Hello once again :D
This is just a topic that has been sometime now in my mind to asses. So here is refutation of this claimed prophecy, and i might not take the "traditional" aproach to it. But i still try to show how ambigous and general the claimed prophecy is.
CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE “BEDOUINS TALL BUILDING” PROPHECY
Introduction:
The prophecy attributed to the Prophet Muhammad concerning the construction of towering edifices often interpreted with a focus on contemporary urbanization trends, particularly in the Arabian Peninsula. This critical examination delves into the historical context, socio-economic analysis, and academic perspectives to highlight several weaknesses and inconsistencies in interpreting this prophecy as a definitive indicator of the world's impending end.
Historical Context and Interpretation:
The hadith frequently cited in this context is found in Sahih Muslim, where it is reported that the Prophet Muhammad said: "You shall see the barefoot, naked, destitute herdsmen competing in constructing tall buildings" [1]. Scholars and believers have linked this prophecy to the rapid urbanization and economic growth of traditionally nomadic societies, like those in the Arabian Peninsula, citing cities such as Dubai and Riyadh with their iconic skyscrapers.
However, it is crucial to understand the context of this hadith. The reference to "barefoot, naked, destitute herdsmen" indicates a dramatic socio-economic transformation rather than merely an architectural trend. Historically, the Arabian Peninsula has experienced numerous cycles of wealth and poverty. The Nabateans, for example, built monumental structures like Petra long before the advent of Islam [2] . Thus, the construction of tall buildings can be seen as part of a broader historical pattern rather than a unique or unprecedented event.
Ambiguity and Vagueness:
One significant issue with using the prophecy of tall buildings as an eschatological sign is its inherent ambiguity. Tall buildings, defined by their vertical prominence, have existed throughout history. The ancient Egyptians constructed the Pyramids, the Romans built towering structures like the Colosseum, and medieval Europe saw the rise of cathedrals with soaring spires. Each of these could have been interpreted as "tall buildings" in their respective eras.
Moreover, the phrase "competing in constructing tall buildings" is subjective and lacks specificity. While modern skyscrapers indeed represent a competition for height, the human ambition to build higher has been a constant for millennia, driven by technological advancements and urban planning needs rather than a divine signal. Historian Lynn White, Jr. noted that the drive to construct monumental buildings is a universal phenomenon found across various civilizations throughout history [3]. This suggests that the desire to build tall structures is an inherent aspect of human societies rather than a prophetic fulfillment.
Technological and Economic Factors:
The development of tall buildings in contemporary times is primarily driven by technological progress and economic factors. Advances in engineering and materials science have made constructing skyscrapers feasible and cost-effective. Urbanization, population growth, and limited land availability in cities necessitate building upwards to maximize space. These factors are rooted in practical human needs and capabilities, not necessarily in fulfilling a prophecy.
Additionally, globalization has led to significant investments in urban infrastructure worldwide. Cities strive to build iconic structures as symbols of economic power and modernity. This global trend is motivated by economic competition and urban development strategies rather than prophetic fulfillment. Economist Edward Glaeser argues that skyscrapers are a natural result of economic incentives and the need for efficient land use in urban centers [4] .
Prophecy and Self-Fulfilling Nature:
Another critical aspect to consider is the self-fulfilling nature of prophecies. When a prophecy is widely known, it can influence people's actions and decisions. In the case of the tall buildings prophecy, awareness of the hadith could subconsciously or consciously motivate individuals in the Muslim world to engage in constructing tall buildings as a means of economic and social progress. This creates a circular logic where the prophecy appears to be fulfilled simply because people are aware of it and act accordingly.
Theological and Scholarly Perspectives:
Islamic scholars have varied interpretations of eschatological prophecies, often emphasizing metaphorical or moral lessons over literal predictions. Prominent Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun, in his seminal work "Muqaddimah," stressed the importance of understanding the socio-political context of prophetic traditions and cautioned against overly literal interpretations [5]. His insights suggest that such prophecies should be viewed within the broader tapestry of human history and development. Certainly, here is an expanded discussion on the perspectives of scholars regarding the tall buildings prophecy, incorporating various theological and scholarly viewpoints.
Also modern Islamic scholars continue to debate the significance of the tall buildings prophecy. For instance, Dr. Yasir Qadhi, a prominent Islamic scholar, has discussed the prophecy in his lectures, highlighting that it is part of a larger set of signs meant to convey moral and ethical lessons rather than precise future events. He emphasizes that these prophecies should inspire Muslims to reflect on their spiritual state and societal responsibilities rather than to fixate on specific architectural developments [7].
Sociological Implications:
The sociological implications of prophecies, particularly those related to urban development, are profound. The construction of tall buildings in the modern era is closely tied to national pride, economic development, and globalization. Sociologist Saskia Sassen, in her research on global cities, points out that skyscrapers often serve as symbols of a city's status and economic power [6] . This perspective underscores the idea that the proliferation of tall buildings is more about human ambition and progress than fulfilling a divine prophecy.
Additionally, emphasizing tall buildings as a prophecy can have socio-political ramifications. It may influence policy decisions and urban planning in Muslim-majority countries, potentially diverting resources from more pressing social and economic issues. This focus on eschatological signs can also affect public sentiment and behavior, leading to fatalism or a sense of inevitability about the future, which can hinder proactive efforts to address contemporary challenges.
Conclusion:
When scrutinized critically and through an academic lens, the tall building's prophecy reveals significant ambiguities and lacks a concrete basis for being considered a legitimate prophecy.
Historical context, the subjective nature of what constitutes a "tall building," and the technological and economic motivations behind skyscraper construction undermine its reliability as a legit and non-self fulfilling prophecy. Instead, the proliferation of tall buildings should be viewed through the lens of human progress, technological advancements, and urban development, rather than as a prophetic prediction that lacks objective basing.
By examining the prophecy through historical, sociological, and theological perspectives, it becomes clear that the construction of tall buildings is a complex phenomenon influenced by numerous factors beyond the scope of a singular prophetic tradition.
References:
[1] Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 1.
[2] Nabateans and the history of Petra: [Nabatean Civilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans).
[3] White, Lynn Jr. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis." Science, 1962.
[4] Glaeser, Edward. "Triumph of the City." Penguin Press, 2011.
[5] Ibn Khaldun, "Muqaddimah," 1377. [Ibn Khaldun: An Intellectual Biography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn\_Khaldun).
[6] Sassen, Saskia. "The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo." Princeton University Press, 2001.
[7] Qadhi, Yasir Shaykh Yasir Qadhi The Signs of the End of Times, pt 1 - Introduction and the Early Fitnas

This title is a bit long, but it is meant to pre-empt some of the nitpicky caveats I know people would come up with otherwise. I know that most people on Reddit (or at least on this sub) are vaguely moral subjectivists or error theorists (even though I don't think most have a worked out view, but more a vibe that morality at least isn't objective). This is the reason why I have phrased my title as a conditional in the way I have: IF you think x is wrong THEN you should think y is wrong. This avoids the inevitable "well, there is nothing really good or bad, it is all just people's preferences".
Secondly, I say buying factory farmed meat in the way most people do, because it avoids strange hyper-specific edge-cases like "what if I bought a package of meat right before closing, and asked the store manager whether they would order more meat if I bought this package", or something like that. When I say "in the way most people do", I mean going into a store, taking a package of factory farmed meat and buying it, no questions asked, or weird caveats added.
Now to the actual argument. First off, the conditions of factory farmed animals are very bad - far worse than being lives worth living. Consider chickens. Broiler chickens live in very crowded spaces (approx. 1 sqft. per chicken) and grow so fast that their limbs cannot keep up and they end up being in constant pain. They get chemical burns on their joints because they are living in their own shit which is high in ammonia. And they have their beaks removed so they don't peck each other because they're so stressed. Now ask yourself, if you had the choice at your deathbed to die and disappear, or to live a life as a factory farmed chicken and then die, which would you choose? I doubt many of you would choose living the life of the chicken. If so, then it isn't worth living in your judgement.
Furthermore, when you buy a package of meat you are causing animals to go through this suffering. You might object something like this: "When I buy a package of meat, it is highly unlikely that I will cause the shop to order more meat, causing factory farms to produce more meat. Thus, most of the time I am not causing more animals to suffer."
This argument doesn't work. Let's look at a simplified example: A shop orders chickens in stocks of 100. When they reach a certain limit in demand, they increase or decrease the amount of stocks they order, depending on whether demand has risen or fallen. You don't know how close they are to ordering a new stock, since you are buying meat like a regular person, and not asking how close they are. But you know that there is a 1/100 chance that your purchase will cause them to order a new stock. Furthermore, ordering a new stock involves ordering 100 more chickens. So on standard decision theory, the expected outcome of your buying a chicken is that one more chicken is ordered (100*1/100).
This is of course an idealized example, but it is how the meat industry works on average: A decrease in demand of x amount of meat packages will reduce the amount of meat packages produced by x on average, even if the industry isn't perfectly sensitive to demand.
So when you buy meat, the expected outcome of your action is that animals are harmed. The amount will be the total money value of the animal in question divided by the money value of the product you bought all multiplied by the amount of suffering of the animal. Likewise, when you kick a stray cat, you are causing it suffering.
Why are you causing these animals suffering?
In the case of the cat, it is for trivial pleasure. Likewise, in the case of meat, it is for pleasure. I think almost everyone who reads this would be able to stop eating meat at trivial cost to themselves. It might take a bit of getting used to, and you might have to order the slightly less tasty option, when going to a restaurant, but generally it would be of quite trivial cost.
The person going around kicking stray cats for fun could stop doing so at little cost to themselves too. They might have a little less fun in their life, but that is certainly outweighed by not kicking cats. We can even imagine that it is a big part of their life. They feel like it is a hobby, and they would have to spend a lot of effort to find a new thing to spend their time doing, and it would never be as fulfilling. Imagine you meet someone who is in the middle of beating a cat until it can barely walk, and you tell them to stop doing it. They then reply the above, that it would make them very sad, and be really inconvenient to them. Would you then answer "oh, of course then, carry on!"? Of course not.
It is not like it being for taste pleasure or nutritional convenience makes any difference either. Suppose it is discovered that the saliva of distressed cats is very tasty, and also high in c vitamin. You now come across the same person again, brutally beating a cat, and you stop them. They now say "oh, haven't you heard, distressed-cat saliva is very tasty and nutritional. And I can't be bothered to incorporate oranges into my diet, so I thought I might as well have some fun and beat this cat for its saliva". Would you now be okay with it?
But in the case where someone is beating a cat, they are hurting something which already exists. But the animals on factory farms wouldn't exist, if they weren't raised for meat. Okay, so imagine if instead of going out and beating cats on the street, the guy in question instead bred cats and kept them in small cages so he could beat them for fun, and perhaps even drink some of their tasty saliva. Is it okay now?
Perhaps the important thing is that you are not doing the killing yourself, but you are instead paying someone else to do it. So imagine instead that the person in question pays someone else to breed and beat cats, and to send videos of it to them so they can enjoy it, and perhaps even send some vials of distressed-cat saliva. Is it okay to pay a person to do that? No.
I doubt anyone actually thinks this, but someone might say "I don't care about factory farmed animal, but I do care about cats". This is why the example is kicking cats for fun. If you do it for fun, that means that you don't care about the cat - that is just stipulated into the example (or well not strictly, but it would be very strange to go around kicking cats for fun if you actually cared about them). You might think that that would mean that it is ok, since you by stipulation don't care, but then you reject the antecedent of my conditional, and so the argument isn't refuted. You might also think that someone cares about cats, and that makes it bad. But that is why I use stray cats - they don't have relationships with anyone. Perhaps someone cares about stray cats in general, without knowing about any particular stray cat. But people (including me) also care about animals in factory farms in general, without knowing about any particular animal.
Another objection one might raise is that crop production also kills animals - approx. 7.3 billion annually (which is less than a tenth of the amount killed in meat production, by the way). So vegans are equally killing animals for food! I will give you ten seconds to think about why this is a bad argument. (Hint: What do the animals killed for food eat?)
I think the actual reason why people are okay with buying factory farmed meat, but not kicking cats for fun is twofold: First off, we are much more used to buying meat than to beating cats. Secondly, it feels much less bad to buy meat than to beat a cat. But clearly neither of these are morally relevant differences. Something wrong doesn't become permissible when you are used to it. Likewise, it doesn't become permissible because it feels less bad.
I am sure there are many possible responses that I haven't adressed directly, but I want to encourage everyone to be a bit honest with themselves before they respond: Do I actually think that this is a plausible position, or am I only drawn to this because the alternative would be inconvenient for me? Would I also believe this principle if I applied it to other cases, or do I only find it plausible in the single example of factory farming?SentEnterWrite to

Here’s my theory as to why it is Gojo at the of ch 260 in terms of his character and the storyline.
I think all the hints were in chapter 236 in hindsight and rereading it brought me to this conclusion:
The airport scene happens before we see his death in chapter 236. I believe this was not after his “death” but in the moments right before it/in between dying and living. This is my analysis of the airport scene:

1. One of the defining traits of Gojo’s character is how his perception is skewed in terms of how others see him and how he thinks they see him. He doesn’t show his true feelings to anyone and masks it with either humor, sarcasm or comments about his own strength. For example, all of his deeper thoughts are never actually said out loud. He might think it's something obvious that everyone knows what he is up to but in reality it just makes him seem a bit obnoxious even to his closest friends. Like when he very begrudgingly admits about wanting to make the jujutsu society a better place to Ijichi when Yuji dies and Ijichi is surprised by this revelation. He feels misunderstood and he says it in the chapter itself but he never actually does anything to change that or let people in. Most likely because after he became the strongest he didn't see any point in trying and leaned into the role of the strongest. Clarifying his morals or being more honest in a direct way would bring him at odds with who he really is and who he thinks he needs to be with the latter winning so far.
   
2. At the start of the chapter when he arrives at the airport he is still the same person who operates from his ego and thinks he died with no regrets because until now the only real goal he allowed himself to have was to act like the strongest and die like one too. As the chapter progresses you can see doubts and realizations seeping in of the other goals that he may have put aside earlier (creating a better world for the next generation of sorcerers, telling Megumi about his father).
   
3. When he mentions Megumi he looks visibly concerned and it was Geto who changes the subject to his fight with Sukuna. Even this conversation starts with him talking about things that would actually be his regrets (no one could reach him, he felt lonely, only seen for his strength). It’s noticeable that he feels comfortable to open up about this when it's in context of someone else (Sukuna). Then he reels it back in to talk about not having Geto to give him a slap on the back and stating that as his regret instead.
   
4. Next, his conversation with Nanami and Haibara, I think this was a turning point for him because when Nanami says “you were just in the game because you got a kick out of it” makes him realize just how little even his closest friends think of him and know him. He is very visibly annoyed by this as if it hit a nerve. Geto adding “was just proven by your actions a second ago” hits the nail on the head. He failed to show the world who he is because he wouldn't acknowledge it himself. When Nanami talks about his decision to go “south” after his death, Gojo just appears to be listening and thinking about his own choices.
   
5. Finally when he says to yaga about no sorcerer dying without regret I think it was more of his way of reaching the conclusion of needing to change and die as who he truly is instead, not as the strongest but as Gojo Satoru and that Yaga was right, to do this, he needs to live as someone true to himself and give up his false notions of what his duty to the world is. He realizes his regret after this conversation with his closest friends and makes the decision to head north instead.
   

I think chapter 236 was set up to let Gojo come to terms with who became and who he needed to be which which is exactly what Geto said to him when he says “are you Gojo Satoru because you're the strongest or are you the strongest because you are Gojo Satoru”, and his second reawakening will show us that he is the strongest because he is Gojo Satoru not because being strong is his lineage and destiny. It wasn’t a conclusion to his arc at all, only to the false image he clinged to.

New Flash everyone: the guy who hangs out with Daniel Greene(a pro-fairy rights socialist), is loved by redditors, and got a Hugo award is… woke. Who would have ever seen that coming? But, thanks to Jon Del Arroz making a video about it on May 18th, I am here to repeat the news back to you so there is an easily accessible source as to HOW he’s woke. Everything was revealed back in January 2023, but I want people to understand the implications and narrative that he’s presenting when he says his concerns about fairy rights. By the end of this, you will realize that people calling themselves Christian does not cause them to be immune to wokeness.
In fact, with how Christianity has influenced wokeness into existence, it’s likely a lot of "Christians" are what we can call “first wave wokeness”.
For context, Brandon Sanderson is a Mormon, part of the Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Mormonism is almost exclusively a US issue, and I’ve also noticed that there are a lot of youtubers who tend to be Mormon women(probably because they have other women in the house to do the chores). These people are great with money, big in business, and their church is anti-fairy. A lot of problems the fairy-rights activists have are with Mormon churches, which is strange for Europeans to witness with how open a lot of their churches are, outside of the US. Protestant, evangelical, unitarian, the national church of Denmark, it’s a big list.
But in 2008, Brandon wrote an essay about his Mormon beliefs on how Dumbledore from Harry Potter liked to have wands stirred around in his brown cauldron. His quote:

How does this relate to Dumbledore? I'm not trying to present him as an antagonist or a villain. All I'm saying is that if you believe in the truth of your message, then you shouldn't care if someone decent, respected, and intelligent is depicted as believing differently from yourself. Decent, respected, and intelligent people can be wrong--and you can still respect them. It's okay. That doesn't threaten our points, since we (theoretically) believe that they are eternal and stronger than any argument we could make.

Back in this time, Brandon had only been an author for 3 years, but he won an award for his first published book, Elantris. He was being careful with his words, and his take is considered liberal. He was trying to defend the backlash JK Rowling received for her (poor) choice of virtue signaling and tried to mend this defense with his own religion. Mentioning his religious views is what got him canceled back then, which he later apologized for in 2011:

I cannot be deaf to the pleas of \[fairy\] couples who want important things, such as hospital visitation rights, shared insurance, and custody rights. At the same time, I accept and sustain the leaders of the LDS church. I believe that a prophet of God has said that widespread legislation to approve \[fairy\] marriage will bring pain and suffering to all involved.

He was not backing down from his religion yet. His goal post moved to the legal ramifications of the US, which are separate from his church(remember, church and state, supposed to be separate in the US), but he was still saying his religion wanted him to oppose people calling it a marriage and having it in churches. This was a second “cancellation” that didn’t go very far, mostly because he was able to use religion as an excuse for his take, with the Christian Cake Packed With Fudge Scandal not happening yet(2018).
Fast forward to 2023, after he hangs out with a bunch of woke youtubers, and we get a new quote from Brandon:

The church’s first prophet, Joseph Smith, famously taught, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” My current beliefs are where I’ve arrived on my journey, as I attempt to show the love that Jesus Christ taught. I look forward to seeing further changes in the church, and I work to make sure I am helping from within it to create a place that is welcoming of \[fairy\] people and ideas. I would love, for example, to see the church recognize \[fairy\] marriage among its members. Both temporally and eternally. I would support ordaining \[tinkerbell\] men to the priesthood. (And would support the ordination of women, though that is another issue.)

That’s interesting. It seems like he made a complete 180 on his stance, claims that he’s always believed this new stance, blames Jesus for this new stance, and then doubles down on this new stance by adding female ordination(becoming a priest and higher) and even Tinkerbells. As time went on, he decided that his religion was totally wrong about fairies, and this 13 year difference means way more than the nearly 200 years Mormonism has been around. I believe a fellow Mormon, Shadversity, would love to have a discussion about how any of this makes sense, but I’m starting to feel that he’s the same way. Who knows if Ethan Van Sciver understands Mormonism as well as Brandon Sanderson does, with how easy it is to manipulate prophecies and reinterpret scripture.
But that’s been the point for a while, right?
Wokeness is here to restructure both historical evidence and even religions, in order to shift cultures and social institutions to obey this progressive change. Words are changed in the dictionary, social “norms” are changed to be updated for a “modern audience”, and postmodernists like Foucault were able to trick college kids into thinking the Greeks were all pixie fairies. Once a critical theorist gets their hands on something with power, their goal is not to keep it as it is. It is to keep it for themselves. This is why you will hear these people say everything is subjective, which is secret code for “Look at me: I’m the captain of reality now.”
But wait, it gets better! Brandon Sanderson continued with:

Back in 2007, I was mostly known only in my community, not to the world at large. The essay, then, was directed at my local community, and was more controversial among them (for being too liberal) than it was controversial to the world at large for being \[fairy\]phobic. That might surprise you, if you’ve read the excerpts that often float around the internet. This was mostly me trying to encourage other members of the church to be more open and welcoming of \[fairy\] characters and ideas.
That said, the essay does display the casual bigotry common to people who (like myself) have lived lives where we haven’t had to deal with some of the issues common to the lives of people suffering discrimination. Many of the assertions (such as my view on \[fairy\] marriage) do not reflect my current stance. After writing it, and interacting with those who found it objectionable–even painful–I came to understand them and their experiences better. Though they did not owe me that honor, they gave it freely.

You see, he's honored to hear about the life of a bug chaser.
Brandon cares deeply about the pain he caused to his wallet… I mean the fairies who saw his essay. He was an award winning author back then, he didn’t know it would be a global thing. It was supposed to be only seen by people in Utah, that’s it. This is what we call: bullshit. The woke rely heavily on gaslighting and pretending they’re ignorant of everything, while telling others that they need to learn and understand EVERYTHING about a subject before they are even able to mention it.
He was already big on reddit, he knew all about his fandom, and he knew about his publisher, Tor. The only thing that really changed is that now he is unable to stick to being liberal and he has to present himself as progressive. Why? Well, the new Amazon deal happened recently, and he’s the writer of the series The Wheel of Time. As if Rings of Power wasn’t evidence enough of how Amazon mistreats their properties, Brandon was forced to erase his own past, like Agent J in Men in Black, burning his own hands in the process.
I’m not surprised that he’s woke or even that Christians are falling to this woke inquisition. When I said first wave wokeness, I would like to clarify why it’s the catalyst for all of this stupidity. Wokeness is not of Christian values, but instead a parasite upon Christianity, in the same way Gnosticism and Satanism would be. When Christianity started to allow new sects, and a lot of these were considered valid, the crazy sex cults of the 60s opened the floodgates for a bunch of crazy reinterpretations. It’s the same way as how there are still circles of Christianity that go for flat earth theory or say that dinosaurs don’t exist, with these people usually at the forefront of the home-schooling movement.
It’s not that home-schooling is bad by itself, it’s that bad people use it to then have the good people using it be wrongfully grouped into the same area, in the same way gun-ownership does. This type of bastardization has always been a problem in the US, due to the lack of authority over what makes something categorized as such a thing, thanks to liberalism allowing the freedom to constantly change things. As time went on, this liberalism changed into progressivism, with the key difference being that liberalism is an allowance of change while progressivism is an enforced change. The liberalism of the 1800s allowed the Confederates to claim Christianity approved of their enslavement of black people, by blaming the story of Ham and using scripture to claim it was okay to enslave certain people for generations. We always see this strange cherry-picking of scripture from fake Christians, and this problem has expanded into the Vatican itself with the current and following generations of Popes.
A lot of times, we’ll hear news about how Christians are under attack, a bakery is targeted to expose discrimination, or even where people claim they were banned from twitch for being Christian. But what they get wrong is that they are in the same circle as liberal and progressive Christianity, their openness created this weakness to tourism, and most Christian circles have been taken over in the US since before the 60s. The south has a culture of being liberal, Mormons have a culture of being liberal, protestants are very liberal, all because the US began as a liberal culture in the form of classical liberalism. The libertarian argument is always used by these liberal groups, that changes into the progressive enforcement, and over the years these liberal people get infected by the virus.
Add money to the mix, and we have ourselves an endless chain of liberal minded people falling to wokeness. The “redemption” narrative, along with original sin, from Christianity is currently its main weakness. The appeal to ignorance is another weakness, with people playing skeptic as a snake slithers through the grass. Christianity isn’t the problem by itself, it’s the naivety that comes from blind faith, which then expands into a contradictory blind faith that people are good inside, only to later wonder why everything is changing for the worse when evil people are put in charge. Fantasy stories have been under attack by the woke for quite a while, long before they tried to appropriate Tolkien with Rings of Power.
The fantasy that is controlled by the woke is an extension to their attack on religion, because to them a fantasy story is no different than a bible. Mythological presentation, symbolic themes, a dream-like world to present morals to follow; the entire thing has been used by Brandon to then have him later claim that he’s always had fairy characters since the beginning. Sure, his religion says fairies are bad, but then he virtue signals by claiming he’s always made fiction about how they’re good. He would never say this if the publishing world made sense and if publishers were the way they were in the 1950s. That is because he would never have to choose between religion and money back then, with money always mattering more to the typical materialist.
I’m sure people will say that I’m being hard on Christians, or that I’m evil for saying this, or even that I am a satanist for noticing. These people would only be angry at the truth being said, which is the opposite of what Christianity teaches. Fantasy writers, like Brandon, have a lot of supporters, with this support merging between the woke and Mormons. So many feel that they need to make sense of their fandom, so they claim their religion is wokeness, converting it into blind Satanism. This is far from the truth and we need to condemn those who focus solely on radical subjectivity.
Especially if they blame God for their stupid takes, like how Brandon does now.

Barsamian: In the media, and among the political class in the United States, and probably in Europe, there’s much moral outrage about Russian barbarity, war crimes, and atrocities. No doubt they are occurring as they do in every war. Don’t you find that moral outrage a bit selective though?
Chomsky: The moral outrage is quite in place. There should be moral outrage. But you go to the Global South, they just can’t believe what they’re seeing. They condemn the war, of course. It’s a deplorable crime of aggression. Then they look at the West and say: What are you guys talking about? This is what you do to us all the time.
It’s kind of astonishing to see the difference in commentary. So, you read the New York Times and their big thinker, Thomas Friedman. He wrote a column a couple of weeks ago in which he just threw up his hands in despair. He said: What can we do? How can we live in a world that has a war criminal? We’ve never experienced this since Hitler. There’s a war criminal in Russia. We’re at a loss as to how to act. We’ve never imagined the idea that there could be a war criminal anywhere.
When people in the Global South hear this, they don’t know whether to crack up in laughter or ridicule. We have war criminals walking all over Washington. Actually, we know how to deal with our war criminals. In fact, it happened on the twentieth anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan. Remember, this was an entirely unprovoked invasion, strongly opposed by world opinion. There was an interview with the perpetrator, George W. Bush, who then went on to invade Iraq, a major war criminal, in the style section of the Washington Post — an interview with, as they described it, this lovable goofy grandpa who was playing with his grandchildren, making jokes, showing off the portraits he painted of famous people he’d met. Just a beautiful, friendly environment.
So, we know how to deal with war criminals. Thomas Friedman is wrong. We deal with them very well.
Or take probably the major war criminal of the modern period, Henry Kissinger. We deal with him not only politely, but with great admiration. This is the man after all who transmitted the order to the Air Force, saying that there should be massive bombing of Cambodia — “anything that flies on anything that moves” was his phrase. I don’t know of a comparable example in the archival record of a call for mass genocide. And it was implemented with very intensive bombing of Cambodia. We don’t know much about it because we don’t investigate our own crimes. But Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan, serious historians of Cambodia, have described it. Then there’s our role in overthrowing Salvador Allende’s government in Chile and instituting a vicious dictatorship there, and on and on. So, we do know how to deal with our war criminals.
Still, Thomas Friedman can’t imagine that there’s anything like Ukraine. Nor was there any commentary on what he wrote, which means it was regarded as quite reasonable. You can hardly use the word selectivity. It’s beyond astonishing. So, yes, the moral outrage is perfectly in place. It’s good that Americans are finally beginning to show some outrage about major war crimes committed by someone else.

https://chomsky.info/20220616/

i have been meaning to dwell down into this topic since a long time, and i really have thoughts and critic of my own regarding this and want to type down
rape as a crime in India has always been quoted in such a gendered manner like it's always been said that it's a crime against women or has always centred to the topic of women, which I think doesn't represent the main reason or more logical approach to why India has such heinous problem of rape
I do think that gender cannot be a dominant lens when it comes to rape, there is a lot of factor that can explain more of a reason why it is done more as a hate crime against certain communities, minorities, religion, or class, then just a person belonging to a female sex
Feminist in India are trying to dwell the attention towards the fact that rape is only crime done because of hatred against females. Women or perhaps anyone who comes off as feminine in such regard but I think its shallow, there are cases where a person is raped because of a certain community they belong, it's not a dominant factor that being a woman was the only reason they were raped. it was also because they were belonging to a community that is already hated widely in India. For example, Muslim and dalit women are more prone to such crime.
It doesn't throw the fact that females are surely more prone overall together of such crime despite of belonging to certain communities, but I think it is not done because of hatred, particularly of misogyny that most people tend to say it
I think misogyny as a culture is still an upper class thing specially in India
when we roam around the streets, see men who are such perverts or being creep towards women, I don't think so that they are doing it out of hate or misogyny. Apparently, they are not aware of such thing because they don't see women as a thing that should be hated or perhaps could be considered to such regard because they dont simply see women of any emotions or i could just say, they see women as nothing and emptiness. and it is very different from hatred because misogyny culture is more of a phenomena that is not done widely by poor men, you can see example of andrew tate and his whole influence, and whether you agree or not, his influence has targeted me from a particularly privilege class
India problem is perhaps in my senses are not just misogyny, and I think that seeing it as a gender crime only towards women cut down the fact that they are men who have been victims and perhaps women who have been predator
What I am trying to acknowledge, ensure directly is that the problem of rape is more linked with transgression, sexual trauma, taboo, poverty, Classism, communal hatred and perhaps lack of moral ethic
And while talking about this, one of the major issue is that that most rape or many rape are done by a family member and here I don't believe that this is done because misogyny, it is more dwell in a power Dynamic way it just that female is so sexualised despite that both male and female are sexual objects, but females are considered as sexually perverse
calling rape misogynistic crime against women and not misandry against men when its done to men is just a hypocritical approach
I think feminist scholar in India are not very good at presenting the issue of rape because they are fixated on the Idea that it is just a direct crime towards a person that comes out to be a female because it is simply hatred.
There is not a single type of rape in India. A rape done to a lower caste woman is different to rape done to an upper class woman, rape to men is different from rape to women and rape done by women is different from rape Done by men, Rape done by a family member is different from rape done by someone Strange, rape done by someone who has more power dynamic is different than rape done by someone who appears to be powerless. and of course, all of them are dramatic at the same level, despite being different when we sociologically think of it
There is a very need of a proper structural study that needs to be done on rape held in India that is focused on more psychological approaches like I mentioned before, but also keeping the political tension and economical roles rather than just gender roles

I was 18 and football and wrestling were over so I decided to try weed for the first time. I had no prior experience with any weed before. I bought these "delta 8" gummy peach rings. The package said do not take more than 4 within 8 hours. I thought I was being responsible in taking 3. They were 50 mg a piece. For my first weed experience I took 150mg of THC.
My experience changed my life. I am in a constant state of questioning my own existence and the absurdity of all things in existence.
I took them around 8PM, and went to take a shower to relax hoping to coast into a peaceful high. After about 30 minutes of sitting in the shower nothing had come on so I decided to go to bed with my girlfriend. I laid there for a while and remembered that the new Boba Fett show had just dropped a new episode. I decided I'd watch that. My girlfriend had fallen asleep within the first few minutes of the episode, so I was watching it alone in bed.
About halfway through i started to feel a little hazy. But nothing I didn't expect, I was exited that it had started. So I just laid back and let it wash over me.
I don't remember how much time had passed but eventually I convinced myself that I died. I was horrified but this realization wasn't anywhere near as mind altering as what was to come.
I began seeing these fluttering hazy colors surround either side of my field of view. The colors sort of looked like the 2 Use Your Illusion album covers from Guns and Roses.
I eventually came to the conclusion that these colors represented my understanding of "Heaven and Hell" and as I thought more on my morality and the life I had lived, either side would seem to overcome the other. I remember hearing distorted voices from each side.
This went back and forth for a while, and I began to hyperventilate. I began questioning my understanding on either side. They were only represented by the color that they were and the distorted voices coming from each of them. I lost sight of which side was "heaven" and which side was "hell". I knew that I needed to choose either one to envelop me but I didn't know which side was which. It was clear though that there was a distinction between the two.
I don't remember which side I ended up on. But what I do remember is that shortly after I was absorbed into the side I chose, everything was ripped away from me.
This is where it began.
My entire understanding of my own existence was taken from me. I heard distorted chanting surrounding me, it felt like every single atom around me was chanting. The chanting was distorted and droning, it wasn't English but somehow I knew exactly what they were communicating to me.
It was that absolutely nothing exists.
They were deconstructing my understanding on everything. I do mean everything. For example, I remember early on as my understanding of time left me the chanting said that "we create concepts like time" as if to distract ourselves from the absurdity of existence.
When I say I lost my understanding it's important to know that I don't mean that I was incapable of grasping the concepts of things like time and physical space. It was more so that they were taking those concepts and pointing out the fact that they are completely illusionary and nonexistent, and were crafted to create this false reality that I understand and live in.
I became aware of the fact that absolutely nothing existed, and I began to feel that fact in a physical way. It's hard to put any of this into words but it's most difficult to describe they way I felt physically.
I felt like I was infinitely compact. I felt my own nonexistence. I felt like I was a singular atom being pressed inward by surrounding atoms. I also somehow felt this friction stretching me in every possible direction.
I just remember feeling like I was an atom inside a dense piece of matter like a rock.
I looked to any comforting experience from my life to escape. But it just lead to more deconstruction of my mind.
Eventually I came to the conclusion that I have always been in this place, and that I was just blissfully unaware of it. Therefore my entire life, friends, family, experiences, and memories were all imaginary distractions from this reality.
This went on for what felt like actual eternity, and eventually after throwing up I suddenly felt my own heartbeat, and something about that brought me back to my reality.
I just remember thinking "my hearts beating, so I can't be dead." And I fell asleep. I didn't wake up until 2PM the next day in a pool of my own vomit. My girlfriend had taken some edibles too and woke up after me not recalling any vivid experiences.
We went and got Pizza Hut, and went about our lives. I had a really hard time coping with the experience for a while. I had panic attacks several times over the next few months.
6 months after the experience I graduated high school and married my girlfriend.
I'm 20 now and it's been a little over 2 years since the experience, and I'd like to say I've recovered, but I haven't. My wife and I have 2 sons and I've got a nice EMT job coming up. But I've been having panic attacks recently regarding this experience. I just wanted someone's thoughts or advice on it.

FIRST, WHAT IS THE RED CROSS?
The Red Cross was founded in 1863 by Henry Dunant, a Swiss businessman horrified by what he witnessed in the Italian battlefield during the Battle of Volturno. By 1933, the Red Cross was the central humanitarian player in drafting the modern laws of war. In fact, the Red Cross organized the conference that drafted the original Geneva Convention.

ANTISEMITIC BIAS
The Red Cross has a long history of antisemitic bias; most notably, it served as a propaganda mouthpiece for Nazi Germany and even helped top level Nazis escape prosecution.
After the Holocaust, Jewish survivors not only accused the Red Cross of doing little to help them find surviving family members, but also accused them of being apathetic and having “no feeling.”
But the bias didn’t end there. The Red Cross refused to recognize the Magen David Adom (Red Star of David) until 2006, even though it had long admitted the Muslim Red Crescent. This rejection was hardly just a symbolic issue, as it denied the Magen David Adom protection under international law.
Much like the Red Cross served as a Nazi propaganda mouthpiece during World War II, the Red Cross has periodically parroted Hamas propaganda over the years, only to later take back their claims, after the damage has already been done.

WHY ARE JEWS ANGRY WITH THE RED CROSS?
Since the October 7 massacre, Israel and Jews around the world have asked for the Red Cross to be permitted to visit the hostages held in Gaza, many of whom have chronic health conditions and/or disabilities and one of whom was around nine months pregnant. Unsurprisingly, Hamas has denied the Red Cross access, much like it has denied them access to other hostages and prisoners of war in the past, in complete violation of international law.
Though we hardly expect Hamas to act rationally, the Red Cross, which is in contact with Hamas, has made little tangible effort to access the hostages or information about their condition, or to even contact most of their families. Instead, it has dedicated most of its attention to condemning the Israeli bombings of the Gaza Strip. It has also chastised Israel about a new wartime law that passed in the Israeli Knesset regarding the conditions of security prisoners if a “prison emergency” is declared.

A LONG HISTORY OF ANTISEMITISM
By the start of World War II, the Red Cross, which was based in neutral Switzerland, had a policy of non-interference and “neutrality” regarding the Nazis’ racial policies.
The Red Cross chose only to concern itself with the treatment of prisoners of war from countries that had signed the 1929 Geneva Convention. However, they opted not to interfere regarding the treatment of civilians.
Following Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the Red Cross chose to “conform” to the new regime, rather than oppose it. In fact, an SS general, Ernst-Robert Grawitz, became the head of the German Red Cross in 1933. Grawitz was closely involved in the plans to murder disabled people and in Nazi medical experimentation. The German Red Cross thus essentially became a Nazi medical unit, rather than a humanitarian organization. When pressed about it, the German Red Cross claimed that, by allying themselves with the Nazi regime, they’d have access to concentration camps, which would ensure that the inmates would be “treated better.”

THE RED CROSS KNEW ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST AS THE HOLOCAUST WAS CARRIED OUT
In the 1990s, the Red Cross finally officially admitted that they’d long had previous knowledge of the Nazis’ plans for the total extermination of Jews and Roma.
As early as 1933, the Red Cross received desperate pleas from prisoners in Dachau concentration camp, begging for intervention. By 1942, the Red Cross had full knowledge of the Germans’ atrocities. In early 1945, the president of the Red Cross wrote, “Concerning the Jewish problem in Germany, we are in close and continual contact with the German authorities.” The use of the phrase “Jewish problem,” of course, is indicative of the attitude of the Red Cross, considering the very same phrase was used in the Nazis’ “final solution to the Jewish problem” (in other words, the Nazi plan for the total genocide of the Jewish People).
A representative of the Red Cross who’d visited several of the camps falsely claimed that other than segregation, “no other discrimination was made against [Jewish POWs].”

THE RED CROSS PEDDLED NAZI PROPAGANDA
By 1943, word of German atrocities toward the Jewish People had spread throughout the world. Following the deportation of ~500 Danish Jews to Theresienstadt, the Danish authorities pressured the International Red Cross to visit the camp/ghetto to check on its conditions.
The Nazis saw this visit as an opportunity to spread their propaganda. Nearly 8000 Jews were immediately sent to Auschwitz to counteract reports of overcrowding in Theresienstadt. In Auschwitz, these Jews were placed in a “special unit” in the event that the Red Cross chose to visit them.
The camp/ghetto was “cleaned up.” For example, buildings were painted and a football field was staged. “Cultural activities” were promoted to create the illusion that the Jewish prisoners were thriving. The Red Cross officials were taken on a tour of a pre-planned route and interviewed prisoners who’d been trained on what to say. Unsurprisingly, the Red Cross left Theresienstadt with a glowing report.

1944 letter from the Red Cross alleging they couldn't find any "extermination installations" at Auschwitz https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/exposing-the-red-cross

THE RED CROSS HELPED NAZIS ESCAPE AFTER WORLD WAR II
Both the Red Cross and the Vatican were responsible for the escape of thousands of high-level Nazi officials after the end of the war. In fact, the two worked together to ensure their escape. The Red Cross alone was responsible for issuing around 120,000 travel documents, many to Nazis. They also issued 25,000 new identity documents. It was due to the actions of the Red Cross that high-level war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele were able to escape.
To this day, the Red Cross has refused to comment on these findings, claiming that the travel documents were “misused” by war criminals, rather than acknowledging that the organization took an active role in ensuring their escape. The Red Cross also claims that individual Nazi sympathizers within the organization were responsible for this; in other words, this was a problem of a few bad apples. In reality, recent findings show that this was a systemic problem and that high-level Red Cross officials were well-aware of the issue.
In the decades after the war, the Red Cross continually whitewashed its actions both during and after the Holocaust, only admitting to some wrongdoing in the 1990s.

OBFUSCATING MORAL CLARITY
There are few situations in life where the moral stance should be crystal clear. Opposition to Hamas — and to the Nazis — is one of these cases. Yet, much like the Hamas propaganda machine has worked overtime to obfuscate the moral clarity of 10/7, so did the Red Cross obfuscate the moral clarity of bringing Nazi war criminals to justice.
The second in command at the Red Cross, Carl Jacob Burckhardt, even decried the Nuremberg Trials, calling them “Jewish revenge.”
For a full bibliography of her sources, please head over to Rootsmetals Patreon.
https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/exposing-the-red-cross

Ok so as soon as I started this show I knew I wanted to come here when I was done to write about my thoughts but more importantly to get a sense of how this show was for people when it first came out. I get the sense that this show is very personal for those who watched it when it came out and so I want to start by providing some context of how I went into this show.
I am 23f, graduated from university last year and have been mostly at home since then working online. I had heard about girls when I was younger when it was coming out but never watched it or looked into it. But it was recently when I saw some fan edits and compilations of marnie antics on Youtube that I remembered the show and how it was about girls navigating life in their 20s. Great, I thought, I am a girl navigating life in her 20s maybe this is exactly what I need right now. Wrong! While I related to the general lack of direction each of the girls was experiencing, which I too have been struggling with, I spent most of the show being at best perplexed and at worst frustrated with the actions and choices of the characters, especially Hannah.
And I think that is at the core of what I want to understand about the show: are we supposed to like Hannah? If not like her, understand, sympathise or relate to her. I am someone who is all for unsympathetic or morally flawed characters because they explore the dirty parts of humanity and the difficulty of life. I was reminded a lot while watching this show, of Bojack Horseman who is objectively not a good person but while watching that show you see the the destructiveness of bojack's choices and actions, you see the effect it has on his life and those around him. I could never understand if Hannah was written in this way because as far as I could tell she experiences almost no repercussions for her actions and choices and the whole time I was wondering why. I can't list all the things I feel hannah was completely in the wrong for because I would be here for a long while but the ones that really shocked me was any example of her behaviour in workplace settings (especially when she was a teacher, how she was not fired is beyond me), her two day stand with that doctor and her brief but infuriating time at Iowa. This last point especially really frustrated me because she spends so much of this show talking about being a writer, more than actually writing and she finally gets the chance to pursue it and the thing that sends over the edge is a little criticism from her other classmates! Like is that not the whole point of joining a program like that and she was so rude to everyone and laughably unapologetic about it and then just decides to leave because it "wasn't right for her" and then the show just moves on from that and onto more drama with her and Adam.
I shall not get into the whole Adam and Hannah story because frankly I hated it. It started off with very bad foundations and I could never look past that and never see them as doomed lovers. However, surprisingly didn't hate Adam by the end of it, he was certainly a weird character but there was a certain charm to him.
Hannah's lack of consequences is especially evident when you compare her story to Marnie's. Marnie, I would say, is equally flawed as Hannah, maybe not the same flaws but definitely the same amount but you see where that gets her by the end of the show. In fact she has the biggest downgrade from when she started having a nice comfy job at an art gallery, a boyfriend a nice apartment to the end when she basically has no direction, a failed music a career and ex husband. I really did feel for her at times, but you could also see how her choices and outlook on life led her down that path. Meanwhile Hannah ends the show as a professor for writing! with a lovely house and a baby. Yes there are things that did not necessarily go her way but ultimately everything works out for her and she doesn't ever have to reflect on the many many wrong decisions she made in her life.
What also surprised me about this show, was how the friendship between the girls was handled. I say friendship very loosely because I truly do not think any of those girls liked or cared about each other and even if they did, they were all terrible friends. I ended up really appreciating the meeting they have at the end when Shosh basically cuts them out (completely justified in my opinion) and says they always make every interaction about themselves because that was the reality of the show. Marnie and Hannah especially spent so much time complaining about how the other always talks about themselves and their problems, especially with boys. This really disappointed me actually because I just assumed a show called Girls about four girl friends navigating their twenties in the big city would really explore the complexities of female friendships and ultimately highlight their importance. But all they did was fight and talk about boy drama until I wished they would just get new friend circles. I was honestly kind of excited for Hannah to be in Iowa because it could introduce some new friendship dynamics into the show and maybe reflect the toxicity what she has in new york but obviously I was wrong about that.
I think I could have maybe also enjoyed this show more despite its flaws if I found it funny. While there were times I had a chuckle here and there, but most of the time I was just cringing or just reminded about the frustrating nature of these characters, especially hannah. I am sure there were things she did that were played for laughs but because this show was grounded in reality, I just thought her actions were either cringy or wildly inappropriate.
I will end on a more positive note, on the things I liked, because I got through 6 whole seasons so there must have been things I enjoyed. Firstly, of the girls I loved Shoshana. She started of the show very sweet and lovely and welcoming and while she had that stint where she was just going through it and being rude after she cheated on ray (and never owned up to it). But once again, you see where those choices lead her and how she needed to step back and reflect and how she got to a point where she had to graduate late. When she moved to Japan I was so happy for her! That was another thing I really loved about this show, their depiction of Tokyo and Shosh's time there. I got to spend three months living in Tokyo two years ago and loved it! While I definitely had more knowledge and interest in Japan than Shosh before I went I still feel like it was the perfect place to experience when you're in your 20s. I felt Shosh's scenes there were very genuine and authentic and weren't too bogged down with the same tired cliches of tokyo. Even though she ends up moving back, I felt her time there really helped give her a better perspective of what she wants from life when she was back in New York.
Secondly, and probably the most surprising, I loved Ray. When he was first introduced as Charlie's friend I thought that he was kind of weird and gross especially when he wanted to snoop around the girls' apartment and read hannah's diary. But by the end of the show he was honestly my favourite character (which I think says a lot). His love of books and reading and art in general, the advice he gave the other characters, his little rants, his relationship with hermie (also loved hermie) and his motivation to do more with his life all grew on me to the point that I was just so happy when he was on screen. He was also just such a breath of fresh air from the chaos and drama of the other characters which is why I wasn't too crazy when he started having a thing for Marnie. That didn't really make any sense to me but at least he ended up with Abigail which was such a lovely pairing.
I recognise that this show is very much a product of its time and the fact that I wasn't in my 20s in the 2010s means that a lot of my experiences and outlook differ greatly from that time and affected how I watched this show. Which is why I really wanted to come here and hear from people who did experience it during that time.
TL;DR: Just finished Girls and want to understand what is the point of Hannah as a character and how did people find this show when it first came out.

As a life coach working with young men and adults, I have an eye as to what is being taught and changes we need to make in the home. Please comment and feel free to ask questions.
Teaching a sex-positive, shame-free philosophy within the framework of LDS (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) teachings in the home can be a delicate balance, but it is possible. Here’s a guide on how to approach this, integrating a healthy perspective on sexuality with LDS values:

1. Emphasize Divine Purpose: Highlight the belief that sexuality is a divine gift meant for expressing love within the bounds of marriage. This frames sexual intimacy positively, as part of God’s plan. Instead of shaming one's normal human instinct of procreation.
   
2. Focus on Love and Respect: Teach that sexual relationships should be based on mutual love, respect, and consent, aligning with the principles of treating others with dignity and kindness.
   

Sex-Positive, Shame-Free Education

1. Normalize Sexuality: Discuss sexuality as a natural and normal part of life. Use correct anatomical terms and provide age-appropriate information. Normalize curiosity and questions about sex without attaching shame or guilt.
   
2. Open Communication: Foster an environment where children feel comfortable discussing their questions and concerns about sex. Approach these conversations with openness and honesty, ensuring they understand there are no "bad" questions.
   

Teaching Morality Without Shame

1. Separate Behavior from Identity: Teach that actions can be good or bad without labeling the person. For example, discuss the law of chastity as a guideline for behavior, but emphasize that making mistakes doesn't define their worth or spirituality.
   
2. Focus on Consequences: Explain the reasons behind the church’s moral teachings, focusing on the physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences of sexual choices. This helps children understand the ‘why’ behind the rules.
   
3. Grace and Forgiveness: Emphasize the principles of repentance and forgiveness. Teach that everyone makes mistakes and that the Atonement of Jesus Christ provides a path to forgiveness and healing.
   
4. Critical Thinking Skills: Equip children with critical thinking skills to analyze and question media messages and societal attitudes towards sex. This empowers them to make informed choices rather than passive acceptance.
   

_______________________________________________
The Book of Harris-y
(Religion as it should be)
by Zachary Harris
(cc) (NC) (ND) by Zachary Harris
May be copied, distributed, or displayed, verbatim only. non-commercial, not derivative works nor remixes.
First edition May 2024
Chapter 1 - What's in a name
Chapter 2 - A bunch of rules
Chapter 3 - Secrete origins
Chapter 4 - The end
Chapter 5 - Everybody's favorite topic: SEX
Chapter 6 - The 2000 year war
Chapter 7 - Humans and gods
Chapter 8 - Parables
Chapter 9 - Feedback
Chapter
CHAPTER 1
What's in a name
Some religions are named after it's main prophet. Christianity is named after christ. Buddhism is named after Budda.
I, Zach Harris, dub this religion HARRISy.
Where is it written that a religion can't have a sense of humor?
HARRISy is not a spoof or sarcasm.
But any religion without a sense of humor, absolutely NEEDS to be ridiculed.
I was raised in christianity. So most of my criticism will be aimed at the Abrahamic religions.
I intend to build harrisy on logic and reason. Not the superstition, lies, and, threats that the Abrahamic religions are built on.
As an alternative for conscientious objectors caught in the religious wars (see chapter 6).
Deities are not really necessary for inspiration or religion. An all-powerful creator wouldn't need the help or adulation of puny mortals.
Only cults and human puppet masters need that. So we leave deities to their own devises. They ought to be up to it.
Harrisy is a religion about/for humans, as religions should be.
My leadership skills suck. So I will avoid leading, to avoid becoming a cult.
Chapter 2
A bunch of rules
Everybody hates rules. But let's establish what Harrisy stands for.
10 rules is a nice round number. But when the first four are about loyalty to the cult, You have to question who the rules are meant to benefit.
The christian 'commandments' only benefit the christian cult. The commandments don't even benefit their god.
A true all-powerful, immortal, creator god, would not need human worship or loyalty. The same as humans don't need the worship of ants.
We don't make rules for ants to follow. Just stay out of our way. The Abrahamic god treats us like ants. Either ignores or steps on us. It was his cults that made the 'commandments', not their god.
(more about that in chapter 7)
Harrisy has rules to live by, to benefit HUMANS:
A) Cause no harm.
B) Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Christianity calls this 'The Golden Rule' as if they invented it. But this was part of every culture and religion that humans ever created. (except Is-lame)
C) Do not kill. Do not kill humans.
Self preservation may override this, but killing is still a bad idea.
When killing animals for food, respect their sacrifice. Killing for sport is a bad idea.
D) People are not property.
Do not try to own others, in any sense.
You belong to yourself, do not give yourself away.
E) Do not steal.
You would not want to loose your stuff. (see B) Stealing harms others.
F) Do not lie. Avoid those who lie.
You would want to know the truth. To make better decisions. (see B)
G) Do not rape.
Do not force yourself on others. Your pleasures are not more important than other people's.
This applies to more than just sex. Do not force your religion on others. Do not force harrisy on others.
H) Do not shit wherever you please.
You don't want to slog through other people's shit.
(it's a metaphor.) Leave the world better than you found it.
I) Guard your privacy. Respect the privacy of others.
Beware of others who might use info against you. Or might unduly profit off you.
We have no rules about loyalty. We understand loyalties change. Just be honest (rule E)
We have no rule specifically about Adultery. Adultery might be considered loyalty, which changes.
Or adultery might be considered stealing, stealing affection. (rule D)
Chapter 3
Secrete origins
No one knows how/why it all began. Anyone who says they know, for certain, is lying.
The answer might as well be 42.
Most religions make it a crime to ask questions about their creation myths. This promotes ignorance. Helps the cult, not the people.
We understand the 'scientific method'. Scientists ask questions and are willing to test and adapt to new info.
So, for now, we trust scientific conclusions about the beginnings.
The current best theories from science:
The universe started from what they humorously call 'The Big Bang', about 13.8 Billion years ago.
Many are curious about what came before that. But we find that to be irrelevant to our everyday life.
Some religions say their god did it so they can claim payment/gratitude/worship for it. But we owe them nothing.
The earth was formed about 4.5 Billion years ago.
Humans evolved from other critters over many, many, many Generations (not years).
Some religions claim their god did it so they can claim payment/gratitude/worship for it.
We do not owe Harrisy or any religion for our existence.
Chapter 4
The end
How does it all end?
No one knows. Anyone who says they know, for certain, is lying.
Christinity predicts a bad acid trip. (See Revaluations) Any day now. So buy your ticket to heaven early.
It's an obvious con, You sacrifice this life you already have, for the promise of another life they can't prove.
Science predicts 'Entropy'. Every atom in the universe will drift away from every other till they can't react any more.
But humans will be dead or evolved into something we can't recognize, by then. Too distant, time-wise, to worry about.
Your personal end? What happens when you die?
Most probably nothing.
Seems like every religion has a different 'afterlife'. They can't all be right. (but they can all be wrong)
You can't pick the one you want. If an 'afterlife' exists it is what it is. WE can't control it. No cult can control it.
The cults are telling you what you want to hear. So you give your CURRENT LIFE to their cult. The life that is certain, in exchange for an empty promise.
No guarantees, No refunds, You won't get your old life back if they are wrong (or lying).
Pascal's gamble is a sucker bet. It never pays out.
Harrisy aims to make This Current Life better, worth living for it's own sake. We give priority to This Current Life over any theoretical 'afterlife'.
Chapter 5
Everybody's favorite topic: SEX
What's the point of Sexual Taboos?
Why would an IMORTAL (non-sexual, non-reproducing) being give a damn?
For example in the christian cult:
*Masturbation is sin,
*Spilling your seed outside the womb is sin,
*Marrying outside the church is sin,
*Divorce is sin,
*Birth Control is sin,
*Abortion is sin,
*Marriages without offspring are invalid.
*Brand (circumcise) your males, so your females know who they are allowed to mate with,
And in Is-lame, Women are just sexual slaves.
Taken as a whole,
The only purpose served by sexual taboos, is to help the CULT out-populate rival cults.
A REAL "creator god" wouldn't give a damn. Or Wouldn't need our cooperation. it would just create more of us, as needed.
A REAL creator wouldn't threaten us, it would just change us.
Sexual Taboos are serving a cult, not a god.
Harrisy has only one sexual taboo:
Rule G) Do not rape.
Do not force yourself on others. Your pleasures are not more important than other people's.
Chapter 6
The 2000 year war
The Abrahamic religions have been at war with each other for about 2000 years. Sometimes hot, sometimes cold.
But like some other religions, at all times attempting to be 'the one true religion'. And by their competition, doing more harm than good.
And the Abrahamic religions haven't even shown that the 'good' stuff needs their religion to get done.
They preach that it is somehow noble or their duty to spread their faith. ("Onward Christian Soldiers")
There are dangers associated with proselytism and/or evangelicalism:
(Please note - I had help with the following)
Focus on Conversion over Service:
Proselytism/evangelicalism prioritizes conversion goals over humanitarian or service-oriented activities.
This undermines the credibility and effectiveness of religious organizations engaged in charitable work,
as it is perceived as conditional or insincere.
Dogmatism and Exclusivity:
Evangelicalism/proselytism promotes a rigid, dogmatic interpretation of religious beliefs that excludes other perspectives.
This exclusivity leads to intolerance of differing viewpoints and hinders constructive dialogue and cooperation with people of other faiths or worldviews.
Coercion and Manipulation:
Proselytism/evangelicalism involves coercion, manipulation, or exploitation of vulnerable individuals,
such as offering material incentives or exploiting power differentials to induce conversion.
This raises ethical concerns about respect for autonomy and informed consent.
Political Activism:
Evangelicalism/proselytism has been associated with political movements that prioritize specific social or moral issues, leading to controversy and polarization.
this politicization blurs the lines between religion and politics, compromising the integrity of both.
Interfaith Tensions:
Proselytism/evangelicalism contributes to interfaith tensions and conflicts, especially when it is aggressive or disrespectful to members of other religious communities.
It will undermine efforts to foster mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation among different faith traditions.
Fragmentation of Communities:
Proselytism/evangelicalism leads to the fragmentation or division of communities, particularly in contexts where multiple religious groups coexist.
This creates social tensions and weaken social cohesion, especially when proselytism is conducted in a confrontational or divisive manner.
Proselytization and Missionary Work:
We are concerned about aggressive or coercive methods used in proselytization/evangelicalism efforts,
especially when targeting vulnerable populations or in multicultural contexts.
This leads to cultural imperialism or disrespect for the autonomy of individuals and communities.
Cultural Insensitivity:
Proselytism/evangelicalism disregards or disrespects the cultural and religious traditions of the target community.
This leads to cultural imperialism or colonialism, especially when proselytism/evangelicalism is conducted in contexts where there is a history of exploitation or marginalization.
Misrepresentation or Simplification of Beliefs:
Proselytism/evangelicalism involves oversimplification or misrepresentation of religious beliefs and practices in order to make them more appealing to potential converts.
This leads to misunderstandings or misconceptions about the beliefs and traditions of the proselytizing religion.
For these reasons we conscientious objectors to the religious war, need an uncompetitive religion like Harris-y.
But don't push it.
Chapter 7
Humans and gods
Why do human religions have gods that are all too human?
A creator of everything that needs humans to wright/publish a holy book?
An all powerful god who needs humans to promote him?
An all powerful god with a vindictive human sized ego?
An immortal who is obsessed with human reproduction?
An all powerful god who needs humans more than we need him?
Any actual god wouldn't need human religion.
Harrisy serves humans, not gods.
Chapter 8
Parables
Corn In A Cow Patty.
Finding truth in the Abrahamic holy books,
is like finding corn in a cow patty.
Sure there are some good kernels in there,
but is it really worth digging through the shit to find them?
You can find uncontaminated kernels of truth anywhere.
Chapter 9
Feedback
Feedback should be sent to: zachharris@mail2hell.com
Don't expect a timely reply.

I am a Christian deconstructing my faith (and not on purpose!). I can’t seem to reconcile the problem of evil with the attributes of God. It appears, that with the Biblical/traditional Christian framework, you must sacrifice at least one of the O-O-O-O attributes of God in order for evil to exist. Is this as big an issue for my faith as I think it is? As someone with ASD, I can't just sit with a paradox, I really need things to make at least some sense.
Traditionally, most, if not all, major Christian sects seem to hold to several core ideas about God and his relationship to the universe. These are typically denoted as O-O-O-O, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The sum of these attributes is, in theory, perfection, complete and utter perfection. The concept of perfection is extremely important when arguing for the existence of an ultimate deity as to be anything else would mean there is something better than it, in theory. But what is perfection? When we say God is perfect, what do we mean? Surely, if all things flowed from the nature of perfection, we would expect perfection… wouldn’t we? And since the universe is clearly not perfect by Biblical standards, how does the universe relate to God and vice versa?
This seeming paradox is often nicknamed “the problem of evil”. It is a juvenile concept at first glance. Typically, the astute apologist will fish into his pocket, pull out his trump card, and with a grin, set it down on the table. Free will. Argument over. Of course! God gives us the freedom to make decisions on our own and as a result, some of those decisions result in unfavorable and sometimes downright despicable outcomes. Just think about it! Poverty? Caused by the pride and greed of the wealthy. Wars? Also pride and greed. A child with cancer? Probably caused by the greed and pride of some sleazy company improperly disposing of some type of toxic waste. Rape, murder, adultery, theft? Pride and greed. Thinking you deserve something that you don’t have. In short, selfishness. And surely the desperate atheist will bring up hurricanes, droughts, and earthquakes but those aren’t moral evils, those are physical evils. They hurt, sure. They kill, sure. But they aren’t inherently bad. And who is to question the ways of the Lord? And on all these points I would generally agree. I don’t think that natural disasters disprove the Christian God, and in general, moral evils are the results of human actions. But there is a caveat… Why does free will entail evil?
Think about it for a second. If indeed free will exists, I may have the free will to jump a foot or so in the air, but I don’t have the free will to jump into outer space. There are constraints on our free will. If there are four supermarkets in town, I have the free will to go to whichever one I please. None of those options involve pride or greed but I still, in theory, have free will. So, it is completely possible for a divine being to endow humans with free will while still having constraints in place to prevent them from choosing evil. But he doesn’t… One might say that we have moral free will. But do we even have that? Can I choose to be morally perfect all the time? No. In fact, according to the scriptures, “No one is good. No, not one”. Because of “The Fall”, it is physically impossible for humans to be truly good… Now that doesn’t sound like free will at all. “But it was the result of humanity’s choice to sin”, the apologist might say. So, let’s grant them that luxury and take a look at free will in regard to all of humanity as a single entity.
In the beginning, God created mankind and called it “good”. God warns perfect humanity not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. However, an evil entity tempts perfect mankind into eating of the tree. Mankind’s sin ushers in evil and free will and curses all future generations to be predisposed to sin as well. I don’t think I need to point out the flaws in this story, but I will just be thorough anyway. God created a perfect world, yet it contained an evil entity that tempted humanity. God created perfected humanity, yet humanity yielded to temptation. The knowledge of good and evil ushers in free will, implying that humanity did not have the free will to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. On top of that, the knowledge of good and evil implies that evil already existed in the “perfect” world. Whether or not you believe the Genesis account to be literal or simply a parable or poetry, the main issue is still present. The world is imperfect but supposedly has a perfect creator.
This contradiction leads us to several internal models for how Christian sects have traditionally thought of God in relation to the problem of evil while still maintaining that God himself is all good. Unfortunately for these sects, this involves neutering at least one of God’s divine attributes. These models are indeed a somewhat reductive oversimplification of the complexity of the varying beliefs between followers of Christianity, but I think they help illustrate this issue. I don’t mean to say that this is what all Christians believe in these different sects either, this is simply my observation of how Calvinist and Arminian circles tend to deal with the problem of evil when I have pressed them on the topic.
The first is, evil is just the absence of God. This logically leads to God not being omnipresent.
The second is, God brought evil into the world on purpose in order to accomplish some grand plan. This logically leads to God not being omnibenevolent (in both the utilitarian and deontological sense).
The third is that God had to bring evil into the world even though he didn’t want to in order to accomplish some grand plan. This logically leads to God not being omnipotent since he relies on something that he would rather not rely on.
The fourth is God was unaware of evil when he created the world. This logically leads to God not being omniscient.
The fifth is that evil is a force external to God’s domain which he could not prevent. This also leads to God not being omnipotent.
The most logical choice seems to be that God is neither good nor bad, just morally neutral but that isn’t Christianity at that point, that sounds like Deism.
Alternatively, saying the creator God is evil and that the redeemer Christ is good is pretty much Gnosticism.
Of course, we could just say “God’s ways are higher than our own” or “as humans there is now way we could comprehend” but we can’t use a belief being as a proof that our religion is supernatural, otherwise, all religions might as well be equally valid no matter how absurd they are.
Additionally, if we go the opposite direction, we could say that evil and free will must exist together because God is a logical god and can’t break his own rules of logic. On first glance, this makes sense, but if we posit that, for example, God can’t make a square circle because he must comply with his own logic, then we make other logical paradoxes such as the Trinity not possible.
The last and probably most popular solution is the relational God model. God wants a dynamic redemptive relationship with his creation and the only way for true love to exist is for there to be the choice to accept or reject God as well as a reason for God to demonstrate his love as well. In this view, the end result of a restored humanity recasts how we view evil in the present. This indeed sounds like the most convincing model but it still has some major issues. If God is all powerful and all knowing, there should be no reason why he couldn’t create a humanity that truly loves him from the start without being simple automatons. But even if that wasn’t the case, the restoration we see in the Bible doesn’t appear to be the result of free will but of an ultimatum. Creation doesn’t have the option to reject God and continue to exist, it is either repent and live or refuse and suffer for eternity and/or be destroyed. It isn’t love at that point; it is coercion. Right?
Am I thinking about this the wrong way?

Anyone here have parents who sent conflicting signals?
For example, my parents complained about how tv shows were lowering the moral standard in America but then bought me Beavis and Butthead t-shirts and Mortal Kombat for the SNES. I also watched movies I was probably way too young to see (Terminator 2 gave me nightmares for years) and they bought me albums that had explicit lyrics because the guy at the music store told them that’s what kids were listening to these days.
They complained that I was spending too much time on the computer and AOL but then upgraded our home PC so things would load quicker.
Maybe it was a big shift for them at the time and they didn’t truly understand what they were buying for me or what they let me consume, but looking back there was a lot of things done that didn’t match up with what was said.

Name movies and shows that are not super dark, but have a somewhat cynical view on the human condition and nail just how messy and morally ambiguous most people really are.
The HBO series "White Lotus" is a good example of what I'm looking for.

After the unfortunate downfall of marvel as a consequence of total disregard of the quality of the content that is being put out, i have come to appreciate Agents of SHIELD more than i ever did before. The reason why I say this is because that show did what modern marvel has been doing horribly wrong and that is writing good female characters. The thing is in recent years marvel has subjected none of their female superheroes to actual character development (i am sure this has been covered by many content creators before). Lack of character development makes their superpowers feel undeserved and the audience stops caring about the character. This is what happened with characters like Captain Marvel, Monica Rambeau, She Hulk and many more. And this is exactly where characters like Quake, May and Simmons come in. These characters are faced with multiple moral dilemmas, they make bad decisions at time and then face consequences of those mistakes and as a result become stronger emotionally and physically. Needless to say this significantly better than making female characters simply brute their way out of sticky or painful situations which is basically the whole character sketch of Captain Marvel. (I will write about this someday else) When talking about character development in terms of agents of shield two characters just cannot be left out of the conversation- Leopold Fitz and Jemma Simmons. These two characters compliment each other in ways never seen before. They start off as nerdy goofballs who appear to be purely for comic relief and come out as warriors and leaders capable of accomplishing feats that are comparable to the achievements of Tony Stark. The psychological trauma of being Evil Doctor Fitz makes him colder in ways that come in handy during the fifth season when he has to survive over seventy years to save the love of his life. of course he does not actually survive for seventy years but he does break out of prison, and fight aliens and also rescues Simmons. Same in case of Simmons where she sacrifices everything by implanting a chip that removes her memory of Fitz's location. May is another example of legendary writing and probably the direction they should have gone with when writing Captain Marvel. Incase of May they go in the opposite direction by introducing a brute who will take down anyone and everything in order to accomplish her mission but then as the series goes on a softer side of her accents her personality. This is what humanizes her. And this is what Captain Marvel does not have, she is a robot who will set out to kill everyone and everything that comes in her way without much thought and consideration for consequences of her actions. Phil Coulson. I do agree with the fact that bringing people back from the dead is not a very good way of writing stories but he is an exception. This man is probably one of my favorite characters in all of marvel. His super power is his leadership especially towards Daisy. By the end of the series he is sort of a father figure for her. But he single handedly builds back what is left of shield and is the moral compass of the crew. He goes out of his way to protect the crew even if it might cost him his life which it does. Daisy Johnson, its a shame she couldnt be in the MCU but she is one of the greatest female superheroes marvel has ever seen. From being a naive hacker living in a van to leading a team exploring deep space. That is exactly the kind of character development marvel needs. Her power seems earned and the audience can actually connect to her. Special mentions: Ghost Rider, where do i even start with that guy. Probably one of the coolest characters in the series and i really hope he is written well in the mcu. Enoch: One of the most wholesome addition to their crew. I wish we could see more of him. Mac: Another great example of incredible character development. I could not think of a better character to be the director of shield after the end of the series (well Fitz could be one but he's a family man now) I am pretty sure ive missed a lot of characters but i dont think i dislike any of them. On the story aspect: They gave up on the idea of being in the mcu by the end of the second season and while i wish they showed up in the main timeline, it certainly was a good decision. Third season onwards they went completely crazy with the show. From being a Spy thriller it becomes a fullon sci fi superhero. but it is not to say that the first two seasons were bad by any means. I mean Grant Ward was an interesting character and I think his backstory makes us love him even more. Third season(and a little bit of the second season) takes things to another level with the whole Hive arch and the whole story of HYDRA which was probably one of the biggest turn of events in Marvel history. The fourth season is probably my favorite season and it introduces characters such as Ghost Rider and AIDA. This season explores a unique problem and they executed the whole "what if" scenario in the best way they ever could have. I mean the framework was probably my favorite part of that show. The Fifth season Takes the crew into space somewhere around 75-80 years into the future and introduces us to Deke Shaw who is a hillarious character. I mean his destiny is the greatest plot twist/ Joke in the show; i mean he is the last person you would expect to be a director of shield. Season 6 dwells with an alien invasion and a fake Colson and season 7 is basically time travel. ( I am gonna stop elaborating now because this whole section has become a summary of the show which i did not initially intend to write because most people who have stuck around this long probably already know the story) I wish they do some multiverse magic and make agents of shield cannon or simple bring characters over to the MCU.

I have a question.
Why does the new generation seem so focused on making negative comments?
Whenever i see a post about someone trying to succeed, most people just look for ways to criticize rather than give moral support.
Its not just about online comments... there is so much negativity everywhere. For example, if someone crashes their bike on the road, instead of helping, most people just stand and watch, with many even recording it on their phones. In the past, almost everyone would rush to help.
Do you understand my frustration? Is this a repeating cycle in life? or is the new generation?

WTF.

How old are you? What's your gender? Give us a general description of yourself.
I'm 19y/o. I would say Im a calm person, unless when im tired or when someone angers me. Im the balance between energetic and no energy person. I dont like sticking to one opinion because it feels like im limiting myself, so i guess im open minded. I dont really care about what people think of me unless its about my attitude or if i hurt someone unintentionally. i cant watch kdramas that r js typical, it feels so shallow and cringy. I also like psycho analyzing people. I also overanalyze someone's actions towards me. When i talk about a topic, i mostly talk the generality of it, but sometimes i think about every possible details which makes it hard to commit to one, for example: let’s say someone says you choose your own reality, in a way i get what they mean but i also think abt ppl who actually cant choose their reality. Drake and kendrick dissing each other, my brother asked me whose side im on, which i honestly dont give a crap, because its not connected to me neither i dont care who they are, feels insignificant to waste my brain cells on that thing. I also dont like rude people, like i get you have a painful past but that doesnt excuse how you treat me, i deserve to be treated like a normal human being. The line between right or wrong is kinda hard for me, i think theres no right or wrong in reality, its just based on people’s values and morals. Which ofc i do have.
Is there a medical diagnosis that impact your mental/compartmental stability somehow?
not that i know of
Describe your upbringing. Did it have any kind of religious or structured influence? How did you respond to it?
im not religious but i do believe there is some force that does things
What do you do as a job or as a career (if you have one)? Do you like it? Why or why not?
im an architecture student, so far i like it, designing a specific building for a specific person to suit their needs and comfort, how they would function inside it, my fav architect is antoni gaudi bc his works, every building's detail has a function or a meaning to it, which is not just existing but serving it's purpose
If you had to spend an entire weekend by yourself, how would you feel? Would you feel lonely or refreshed?
for right now, i would feel refreshed bc semester just ended and i need to restore my sanity, but if im feeling energetic then i would rather spend it with my friends,
What is your relation with movement and your surroundings? For instance do you prefer a sport or outdoors event? If an outdoors event what is it? And why? If not what type of activities do you tend to engage i?
im not really good at sports, but i do like running it makes me happy i dont know why, i like doing stuff that requires my brain like puzzles, sudoku, video games, movies with complicated plot
How curious are you? Do you have more ideas then you can execute? What are your curiosities about? What are your ideas about - is it environmental or conceptual, and can you please elaborate?
honestly depends of what mood im in, but since im an architecture student i tend to touch every material, and be curious about the function of the elements. i like listening to interesting takes on life or anything, that is different from others, but generally idk if im curious or not. im not sure if this considers as curious or not, but i like thinking about life, what is the purpose of humans, why they act selfish or why they act like a bitch generally, trying to find an answer to anything.
Would you enjoy taking on a leadership position? Do you think you would be good at it? What would your leadership style be?
i like leadership positions, i like being in control, i like being organized, i think i will do a perfect as a manager lol. when im traveling with my friends i always do the bookings, transport, almost everything
Are you coordinated? Why do you feel as if you are or are not? Do you enjoy working with your hands in some form? Describe your activity?
im kinda clumsy but i have great reflexes, i dont really pay attention to my surroundings like if im traveling in a group and some stranger says something i only find out after my friend tells me about it. i like painting, it feels so calm
Are you artistic? If yes, describe your art? If you are not particular artistic but can appreciate art please likewise describe what forums of art you enjoy. Please explain your answer.
i like painting, bc i like blending colors, it just feels so free yk. i like listening to music, i listen to almost every genre based on my mood that day, i rly wanna learn how to play on a piano
What's your opinion about the past, present, and future? How do you deal with them?
i dont think about the past, present, sometimes future but lately i stopped worrying about the future instead just making plans, i mostly just think about anything that doesnt really involve time, i be thinking about life, people, or any concept, or just making my own opinions
How do you act when others request your help to do something (anything)? If you would decide to help them, why would you do so?
i like to help even if doesnt benefit me, but if its something absurd then fuck no, im a straightforward person you see, if i dont want to help i js straight up say sry cant help
Do you need logical consistency in your life?
define logical consistency
How important is efficiency and productivity to you?
It is important to me, im more work first, play later person. ive been thinking lately, i thought i wasnt a competitive person but during the process idc if im not the best or worst, but at the result i actually do care, i want to be better, idk why it contradicts, the process and the result
Do you control others, even if indirectly? How and why do you do that?
mostly to gain something for myself, when i want something i plan like a scenario in my head of how they would react and what i would say
What are your hobbies? Why do you like them?
is it weird that i realized i dont have any beneficial hobbies, ex: playing video games, drawing, im not consistent at anything, i start something and drop it
What is your learning style? What kind of learning environments do you struggle with most? Why do you like/struggle with these learning styles? Do you prefer classes involving memorization, logic, creativity, or your physical senses?
i like organized teachers, i also like teachers who talk in an interesting way, like connecting the subject to real life or anything interesting. i like teachers who talk in broad sense and not yappers. im really bad at memorizing things, i try to understand rather than memorizing, i like my design classes because u can create something meaningful and good as long as its serving a purpose
How good are you at strategizing? Do you easily break up projects into manageable tasks? Or do you have a tendency to wing projects and improvise as you go?
before i start doing any project first i break it up into simples things then start doing it
What's important to you and why?
i honestly dont know, as most people say happiness, its not for me, i dont think i know the meaning of true happiness, i dont really feel happy i just feel calm, my main purpose in life isnt being happy, im fine with not being happy. but i do wanna live without worrying about anything
What are your aspirations?
i want to be a good architect that will change my city to a better one, but first i need the power in order to do so. i want to be smarter and more knowledgeable and skillful
What are your fears? What makes you uncomfortable? What do you hate? Why?
i dont like selfish people, but at the same time in try to understand their angle so its kinda hard for me to js say wow shes so selfish bc there r so many perspectives spilling in my head that makes it hard to contribute to one (it happens always, but im working on it). I dont like people who dont try to understand the other person. I hate rooms without windows because it feels so uncomfy, mostly because i need to see the sky to live, if no sky then i feel trapped inside it
What do the "highs" in your life look like?
no worries, like talking to people
What do the "lows" in your life look like?
see the worst in people
How attached are you to reality? Do you daydream often, or do you pay attention to what's around you? If you do daydream, are you aware of your surroundings while you do so?
as i said i dont really pay attention to my surroundings, sometimes im in deep thought but would really call it daydreaming. When im meeting someone i dont see their outfits but more of what kind of person they are
How long do you take to make an important decision? And do you change your mind once you've made it?
i do pros and cons, consequences, if its risky but worth the result then im doing it
How long do you take to process your emotions? How important are emotions in your life?
for now i feel numb, i dont rly care about anything right now prolly bc i didnt sleep for few days doing my project. but i do think its important to open up to someone or tell them what u didnt appreciate about their actions towards you, and communication is the key. but i feel uncomfortable opening about my depressive thoughts because it feels like im asking for attention, but i do say it straightforwardly about questionable actions done towards, bc some people think youre okay to mess with, so if u shut them down at low there wont be high
Do you ever catch yourself agreeing with others just to appease them and keep the conversation going? How often? Why?
not really, im not a people pleaser, but sometimes i dont really want to argue i dont agree i just say "i see", since that sentence isnt agreeing nor disagreeing
Do you break rules often? Do you think authority should be challenged, or that they know better? If you do break rules, why would you?
depends on the rule, if its messing with my values then i first think about the consequence, if its mild then fuck the rules
What is the ideal life, in your opinion?
having the power to change things
Please ask me questions

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!

Now that the sun has set on another season it’s time to reflect on our performance throughout and look forward to how next season could go.
TLDR; Much improved season but game management has cost us throughout. Continued strong recruitment for next season especially at Manager position.
Let’s begin with the raw stats.
We finished 10th for the second successive season but amassed our highest points total of 18 in the WSL alongside our best goal scoring season with 26 goals for and our best defensive season conceding 45 goals against. An improvement of 11 more goals scored and 3 fewer goals conceded than last season.
We finished third in our Continental Cup group losing only one game to Manchester United which ultimately cost us progression to the knockouts.
Furthermore, we reached the FA Cup semi final for the first time in our history, dominating lower league teams along the way.
Our top 5 goal scorers (in all competitions):
Rantala - 10
Cayman - 7
Petermann - 6
Tierney - 4
O’Brien/Whelan/Rose - 3
Top 5 assist providers (in all competitions):
Rantala - 7
Momiki - 5
Petermann - 4
Tierney - 4
Takarada - 3
End of season awards winners:
Player of the Season - Rantala
Players player - Rantala
Goal of the Season - Goodwin vs Liverpool
Academy Player of the Season - Kiera Bell
Congratulations to all. Now on to the review proper.
We start with the positives. Recruitment has been great this year. The additions of Petermann, Rantala and Cayman have increased our goal scoring output and the acquisitions of Lietzig, Kop, Thibaud, Rose, Momiki and Takarada has added greater depth and quality to our squad and made us a more competitive team throughout the season.
We very rarely sat in against teams, aimed to play out from the back and press opposition back lines which served us well and earned plaudits from around the league especially early on in the campaign.
Additionally we have a very solid tandem of goalkeepers in Leitzig and Kop that have shown they can be rotated in for each other and not effect the confidence of the team in front of them which is a great bonus.
Finally, we continue to see success in our youth academy with them winning the double of the PGA Plate and County Cup as well as academy players continuing to get minutes in the senior team.
Now, unfortunately, the negatives.
Elephant in the room is the managerial situation. After Kirk’s dismissal for unprofessional conduct and Foster stepping down as interim manager with the conclusion of the season we are now searching for our fourth manager in three seasons in the WSL.
Something is very clearly not right behind the scenes when our last 2 male managers have crossed professional boundaries with players and our last permanent female manager was unceremoniously dismissed hours after a giving a pre match press conference. Questions have to be asked about how our next manager is going to be recruited, monitored and assessed by the higher ups. This inconsistency has been reflected in our on pitch performances and the players must be commended for how they have handled the off pitch turmoil.
To be optimistic, whomever the next manager shall be they need to keep pushing the progressive, attacking football we have developed under Kirk whilst making us a less porous side defensively and able to manage games better and see them out especially when we have the lead.
Which very neatly leads me to our biggest downside this campaign, our game management.
All of our 4 league victories this season came against two teams (Bristol City and Everton) half of those came in the opening two games of the season (where we were briefly top of the league 🙌🏻) and the other 2 came in three games at the end of January/beginning of February. That is a long time to go without success without it effecting not only our league standing but the morale of the team.
It has been a reverse of our previous seasons where instead of seeing us floundering at the bottom to pop up at the end of the season we have watched us have an electric start only to slowly but surely watch our league position erode away.
The story of our season was giving up leads and losing points from winning positions happening 7 times in the league. The most defining examples is being 2-0 up at halftime at home to Arsenal, being the better side only to be decimated in the second half and lose 6-2. Drawing 1-1 in stoppage time to a 10 player West Ham and both games against Brighton. First surrendering a two goal advantage in the final 10 minutes of the away fixture to draw the game and then taking the lead at home to only go 2-1 down, fight back to level the tie but lose to another goal conceded in the last 5 minutes.
Of those 7 leads and potential 21 points lost, if we win against West Ham and Brighton, that’s 9 points in our favour and we would be celebrating a much stronger finish to our season.
With regards to looking forward to next season I do feel we have very strong foundations to build upon and become even more competitive not only in the league but have strong cup runs as proven by our results in a tough Conti Cup group and our semi final appearance in the FA Cup.
As for personnel we have a squad full of internationals with at least half a season of chemistry with each other, excellent training facilities and the privilege of playing at the King Power for home league games.
Obviously we need a quality manager to lead us. I would have jumped at the chance to take on Carla Ward but she is taking time out to spend time with her family. Aside from her I am not so well versed in the women’s managerial landscape to make an educated suggestion. Maybe Melissa Phillips, formerly of Brighton who seemed to have good respect from her players and a decent track record with London City Lionesses and Brighton.
For players I would like to see another striker brought in. When Petermann isn’t available we lack a focal point up top and Siemsen hasn’t been relied upon much when fit.
Cover at full back would be a priority as well. Bott is outstanding and we can always rely on the experience of Cayman but depth is definitely an issue. Ale did a decent job towards the tail end of the season but is only on loan and Nevin has seemingly dropped down the pecking order.
Further depth in the middle with the departure of Whelan and a younger, more modern centre half (think Plumptre) to complement the guile and physicality that we have in place.
A third experienced keeper wouldn’t go amiss to cover for injury to Kop or Leitzig.
I’m genuinely excited to see how he play with a fully fit complement of wingers next year as that is where we are stacked with promise: Rantala, Rose, Cain, Goodwin, O’Brien and Momiki (on occasion) offer a truly dangerous outlet for us and pose any defender a headache.
One final note. Thank you to Whelan for her services as our club Captain for the last two seasons. She has lead by example, never kicked up a fuss not being a starter this season and always given 100% on the pitch. May she enjoy her retirement from football.
Feel free to add your own thoughts and opinions and we look forward to improving further in the off season.
COYF 🦊