u/Fun-Affect2186

I thought about it multiple times. There is an universal truth: "I think therefore I am". So if you can think there inherently must be "you" to begin with. That means that there is a platform that you can rely on and build other theories that also must be truthful. All modern science is built on this principle: you have to show irrefutable evidence for something to exist in order for it to be perceived as truth. It's not enough to just see/hear/taste something for it to be true, you need test it, know what makes it work and compare it to other things you already know.

But there's a problem, you can't possibly test everything and you can't know something 100% true. There are always arguments like:

1. human mind just perceives reality which leads to possible uncertainties about actual nature of the universe

2. Logical laws may not be inter universal and some things we can't even begin to comprehend since it goes against our own nature

3. We rely on knowledge of other people a lot, because in our lifetime we can't possibly prove everything ourselves and in a lot of cases it's just faith that other people made it correctly and their theories are provable

4. If you start poking holes at every theory trying to eliminate all possible errors you may end up like flat-earther who reject every proof by: "I didn't see it with my own eyes and all other evidences could be fake, we don't know for sure"

First and second argument can be dismissed because even if we are deluded by our human bodies, if something works, then it's still useful

Fourth argument is a bit silly, because you can prove in hundreds of ways that earth is in fact ellipsoidal: by observing other plantes, making gravity tests, making travel around the world or testing how sun sets at different heights. However the point is that you need to have certain amount of faith to take theories of other people as truthful. Like for example I know that certain medicine works -> people who developed medicine were thought on theories about existence of cells, viruses, bacterias, etc.->those theories must be correct

Where is balance between being too critical and being too faithful? Can you really get truthful information about anything or just eliminate chances of mistake? I remember that there was a concept of this idea in philosophy, but I dont remember the name.

Thanks for answers

Generally my opinion is that any topic should be allowed to joke about, as long as you understand context of the thing you joke about and you don't blatantly insult someone.

A lot of times comedians joke about certain race, religion, nation, gender, sexuality, etc. and some of them actually make it funny and non-offensive by using sarcasm to joke about people who actually have those hatefull beliefs. For example song: "straight white male" by Bo Burnham. Even though there could be seemingly offensive phrases It's obvious for anyone that comedian is telling something in sarcastic way

However if joke is bad or sarcasm isn't obvious (simplest example someone says: "abortion is murder" or "slavery wasn't bad" in sarcastic way but because it's pretty common opinion in certain groups, audience thinks that author of the joke is serious and starts denouncing them) it isn't obvious whether it supposed to be sarcasm or an actual opinion.

Also a lot of racists, sexists, homophobes make such jokes to test if people in unknown group would support them, because they know that straightforward hate speech usually unacceptable and they need joke as an excuse. For example once I met a guy that "joked" about hitler being cool and about wish to nuke Palestine in order to kill both jews and arabs.

1. Is there actual way to determine when joke stops being joke and becomes hate speech?

2. How to determine whether it's genuine thoughts covered by shitty joke or just talentless jokester trying to be edgy?

3. Why if joke is actually funny for most people, nobody gets offended by it, even if it seems really offensive at first sight?

4. Do good jokes get a pass to be offensive, or good jokes can't be offensive by definition?

Why do people care if something is corny/cringe even if it's harmless? Also why everybody has different corny-meter?Someone can't stand literally any expression of feelings, labeling it's as cringe and others love the most cliché and performative things ever. Most of my life I was really insecure about everything (still kinda am) and labeled any form of self expression, humour, art, talk, etc. as something cringe. i got older and started caring less about it. And even though I understand that my disgust towards things I label cringe is unreasonable, I still can't help but to feel that way. For example I heard one song on tiktok recently of one guy singing about uncertainty in life, lack of motivation, depression, etc. I understand that those are serious topics, but it is made in such "cliché way" and it sounds like author tosses terminology and concepts, that he doesn't fully understand just to larp as a sad teenage boy. However a lot of people relate to him and I think he genuinely wants to express his feelings, just lacks writing talent. Is feeling of cringe generally just redundant and appears only due to personal insecurities?

Thanks for answers(if you answered -_-).

I'll start:

1. Being a death cult leader for a day

2. Be the one who gets to witness human extinction/earth destruction

3. Having sex with someone 10x-15x of your size

4. Eating human meat

I'm studying biomedical engineering (first year) and even though I weren't really interested in biology and medicine as a kid I thought that I know a lot about these things as for average joe. Today while learning before biochemistry test I re-read something and realised that oxygen just makes metabolism 16 times more efficient. All my life I thought it's kind of like a cooler or cleaner for body, but it's just helps give more energy to cells that comes from food. And because brain of any mammal(especially human) is very energy-expensive it can't live through cutting 15/16 of energy for more than 2-5 minutes(with few exceptions like breathing pure O2 beforehand). And your body has a lot of stored energy like muscles, glycogen, fat, etc. but organism can't break it down fast without oxygen, it's like powerplant with a lot of coal that is transported very slow and because of it there is no electricity. Kind of crazy to think how big lap evolution made from anaerobic organisms just to get more efficient fuel. Basically more than half of our body is designed to get us energy as efficient as it's possible with whole digestive system, ventilation system, bloodstream and tons of enzymes made exclusively for this while smallest thing like choking on the piece of food can cause death.

If universe doesn't have edge or "wall", how could there be estimated volume of it? If universe is finite what could be outside of it and is it even correct question since outside is "universal" thing? How come universe expansion faster than the speed of light if speed of light is ceiling that couldn't be crossed? Where does universe expanding and is there even such thing as "where" outside of the universe. How do we know that heat death is inevitable if universe constantly expanding creating more space and matter? Are laws of physics, math, chemistry inherent to the universe or those are things that are "above" it? If they are inherent to this universe, could they change in the future with universe expansion? That's probably a lot, but I'd be thankful if you explained it.

It's hard to explain, but I have few games that when I start playing them, they fully consume me for a few weeks. Examples are: The elder scrolls 3, 4 and 5 Civilization 5 and 6, stardew valley. I think about them, I play them, I watch all tutorials and videos about every smallest detail, trying to optimise every thing in my builds or tactics and it feels so good. I completed 100% stardew valley 3 times, my hours at Skyrim and civs are long ago above 1000 on each. It always longers for a few weeks or at best few month and then my interest to this topic starts to wither away and after 1-2 years cycle repeats itself. And when it starts withering away the thought of playing the game is making me more excited than pleasure from the game itself.

I am studying at university right now (engineering) and at physics lessons we were talking about nuclear energy and wastes a lot. Aside from nuclear powerplants and nukes that actually can be dangerous in wrong hands I think that most of the safety protocols and actions are too "paranoid". Every time you make x-ray you get lead jacket despite the fact that dose of radiation is very small. If you pregnant making x-ray almost impossible. All x-ray apparatuses are controlled more strictly than banks. All radioactive wastes even those which will decay pretty fast - are sealed deep underground in welded barrels in cement and basically flood-proof and apocalypse-proof. There are few independent international organisations that control everything nuclear related, not counting national organisations. I understand that Chernobyl left scar on people's perception of nuclear energy and, likely, all those safety measures are made because it's better being safe than sorry, but isn't it a bit of an overkill? Also I think it may be done so that wastes don't get in hands of terrorists, but let's be honest you can't make dirty bomb with slightly radioactive lab gloves and few crumbs of uranium.

I understand that certain genetic mutations can become an advantage for survival, therefore those mutations will more likely spread through generations. Like when giraffe with slightly longer neck gets more food cause it can reach higher, but what about complex systems like cattle's digestive system that can digest cellulose, snake's venom, rhino's horns, etc.? You can't just suddenly start producing venom after one generational mutation, and even if you will start developing system for producing venom, it will be useless for survival. Same with horns, there is no advantage in having few millimeter horn, cause it can't help with anything.

Thanks for answer!

For example could there be some form of life that has several sexes and, either requires all three of them to reproduce or for example one of sexes being versatile. Kind of like in that interdementional cable episode from "Rick and Morty" with elephant-people. Is there forms of life that could have three "parents"? Wouldn't it be better since genetical pool is more diverse?

I(m19) was watching "Invincible" recently and (Spoiler!!!) one of the characters in the show gets an abortion. Despite "Invincible" being pretty progressive franchise, abortion was depicted as something traumatizing for that character and her partner (seemingly for no reason). In tons of other media (conservative and progressive) any case of abortion is usually some kind of tragedy and to this day I don't understand why. It's probably obvious from the text above that I'm pro-choice. Is it a real thing that women experience after abortion and if yes: why? Is it some kind of hormonal change or is it because of religion/cultural background, where abortions are seen as murders. I don't know anyone who had an abortion, but I always perceived it like it's not a big deal, kind of like expensive and messy contraception.

Preventively thanks for answers