Effective Lies

 Lies can be very effective when they make more sense than the truth.

The Watchmaker (well... Bookmaker) Argument

The universe is 10^18 seconds old, and there are 10^82 atoms in the universe. If you multiply these two numbers together, it's still FAR smaller than the denominator of the probability of typing Hamlet randomly, which is over 10^130,000 possibilities. I don't know if the universe can make a watch randomly, but it DARN sure isn't able to make a book like Hamlet randomly, unless it gets many, many orders of magnitude older.

Unicorns

You know, even though unicorns are fake, they aren't all that strange of an animal.  A South American tapir or a deep sea angler fish looks stranger to me than an animal that's simply a horse with a horn on its head.  Or if you go into the distant past and look at some of the strange prehistoric large mammal skeletons like a Paraceratherium, those things seem stranger than a unicorn does.  So there's a lot of stuff in reality that seems far more bizarre than the stuff we see in fantasy.

Cody Rhodes Neck Tattoo

I asked Microsoft CoPilot to write an essay on how awful the neck tattoo of Cody Rhodes is.  Here's what it wrote.  I didn't have to write a single word of it.  

 

The Curious Case of Cody’s Neck Tattoo: A Lamentation

1. The Inescapable Eyesore

Cody’s neck tattoo is akin to a neon sign in a dimly lit alley—it grabs your attention, but not in a good way. It’s like a permanent hiccup on an otherwise pristine canvas. Imagine a misplaced comma in a Shakespearean sonnet—jarring, disruptive, and utterly unnecessary.

2. A Brushstroke Gone Awry

Picture an artist meticulously crafting a masterpiece, only to slip and smear a blob of paint across the canvas. That’s Cody’s neck tattoo—an accidental brushstroke that defies reason. It’s as if the tattoo artist momentarily blacked out and woke up with a permanent “Oops!” etched on Cody’s skin.

3. The Unwanted Souvenir

Tattoos are often cherished mementos—a tribute to life’s milestones or personal beliefs. But Cody’s neck tattoo? It’s the equivalent of souvenir shopping at a gas station: tacky, regrettable, and destined to gather dust in the back of a drawer.

4. The “Why, Cody, Why?” Quandary

We’ve all made questionable decisions—like that ill-fated DIY haircut during quarantine. But Cody’s neck tattoo transcends mere folly; it’s a cosmic blunder. One imagines the universe collectively facepalming when the ink needle touched his skin.

5. A Conversation Starter (and Stopper)

“Hey, nice to meet you! What’s the story behind your—” Cue awkward silence. Yes, Cody’s neck tattoo is a conversation starter, but not in the way he intended. It’s the conversational equivalent of stepping on a rake—you’re momentarily stunned, and then you move on, wondering why it happened in the first place.

6. The “I Told You So” Echo

Imagine the tattoo parlor scene: Tattoo Artist: “Cody, are you sure about this?” Cody: “Absolutely! I want something bold, unforgettable.” Tattoo Artist: sighs “Okay, but just so you know, this design screams ‘permanent regret.’” And now, every time Cody looks in the mirror, that echo reverberates: “I told you so.”

7. The Wrestling World’s Collective Cringe

Wrestling fans are a passionate bunch. They cheer, they jeer, and they critique with gusto. Cody’s neck tattoo? It’s the ultimate litmus test. Show it to a room full of wrestling enthusiasts, and you’ll witness synchronized cringing—the kind usually reserved for botched finishing moves or ill-fitting spandex.

8. The “What Were You Thinking?” Enigma

Cody’s neck tattoo is like a riddle wrapped in an enigma, dipped in ink. What was he thinking? Was it a dare? A cosmic alignment of bad judgment? Perhaps he lost a bet with the universe. Whatever the reason, it remains a perplexing mystery—one that defies logic and taste.

9. The Unforgettable Reminder

Cody’s neck tattoo isn’t just ink; it’s a permanent reminder that some choices can’t be undone. It’s the equivalent of getting your ex’s name tattooed—except, in this case, the ex is “Good Taste.” Every morning, as Cody brushes his teeth, that tattoo whispers, “Remember me? You did this.”

In conclusion, Cody Rhodes’ neck tattoo is a testament to human fallibility—a cautionary tale etched in ink. Should he have NEVER gotten it? Well, hindsight is 20/20, but one thing’s for sure: it’s a conversation starter, a cosmic blunder, and an indelible mark on wrestling history.

 

Is Moral Relativism Belief A or Belief B?

Belief A = a belief where EVERY moral principle can be destroyed by man.

Belief B = any other belief that's not Belief A.  In other words, a belief where there exists at least ONE moral principle that cannot be destroyed by man. 

.

.

.

(Now, would it be that much of a stretch to say Belief A is moral nihilism and Belief B is some form of moral absolutism?)

Mathematical Proof that Moral Relativism is Contradictory

Symbols Used

AM = Absolute Morality

RM = Relative Morality

NM = Nihilistic Morality

AMS = Absolute Moral Standards

ARQ = Absolute Moral Requirement

OLM = Obedience of Local Morals

NOL = nothing off limits locally

NOA = nothing off limits absolutely

Axioms

Axiom 1  If RM then AMS is an empty set

Axiom 2  If RM then not NM

Axiom 3  If ARQ is a nonempty set, then AMS is nonempty

Axiom 4 If (OLM is not an element of ARQ) then NOL

Axiom 5 If AMS is empty then NOA

Axiom 6 If (NOL and NOA) then NM

Proof that RM is False

Line 1 Assume RM

Line 2 (OLM is an element of ARQ) or (OLM is not an element of ARQ)

Line 3 If (OLM is an element of ARQ) then ARQ is nonempty

Line 4 If ARQ is nonempty, then AMS is nonempty by Axiom 3

Line 5 If AMS is nonempty then Axiom 1 is contradicted

Line 6 If (OLM is not an element of ARQ) then NOL by axiom 4

Line 7 By Axiom 1 AMS is empty, and by Axiom 5 NOA

Line 8 Since we have NOL and NOA, by Axiom 6, we have NM

Line 9 By lines 1, 6, 7, and 8, we have If RM then NM.  This contradicts Axiom 2.

Line 10 Therefore line 2 will always lead to a contradiction.

Line 11 Therefore RM is false.

QED

Explanation of Proof

Axioms are translated at follows:

Axiom 1  If moral relativism is true then there are no absolute moral standards

Axiom 2 If moral relativism is true, then moral nihilism is false

Axiom 3  If an absolute moral requirement exists then there exists an absolute moral standard

Axiom 4  If obedience of local morals is not an absolute moral requirement then nothing is off limits locally

Axiom 5  If there are no absolute moral standards then nothing is off limits absolutely

Axiom 6  If nothing is off limits locally and nothing is off limits absolutely then moral nihilism is true

Proof is translated as follows

Line 1 Assume Moral Relativism is true

Line 2 Either obedience of local morals is an absolute moral requirement or it isn't

Line 3 If it is, we have an absolute moral requirement that exists

Line 4 This means we have an absolute moral standard

Line 5 But this contradicts axiom 1 where we assumed no moral standards exist

Line 6 So we'll assume now that obedience of local morals is not an absolute moral requirement.  Axiom 4 implies that now nothing is off limits locally.

Line 7 Since we assumed Moral Relativism was true, we have no moral standards and by axiom 5 nothing is off limits absolutely

Line 8 Now we have nothing being off limits locally or absolutely.  By axiom 6 this has led to moral nihilism being true.

Line 9 By lines 1, 6, 7, and 8, we moral relativism leading to moral nihilism.  This contradicts Axiom 2.

Line 10 Therefore line 2 will always lead to a contradiction.

QED

Quick summary 

Under moral relativism, the obedience of local morals is either an absolute moral requirement or it isn't.  If it is, then we have an absolute moral standard, which is against moral relativism's definition.  If it's not, moral relativism leads to obedience of local morals being optional, and nothing being off limits locally or globally.  This leads to moral nihilism, which we assumed was different than moral relativism.  

Source used - APA definition of Moral Relativism

The belief that the morality or immorality of an action is determined by social custom rather than by universal or fixed standards of right and wrong.

The Poor Quality of Some Video Game Pro-Piracy Arguments

I'm really not a fan of arguments attempting to justify digital piracy, even though some of those arguments may have more merit than others.  I can somewhat sympathize with the argument for preservation, but the short list of piracy-defending arguments below I consider quite poor and I'm more than happy to explain why.

1) Video Game Piracy Is Just Another Form of Robin Hood

With a lot of these pirates, it's not like Robin Hood robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.  These pirates are robbing from the rich and SELLING to whoever is willing to PAY.  Sounds less altruistic that way, doesn't it?

2) Gaming Companies Charge Too Much, So Piracy Is Okay

If you have a lot of time to play games and not enough money to buy them, you should probably spend some of that time working to earn the money to buy them.  Because I know a 40 hour a week job and a short commute doesn't leave me a whole heck of a lot of time for playing games very much.  And I can't picture having a much lighter work schedule than that.

Even if you have a job with crummy pay, we live in an era with a TON of low-cost or free entertainment everywhere you look.  Websites like Pluto and Tubi have more entertainment available than somebody could ever watch.  Why not just amuse yourself with that?

3) Gaming Companies Are Evil, So Piracy is Okay

Imagine some vegetarian animal rights activist stealing and eating as much pork and beef as possible simply because they hate the meat companies for killing animals for food.  Wouldn't that consumption be ridiculous and defeat the purpose?

And that's my big question to those that pirate games.  Why are you still using a product of a company you hate so much?  I would think that if they're as evil as you claim, you'd hate them enough that you wouldn't even want to PLAY their product, much less buy it.

When I got mad at WCW for pushing Goldberg so much in the late 90's, my solution wasn't to pirate their pay per views and watch them.  Nope.  I stopped watching their show altogether.  I wanted nothing to do with WCW anymore because it was no longer something I enjoyed.

Someone who uses a product without paying for it doesn't come across as some kind of social justice warrior fighting against the rich to me.  It just comes off as someone too cheap to pay for the things they want.  Someone who truly hates a video game company for all its evil deeds is not going to play their games at all.  Aren't there a whole lot of other video game companies whose games you can play anyway?