reliv3

I hope it may be a bit of confirmation bias. Most of the people who are not misogynists just move on after reading the meme and don't comment. I was about to do the same until I saw this comment thread, and now I'm in the gutter of other comment threads here trying to fight the good fight 🤣.

No where in that statement is it suggested to consider ALL men rapists. Where are you getting this? Fighting "the rapists" means fighting the rapists, not all men? You are interpretting this in a way that goes way beyond what was stated.

I can't say how it's going to affect all men, but for me (who is a man) that is not how it affects me. The fact that there exists a lot of mysogonistic men doesn't reflect on me. I am confident that I'd be one of the men who'd just leave a woman alone if we ever met in the woods, so knowing that there are a lot of men out their who wouldn't doesn't get me salty at the women who are fearful of them; but rather, it gets me salty at the shithead men out there who are ultimately the root of the women's fear.

Right now, you are ultimately expressing your anger towards the hypothetical victim rather getting angry at the hypothetical asshole.

Its interesting how you interpreted their premises:

1. A lot of men are rapists even though you aren't.
2. Be kind.
3. Continue to fight the rapists

As "if you don't want people to hate you, you need to hate yourself". I don't understand where you are getting this take from these three premises, could you further explain?

You are misunderstanding what women are implying with this meme. It is about probability not pre-determined outcomes. Women are more fearful of the man because they believe there is more chance of being harmed by a random man than a random bear. This neither implies every man will threaten her nor every bear will maul her.

I doubt you know that. Modeling matter and photons as a non-deterministic wave function is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. If this has been debunked, then quantum mechanics would have been debunked.

The bottom line here is you are incorrect. The question is whether you're willing to update your viewpoint or not. But that's for you to decide.

I think this might be where my role ends as the random internet guy trying to help you realize the error in being overly confident about a concept you clearly know little about.

Not trying to be rude or anything; but It's curious that you can claim certainty about a complex element of quantum mechanics; yet admit to not being able to model the basic phenomenon of light traveling through a dual slit.

Curious, how do you explain the dual slit phenomenon?

Science isn't actually "physicalist". In fact one major theory in science, Quantum Mechanics, would probably challenge physicalism since quantum suggests that there will always be unknowable physical quantities regarding any given particle of matter. It also suggests that particles of matter (and light) must interact with an observer in order to exist in a state where some physical quantities can be known; else these particles exist only in an exotic state of indefinite probalistic fluctuations.

I must say though, even though quantum challenges physicalism, quantum's model of the universe truly rejects the possibility of any omniscient entity. Omniscience requires the ability to know everything about the universe and quantum suggests that this is in fact impossible; therefore a truly omniscient god would be impossible. It was for this reason that god-fearing Albert Einstein rejected quantum mechanics up until his death bed.

You truly believe the semantics of the English language disproves the point? English and the way it defines "I" is greatly affected by things seperate from biological definitions (one being the spiritual concept of the "soul")

Also, there did exist languages in other cultures that did not have the same concept of "I" as the English language. Your counter-argument is very weak.

You are correct, the person was on life support. But they grew and went through puberty like any other normal functioning human. (I believe the person was born brain dead, and the wealthy parents couldn't let go so they kept the person on life support at home).

Cells are living things by definition. So it is alive, though the body functions more like a tree than a mammal at that point. But a decentralized nervous system grew around the different vital organs.

The real flip side of your question is: do you think you'd still be you as a "brain in a vat" without any body?

Ultimately this whole discussion boils down to challenging the definition of "you" or "I". Biologically every "singular" person is the result of many living things working together, so the concept of "I" is an illusion. Physically, there is no "I", but only "us".

This makes the discussion easier. If the hand is removed, then of course "we" are different because "we" lost a piece of "us". This would also be true if "our" brain was removed.

Nevertheless, there have been cases of brain dead people's body adapting to the lack of central nervous system, so the body is more independently alive than we tend to give it credit.