Wow, that’s a crazy experience. Somebody jumped in and saved you?

I was only making a joke…

It’s all about the marketing. They probably wanted German audiences to know its a romantic comedy and not just an action movie

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man_(2023_film)

That one. Glen Powell actually showed some serious acting chops in that movie, I really enjoyed it.

DM me, I’ll hook you up 😇

I got you

This guy mosquitoes.

A) It’s not literally every post

B) Stop using reddit. Problem solved.

Ok I didn’t realize you were just a troll. Good luck with that.

If this is your definition of “objective”, something you can say about the books in the Bible, sure bro I guess.

Seriously? What a ridiculous, intellectually dishonest false equivalency. Why not respond to the remainder of my argument? Do you actually doubt whether the Ancient Greeks existed?

To me objective means it can be empirically proven: 2+2=4. Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Water at sea level boils at 100c. Etc.

Pure empiricism is pure nonsense. Objective truths exist independently of individual minds, while subjective truths exist within minds.

History is composed of a series of events that physically occurred on Planet Earth within the past ~5k years, and were recorded in written form by human beings. Human beings were born, did certain things, wrote them down, and died. We can dig up their remains and verify many of the things they wrote via empirical, scientific methodologies. You can choose to doubt various interpretations of the facts, but your delusions cannot change the inherent reality that lies within.

Your choice to contest the validity of history is demonstrative of a profoundly irrational mindset, because you are rejecting verifiable information in favor of your own subjective assumptions. You would prefer that history not be objective, because you wish to believe your own subjective version of history as an emotional coping mechanism.

There is nothing “objective” about History, it is an educated guess.

A lack of absolute certainty does not equate to a lack of objectivity. You’re right that history is necessarily written by individuals who have biases. But it is also written by many individuals from different perspectives and correlated with a variety of other sources of knowledge, such as archeology, geology, etc.

For another example think about what the Greeks wrote about the Persians during their many wars, and vice versa. They are conflicrive accounts. Both biased and political. So again, what history is correct, objective?

They are conflicting on some things, but they also agree on many things. For instance, I’m sure we can agree that the Greeks and Persians existed, controlled large empires, fought wars against each other, etc. Historians are trained to analyze all of the documents available from all perspectives and arrive at the most objective conclusion that they can muster.

I strongly oppose the postmodern attitude that everything is subjective. It’s good to remember the limits of our knowledge, but to completely discard an academic field such as history as entirely subjective is quite absurd.

Indeed, I agree with you on that.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate art more than most. But there’s an exclusionary aspect that exists with art, wherein only some people can truly appreciate various aspects.

In contrast, nature is more universal and primal. Everyone, regardless of language or culture or education, can appreciate natural phenomena. The beauty of nature speaks to us on a fundamental level, whereas the beauty of art requires a certain degree of acculturation and intellectual effort to grasp.

Furthermore, human art is a reflection of nature and indeed a part of the beauty of nature, as you say. However, that inevitably positions it as a subset of the all encompassing beauty of existence as a whole. Artistic works are small mirrors reflecting back aspects of reality in interesting ways. But because they can only ever represent fragments of the greater whole, they are somewhat less awe inspiring.

Often, works of art can prompt us to engage with the beauty of reality, so I’m not condemning them in any way. I’m just saying that the representation can’t be better than the real thing, even if humans wish that it were.

Modern people lack an appreciation for the beauty of existence and the physical world. The most intricate and aesthetically pleasing creative achievements of the human race pale in comparison to the inherent beauty of nature.

It’d be wasted on you, as my previous insights have been. But yeah, evolution doesn’t exist, genetics don’t exist, whatever helps you sleep at night buddy.

There’s nothing different between me and LeBron James, I’m just not trying hard enough to dunk 😅. If only I made the choice to dunk the basketball, independently of the fact that my ancestors are not particularly tall. But my ancestors are irrelevant, as you’ve clearly asserted.

I’ll get back to you on that. Seriously, I just don’t have time rn but I’ll edit this when I have a chance within the next 24 hrs. The second half of your question is particularly difficult to answer.

Ok I just accidentally wiped my entire edit before saving. Fuck that, I’m not writing all that again. God damn it that was such a good response too. Sorry.

I don’t believe that anyone truly acts independently. We are all products of our environment, of which our ancestors comprise a significant portion. I don’t believe in free will.

Your contention regarding inventions is wrong, but irrelevant anyway. I understand that it’s nearly impossible to discuss this topic objectively without allowing your personal emotions to bleed into it, so I’ll just leave it at that. I’ve already made my points but you don’t seem to understand at all.

significant portions of a population dying during or prior to fertility is the only way that natural selection works. That or the existence of bachelor herds that lead to a very slim minority being the only ones to breed.

And I don’t understand evolution? Wow. I think it’s possible you may be suffering from a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

There’s nothing different or more special about one person’s progeny than another

How do you figure that? Are you familiar with the theory of evolution? How do you think we got to the point where I’m communicating to you through a global communication network? Dumb luck?

We are as important to future generations as past generations are to us. If previous human beings hadn’t done everything they did, we wouldn’t be here now. Likewise, everything that we do in the present has a rippling effect for the rest of human history. Having kids allows you to have a little more direct input on what kind of ripples you leave behind.

Why wouldn’t it matter? If your family doesn’t matter to you, what does?

'ooh those 12 people have something to do with me if you go back far enough"

It’s not about that, it’s that those 12 people won’t ever exist if I never have any kids. They have everything to do with me, because without me, they wouldn’t be alive. And I also think the world will be a better place if they do exist.

It’s not our genes that he cares about. It’s his genes.

For me personally, I feel that I am inherently good, humanity is inherently good, and I just want to pass the torch to the next generation and see how far they can carry it. We’re currently in a bit of a slump as a species, but I believe that everything will turn out alright in the end and I’d like for my descendants to be around to enjoy and indeed contribute to it.