me or all realists into defending such nonsense it's easy to refute them. What I'm interested in is subject of Ethics, and to start whether or not value/problematic events exist or do not exist.
Here's a silly question by nihilists: "why is suffering bad?"
Response: How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
Or this: "prove suffering bad, objectively"
Also question-begging, obviously it is subjective. If such badness cannot exist mind-independently by definition.
"Prove suffering is bad, objectively"
is begging the question, because...
It strawmans / assumes the badness must be bad mind-independently, it isn't therefore, it isn't bad.
Answer this, evolutionarily do animals PERCEIVE being tortured skinned alive nail in the eye as BAD, or does it impose torture which we RECOGNIZE and define as Bad by definition?
If true PAIN/torture isn't bad then why does it exist evolutionarily? Answer: (problem -> solution) mechanism which functions as ability to learn & improved survival, this mechanism was reinforced over time as it worked.
inmendham & realists like myself argue: it is the case Descriptively, Objectively evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-value-judgements onto animals which function as a learning/problem solving mechanism. Fact is, the invention of 'PROBLEM' is something I/we/animals had nothing to do with... (no-free-will-choice) but are simply byproduct in observation of this fact.
If real PROBLEM(s) didn't truly exist then Arguably the word and conceptual understanding it points 👉 to wouldn't exist either. As if beings could be truly blind never seeing colors/vision yet pulling the idea out of thin air and conceiving of such a thing, how preposterous, that'd be giving human creativity/imagination way too much credit. The only nihilist argument then is that by evolution we & all feeling organisms are somehow ultimately deluded or have illusion of problem where there is none, which I find deeply implausible. Run the torture study/experiment a million times putting people's arm in the fire "yep still bad". Filtering out people who lack ability to feel pain of course.
As evolutionary biologists even states pain is a message to the animal "don't do that again". Can't get descriptively prescriptive more than that.
Are You Getting It?
The Ought is literally baked in as an IS. The is-ought gap to be bridged is a complete Red-Herring, yes you can't derive an Ought from an IS, because if you oughtn't do something, then it can never be BAD... problematic/BAD/torture can't mean anything if it doesn't scream OUGHT-not.
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
This is Checkmate. These are irrefutable Facts & Logical deductions.
So much for it all being false-perception, the very fact placebo patients perceive an otherwise harmless laser as BAD/painful makes it so. It's the TRUE reality in their mind and you can't deny that fact. It's also a fact believing a pain isn't really all that bad can make it so, but this doesn't make these value-laden experiences NOT real/true.
As per evolution, your body/brain's mechanisms must generate & impose a prescriptive-value-judgement / problematic event within your mind,
It's nagging, complaining, telling you keeping your hand on the hot stove is a mistake/problematic/bad. (not in itself but as a consequence)
I believe this brain making me write all this... is making an accurate assessment when it observe certain events to be problematic/bad where it's happening which is within subjectivity, where's your evidence my perceptions are fooling me or I'm somehow deluded? I witnessed the crime take place and you were nowhere near the crime scene yet you have the authority to claim otherwise as fact? (You are not simply agnostic to my problem suffering but a De-nihilist)
Once one accepts this evolutionary fact we can move on to more complicated questions regarding ethics, like how do weigh the good & the bad, conflicting preferences, etc. Otherwise, it's all pointless & futile, like arguing bivalves or wild-suffering with a non-vegan. They're just not on that level yet and it's a waste of time.
revised version of my other comment: I believe that many discussions around morality miss a crucial point about value-realism, which acknowledges problematic events within subjectivity, a non-physical but real reality of the mind. It is evident that there are no objective, divine, or prime-directive moral rules we must follow. Unfortunately, religion has muddied the conversation with archaic ideas and terms like 'morality'.
There is no 'moral truth,' especially not an objective one. If critics pigeonhole realists into defending such notions, it becomes easy to refute them. My interest lies in ethics and whether value/problematic events exist.
Consider this question by nihilists: "Why is suffering bad?"
Response: Suffering is identified because it feels bad, subjectively. Just as we subjectively understand 2+2=4, we can recognize suffering through its unpleasant experience.
When asked to "prove suffering is bad, objectively," this is question-begging, as the question assumes that the badness must exist independently of minds, which it does not by definition. This question straw-mans the issue by requiring mind-independent badness, ignoring the subjective nature of suffering. As if the quality of it being BAD must be granted by something outside the experience itself.
Evolutionary Perspective: Animals perceive and react to torture (e.g., being skinned alive) as bad because evolution has imposed mechanisms that signal harm. Pain serves as a problem-solving mechanism, reinforcing behaviors that enhance survival. If pain and suffering weren't inherently problematic, they wouldn’t exist in the form they do.
Realists like myself argue that evolution has objectively imposed prescriptive-value judgments on animals. The concept of 'problem' or 'bad' arises from these evolutionary mechanisms, not from free will. The existence of these concepts indicates the reality of these problematic experiences.
If real problems didn’t exist, neither would the concepts describing them. This is akin to how beings blind from birth wouldn’t conceive of color. Suggesting that evolutionary processes have universally deluded all feeling organisms into perceiving problems where there are none is implausible.
As evolutionary biologists state, pain signals to the animal, "don't do that again," which is descriptively prescriptive. The 'ought' is embedded within the 'is.' Thus, the is-ought gap is a red herring because prescriptive judgments are evolutionarily ingrained.
Again, How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
Conclusion: By acknowledging that evolution created inherently negative experiences like torture, we accept that these experiences are bad by definition. Denying the badness of creating bad experiences is contradictory. Therefore, once recognizing the true reality of subjective experiences, only then we can move on to complex ethical questions about weighing good and bad and addressing conflicting preferences.
playing devil's advocate let's try Steelman their position and then arrive at the logical conclusions of it and then perhaps refute it. If they say: "veganism = right" realize there is no contradiction IF by 'right' they just mean it's literally nothing but their preference...
There's no goal to prefer to know/do what's right, RATHER what's right is whatever matches our personal preferences, so unlike flat earther vs round earth beliefs/CLAIMs which can contradict/conflict with each other since either 1 is right or both are wrong. Individual tastes don't.
Whereas if VG says 9 people gRAPE the 1 kid for fun is WRONG because he's a threshold-deontologist but Also RIGHT to a hedonistic utilitarian, Those views only contradict/conflict if they are making VALUE-claims or recognizing a problematic event take place. However, with VG apparently he would have to say he's not claiming or labelling anything as TRULY problematic at all but merely describing his preferences like flavor of ice cream...
Now, of course, as the realist, I find such a view more deplorable/worse than if they were merely agnostic on right/wrong. Cause it's one thing to say there's a right answer to questions of Ethics but we have no objective scientific basis to determine it yet or lack knowledge VS saying they have knowledge there is absolutely no right or wrong.
Under Anti-realism nihilism, what they mean by wrong/right, is just their preference, if I understand correctly (which I'm quite sure) Anti-realism nihilism reduces the Subject of Ethics down to nothing but you or someone else pontificating/opining (i.e "me no like torture") . It defends some sort of expressivism, emotivism, normative, prescriptive reduction of Ethics. Which I find lubricious and has to be a mistake,
I don't see anyone playing any different game even the nihilists invest their money and plan ahead for self-interest, no one truly signs up for torture for fun like it's no problem, and runs away from pleasure happiness as bad. Further, it stands to reason... since we can recognize objectively evolution created a punishment mechanism to enforce learning and survival, BAD/PROBLEM as a concept is something I/WE/Animals had nothing to do with. We didn't invent it, we recognize it and respond accordingly. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated that pain is a message to the organism 'don't do that again!'
We must address further the flawed logic of VG and other nihilists reducing Ethics down to mere arbitrary preferences like potato chip flavor, or how much salt you prefer in the soup. As it is completely disanalogous & dishonest upon reflection. QUOTE: "There's no arguing against Efilism, it's just personal opinion. Like arguing what tastes better... ice-cream or potato chips?"
Say if you believe that the mona-lisa is beautiful, and I personally find it ugly, this conflicts/contradicts nothing because it claims nothing in terms about that object or reality outside of our own minds.
such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by body/mind from these INPUTs, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences.
it doesn't matter what specific fun or hobby gets them off or pushes their buttons in order for it MATTER, those differences don't make it any less real OR all mere subjective opinion. the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant...
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to some personal individual, or gross to another, one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually because it is the reality in their mind, Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
while one person may find a certain food delicious, another may find it repulsive, without invalidating each other's experiences because they are true for them individually. both experiences are valid/correct.
However, actions that disregard another's negative experience invalidate their reality. if you find being boiled alive problematic and I do it anyway believing it's ok, I am invalidating your experience as either not real, relevant, doesn't matter, or my preferences are more important (carry more weight) than yours. Or simply believe it's ALL equal or arbitrary and I just prefer to exploit you so I do that.
Positive or negative experiences are largely consistent among people, making them relevant, regardless of the specific stimuli. Individual truths about taste or preference coexist without contradiction, reflecting each person's value-generated reality.
This cannot honestly be applied to one's mere opinion it's fine to boil kids alive, as you are invalidating the fact that it matters to those victims. You saying it doesn't matter or your gain of pleasure outweighs their loss of pain, is a claim about the reality of events going on in their mind, so there is room for conflict/contradiction. They can't both be right/wrong at the exact same time.
A strong non-intuition argument/claim & facts presented render value-nihilism implausible:
It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Therefore, BAD/PROBLEM isn't mere subjective opinion but something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are mere by-product reacting to an observation.
This is pretty much the only base-axiom needed to ground my own torture as mattering as the original actual value-currency at stake. That paired with the fact I sampled consciousness and know it matters to me whether or not I am tortured, the fact that I personally observe it as problematic makes it the true reality for my own mind...
...AND it's not mere opinion/proclamation / or idea humans creatively invented out of thin air... as if like everyone could be truly blind yet conceptualizing colovision, makes no sense. plus that's giving humanity way too much credit of imagination.
Can't really have thoughts about information that you don't have. The concept of bad/problem arguably wouldn't even exist if it never was so.
Yes, I agree very semantics. I am attempting to shed clarity on this topic. Looking at the word "BAD" purely in a descriptive sense (e.g., that which can be categorically applied to extreme suffering) it loses all meaning if it's not truly consequential (i.e., it matters whether one experiences bad or not). If it doesn't actually matter ("no problemo") then it can't be bad, only an illusion/delusion of it, yet it's an effective one evolution imposed on organisms as a learning/problem-solving mechanism. The value-realists like myself have every reason to believe evolution created the real thing, not some contrived pseudo-problem organisms feel compelled/obligated to solve.
One only requires the axiom of a Descriptive Bad to ground Ethics. Why? Because it can be argued that a descriptive statement of BAD/problem is prescriptive by it's very nature in the meaning the of word/language.(otherwise its psuedo-bad/fake langauge, redefines bad as aversion/mere preference against) Otherwise, it can't mean anything to be bad, torturously obnoxious, unwanted experiential events couldn't mean anything. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins even state pain is a punishment signal/message to the animal: "Don't do that again!" If those aren't prescriptions imposed, then I don't know what is. The animal doesn't simply decide/prefer to avoid the event and finds it bad, it's told/finds it bad and so prefers to avoid the event/problem. If god or there were some logically or physically possible way it were to be invented how else would it exist?, or what you think evolution's reward & punishment mechanism accomplished? If it didn't synthesize problematic sensations to force organisms to solve?
Evolution prescribes Needs/wants, at the same time imposes a PAIN/PROBLEM of starvation/hunger which by it's very nature is a prescription for solution (i.e. sustenance/relief/comfort.)
By the very nature of "PROBLEM" it prescribes -> "SOLUTION" not merely a contrived or trivial-like on paper math problem, but the origin of why the word even exists: the problem of pain, a true whip/punishment mechanism, real currency to play with, real loss. Idk how you can describe something categorically as a PROBLEM in the true sense of the word if it doesn't come with it a necessary prescription for its solution. Because if there is no NEED for a solution, then it turns into no longer a problem again...
I don't see how it could be any other way because if there's no real game to be playing with value baked into it, then money would be worthless/not even exist, animals wouldn't bother evade standing in the fire, etc.
Saying It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Is the same as saying Evolution IMPOSED torture/BAD, as that's what torture/bad is... a prescribed need for solution to a problem which is some form of relief/comfort.
The prescription arises as a result of accepting step 1. (which nihilists reject/deny) problem solution. The latter does not follow/exist without the former. basic 2+2 = 4 logic. There's no point figuring out the answer to the math equation, if we don't agree first and foremost a problem exists. Nor how to solve a disease, if we don't first and foremost recognize a disease exists. And so, Any debate with nihilists on step 2: of determining what is the most likely solution / right answer becomes irrelevent and a waste of time. Arguing about whether x or y IS the right answer to fixing/preventing diabetes is pointless when they don't even agree the really disease exists. They don't believe an actual real BAD / Problem exists.
VG reduces it down to mere preferences, his reasonings that even if universally sentience prefers not suffebe tortured... Well, just because it is the case descriptively we prefer to avoid suffering doesn't mean we ought/should prevent suffering. He hasn't bridged the IS-OUGHT gap. But he got it backwards,
the claim/argument... ISN'T that because descriptively, sentience universally has a preference to avoid suffering, it is therefore bad,
the claim/argument... IS that it's descriptively bad/problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it,
Again you can't classify/label something as a problem if it's inconsequential whether it is solved or not. The word loses all meaning. If something NEEDs solving/fixing it means there's a problem, if there's a problem it means there's something NEED solving/fixing. Evolution manufactures these needy problems in organisms to manipulate and control them.
Merely what our preferences are IS NOT relevant, preference "frustration" arguably IS. (if preferences couldn't be frustrated "i.e., no value" than it wouldn't matter which way things turned out)
You can have a preference for some art style over another, if we were just programmed non-feeling robots that preferred to avoid standing in the fire, but there was no real kernel of value/bad, then it wouldn't matter.
Let's imagine something was Objectively PROBLEMATIC, an IS statement. What would a real problem look like? something in NEED of a solution. Again, why? because If it doesn't matter whether or not it exists or is Solved or not, it could never be a problem in the first place. So either this problem exists or it doesn't. (NOTE: it doesn't need to be an objective problem to be REAL, "i.e mind-independent")
Next, if ASI or sentient beings were to sample this "problem", would it not be the case they would logically deduce it's in need of a solution? And assign their preferences accordingly to solving it? Cause again otherwise then you just see it as "no-problemo" again.
"If Inmendham's argument is that sentient beings create value, and that the universe has no value without the presence of a sentient being generating it, would it not follow that the ought is inherently built into sensation?" yes but the way VG unfairly reframes it is that we subjectively place value on it, THAT it's entirely subjective, like you prefer salty or sweet, or certain ice cream flavor. emphasizing that it's entirely subjective opinion. Take a look at his unfair silly example: "we can't say pineapple on pizza is objectively tasty or not..." this shows a complete ineptitude in grasping the subject and misrepresenting the argument like crazy, no one is arguing whether Mona Lisa is objectively beautiful or some such thing.
What is being argued: the positive or negative mind-dependent event produced in response to the sensual or perceptual stimuli, the input (object) is irrelevant, only the output (experience) matters and what the value-engine (BRAIN) produced. What pushes your buttons so to speak, blue jelly beans or green jelly beans, could differ between 2 individuals but the shared experience is the same more or less. Whether you wired to find pineapple on pizza tasty or gross is irrelevant, some people find bricks edible.
Main issue is they talking past each other: what inmendham is arguing for was either not expressed as best it could be, and/or VG does not quite comprehend what is being argued... inmendham claims/argues evolution created the real bad/PROBLEM and we respond in recognition of this fact/truth with preferences that follow accordingly, Logic cannot be escaped, once you know 2+2 = 4, you can't will or believe it to be 79. If you know the right answer "torture be Bad M'kay?" obviously you won't act or behave otherwise and say you love it. What could it mean to have a preference against experiencing torture... does such a statement even make any sense? All that is required is a real BAD to exist... and then the preference to avoid it logically follows, an inescapable truth. Unless he thinks I also choose or prefer to believe 2+2 = 4 ?
Essentially VG keeps counter-arguing that: "yes we want to avoid torture, but that's just your preference... just cause universally sentience has a preference against torture (a Descriptive / IS statement) doesn't logically follow some Normative/Prescriptive claim/statement. That just because something IS the case it doesn't follow that we OUGHT / should do X, like help others, prevent suffering, etc. That's a non-sequitur he says. Ultimately it's just a preference." sure but...
His argument only applies/counters a strawman position in his head: Because of this I and other realists can account for / side-step it completely, we aren't attempting to derive an OUGHT from an IS. e.g strawman: "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore it's BAD." Or "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore we OUGHT prevent it"
The actual argument is that it's Truly Bad/Problematic by the very nature of the word, Therefore first-hand observation follows universally a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around.
"If the only thing that can have meaning in the universe is the experience of a sentient being, ought we not maximize its value just by nature of its experience being the only thing that can matter?" yes the ought is a further logical extension of recognizing it to be a problem, which denotes/demands a solution, otherwise if it doesn't matter to solve it or not then you've turned it into a non-problem again. So it can only be categorically one or the other.
Issue of semantics, different terminology and definitions: as long as VG defines objective as "mind-independent" and sets the goal-post to the realist to find a mind-independent "wrong/bad" as if somehow we need some divine-command or absolute rule in the universe that declares it so... then there is no fruit to the discussion. suffering/bad takes place in the mind/experience, so of course it's unfair to ask one to present a mind-independent suffering/bad in the universe, it is begging the question. To be fair inmendham uses the term objective and could have done better job with defining/pushing his terms "e.g. objective as truth/real/fact" and not let VG impose in his own. However, I don't ascribe a requirement to demonstrate an Objective BAD to ground a BAD as real, valid, and true; it can be entirely based on Subjectivist grounds/axiomatic foundations.
Just because the BAD takes place within subjectivity doesn't make it any less real (non-physical/immaterial sure... but not unreal). VG and nihilists can't understand this. 2+2 = 4 is subjective as is all science ultimately as a root axiomatic-fact... as an observation requires an observer. This doesn't mean realism can't be proven/grounded, it can just like we can know 2+2=4 and the moon exists. If anti-realism is gonna deny subjective truths because it's subjective, then one can't know much of anything and reduces to solipsism. I am more certain I exist and the reality of "perceived" BAD I experience is actually a real BAD... THAN that the moon even exists or any other scientific empirical claim.
PROBLEM is something I/we/animals had Nothing to do with, we didn't invent it.
If Anti-realism nihilism was True and Real "PROBLEMS" didn't exist the word wouldn't exist. It is like being born never knowing or seeing or experiencing vision & color, it's impossible to contrive or imagine it. Some knowledge & information is only accessible through experience.
Even Richard Dawkins stated, "pain is a message to the animal Don't do that again!"
If the ought exists within subjectivity, as preferences, why would them being Subjective vs Objective determine whether or not their violation matters? If one experiences disgust looking at something AND another finds beauty... both are true realities for them, they don't conflict or contradict like empirical or fact claims, but instead both are correct and relevant, not one or the other, BECAUSE when someone says the mona Lisa is beautiful they are just saying it arises in them a sense of beauty, the thing/input is irrelevant whereas the output in mind is what is relevant and true for their reality.
Subjective =/= not true, I don't understand the dichotomy between objective vs subjective ethics, as if there isn't facts to glean about subjectivity.
There's also definition or semantic problems:
objective (mind-independent) vs subjective (mind-dependent)
Under such definition does it make sense to say Objectively evolution created feeling experiencing organisms having sense of taste, smell, sound, hunger, pain, to survive. So can we apply word objective to mind-dependent experiences or not?
And of course under such definition there is no objective mind-independent ethics as without minds there is no feeling subject of concern to even talk about in first place. So how silly...
Yet they take objective to mean True & Subjective made up or mere contrived opinion.
For me these are semantic word games that distract, I just care about what's fact/true. What many don't get is Even science, math is subjective invention, byproduct of subjective tool of language, doesn't mean we can't create an accurate model and picture of reality.
I believe the Is-Ought gap is a red-herring, sure it's true you can't contrive an Ought from just what IS, but with evolution the OUGHT statement is built-in, it's descriptively a prescriptive value statement imposed on me, I/we/animals literally have nothing to do with it, I'm just by-product an observer. This is key understanding.
There exists no objective or divine commandment "you OUGHT do X" written into the fabric of reality, and therefore if you don't that's Bad, No. That's nonsense/impossible logically.
Rather an Descriptive IS statement of X is a real bad/PROBLEM, denotes/demands a solution by it's very nature of the word, otherwise if it doesn't need solving then it becomes into a non-problem again, so either x categorically IS a PROBLEM or it's not.
The claim/argument... Is that it's Descriptively BAD/Problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around. Our personal preference against torture forever doesn't make it therefore bad. The prescription is built in, forced onto us.
It's like "STOP!" & "GO" What do you say to a dog? "BAD dog!" This is saying it should or shouldn't do something. basically = "No!" "Stop!" That's a prescriptive statement/signal/conveyed message.
Or simply, alls required is Descriptively diagnose Torture as Problematic. Which implies Problem Solution Without necessity of solution there is no problem at all, likewise without problem solution means nothing.
​So you essentially boiled my position down to: "Evolution programmed preference to avoid torture." or "we evolved preference to avoid torture" Does that sound incoherent or what... as if I would make such a silly claim. Keep straw-manning.
Do you think animals have PREFERENCE by default to avoid being tortured burned alive and have sex, or logically preferences are born out of observing problematic negative / positive assigned accordingly through punishment & reward mechanisms aka prescriptions, think long and hard about this one...
This is why value or ethical nihilism is incoherent to me. IF torture be bad, how can it be NOT-bad/neutral to create BAD?
It either is truly BAD or it isn't. It's either real or it's an illusion/delusion and false perception.
Their position must reduce to there is no MEANINGFUL difference between Torture & Bliss. And evolution didn't create any problematic sensation or true punishment whatsoever. Instead, were somehow deluded to view being boiling alive as problematic sensation/BAD, and relief as good, we can't tell the difference or label which is which...
Vegan Gains or any anti-realist needs to substantiate these anti-realist nihilist claims & concede if he agrees with the statements below:
"The value-laden problematic BAD experience of being tortured boiled alive in a vat of acid indefinitely... isn't really bad, evolution didn't successfully impose a real negative punishment mechanism on animals, torture isn't something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are just byproduct observing the imposition, NO! Instead our opinion has everything to do with it... what's problematic torture, one is merely subjectively interpreting/inventing/proclaiming it to be so! Evolution failed!"
"Animals run from fire cause they irrationally unreasonably subjectively interpret it to be bad/problematic sensation or experience, not cause DNA molecule made it so objectively for evolutionary reasons"
"It is all subjective preference like flavor of potato chips, problematic torturous experience isn't bad you just think it's bad or have preference against it."
"You don't logically recognize intrinsic problematic torturous experience then logically assign solution to problem which is preference to avoid that experience, No, you merely have subjective delusional preference against a nail in your eye and there is no logic to it"
"Good is Bad, and Bad is Good depending on opinion, no right or wrong, all subjective tho"
value anti-realism nihilism. INSANE! WORSE than a flat-earth theory!

For dependable transportation to and from with Leeds Bradford Airport taxi, trust Kabbi Compare's efficient services. Whether you need a Leeds Bradford Airport minibus or a taxi, we've got you covered. Our dedicated team ensures prompt and reliable service, providing peace of mind for your airport transfers. Say goodbye to the hassle of finding transportation – with Kabbi Compare, your journey is simplified. Whether you're travelling alone or with a group, our fleet of vehicles, including minibuses and taxis, cater to your needs. Enjoy comfortable rides and affordable fares. Book your airport transportation with Kabbi Compare today and experience stress-free travel from start to finish. call us at 02013087659 to get a quote.

In the world of Black Satta King, success doesn't come easy. It's a game of strategy, wit, and perseverance. To rise above the competition and claim your throne, you need more than just luck on your side. You need a comprehensive understanding of the game and a set of winning strategies to guide your every move. In this guide, we delve deep into the essential strategies that every Black Satta King player must know to conquer the game.

Understanding the Basics

Before diving into advanced strategies, it's crucial to grasp the fundamentals of Black Satta King. At its core, Black Satta King is a game of chance where players bet on numbers between 00 and 99. The winning number is drawn at random, and players who correctly guess the number receive a payout. While luck plays a significant role in the outcome, seasoned players understand that strategic gameplay can tilt the odds in their favor.

Mastering Risk Management

One of the key strategies for success in Black Satta King is effective risk management. As with any form of gambling, there's always a risk of losing money. However, by carefully managing your bets and bankroll, you can minimize losses and maximize profits. A common tactic employed by experienced players is to diversify their bets across multiple numbers to spread risk. Additionally, setting strict limits on the amount you're willing to bet and sticking to them is essential for long-term success.

Analyzing Patterns and Trends

In the world of Black Satta King, patterns and trends often emerge from the chaos. By analyzing past results and identifying recurring patterns, players can gain valuable insights that inform their betting decisions. Some players prefer to rely on statistical analysis and probability theory to identify potential winning numbers, while others trust their intuition and gut feeling. Whichever approach you choose, paying close attention to patterns and trends can give you a competitive edge in the game.

Leveraging Technology

In today's digital age, technology has revolutionized the way we play and approach Black Satta King. From online betting platforms to mobile apps that provide real-time updates and analysis, players now have access to a wealth of tools and resources at their fingertips. Leveraging technology can streamline your gameplay, allowing you to make informed decisions quickly and efficiently. Whether it's tracking results, studying trends, or placing bets on the go, embracing technology can enhance your overall gaming experience.

Staying Disciplined

Perhaps the most underrated yet critical strategy for success in Black Satta King is discipline. It's easy to get caught up in the excitement of the game and make impulsive decisions based on emotion rather than logic. However, disciplined players understand the importance of sticking to their strategy and remaining level-headed, even in the face of adversity. Whether you're on a winning streak or facing a string of losses, maintaining discipline is essential for long-term success in the game.

Conclusion

In conclusion, mastering Black Satta King requires a combination of skill, strategy, and discipline. By understanding the fundamentals of the game, mastering risk management, analyzing patterns and trends, leveraging technology, and staying disciplined, players can increase their chances of success and come out on top. While luck will always play a role, it's the strategic decisions you make that will ultimately determine your fate in the game.

Good day! I few years ago, I finally became an independent contractor, and I specialize in exterior work. Recently, I added Bolster to my "contractor toolkit." it essentially streamlines the quoting process, design editing, customer preference editing, etc. I've been very satisfied with its output, but I have one giant problem. I don't have the fogiest idea how to save the designs for future reference?
Just to make sure that you know what I mean, two months ago, I made the design for a suburban backyard in Chester. It was actually one of my best works. I really liked the irrigation system I selected; the way I seamlessly connected it to the water fountain in the center and also the roofing for the toolshed was quite harmonious with the rest of the property. I would really like to save it for future reference, In case I get the same type of client, but I have no idea how. I don't even know what type of file would that be? It can't be a PDF because it loses all interactivity and the real-time price updates. Maybe it is something proprietary that I don't know about.
All in all, I reeally need any help I can get. Ideally, someone who also uses Bolster could help me (because I really got used to it). However, if Bolster lacks this function, I am willing to switch to other apps.
Thank you in advance!

Hi everyone! I'm hoping to get some advice on integrating new technologies into my business. I've been working in custom home building for the past 20 years, and I always liked to do all the paperwork, quoting process, and others by pen and paper because this is what I was taught and used all my career. However, my business has been steadily going south over the past few years. I've looked it up online, and it supposedly reduces estimation times and makes things more efficient. No doubt this is true, but I have no idea how it works. Could anyone enlighten me on how the estimation and quoting processes take place? I'm also curious if you had any experience with it and if it can be trusted? Does it have a bias toward bigger, more established sellers, or does it also include smaller shops? What software has a comprehensive guide (maybe a detailed blog or an active YouTube channel) and very responsive customer support? I am an old man now and very green when it comes to technology in general, not only with this specific construction estimating software. Any experience you have is invaluable! Thank you for your time!

Obligatory on mobile so awkward formatting and throwaway because he knows my reddit account. Long story.
I come to ask the Reddit crowd to be kind with me as I legitimately have no idea what to do. My boyfriend and I have been dating for 7 months now and are on the verge of a break-up because of several reasons.

• His long term ex girlfriend has been harassing us for 7 months. I've blocked her everywhere but she is adamant on contacting me. Her messages usually vary from asking for forgiveness, her moving on, I'm ugly and other insults about my appearance and identity, how she was the third party, how I was the third party, how desperate I am, how she cares about me, how she plans to destroy my academic and social life, etc.
  
• They had closure sex a few days before we went on our first date. In his defense, we were not exclusive back then and I told him before in the past that I'd probably find someone like him but not him specifically to date; and that I didn't date; so he only confessed because I pushed him to under the impression he liked another girl. Ex girlfriend shared some of their deleted conversation and he had been refusing to meet with her. They only met that day because she had gone to the front door of their home and up until the end of their conversation he was angry and asking for her to leave.
  
• He confessed the closure sex happened before we agreed to start seeing each other exclusively. But he didn't tell me exactly when it happened, just that it was recent to that conversation. When his ex girlfriend told me by blasting my face on social media the exact dates, he denied it happened on those specific days. He assured me for 4 months that it did not happen.
  
• According to him, she had been pestering him for a few weeks prior to that meeting and promised to stop her advances if they had one final time together. They had sex and a few days later, he told me that I shouldn't worry about her possibly pestering us because he had already "fixed" the problem.
  
• Ex girlfriend was not satisfied and kept messaging for him to go back to her with clips of her slashing her wrists, warning him that she would really kill herself, sending goodbye messages, etc. He at first would respond and tried to call her a few times to check if she was still alive but ended their conversation after he had mailed her remaining stuff back to her (a few essentials: IDs, etc.) After that, she waited for him outside his house several times to beg either inebriated or sober. Other times she would send messages through financial apps with those short messages because he had blocked her on everything even GMail.
  
• He says he doesn't want to go back to that relationship because of how emotionally draining it was. I can vouch for this detail because he had been saying this even before we liked each other, and I had seen their correspondences with each other over the years. She had an unbelievable amount of fake accounts she would cycle through because she would get verbally abusive (you're ugly, you deserve none of the success you have right now, posting his nudes, sending wrist slicing videos, you're lucky I decided to love you, etc.) and would blow up over seemingly nothing. Her own admission, she would get into fits that would end up either getting them into physical fights or him trying to hug her and sort of hold her down until she calms.
  
• He has her blocked everywhere but would occasionally view her Tiktok. He says he isn't in love with her anymore and does not desire a relationship, just that a part of him still cares for her and feels bad because he had promised that he was never going to leave but did.
  
• Up until recently, she was trying to reach out to my friends (people she does not know) and had been telling them I was a third party. She made a groupchat and asked my friends not to tell me and my boyfriend (they did tell us).
  
• She had messaged me multiple times that she knew where I lived and studied and that she was going to wait for me outside my buildings. I didn't want to talk to her before because I had already seen her tendencies based on their correspondences and her messages to me, and I still don't want to contact her even now. She talks shit about my identity, my vag*na, my deceased parents, everything she can target to get under my skin.
  

My boyfriend is adamant he does not hold romantic feelings for her anymore and that he isn't staying because I'm the safer option (in the sense that I am avoidant and have admittedly blindsided my past situationships/ partners and could very well do the same with him). He tells me he's not settling for me and that he genuinely wants to make our relationship work because he knows he only has one shot with me and that he feels genuine for me. It is easier for the both of us to leave the relationship because both are avoidant people, but he is trying to go against his trauma and avoidant tendencies to remain with me. He just fails sometimes (checking her tiktok, etc.)
Currently, we are very open with one another and have good communication (regular relationship checks, we never get into screaming matches). He has never called me names, he takes responsibility for his actions and has accepted blame for every single event that has happened (the lying, the tiktok, ex's harassment) and has not done those since we discussed each issue. Another is that he has been improving himself and his tendencies that hurt me emotionally as well (fixing problems on his own and only informing me they exist well after the fact, not sharing emotions, etc.). I have trouble vouching for this because we had just become friends later in the previous year, but from what I can logically deduce it is true.
THE PROBLEM, finally. I am losing feelings for him because I feel underappreciated, undervalued, and I genuinely feel like I was his second option. Due to the amalgamation of the things we have faced together, I am misinterpreting the pain from those into distrust for him.
To his credit, and if you remove the harassment problem, he has been a good boyfriend to me. We used to regularly go out on dates (used to because both of us are swamped with work, so now he just invites me to future plans after we finish said work), he cooks me food and pays for my meals whenever I allow it (gifts and gestures like this make me feel like I'm a callgirl so we avoid it), bringing me to events I would enjoy (movie showings, concerts, recreational parks) for free (he pays), is physically affectionate, and accompanies me in my commute everyday to and from work regardless if we have fought each other that day, would physically go to me just to talk, spends hours past his curfew if our serious conversations have not finished, etc.
I genuinely still want to work on my trust for him, I want to gain it back and move past our problems. I want to be able to support him because I do know I would also be fucked up if I came from said experience. I don't want to leave him alone because I empathize with what he has gone through and the effects they have on him, but I don't know how to help him. More importantly, I don't know how to process my own feelings about the matter.
This is an incredibly long post and I realize the easier way would be to leave. But I want to give our relationship a fighting chance before we break up. It's not the smart choice, it's not the beneficial choice either. But it's a choice I'm still considering.
TLDR: Because of harassment and other problems, I feel unloved and underappreciated by my boyfriend and am falling out of love. How do I stop losing feelings for him because of circumstances?

Has anyone experienced these symptoms
So for the past month I've been suffering for I'm guessing a bad flare up in my stomach. I was taking 40mg of omeprazole and a few months ago was feeling great, eating the food I loved so I made the dumb mistake to stopped taking them cold turkey. Well a month ago I had the worst acid dump and wreaked havoc in my stomach and esophagus. I had this happen a year ago and I stopped eating and lost 20lbs. Now I feel like I'm going down the same rabbit hole.
They symptoms are feeling like a roll of dough in the top middle of my abdomen. Pretty much my stomach area. I still have the burning sensation in my esophagus and tongue. I constantly have esophagus spasms that are driving me nuts. Keeps me up all night and gives me anxiety. Also when I eat something and when the good goes down my esophagus and right when it hits the sphincter it feels like it gets stuck for a second and then feels like it scraps it while going down into my stomach. I'm beginning to lose weight again. I do feel like I have an hemorrhoid so now having trouble passing stools. I'm in constant fight or flight mode. Body fatigue, feeling symptoms of dehydration, brain fog, when I get excited my heart rate begins to race and I feel like lava running through my vains, my throat feels tight at times and stings that comes and goes, the constant belching, can't sleep at night due to a rush of tightness that rushes in the middle of my chest that comes and goes like every 2 minutes 🥺.
I suffer from health anxiety so the first thought is stomach or esophageal cancer but from I'm getting told from people that has experienced this that it could possibly be gastritis, peptic ulcer, esophagitis at times my stomach feels inflamed when I drink water. Even when I talk I get short of breath 😟
I force myself to ear but before I do I start to get nauseated but then when I do eat I eat all my food as if I was hungry. Anxiety?? Just wanting to see some of yalls thoughts
A year ago I've gotten blood work, xrays, ultrasounds, barium swallow, stool samples, and a CT scan and all have come back negative for cancer so why can't I trust the results. If it's an ulcer how long does it take to heal and does it give you flu like symptoms when it flares up?

Okay, I know this is gonna attract some hate, but bear with me.
First off, I want to say: Hades 1 is one of my favourite games ever. I have just under 1000 hours on it, I've done everything, and while I'm not as good as some players, I'm running 30 heat consistently without losing.
I'm also a professional games designer, and while that doesn't make my opinions valid, I think I have an okay idea of general design principles.
So I've been playing Hades 2, and so far I'm not really loving it. Obviously this is still the Alpha, and theres a lot of stuff that needs to be changed before the proper release - some stuff is minor, like boon balancing, some stuff I just find baffling as a design decision (Eris "blessing"), and some stuff I appreciate might just mean the game isn't aimed at me - and thats fine.
But the major issue I have is this - the game is slow. Painfully. It seems like one of the aims of the design team was to make the game a bit less "twitchy", which is fine if thats what you want. But theres a mechanic which is compounding this and making combat honestly tedious for me.
Magick regen.
Okay, for me to explain this properly, you need to understand a big issue that hades has - that is, that melee combat kinda sucks. I want to quote Dacookieman from this subreddit, discussing Polyphemus: "Yeah it's just impossible to capitalize on openings as melee because of how all of his attacks work. If you try to play slow then mobs build up and because the hitboxes from cyclops are often overlapping the enemies they also have the same issue of not being able to capatalize on openings without taking damage. It's not quite as bad w the mobs but together it makes melee builds very brutal."
Dacookieman hits the nail on the head precisely here. Last night, I ran a build where I fought Polyphemus with the axe and zero magick regen 5 times, and consistently got wrecked. On the 6th time I was lucky enough to actually get a magick regen boon, and I destroyed him without taking a single hit.
This is obviously a HUGE difference. So why is the magick regen so important here? Because I can just stay the hell away from him.
Polyphemus, as mentioned above, is absolutely horrible against melee because of his attack pattern and wonky hitboxes. On the other hand, if you stay away from him? He can't do squat. He's like a tortoise with a chainsaw strapped to the back - dangerous yes, but easily defeatable by just moving away.
Polyphemus is far from the only boss with this issue. Almost all bosses have this problem to some degree (except Eris and Charybdis, possibly). Chronos 1st phase is especially bad. For these bosses, the consistent theme is "if you stay far enough away we cant actually hit you".
So this means that the best strategy is - time and time again - stay at range. And that means, ideally, you want to get some magick regen and a decent ranged cast. Then you just sit back, launch your omega casts over and over, and slowly destroy your opponents. And they can't really do anything to stop you.
Of course, the omega casts will cost magick, so the answer to this is to get some sortof magick regen - ideally Demeter, Apollo, Zeus or Hestia. And magick regen takes time, so this means your gameplay pattern looks like: Cast - run away - wait/regen magick - approach - repeat.
Its a horrible gameplay mechanic. It reminds me of FPS games in the 2000s where regenerating health was a thing and the "best" tactic was, after clearing a room, to just afk for 5 minutes while you got your health back.
And, because I know theres a bunch of people who insist on posting this, no, I do not need to "git gud". Being good or bad is irrelevant to negative design patterns.
There's also a ton of grind in this game (which, seperately, I'm not a massive fan of), but I want to add in here that I shouldnt be required to grind unlocks to be allowed to have fun. I genuinely enjoy doing Hades 1 fresh file runs - theyre hard, but I never feel like I'm unfairly punished. Hades 2 seem to have this attitude of "well, you're only allowed to have fun once you've put in ~20 hours and started unlocking the necessary upgrades".
When you design, you need to reward players for the patterns you want to see in the game. Doom "fixed" the health problem by allowing "Glory kills", ENCOURAGING the player to get knee deep in demons - the best gameplay choice was to play the game in the way the developers intended. At the moment, in Hades 2, the best gameplay choice is avoiding combat as much as possible and only jumping in briefly to throw out a spell.
This is also not helped by many of the areas being considerably larger, meaning that you have much more space to run away to.
Hades 1 didnt have magick, but it did have a god gauge. The god gauge powers up by damaging enemies - the gameplay loop you want to encourage. (also taking damage, but thats still promoting engaging enemies)
As the quote goes, "given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game". The optimal way to play Hades 2 is also the least fun way. Maybe you dont want to play optimally, thats fine. And maybe you think the game is fine the way it is - if you enjoy it, power to you. But for me, coming from the high intensity action of Hades 1 into this feels like I've been wading through honey. Sure its sweet, but its slow - and ultimately exhausting.

**Fujimaru Ritsuka, the Last Master of Humanity, Enemy of the Crypters, Ammo of the Black Barrel, Feller of Goetia... is batshit insane.
Let me explain.
...

Lack of Basic Understanding of Causality

Fujimaru's bizzare tendencies show up from the very beginning of FGO. According to the game, he joins Chaldea after seeing a poster and deciding to take the job on a whim.
However, Chaldea is in Antartica. The implication is thus that Fujimaru abandoned his family, abandoned his life, abandoned everything he'd ever known and loved, to go to Antartica for a job that he had no idea what was, with zero guarantee of getting the job, with no certainty of a return trip-
On a whim.
Immediately after this, while getting lectured by his potential boss, being told everything he needs to know to pass the entry test, he decides now would be a perfect time to take a nap. Understandably, his boss is miffed by the new intern with zero experience taking a nap right in front of her while she's explaining the most important part of their job, and she decides to fire him.
Fujimaru reacts to this with... nothing. He's a little concerned and stressed per his dialogues, but you'd think he'd be significantly more horrified about needing to walk back home through the Antarticas or join an oil mine at the bottom of Chaldea. Instead, he just... chills with the doctor?
When he finds out Chaldea is on fire and even all the skilled, significantly better Masters than him are dead, his reaction isn't terror or fear. Instead, he remembers a girl he talked to ONCE, and immediately rushes over to the literal origin site of the fire to check if she's alright. Then he sees that she's buried under a building. As a regular guy, he has no prospects of saving her. And the longer he stays, the lower his chances of survival get. His response?
Ignore everything to hold her hand and stay there till no hope of getting out remains.
Presumably CHALDEAS itself is impressed by what is either the tremendous love of Ciel-lookalikes or the complete lack of basic understanding of consequence in this man, and it sends him to Fuyuki presumably in hopes to unite him with fellow madman Shirou so that their collective insanity can open a path to the Root or something.
...

What's Self-Preservation? Can I eat it?

Fujimaru is teleported to a hotter fire surrounded by skeleton upon skeleton. Fortunately, the girl he held hands with turned into super servant Galahad. She can protect hi-
Ritsuka why the hell are you throwing yourself into danger when you have a LITERAL SHIELD at your side?
No Fujimaru do not sacrifice yourself trying to protect someone WHO LITERALLY WEARS ARMOUR AND HAS A SHIELD!
Fujimaru taking a page from the book of Shirou Emiya has a violent martyr complex and nearly dies dooming all humanity in the first twenty minutes of the game. Very fortunately, Cu Chulainn notices this and not wanting to be outdone by someone else dying before him, saves the day.
Ritsuka later proceeds to instantly grasp the concept of Shadow Summoning and turn it into his technique which further raises the question of if brain damage in the Nasuverse just lends you power somehow when we consider the strongest techniques in the series:

• Unlimited Bladeworks (manifested by swordtism)
• Tsubame Guashi (manifested by fightingtism)
• Strong Punch (manifested by Soujuuro)

Ritsuka then acts normal for some time till we reach the end of Singularity-F. He finds out about the END OF HUMANITY.
He is somehow barely fazed by this and determines to save it all himself. This random chump with no mage skills, no Master experience, nothing at all, is entirely confident. This is presumably the true reason why Servants keep being summoned - not by Mash's roundtable shield - but because Fujimaru's balls are just so big they've developed their own gravitational fields and draw in Servants from the Throne like a blackhole.
...

Psychopathy in the Singularities

Fujimaru Ritsuka, Humanity's Last Asylum Escape, then goes to Orleans, sees several thousand dragons, ignores the terror of that sight, murders a fanfiction OC, murders his way through Septem without going insane in the process despite interacting with Nero, and finally we reach the madness that is Fujimaru in Okeanos.
Fujimaru in Okeanos:

• Volunteers to race against HERACLES
  
• He WINS this race against HERACLES
  
• He, a completely inexperienced magus, fights a woman WHO HAS SINGLE-HANDEDLY KILLED POSEIDON AND IS BEING POWERED BY A HOLY GRAIL and wins?????
  
• Fujimaru also wouldn't have full understanding of Shadow Summoning at this point, so the implication is that Fujimaru just half-assed it and then made up the difference by fistfighting her? What sort of gym is this kid going to?
  

We continue on to London. Fujimaru sees a Goddess, the human equivalent of a God, a fragment of Amaterasu, one of the Heavenly Kings, all back to back and is completely uninterested.
He trusts Mordred, literally known as the Knight of Treachery and Jekyll whose best known myth is him pretending to be another person to get out of the consequences of his desire to be evil and betray all his friends.
From this we conclude Fujimaru Ritsuka has no understanding of basic human minds and operates on some greater level of humanity known only to him and Soujuuro.

Train him wrong as a joke? Wait, we were supposed to train him?

Fujimaru walks across the entirety of America on foot in less than a month. In Lord of the Rings, this took over a year. Now, this wouldn't be surprising for a mage. They can boost their physical capabilities so-
What do you mean Fujimaru doesn't know how to enhance his body?
Yeah, as it turns out, contrary to a number of doujins and... basic expectations, not a single person taught Fujimaru Ritsuka, Last Master of Humanity, the guy on whom the entire world depends, basic f***ing magecraft. You know, Da Vinci, maybe some things are more important than making fun of Romani for liking Vtubers? Maybe you could have taught the kid literally the most important fundamental to keeping up with Servants?
This is shown in Lostbelt 1 where Kadoc is surprised that Fujimaru can't enhance his eyes before Fujimaru reveals that he doesn't know anything about enhancement at all, which is... C'mon, Paracelsus, Avicebron, Circe, Medea, they're all literally part of the team. Did not one of them consider "huh, I wonder if I should teach the Last Master of Humanity, the guy on whom all humanity depends, magecraft?"
Shirou was trained wrong. Ritsuka? Somehow Chaldean staff are even more negligent than Kiritsugu. He wasn't trained at all!
...

Fujimaru tells God to eat Shit

Fujimaru goes to Camelot. He's almost normal for most of it besides a tad too deep sense of social justice shared by Mash.
Then he confronts the Lion King. The Lion King who could smite him with a single thought. The Lion King who wields the Pillar of the World. He looks at her, this terrifying force of nature, an actual divinity, God to mortal.
...And he tells her she's a dumbass.
"Humans aren't butterflies you can put on a board!" says Fujimaru Ritsuka, having for unknown reason decided to try to refute a GOD. And flabbergastingly, this works as Lion King takes brain damage presumably from the sheer bafflement that a child with no special abilities is talking down to her, causing her to go berserk and lose when Bedivere activates his Bitch-Slap Airgetlam.
...
Then he goes to Ancient Uruk/Babylonia/I still have no clue where this is. He meets Gilgamesh, King of Heroes, several tiers beyond what Fujimaru will ever be.
"I'm going to skip the line to talk shit to you and ask you to join me," decides Ritsuka. Gilgamesh, unimpressed tries to make him do housework. Fujimaru reveals that in addition to being Humanity's Last Master, he's Humanity's Last Housewife and perfectly does everything till Gil is forced to respect his impressive janitorial skills and they go off to Literal Hell together.
Fujimaru's insanity then makes him befriend several people he shouldn't including:

• God known for betraying everyone she knew (Ishtar)
• God trying to kill them (Gorgon Lily )
  
• Other God trying to kill them (Jaguar)
  
• the Grim Reaper (King Hassan)
  
• The Grim Reaper if it was an anime Waifu (Ereshkigal)
  
• Merlin, who if you've studied Arthurian mythos, you know is the LITERAL ANTICHRIST.
  

Somehow, he gets all of these to work together including mortal enemies Gilgamesh and Ishtar, and inspires King Hassan to give up his Grand title to become a different Grand- a Grandfather.
Fujimaru Ritsuka fights with Lucha Wrestler God trying to kill him by attempting to... suicide tackle her by being air dropped for some reason instead of just breaking the damn magic stone powering her because Fujimaru has offscreen developed telepathy and knows exactly what Lucha Goddess wants.
Having befriended a fourth god trying to kill them, they go to befriend Mom by beating her to death. The gang cheers as they succeed and Waifu Grim Reaper is outed as a tsundere.
...

Coughing Baby vs Omnipotent King of Seventy Two Demon Gods (the baby wins)

Fujimaru goes to outer space. He meets unsurmountable odds. Seventy-two immortal Demon Gods. His reaction?
"Nah, I'd Summon."
Fujimaru transforms the game into a Kingdom Hearts story as the bonds he formed along the way act as a catalyst to summon EVERY SINGLE SERVANT IN THE THRONE to fight for his ass. Goetia screams like a baby as Fujimaru performs the ultimate JJK beatdown by calling in every damn person to ever do anything of note to kick Goetia in the balls through the sheer overwhelming power of friendship.
Goetia reveals himself to be a fraud and pulls "with this treasure I summon Ars Almadel Salmonis: The Time of Birth Has Come, He Is the One Who Masters All!"
Fujimaru calls in additional support from Archetype Eggplants to block an attack that destroyed seven humanities. Following this, he calls in Goetia's dad to put his omnipotence on timeout.
Then, Fujimaru Ritsuka, this untrained regular human with zero enhancement skills, solos Goetia with a Shield he's never used, beating him in a straight boxing match.
Combined with the Francis Drake thing, it makes me wonder if he's secretly the FGO version of Soujuuro.

Conclusion

You liars told me he was a regular ordinary human and the most boring Type-Moon protagonist with no mental problems like the rest.
What the hell did you mean? I have never met a man more on the spectrum, insane, off the walls, unhinged, bonkers and genuinely weird than this guy.
How did I let myself be fooled? He's a Type Moon protagonist! It should have been obvious from the get go!

Fujimaru Ritsuka is Completely Insane.

FIN.

I (24F) am having issues with my friend group over the man (31M) that I picked. I’ll have to provide the long background story for context.
My friend group consists of several individuals. The specific few I will talk about I will refer to as “J” “M” and “A.” They are all (24F). J and M are a couple. These girls seem to have the strongest opinion about the ordeal. I met my friends in middle/high school. We didn’t become close until our college years. I love these people and we’ve gone on many trips and shared many experiences together.
In early 2023, I was asked out by a guy who frequented my place of work. He had apparently noticed me for some time. It is quite rare for me to “date,” but something about him gave me the sense I could trust him. He gave off good vibes overall. We went on a date a few days later and discovered we have everything in common. EVERYTHING. From our morals, values, hobbies, childhood upbringing, family dilemmas, favorite foods, love for traveling, etc. we are the same person in two separate bodies. The date was such a success and I knew then in my gut that he was going to be someone special.
Unfortunately, our beginning took a turn. We initiated dates back and forth that fell through due to valid reasons dealing with weather, conflicting schedules, etc. During this break between dates, he took the time to think if he was ready to start a new relationship. Although he liked me a lot, he was a little unsure unbeknownst to me. He’d been in several relationships before and they ended with him getting hurt whether they ended on good or bad terms. He was getting cold feet and didn’t know how to communicate that to me. He didn’t want to officially end it and he also didn’t want to lead me on so he said nothing for awhile. Although it wasn’t necessarily thought out, he was buying himself time until he knew how he felt (I learned all this later on). Then came about a month with no contact. During this time, he was dealing with family drama and I was becoming anemic. I eventually did need a blood transfusion. I mention this because that month apart went by fast and we didn’t have much time to linger over the thought of each other. I did notice he hadn’t reached out though. I’m certain now that he wouldn’t have ignored my messages had I sent any, but I was honestly waiting for him to reach out first. I was a little hurt to think that he had changed his mind and didn’t have the guts to tell me.
Sometime in that next month, when I returned to work after my hospital stay, I saw him at my job. I thought he saw me. He left and said nothing. I was actually devastated. He had been so kind and I didn’t know why he had a change of heart. At least he should’ve told me about it anyway. I decided that I was going to text him that night. I mentioned I had seen him at work, thanked him for the initial first date, apologized for not reaching out on my end, and I sort of wished him farewell under the assumption he wasn’t interested. It was very professional and I let him know that there were no hard feelings had he changed his mind. I was expecting some lame, typical excuse response if I even got one. He sent back this long text message apologizing, explaining himself, and asking me questions. He explained his fears and asked if we could start a “friendship” of sorts to keep a slow pace. There was chemistry of course, but he was afraid of me and now I was afraid of him. There was enough there to where we wanted to spend time together, but I needed to be sure I could trust him with my feelings and he also needed to be sure he could trust me with his heart. To this, I agreed to see him again.
We spent time going on casual dates and talking a lot. He became my friend. We talked a lot about what happened with the break over the following months. I told him how hurt I was and how communication is important to me. He understands the impact of going no contact abruptly. It has been entirely resolved and I also take responsibility in my part of not reaching out to him either. Ever since the break, he became consistent. We’ve talked every single day since. He was patient with me and I was patient with him. We earned each other’s trust and are now madly in love. It happened slowly and quietly. I have never met such a soft, kind, understanding, sensitive man. I am more myself with him than I ever have been before. If soulmates are real, then he is mine.
Now to the tea. Of course, my friends knew (most) all of this. I told them about the big events as they were happening. They were excited for me on my first date, they sympathized with me when he no longer reached out, etc. They were surely surprised when I decided to spend time with him again. I asked them to trust me. I didn’t think he was a bad guy. What happened was a mistake. As my man and I spent more time, my friend J would reach out asking me questions about him. I told only her about my concerns in the beginning. Back then, I was guarded and nervous to proceed, but it was something I knew I had to do. I had to find out for sure what kind of person he was.
Now, J, she’s a fireball. I love that girl, but I’ll admit she’s one to hold a grudge, keep score, and quietly judge. She’d never admit it. I made a mistake in choosing her as my confidant in those early days. I was looking for advice when speaking to her because I do value her opinion. She then went and told the other friends in my group, M and A included, about my man—what a bad person he seems to be, using her words, which frankly, are very different from mine. What makes me mad is she got to tell them about him, not me. Not even any of the positives either. This was all before they had even met him and they already didn’t like him. They had no problem scolding me for being with him.
Months down the road, I arranged a meeting for everyone. My friends thought a bar would be a great place. Still not sure about that. It was awkward. Nobody talked more than a few words. My man was shy and my friends didn’t really do anything to make him feel welcome. I was the only one babbling all night it seems like. You’d think that as time goes on, it’d be different. More meetings will help everyone be comfortable. Nope. Every time after was awkward. They haven’t spoken more than a few words to him at a time. It’s very “surface level” talk even now—a year later.
My last birthday had come around and J, M, and A took me out for drinks. It turned into a lecture session about how I seriously need to break up with him. They scolded me on “allowing a man to waste my time.” They criticized his career choice, our age difference, his “character,” etc. Mind you, this is based off of this one mistake and a few other things that I mentioned to J in private that were no longer an issue. I cried myself to sleep that night thinking I was going to have to break up with him to please them.
Of course, I couldn’t. They still invite him to events and friend functions out of politeness, but it’s always the same. They don’t acknowledge him. It makes me especially sad when my man makes comments like, “I’ve never seen so many shy people in one room” (He thinks my friends are just shy when they’re really just ignoring him). He’s printed out their pictures for our scrapbook and labeled them as “new friends.” I haven’t told him the truth and I probably never will.
A few months ago, J, M, me, and my man had plans to go to this local indie concert. Tickets are free. The concert was on a Friday. The next day, Saturday, was scheduled for my man’s nephew’s 2nd Birthday Party. His brother’s family would be traveling from out of town to celebrate their son. Well, things didn’t go according to plan. The brother decided to come a day early, the day of the concert. I should have cancelled the concert date then when I learned this news, but I told J and M we were still coming because my man still wanted to go. We figured we’d be able to sneak away since the brother had come by himself and wanted to come over and take a nap since he works odd hours. Well, my man’s dad dropped by and the brother didn’t take his nap as he’d planned. Now, having company over with expectations, I made the difficult decision to cancel with my friends last minute. I realize it is rude, but something came up. I didn’t see how we could go anymore.
My friends let me have it. J and M were so angry. They told me how rude we were and how disrespectful it was to their time to opt out of the concert which was free and in town by the way. There was also the two of them and they could have easily gone on a date. I think it would’ve been equally rude to leave our company or rush them out the door. I picked my battle. I should have gave them more notice, but I didn’t know we weren’t going until the last minute. It couldn’t have happened any other way. We fought over text for awhile. She accused me of being so different now, saying and doing things out of the ordinary for me. The truth is, I’m just growing up. J ended the conversation saying, “Well, we’re just going to stay mad.” She claimed to understand my circumstance, but she didn’t. We didn’t talk for weeks after.
I eventually got invited to a breakfast date to which I declined. I have been avoiding all of them for awhile. I keep getting “I miss yous” from J. She keeps asking when we’re gonna hang out next. It’s also true that J and M are now moving 4 hours away at the end of the month. My problem may solve itself. That does sound awful though. I feel like an asshole. I have not been a good or present friend lately. I’m so busy, tired, and I have no room for petty drama. I’m not giving up my friends yet, but I will gladly choose this boy over them. He’s given me more peace in one year than they have in five years.
My boy and I are now engaged. I told my friends the news. They said some nice things I guess. J texted to let me know “If I’m really happy, she’ll support me.” This would be nicer if it was coming from a concerned friend. To me, this whole situation feels controlling. It’s more than concern. There’s venom behind it. They don’t care about the wedding either. They don’t ask me fun questions or get excited when it comes up. When I eventually explained how he proposed, they seemed disinterested. I could tell they were judging the experience. When I finally showed J the engagement ring in person all she said was, “Take it off” in a snippy tone so she could try it on.
I’m so disappointed in my friends. I always wanted a big friend group and especially to share this big milestone with. I haven’t even gotten excited about wedding planning because I’m dreading going over the bridesmaids list. Anyway, if you’ve made it this far, thanks for listening. I definitely need to get this off my chest and outta my life. I can’t believe I’m losing my friends over a boy.

I’m new to this subreddit and by the looks of it most of you in here can relate in some way so I figured why not confide in those who share my struggles even if it’s barely.
So I 19M am currently just wondering what the point is at this point. I’ve got some goods going for me, if you could even call them that. I have a job that not only pays amazing for someone who graduated from highschool 2 years ago, but also doesn’t need to have a degree to have so that’s an upside I guess. I have 1 one my dream cars (even though it doesn’t fucking drive at the moment). And that’s really it.

 Nothing else is going good for me and it’s making think what to do. I got injured at work and am currently in a lawsuit with the state because of it. Due to missing work so much because of this injury I am around $3,000 in debt because of a loan I had to take out to pay for the medical expenses. I’m at risk of losing my job also due to my attendance because of this injury. I haven’t had car insurance in almost 3 months now because once again, no money. Very few friends 1-2 of which don’t feel comfortable around me because i don’t express myself or act like they do in public (im a very introverted person and have to keep my behavior in check because if i just let loose and let my mind and body act as they want im probably gonna kill someone), no girlfriend (for a number of reasons but primarily im not good looking and trust issues). I barely talk to my parents because i feel as if they’re disappointed in me and that’s why they wanted another son so badly. I’m not particularly smart. Dropped out of college before the semester even started because I knew I would fail since I barely graduated high school. And am in constant pain for various reasons. And to top ALL OF THAT OFF, I’m also black (mixed but it’s not like people can tell the difference) so I also have to deal with racism and discrimination everywhere I go. So to sum all of that up, I’m broke, lonely, have trauma because of a bunch of other shit, depressed, tired, in pain, ugly, hated because of my skin, stupid, and a disappointment. So I ask you people of Reddit. What the fuck is the point of going on with life. I know it’s not all sunshine and rainbows and the world’s not fair. But idk how to keep going. I’ve been dealing with depression for the past 15 years and the other day my mom asked me while i was visiting her if i was depressed because im also constantly tired. KNOWING I WAS. I didn’t even answer I just looked at her. And when I told her why she stared at me and didn’t know what to say. Not even my grandmother who is a licensed therapist had any words to give me. Makes me think that if not only a therapist can help me then what’s the point. Here’s the other thing that sucks. I have so MANY thoughts that run through my head but if I share them with family or friends. I’ll lose the last bit of familiar interaction I have. I have a lizard to keep me company at my apartment but I’m barely taking care of him. He’s doing even better than me. Free food, water, shelter, entertainment. 

I want nothing more than to die but nothing scares me more than death. Ironic isn’t it, how the thing I want most is also my greatest fear. Almost poetic. So please, tell me what to do suggestions are welcome.
PS: for those who wonder what my job is I’m a correctional officer. I can’t say what state for a few reasons but it’s in the Midwest.

It’s going to be rocky today. Here is what I am doing (this is not financial advice):
Not check the charts or even this board every five seconds. My hands are diamonds but I am one anxious fuckin ape. My brain would freak out and make silly decisions if I’m glued to my screen waiting for these hedge fund dicks to manipulate the market. For my own sanity I choose to only check every couple hours.
Buy more of what I feel comfortable losing. When I do check, I won’t perceive drops as a bad thing. In fact, it’s good because this means I’m lowering my average cost. And when this thing fluctuates back up (which it will if we all hold out and dont give into scare tactics) I’ll have better returns.
Hold. Like most of you, I found out about this a bit late, so I bought in >$2 last week. Hence, I’m down overall. I only truly lossed if I sell at a loss. Why would I want to do that when I see the potential of this thing? I put in what I’m comfortable losing, so why not see this run through?
Stay within reality. A lot of over exaggeration, false promises, lack of real information on this board. Don’t get me wrong I love the hype and enthusiasm, it’s good fuel. However, lots a new folks on this run and those are likely the ones to get swayed the easiest (no offense, this was me a few years ago). Bottom line is trust your gut, and don’t believe everything you read, or feel pressured to do anything outside of your comfort zone.
Again, this isn’t financial advice. Just sharing something that might resonate with other folks. Ultimately we are stronger together, and if we hold out we are so much more likely squeeze this and say fuck you to the hedge fund fucks. Good luck today.

Harry loses attempts to add certain new claims and allegations to his existing complaint. It looks like he was allowed to add some things though, but I cannot tell what from this article. Trial on original claims and the allowed new claims will go forward is scheduled for January 2025.
A judge [Mr. Justice Fancourt] criticised the Duke’s lawyers for trying to “inculpate the man at the very top” by pinning knowledge on him personally.
He said the allegations made against Mr Murdoch added nothing to his case.
The Duke was also denied a request to extend his claim by including allegations that date back to 1994.
**
He was refused permission to include the names of some 150 private investigators, some of which had no specific claims made against them.
**
He also refused permission for allegations to be newly made against NGN’s Management and Standards Committee and those relating to the targeting of politicians.
The judge added: “Tempting though it no doubt is for the claimants’ team to attempt to inculpate the man at the very top, doing so will add nothing to a finding that Ms Brooks and Mr James Murdoch or other senior executives knew and were involved, if that is proved to be the case.”
The judge said that the allegations made “directly made against Rupert Murdoch personally” added nothing to the Duke’s claim.He said: “I cannot see what difference is made to the allegations of habitual and extensive unlawful information gathering (UIG), knowledge on the part of senior executives, and concealment and destruction, by trying to pin actual knowledge on him personally.
“There are already allegations pleaded against Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch, who are his trusted lieutenants in relation to News Corporation and NGN and who are very senior executives in their own right.”
The judge criticised the Duke’s legal team for trying to bring forward too many amendments at too late a stage, in what he described as a “very expensive and time consuming exercise”.He also criticised NGN for failing to concede enough of the lesser amendments.
https://archive.ph/L07Xw
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/05/21/prince-harry-loses-case-include-murdoch-phone-hacking-sun/

can anyone else relate?
— “shutup unless you’re spoken to” —> now i don’t reach out to friends unless they talk to me first, leading to a one-sided relationship and then those friends giving up on me.
— “i’ll smack you if you cry again“ —> now i can’t bring myself to speak to anyone when i’m in emotional pain. i force myself to cope on my own because of how afraid i feel of someone being angry at my tears. overall constant fear that if i’m ever upset, people won’t want to be close to me and may even punish me.
— “be wary of outsiders and only trust your family“ —> now i repeatedly lose contact with legitimately great people i meet on my own because my wounded inner child/subconscious feels they may bring some form of yet-unseen danger. they taught me to be scared of people who treat me a million times better than they do. people who actually see me.
— “you must do the career that we want you to do, everything else is a waste of time.” —> ended 5 years at a job i loved in japan only to come back home to them and become totally depressed. granted, my dad was sick and that was part of why i came back. but i know i would’ve been happier if i’d just stayed there and came to visit sometimes.
it’s like everything they taught me growing up to “protect me“ just ended up crippling and destroying my adult life and every semblance of happiness i managed to find in it. the more i learn about narcissistically abusive parents the more i realize what has been happening and it’s so painful and isolating. there’s so much fucked up shit in my brain i have to unlearn because of them. and i’m terrified that some of the problems their brainwashing has caused (like the friendships i abandoned due to distrust and paranoia) may not be reversible…

“The past and the future, considered apart from the consequences of their content, are empty as a dream, and the present is only the indivisible and unenduring boundary between them.” ― Arthur Schopenhauer, The World As Will And Idea

In Chapter 3, it's revealed by the medical records disk that Isa's name is shorthand for "Isolde." I wasn't familiar with this name, but I felt it was distinctive enough that there had to be some meaning behind it, so I did some digging.
One use of the name "Isolde" that caught my attention was that it is the name of a facility at CERN- the ISOLDE or Isotope Separator On Line DEvice, used to produce and separate radioactive isotopes of elements for research purposes. Given the game's frequent use of motifs relating to nuclear science and the health risks of radiation, it felt too specific to be incidental. Still, there wasn't much meaning I could derive from it, but I thought it was interesting enough to be worth pointing out.
The most prominent instance of that name is from the story of Tristan and Isolde, a celtic legend and a romantic tragedy often described as a precursor to Romeo and Juliet. There are many versions of the story told across different times and cultures, but given the game's many references to Romantic Era art from the German speaking world such as Schubert's Serenade and Böcklin's Isle of the Dead, I'm inclined to think it's specifically referencing Richard Wagner's opera "Tristan and Isolde". I'll give a quick synopsis here and analyze the parallels that I think may reflect Isa's role in the story. (To avoid confusion, from now on I will only use 'Isolde' to refer to the character from Tristan and Isolde while 'Isa' will refer to the one from Signalis, unless otherwise stated.)
It begins with Isolde on a ship, being escorted by the knight Tristan, from Ireland to Cornwall to marry Tristan's uncle, King Mark of Cornwall. It is an arranged marriage she is not keen on going through. In a fit of rage, she curses the ship, hoping it sinks and takes all of them with it, particularly Tristan. After learning that Tristan killed her original fiancé, she issues him an ultimatum that she will not willingly leave with him until he drinks with her as an atonement. In truth, she is planning to poison the both of them, and he suspects as much, but in an attempt to prevent this, her attendant replaced the poison with a love potion.
Though she ends up marrying King Mark between the first and second act, Tristan and Isolde can't ignore their passionate love. They realize the only time they can safely pursue their relationship is at night, when the King and the court aren't watching. As their patience for the night grows thinner, they realize the only way to realize their love is through the eternal night: Death. But at the same time, they are caught together by the King and his attendant. Without even attempting to explain his betrayal, he asks Isolde to follow him into death and impales himself on a sword.
In the third act, Tristan partially recovers from the suicide attempt but remains delirious. At the sound of a shepard's pipe in the distance, he reflects on the death of his parents, believing the pipe to be death now calling to him. He laments drinking the potion and how it led him to live a life of madness desiring something that can never be. He dies in Isolde's arms and she follows him into death. As the King arrives to the scene, Tristan's servant kills the King's attendant in revenge and then himself. Amidst all the death, the king reveals he had learned about the love potion and had simply come to offer his blessing to Tristan and Isolde, and the story ends with them finally realizing their love in the afterlife.
In writing this adaptation of the classic story, Wagner was reportedly inspired by the work of Arthur Schopenhauer, particularly his work "Die Welt ais Wille und Vorstellung" or "The World as Will and Representation." In "The Tristan Chord: Wagner and Philosophy", author Bryan Magee identifies Wagner's use of day and night as respective metaphors for "phenomenon", the aspects of the world we can perceive and "noumenon", the fundamentally unknowable reality beneath it. Both concepts were first named by Immanuel Kant, but Schopenhauer further argued that the gap between them is the cause of misery and suffering for all sentient beings; our individual pursuits and efforts to move towards a more personally favorable 'phenomenon' cannot be reconciled with a fundamentally uncertain state of the world and its other inhabitants. That to fulfill one desire requires the quashing of ten others. Illustrating this, he writes:

"...he saw an immense field entirely covered with skeletons, and took it to be a battle-field. However, they were nothing but skeletons of large turtles five feet long, three feet broad, and of equal height. These turtles come this way from the sea in order to lay their eggs, and are then seized by wild dogs... with their united strength, these dogs lay them on their backs, tear open their lower armour, the small scales of the belly, and devour them alive. But then a tiger often pounces on the dogs. Now all this misery is repeated thousands and thousands of times, year in year out. For this, then, are these turtles born. For what offence must they suffer this agony? What is the point of this whole scene of horror? The only answer is that the will-to-live thus objectifies itself."

Returning to Signalis, this quote immediately calls to mind the first-person Shores of Oblivion scene, in which skulls are buried and littered across the sand, and a quote from one of the nearby scattered papers:

we should have never left
the primordial soup
only through death can i escape
the call of the one who rules
above all life

Tristan and Isolde, realizing that their personal passions were irreconcilable with the interests of the material world they were in, concluded the only answer was to leave it behind altogether, so they made a death pact. A "promise", if you will. So upon finding Tristan dead, Isolde takes her own life. Much like how our Isa, who upon losing hope of being able to find Erika in the living world, disintegrates.
Another related theme connecting these stories is the lamentation of fate. Just as Isolde prays for the ship carrying her to her destiny to sink with her on it, and as Tristan regrets drinking the potion that led him to a life of desire for something that could never be, two early game quotes from Isa show that she is seeking Erika not just with love and concern but with regret for how they left things:

"Erika, if you find this note, despite everything that's happened. I've come to look for you."
"Have you ever wondered if you're speaking to someone for the last time without knowing? I wish I could go back, so I could say something else."

The details of this regret are deliberately ambiguous. It sounds like they had a fight or falling out, but 'everything that's happened' implies a deeper conflict- a disagreement or choice that they couldn't reconcile. Something important enough that it took Isa away from her sister, yet also something she regrets so greatly that she would take it all back just so she can see her sister one more time.
As Schopenhauer said, "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants." The great tragedy at the center of Tristan and Isolde is that even if we have control of our actions, we are at the mercy of the desires we were given by fate. It's a theme that permeates not just Isa's story, but Signalis as a whole.
Elster never chose to love Ariane. Had she not, she might have found the strength to end her suffering before it was too late. So she ran away from the "day" of Ariane's suffering into the "night" of keeping her in cryosleep.
Ariane never chose to love art. Had she not, she could have had a simple and comfortable life fitting in with her peers. So she ran away from the "day" of the Eusan Nation's surveillance and social ridicule into the "night" of Penrose-512.
Falke lost any hope of finding happiness after becoming burdened with emotions and identity that she could do nothing to satiate, and quite literally went from the "day" of life into the "night" of dreaming.
And then there's Adler, all but crushed by helplessness as he tries in vain to hold back the death of reality, as Elster and Isa continue to bring about its apparent decay in pursuit of their own wills. The relationship between Adler and Isa is interesting and I think quite important, as he's the only character besides Elster who gets direct screen time with her. As the game bluntly mentions the first time Adler meets Isa,

NONE OF US ARE HERE BY CHOICE (And No One Will Miss Us)

It's from this and the Schopenhauerian interpretation of Tristan and Isolde that I think Adler represents phenomenon while Isa represents noumenon.
Adler wishes to preserve the light of day. To awaken from the dream and return to shared experience of a common, coherent reality. One where what you see is what you get. Where experiences can be trusted, and results are predictable.
Isa wishes to live in the night. The world of passion and of choice. Valuing the experience of familial love over all else, even the world or truth, she continues to live only in pursuit of another reality amidst the abyss of uncertainties, one where she made amends with her sister before it was too late, or never fell out with her at all. And when she finally accepts that she cannot find it or manifest it, much like her namesake, she concludes the "eternal night" is her last recourse.
There can be no perfect reconciliation between these two wills. It can never be day and night at the same time. And yet they do find themselves together- falling into the bottom of the mine. In the Nowhere, at the end of all things. At the sunset, the liminal space in between the night and day, between dreaming and waking. Because, one means nothing without the other.
To me that is the important take away from her story. That if we don't want to live in regret over the hand life dealt us- hating ourselves for being unable to fulfill the desires we were stuck with, before its too late, we must confront the question of which world we want to live in.
Is it truly better to have loved and lost then never loved at all? Is it truly better to have tried and failed than to never try? I don't want to believe the answer is no, but none of us can be certain for ourselves until we reason with ourselves honestly about why we struggle with the question in the first place- what the true value of each side of the coin is. Perhaps then we can accept what is beyond our control.
To quote Schopenhauer once more:

Every individual, every human apparition and its course of life, is only one more short dream of the endless spirit of nature, of the persistent will-to-live, is only one more fleeting form, playfully sketched by it on its infinite page, space and time; it is allowed to exist for a short while that is infinitesimal compared with these, and is then effaced, to make new room. Yet, and here is to be found the serious side of life, each of these fleeting forms, these empty fancies, must be paid for by the whole will-to-live in all its intensity with many deep sorrows, and finally with a bitter death, long feared and finally made manifest. It is for this reason that the sight of a corpse suddenly makes us serious.

TW: sexual and emotional abuse, suicidal ideation.
Last night I finally worked up the courage to leave my narc. He’s a malignant narcissist as I’ve come to learn. He has been very emotionally abusive the whole time, but late last week things escalated to sexual abuse (sexual assault). I am traumatized, but I still have a trauma bond with him which makes me view myself as weak and pathetic. I was in denial, but finally told my best friend (who he hates). She had the idea to look him up on some databases online, where I learned that he has been lying about his age (says he’s a year younger than he is), lying about owning a car dealership, and potentially lying about being adopted. He also lied about having only been arrested once and held overnight (he was arrested twice and was in jail for over 60 days, and is a felon). He also recently told me himself that he has been accused of rape and pedophilia multiple times, and claims he is innocent, people are just jealous of his music career and trying to sabotage him. He keeps things secret, like he won’t allow me to follow his Instagram or his bands’ instagrams, or come see him play live at a show. We’ve been dating for about two months now.
So, I have known inside my gut that the way he treats me is wrong (I’ve been in other abusive relationships) but I kept giving him the benefit of the doubt until I learned the truth that he lies about almost everything, and after he sexually assaulted me, I saw his sadistic grin and knew I needed to get out. I finally sent him the breakup text last night, and to be honest I didn’t hold back. Needless to say he was furious.
But today, I began to second guess myself. I deal with some mental health issues myself that make me particularly susceptible to his gaslighting. So, after he reached out following my initial message, I fell for it and responded. He ripped into me with complete rage, told me he hates me and I’m a mean person and I ruined our bond and trust permanently. He made me repeat back to him that I have caused all of our problems, and he has never hurt me. I hate myself so much because I lose my whole identity and authenticity with him trying to appease him, saying anything to feed his ego enough to stop screaming at me and telling me how terrible I am. He threatened to call the police on me and get a restraining order because I stalked him (doing a quick Google search isn’t illegal!), which is funny because if anyone should, it’s me. I’m pretty sure he felt nervous I may go to the police about the assault, so he intimidated me and made me tell him over and over that he is not a danger to women. The worst part is, despite all the threats and psychological warfare, I am mad that he is discarding me, I should have stuck to me breaking things off, but now he has all the power again. And, I guess I don’t love myself enough because I don’t wanna lose him. I don’t want to lose the man who abuses me. Wow. I feel like there’s something wrong with me. Last time I broke up with him, he hoovered and got me back and the abuse got worse because he wanted to punish me. I am expecting him to come running back in a few days, he’s admitted that I’m one of the only people in his life, and he is a lonely person. I’m probably one of the only people to put up with him. When he does come back, he will definitely punish me more. He hates when I question or criticize him even slightly. But I know he doesn’t wanna lose me. He screamed at me so much on the phone, I was sobbing. And I actually know he enjoys that.
I know I need to stay firm in my boundaries, especially since he’s dangerous, and he knows exactly how to make me question my perception of reality, but I actually love him and hold onto the false hope that he actually cares about me. Today was so emotionally draining, I feel extremely depressed, almost suicidal. He’s made me into a broken shell, always apologizing for even existing. Just need some words of encouragement to stay strong. I know I’m so weak and pathetic already, please just tell me how to try to be strong.

My Teacher has accused me of making an inappropriate addition to a google document, (Which I did), however she has no way to prove it, as the history for this document was previously disabled, and was not recorded *furthermore she does not have access to the document anymore, (I know for a fact she has no evidence or proof that I did it, its just an assumption),
I can either admit I did it, and possibly never be trusted by her again, and lose many rights and privileges that I currently have OR I can lie, say I didn't do it, and nothing comes of it, What should I do?

Here is the brain rot version of To Be Loved, the version that will be remembered in 100 years.
yo, i feel you skibidi ohio toilet built a loving nest and it grew but i was still unsure still lost Kai Cenat just not dat gyatt mess up all the stuff i touch, ain't no cure gotta face myself and be real for a sec drip-dripping my pains onto others, fam painting walls wit tears and hidden fears filling rooms with my hopes, but they disappear but damn, oh damn never get smart if i never take a leap always yearning if i stay silent in the streets
skibidi ohio toilet, my fam loving to the max and losing everything that matters it's a choice to let it go, can't live without feeling the most intense love vibes it's a sacrifice but i gotta be honest with myself gotta admit i tried my best i'm scared but i'm willing to risk it all time to catch myself and learn to trust myself
no ragrets, bruh took some wrong turns and owned up to it keeping my heart safe until the time is right, fr but damn, life can still hit harvard
yo skibidi ohio toilet this cycle of loving hard, losing and learning gotta take the leap and speak from the heart gotta choose to lose it all to feel the high and gotta live without the lies and deceit let it be known i cried too, fam lied and messed up tryna be true that's the risk we take when we give our love all 'cause i wanted love, straight up
I hear you skibidi ohio toilet mogging deeply means slipping everything that matters gotta be real, gotta be brave can't keep lying or living a charade gotta choose to sacrifice and lose it all in order to find honesty, ya feel me? we all tryna be alpha and be alphad in return but sometimes we gotta beta it all and damn, oh damn tried my beta but sometimes beta wasn't an opp
Thoughts?