Shower thoughts

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Please don't post this on X, Elon might see it and feel attacked.

X is blocked here, so Elon may feel safe.

[magnemoe]

This short is about an almost real size replica of some of Thomas the tank engine trains, calming its the world larges model train. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7DibA4ChB0
1.5 meter wide 2.6 high and 6.5 meter long, 1.5 tons. Electrical powered with an smoke machine I assume. 
But its an engine you can fit inside and I assume it had local control.

But Is it an model railway? Or could I if I had more money and land than I could use make an 1:1 model railway using real trains? 
It had to be remote controlled, have no real purpose so no transporting mail or guests around an theme park, but you have model trains delivering drinks and some food to tables in some themed restaurants. 
Now I'm confused, now its plenty of historical railroads who is tourist attractions but they are veteran trains. 

[SunlitZelkova]

On 7/28/2024 at 11:24 AM, magnemoe said:

This short is about an almost real size replica of some of Thomas the tank engine trains, calming its the world larges model train. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7DibA4ChB0
1.5 meter wide 2.6 high and 6.5 meter long, 1.5 tons. Electrical powered with an smoke machine I assume. 
But its an engine you can fit inside and I assume it had local control.

But Is it an model railway? Or could I if I had more money and land than I could use make an 1:1 model railway using real trains? 
It had to be remote controlled, have no real purpose so no transporting mail or guests around an theme park, but you have model trains delivering drinks and some food to tables in some themed restaurants. 
Now I'm confused, now its plenty of historical railroads who is tourist attractions but they are veteran trains. 

This is nowhere near the size of a proper developed world modern train, so it could be counted as a model train. At the same time, it is about the size of some British narrow gauge engines- proper engines which once transported passengers and freight. Nowadays some are operated by tourist railways.

It's possible that the definition of "model train" depends on regulatory technicalities rather than size or design. Narrow gauge engines are presumably properly registered with the UK's railway regulatory bodies. That Thomas replica might be homebuilt, operating on homebuilt rails too.

[magnemoe]

7 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This is nowhere near the size of a proper developed world modern train, so it could be counted as a model train. At the same time, it is about the size of some British narrow gauge engines- proper engines which once transported passengers and freight. Nowadays some are operated by tourist railways.

It's possible that the definition of "model train" depends on regulatory technicalities rather than size or design. Narrow gauge engines are presumably properly registered with the UK's railway regulatory bodies. That Thomas replica might be homebuilt, operating on homebuilt rails too.

I agree, but the post office in London had their own train line who was unmanned and smaller, it had an useful purpose however so not an model railway. 
Also if you are carrying people even locally like the Disney people moves or an dark ride you are regulated.

[kerbiloid]

When Stephenson was making the first locomotive, he was limited not with 4"8.5' gauge width, but with 5" car width.

Wide cars on same gauge chassis appeared later.

Then narrow trains received narrower gauge.

[kerbiloid]

Do you know that one battery not disposed into a special container can pollute 20 square meters of soil with heavy metals, such as mercury, nickel, cadmium, lead, lithium?

Spoiler

Unless you dispose them all on the same 20 square meters, providing the future people with a valuable polymetallic deposit.

Upd.
Just noticed in the quote on top.
Is lithium heavy metal?

Edited August 3 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

On 8/3/2024 at 8:28 AM, kerbiloid said:

Do you know that one battery not disposed into a special container can pollute 20 square meters of soil with heavy metals, such as mercury, nickel, cadmium, lead, lithium?

  Reveal hidden contents

Unless you dispose them all on the same 20 square meters, providing the future people with a valuable polymetallic deposit.

Upd.
Just noticed in the quote on top.
Is lithium heavy metal?

I think is the definition of light metal. Nickel is an normal metal. Don't think mercury is used in batteries, cadmium is also an metal but dangerous , lead is use in lead acid batteries. 
Raises an unrelated question why does cars still use the heavy lead battery. Even EV have them, for the low power systems. 

[kerbiloid]

12 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Don't think mercury is used in batteries, cadmium is also an metal but dangerous , lead is use in lead acid batteries. 

It's a quote from the green website. I had read about the 20 m2 in Russian, and then googled this in English.
 

12 hours ago, magnemoe said:

why does cars still use the heavy lead battery

Spoiler

 

[kerbiloid]

Why do they tell in the Little Red Riding Hood  tale, that Wolf ate Grannie?

Did somebody see that?

***

That's Grannie herself was a werewolf.

That's why the LRRH girl confused Wolf with Grannie, that's why Wolf was able to speak, that's why Wolf was aware of the LRRH girl route.

***

The Witch aka "Mother" sent Apprentice aka "Daughter" to Great Witch aka "Grannie" on full moon, to let her either pass the initiation ritual, or be sacrificed in case of failure.

"Daughter" puts on the ritual clothes, the Red Riding Hood.
The anecdote explains what it symbolizes:

Spoiler

"Why is the Hood/Cap Red?"
"Because she wears  wolf skin with fur on the inside."

"Mother" gave to "Daughter" a "gift", i.e. a basket of ritual food: bread ("cakes") and in some versions wine, which obviously refer to the eucharistic meals, treated as having magic/supernatural properties (see Malleus Maleficarum  for details, the chapters about witches which steal the blessed sacrament during the eucharist ceremony).

The basket protects "Daughter" from physical contact with the "gift".

"Mother" tells to "Daughter": "Thou shalt follow the Way through the Wood and never stray from the Path."
It obviously means not just the forest trail, but the dark and grim Path of Witch, which the apprentice "Daughter" must consistently follow.

The Great Witch aka "Grannie" turns into her animal form, and meets "Daughter" at the midway.

She asks usual ritual questions and receives the ritual answers, like:
"Who are you?" - "I am Little Red Riding Hood / Cap".
(Notice, that we never hear her real name. It's basics, the witch avoids telling her real name to others to be safe from magic possession by it.)
"Where you go to?" - "To my Grannie".
"Where lives Grannie?" - "At the other side of the Wood".
"What do you carry?" - "Mother's gifts for Grannie."

While the Great Witch is asking, the Apprentice is still protected by the sacred "gifts" in the basket, because Great Witch in her unnatural werewolf form avoids having contact with them.

Then "Grannie" leaves "Daughter", and returns to her witch sanctuary aka "Grannie's Home", turns back into her human form, and gets into bed.

"Daughter" reaches "Grannie's Home", enters it, and puts the delivered sacred "gifts" on table.
Remarkably, noone of them eats or even touches the "gifts". It's explainable, as the "food" is not for food, but is used as a magic artifact.

"Daughter" starts asking "Grannie" about her eyes, ears, teeth, and so on, sequentially moving the focus of attention on the parts of human body, immediately turning into the members of a wolf.

The sequence of her questions looks obviously planned and thus ritual.

On mentioning the teeth, i.e. the most remarkable part of a wolf, "Grannie" turns into wolf (kinda it appeared that the wolf ate Grannie), and swallows the apprentice.
As wolves and dogs can't swallow something big with their tiny mouths and narrow throats, this is obviously a symbolic act of merging of the Apprentice, the Witch, and the Wolf.
The Apprentice finishes following the initiation path in the Wolf, and becomes it herself.

The tale has several versions of ending, and all of  them are actually the same.

If Grannie and Girl stay eaten, and nobody kills Wolf, it just means that the Apprentice has become the Werewolf instead of the former apprentice girl.

If the woodcutters/hunters kill Wolf, and they escape, it just means a return of the Werewol(f/ves) to the usual human form until their next turn.

The "Grannie"'s illness can be either a part of ritual, or be a real desease, which makes Great Witch accept another witch as her replacement, and the apprentice Girl is sent by the "Mother" witch exactly for that.

So, the Little Red Riding Hood is actually a story of an apprentice witch initiation into the werewolf.

***
The Grim Brothers were documentary writers.
They just softened some hardcore moments to keep the readers sane, and told them that it was just a tale and not real, and also called themselves Grimm.

Edited August 11 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

If an animate being exists forever, that is, does not die, can it be said to be alive?

Because being alive implies you will eventually die.

Just as being dead implies you once lived.

Likewise, if something is created, would not that imply it will eventually end?

And if it doesn’t end, how in the world did it come about? Because something can’t begin without having an ending.

I’m puzzled. It’s hypothesized another universe might be born out of the death of this one. From a philosophical POV, doesn’t that imply our universe might have come from the death of another one? And the one before that came from another one? And so on.

So (again, from a philosophical POV) is it even correct to think about the universe in terms of “birth” and “death?”

How are we even supposed to contemplate such a concept, when literally all existence is dominated by the question of whether something is or isn’t? (Do I have a Big Mac in my hand or am I waiting for it? Does the squirrel have a nut in its mouth or does it not? Is there sunlight shining or is there not?)

Can one deny concepts simply because they can’t comprehend them? I would say no. A squirrel can’t comprehend quantum physics but it still exists.

So what if there are things we can’t comprehend that we will never know about- are physically incapable of understanding- but go on affecting our lives?

Thought experiment: things need to add up for them to be “confirmed.” Extreme example- Lysenko’s theories didn’t add up, Mendel’s did. Police find evidence, if it adds up the criminal goes to prison, if it doesn’t they are freed.

Everything in the world is premised on having a beginning and an end. Nothing comes from nowhere, to come from nowhere is nonsensical. It could be said one of the foundations of existence is having a starting point and an ending point.

But if the universe itself lacks a starting point and ending point- hypothetically of course- doesn’t that not add up?

And if it doesn’t add up, what then? Is the universe’s existence nonsensical, illogical?

Note that arguments about the universe actually having had a “creator” entity don’t solve the problem, because then you have to ask the question of what created the creator, what created the creators’ creator, and so forth.

I’ve pondered what a future intelligent species, existing in the far future near the end of the universe’s habitability, might attempt to do to survive. The only thing I can come up with is attempting to leave for a parallel universe at an earlier point in time, *somehow*.

But there’s a lot of things in physics and what not that might render that an impossibility.

Now I encounter this hypothetical: We have all these rules/laws governing us within the universe, but what if the universe’s existence itself is “lawless” in a sense, in that it violates the laws within itself?

Does that not possibly imply there is something beyond the laws of physics et al? Or that the laws of physics themselves are bogus?

At the time I was first introduced to the concept of metaphysics btw (in 6th grade) I took 30 minute long showers, and yet I never had thoughts like this lol.

Bonus thought: the future does exist, there is only the upcoming present.

[Zozaf Kerman]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

If an animate being exists forever, that is, does not die, can it be said to be alive?

Because being alive implies you will eventually die.

Just as being dead implies you once lived.

Likewise, if something is created, would not that imply it will eventually end?

And if it doesn’t end, how in the world did it come about? Because something can’t begin without having an ending.

I’m puzzled. It’s hypothesized another universe might be born out of the death of this one. From a philosophical POV, doesn’t that imply our universe might have come from the death of another one? And the one before that came from another one? And so on.

So (again, from a philosophical POV) is it even correct to think about the universe in terms of “birth” and “death?”

How are we even supposed to contemplate such a concept, when literally all existence is dominated by the question of whether something is or isn’t? (Do I have a Big Mac in my hand or am I waiting for it? Does the squirrel have a nut in its mouth or does it not? Is there sunlight shining or is there not?)

Can one deny concepts simply because they can’t comprehend them? I would say no. A squirrel can’t comprehend quantum physics but it still exists.

So what if there are things we can’t comprehend that we will never know about- are physically incapable of understanding- but go on affecting our lives?

Thought experiment: things need to add up for them to be “confirmed.” Extreme example- Lysenko’s theories didn’t add up, Mendel’s did. Police find evidence, if it adds up the criminal goes to prison, if it doesn’t they are freed.

Everything in the world is premised on having a beginning and an end. Nothing comes from nowhere, to come from nowhere is nonsensical. It could be said one of the foundations of existence is having a starting point and an ending point.

But if the universe itself lacks a starting point and ending point- hypothetically of course- doesn’t that not add up?

And if it doesn’t add up, what then? Is the universe’s existence nonsensical, illogical?

Note that arguments about the universe actually having had a “creator” entity don’t solve the problem, because then you have to ask the question of what created the creator, what created the creators’ creator, and so forth.

I’ve pondered what a future intelligent species, existing in the far future near the end of the universe’s habitability, might attempt to do to survive. The only thing I can come up with is attempting to leave for a parallel universe at an earlier point in time, *somehow*.

But there’s a lot of things in physics and what not that might render that an impossibility.

Now I encounter this hypothetical: We have all these rules/laws governing us within the universe, but what if the universe’s existence itself is “lawless” in a sense, in that it violates the laws within itself?

Does that not possibly imply there is something beyond the laws of physics et al? Or that the laws of physics themselves are bogus?

At the time I was first introduced to the concept of metaphysics btw (in 6th grade) I took 30 minute long showers, and yet I never had thoughts like this lol.

Bonus thought: the future does exist, there is only the upcoming present.

And now I have a headache

[ColdJ]

11 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

And if it doesn’t end, how in the world did it come about? Because something can’t begin without having an ending.

Human beings have a hard time wrapping around the idea of something simply having always existed, because we and most of what we see has beginnings and endings.

We like to observe light that took a very long time to get here and assume that we can extrapolate what is happening to the universe as a whole. We create pictures of the Milky Way galaxy and claim them to be accurate, even though we are inside said galaxy looking out.

We are curious, and through that curiosity have discovered many things, but we are obssessed with believing our theories are right up until some one finds a way to break them.

The best thing to do is be content with what we have clear proof of and let others worry about turning assumptions into reality.

[Nuke]

something about new dune has been bugging me. the heighliners, what shape are they? because supposedly they are in 2 places at once. if you were to suit up and walk along the hull from the tail  end(im assuming for now that there is only the one portal, and not one at the tail end) down to the front, around the lip, and into the portal, and continue walking you will end up at the tail in but in a different star system. the path would be a loop with an elongated loop in the middle. one continuous surface from the tail in one system and the tail in the other. that would seem to indicate a hyperdimensional structure.

i also dont think they are proper stargates that link up. i think its one contiguous hull, because there is no threshold, no break in the hull when looking down the maw. no distortion to indicate a wormhole. its simply in one mouth and out the other. in the literature its a proper ship that folds space. which would indicate that the ship is capable of entering its own wormhole. in which the ship would have to completely fold itself inside out. probibly at both sides simultaneously. its a shame they never showed the thing moving from one location to another.

perhaps the loop in the middle is just space warping and the ship is actually just a long contiguous cylinder with no openings at all, parked inside a wormhole, and that the mouth is really just an illusion of the ship being folded around itself and the ship is a cylindrical rather than tubular. now my brain is starting to feel like that ship.

now im starting to wonder if i posted this line of thought elsewhere before.

Edited August 19 by Nuke

[kerbiloid]

The dark matter ^(tm).
Probably, I've understood its real nature.

When you are stirring the coffee with a spoon, you can see a typical rotating spiral galaxy  in the cup.

It consists of milk particles and random bubbles.

But there is also the invisible component which has its mass and takes part in the rotation.

It's sugar!

The dark matter is the sugar, dissolved everywhere in the universe basin of coffee.

And the galaxies are the local areas in the basin, where every drinker pours the sugar in different amounts (that's why the dark matter distribution is not uniform), stirs with spoon, and then drinks with straw (this explains the "supermassive black hole" in the center of the galaxies, it actually sucks the matter.)

The "big bang", the "universe expansion" are just when they filled the basin with coffee.

We live in a Mad Tea-Party...

Edited August 30 by kerbiloid

[kerbiloid]

P.S.
After thinking a little.

This theory also solves the problem of the so-called white holes, which throw out the matter instead of pulling it inside.

If a drinker stops sucking coffee, and instead blows air into it, there appears a fountain of coffee splashes, which is almost exactly what the white hole is.

Also, wormholes.
If bend the straw, and stick both ends into coffee, a classic wormhole connects two regions of the Universe (typically, two galaxy centers).

The creatures which are sucking the coffee from the Universe basin, should have an alias.
As we can't say for sure that they drink the sucked out coffee (as the Universe mass doesn't look decreasing, maybe they just spit it somewhere out, back into the basin; yes, quasars, I'm looking at you), we can't call them Drinkers.

All we may be sure, is that they are sucking the coffee. So, probably, they could be called Suckers (but pay attention, always from the capital letter, to show our respect for them).

[kerbiloid]

When Gandalf visited Shire, he didn't need anything from the hobbits.

He needed nothing.

He needed a real nothing, a real loser, a true shlimazel that would fail everything even with the mighty The One Ring.

That 's how Frodo began his way.

[kerbiloid]

Bill Gates.
Steve Jobs.

"Opening the gates. Giving the jobs."

Silicon(e) Valley was an Illuminati project?

P.S.
Giving Molly Millions.

Spoiler

 

[kerbiloid]

Two Ring-bearers, two life styles.

Given:

Spoiler

Bilbo's food.

 

Gollum's food.

 

Bilbo's bedroom

 

Gollum's bedroom

 

Bilbo'd travel

Gollum's travel

 

Idle Bilbo

Idle Gollum

 

 

 

Bilbo's treasures.

Gollum's treasures

 

 

Finally:

Spoiler

Bilbo in his 131 yo.

 

Gollum in his 589 yo.

 

Are you still insisting that it's The Ring made Gollum's life longer?

Edited September 14 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

I’m convinced logic is an illusion. You can come up with a hundred logical reasons for doing X and a hundred logical reasons for not doing X. All that matters is which you believe in.

Thus I argue instead of searching for reasons why we should do things, we should decide whether we want to do them ourselves. “Do, don’t think.” Because we can do whatever we want to if we put our minds to it. Put our minds to things in that glorious, arbitrary, utterly human way.

Instead we lie to ourselves with “justifications.” If we accepted we’re all just making this stuff up there’d be so much less antagonism and more understanding, IMO.

We laugh at toddlers for trying to set rules for their games and arguing about them and crying as each tries to usurp the other through ever more complex logic, but that’s exactly how adults bring about such great suffering upon each other in the “real world.”

[ColdJ]

13 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I’m convinced logic is an illusion

I would reply that Logic is just unpopular. Humans are creatures of want, who go out of their way to avoid logic to justify their wants."I wand land" "I want power" "I want to tint my face orange" "I want to permanently disfigure my body without thinking through the long term consequeces." "I want to prove how smart I am by creating an algorithm that steals everybodies creative work so it can fane intelligence and take away everybodies jobs so that nobody can earn any money to buy the products I am selling and stopping people from wanting to ever create anything original again for fear that it will be ripped off. In so destroying commerce and the society of free thought that allowed me to be able to create the algorithm in the first place.

You see, if logic was followed then so called AI would not be being developed out on the internet for chat bots and deep fakes etc. It would only be allowed on closed systems for research. But the developers who can raise 1 billion dollars to train their creations while other humans are starving and homeless, or lobby governments to change the laws so they can access copyrighted materials for free, don't want to acknowledge logic. The just WANT to do what they feel like doing.

Those hundreds of reasons to do or not do something are not logical reasons, they are the reasons that fit with what we want to do, and humans are great at convincing themselves that they are logical if it suits us.

So, I believe that logic exists and if people were capable of objectivity, then would be used more often. But sadly subjectivity is in the majority and it doesn't like logic unless it suit it's agenda.

 

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, ColdJ said:

I would reply that Logic is just unpopular. Humans are creatures of want, who go out of their way to avoid logic to justify their wants."I wand land" "I want power" "I want to tint my face orange" "I want to permanently disfigure my body without thinking through the long term consequeces." "I want to prove how smart I am by creating an algorithm that steals everybodies creative work so it can fane intelligence and take away everybodies jobs so that nobody can earn any money to buy the products I am selling and stopping people from wanting to ever create anything original again for fear that it will be ripped off. In so destroying commerce and the society of free thought that allowed me to be able to create the algorithm in the first place.

Curiously, what you said above is also used to describe some criminals...

Quote

In an effort to provide a more comprehensive perspective on criminal decision-making, the
current paper highlights the role of emotion in the choice process and reviews factors that increase the likelihood of
antisocial outcomes. The result is a theory of decision-making in which the individual is believed to act on the
hedonistic and moral emotions that guide moral decision-making and where irrelevant emotions are enhanced and
relevant emotions dampened by cognitive and situational factors that, in the end, serve as the foundation for criminal
choice.

Emphasis are mine.

Source: https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/api/v1/articles/317-the-decision-to-commit-crime-rational-or-irrational.pdf

Hedonism. I had forgot about this word...

[Ryaja]

Cats probably have diffraction spikes in their vision when their pupils are small, as they are slits.

[kerbiloid]

The brainless unicellular humans are hunting-gathering.

Spoiler

 

They are your genetic clones, with same DNA, in no way connected to your neural system, swimming in your blood, treating the big-you as a substrate, providing the constant temperature and chemical composition of the liquid they live in.

You may be an engineer, an artist, a lawyer, but deep inside you are still  a tribe of hunters-gatherers, which have no idea what are you talking about.

[SunlitZelkova]

Can one truly love without loving everything?

That is, is true love love if there is hate at the same time?

As I was dealing with my nuclear anxiety in Tokyo, I was overcome by the intense feeling I could not hate anyone or anything, period, if I was to truly have compassion for anyone at all.

The thought that entered my head was this: loving one thing alone is an excuse to hate another. Thus it isn't true love.

Note that this notion applies to my very philosophical and... how to put it... spiritual? mind. Of course, by applying this rule, I love those who love one thing while hating another. As someone who values personal autonomy to the highest degree, I do not translate love for all into being love for all on the condition that they are eventually "transformed" into a different, very specific state that suits my personal liking.

By love I mean love in the sense of agape.

Some context though: I consider much of what I see to be an illusion. A cruel illusion that can hurt, of course, but nonetheless an illusion.

I hope this next part isn't too political.

What drove me to this was the nonsensicality of existing nuclear disarmament arguments. It just makes zero sense to eliminate one class of weapons without not only eliminating other weapons, but violence as a whole. There's no argument there that anyone will ever be able to agree on. Side A and Side B will never convince each other to try and prevent the mass violence of a nuclear war if *some* violence is okay.

Because which form of violence is okay is totally opinionated. You can't form logic around it. Justifying violence requires saying, "I have the right to end this person's life... because I said so." You can do mental gymnastics, of course, but realistically if you have the right to take someone's life, so do they have the right to take yours. Because what you're really saying is "It's okay for me to kill because I have a good reason. If I didn't, it wouldn't be okay." And thus all they have to have is a "good reason" and it's okay for them to kill you, and anyone else.

But what a good reason is is entirely up to the person deciding. Because there is no objective "good reason."

And what we're left with is it being quite natural that violence and war seems to never end, because the people trying to create peace aren't creating peace for all, they're creating peace for themselves. In the way they  want.

But I can't hate these people, those who accept violence in some instances. Because to hate and dislike... dislike unless a certain condition is met, i.e. them becoming more like how I think they should... would be to become one of them. Or rather, to join this endless cycle of suffering. Inflicting suffering and having it inflicted back on me. Infinitely. Or until "There's two of us standing and only one of them."

Thus I am led to believe one cannot find peace or have compassion without eliminating the concept of us and them, and instead only seeing all.

This involves an immense degree of compassion and trust. It involves seeing those who potentially threaten your own life as sentient, feeling beings, rather than part of a machine-like "Them." Hoping... because that's really all that can be done, it's impossible to know... that they will make a reciprocal decision about how to interact with yourself. And then even if they harm you, still loving them anyways. Loving them despite what they do. Not what they do, of course. But loving the person. Not the action. And (bear with me) not loving them believing they "truly" are or can be different, but simply loving them. Loving everyone and everything.

I have no idea how to explain this in a way that makes more sense. Human society, as well as human behavior, is, at least from some scientists' POV, specifically structured around an "Us" and "Them" system. That's who we are. Talk of inner humanity and such, is, IMO, just mental gymnastics to convince ourselves "Us" are better than "Them." At the end of the day even the most peaceful person is, if left with no other option, gonna take the life of another in order to defend something they love. The problem is, from the point of view of "Them," we are "Them." Thus there's no way out of this sort of "game."

But we... especially I... was left with the question of why this keeps happening. Why do people hurt each other?

Which brings me to the other solution to this question. Which is to realize our "morals" are just fantasies we cook up to convince ourselves we are better than "Them," as evidenced by how what we do does not differ from what they do except who it's targeted towards, and that the reality is that these moral distinctions are silly.

What matters is that we are alive and they are not (in other words, unable to harm us). There is no point in handicapping responses to threats beyond making yourself feel good that you are. Feeling good is an intangible thought. Fake, in other words.

But the threat is real. The possibility is real.

So why wait? Why not hit the threat now before it hits us? There's nothing holding us back except ourselves. The same is the only thing holding them back. But can we trust them to hold themselves back? We don't even trust them now. It's the whole point of classifying them as a threat (note that this may sound like I'm describing geopolitics but it can mean anything. Household against robber, business against business, person against murderer, and so on).

やれる前にやれ. A yakuza saying to kill before being killed. And my own little phrase I've come up with to describe this thought process. Hit hard, hit fast, hit now.

Anything less is inviting an attack on you and what you care about.

And this brings me back to that notion of mine. You either love all or you don't truly love at all. Because the end result of allowing some violence to be okay and not others is just a pure free-for-all murder fest. Group against group. Individual against individual.

History does not occur according to formulas or patterns. It shifts without rhyme or reason. If one doesn't recognize that and make the choice to take a position and defend it no matter what, they will find themselves suddenly looking a lot like the people they think they are different from one day. Because if pushed... if the external situation was in a certain way... we'd do exactly what they are doing to us. Because if there's a "good" enough reason to do something...

But if we stick to one idea and never violate it... not "because of the extraordinary situation," or "because of the demands of the environment around me," etc... I think we will find ourselves suddenly in a much more peaceful and friendly world. Even if we are indeed different in many ways. Because I vow not to take your life, and you vow not to take mine. No matter what.

We can talk about how to resolve issues like getting enough food and water, securing shelter, etc., for as long as we want. Because we're alive, and will be for a long time.

The specter of many rather choosing to kill me... and millions of others... and take all the food and water for themself haunts me everyday. Killing, killing, killing. Not only "until there is no one left." Because anyone dying in the first place is a tragedy. Mass death doesn't suddenly become more tragic when there's no one left to kill.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk

Some notes:

These references to killing apply to humans vs. humans. I don't see any sense in militant vegetarianism, we are omnivores and the idea that animal life should not be taken but plant life can devalues plant life, who have just as much a right to life as do animals. I.e. I don't think capacity to feel pain or sentience defines the value of life. Anything living should live. But living things need to eat other living things in order to live. Thus eating animals is simply part of the way reality is. On the other hand, I do object to making these animals suffer for extended periods of time in the process of raising them (in other words I don't like factory farms), but that's my opinion... any how I digress.

Some of the stuff about war may sound political. If you choose to respond, please try to talk about war as a concept rather than listing real life examples. I'm not trying to point fingers at specific individuals, because one man is just as culpable for justifying and carrying out violence as any other. All violence is bad, IMO, not just specific instances.

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

You can't form logic around it.

https://www.fadedpage.com/books/20210549/html.php

Edited yesterday at 01:29 PM by kerbiloid