Best.Korea

I have been doing lots of research, and I think that I am ready to have an experiment where I live on food from nature for a longer time.

Mainly, I would focus on this food:

1. Dandelion greens and other edible wild greens

2. Tree catkins/pollen

3. Raspberries

4. Dandelion flowers

5. Willow seeds

6. Grass pollen

Including raspberries in this list feels like cheating, but I do like sugar and I am not sure how will I manage to go for months without chocolate if I skip on raspberries as well.

I already ate lots of tree catkins raw.

I know the ones I ate are safe to eat.

They are just harder to chew than regular food.

But they seem to be available in great amount.

Not all are safe to eat.

The only thing which I am curious about is how nutritious are they.

I know squirrels eat catkins, so there probably is some good nutrition in them.

With dandelion greens and any greens, I will make sure to wash them.

I dont want to risk getting sick from unwashed food.

Grass pollen is something I am uncertain about, but I will give it a try.

Edible willow catkins should give me plenty of food, and I want to try those willow seeds as well.

As for nuts and fruit, they become available later in year, and at that point I will already be ending experiment to view results.

I will be taking vitamins, as I am not sure how would I even obtain B12 in nature from plants alone.

I will begin experiment as soon as enough green edible plants appear, because I dont want to start on catkins alone.

I will not be eating dandelion roots, because that kills the plant entirely and its unnecessary with dandelion greens available.

Having options is something which is most desirable by all humans.

All humans desire to have many options in life.

Life without options tends to be a bad life, since people who have no desirable options available to them tend to suffer.

Therefore, increasing number of options is most desirable.

So anything which increases number of options people have is morally good.

But to achieve equality between people, everyone must have equal amount of options available to him.

Hence the term "greatest equal options".

For example,

I have an option to eat sugar. I also have an option not to eat sugar.

Those are in total 2 options.

You have those same options.

Your options dont contradict to mine, so we can both have those options, we can both have any of the 2 options, greatest equal number of options.

If sugar was banned, we would only have 1 option, which is to not eat sugar.

Since allowing sugar increases number of options we have, it follows that allowing sugar is morally good, where making sugar mandatory or banning it is morally bad.

So anything which increases number of options to the greatest amount possible is morally good, where things which decrease options are morally bad.

This moral system still needs to be tested for how well it handles things like abortions and refusing to reproduce, because I like moral systems which make abortion look good,

although its gonna be difficult with this particular moral system which seems to be promoting the creation of life to increase number of options by increasing number of people.

I used to have depression coming back every now and then.

I could never figure out what exactly causes it, until I started personal quest where I wrote a lot about what relates to depression.

My first observation was masturbation. 

It seemed that if I dont masturbate for 2 weeks, depression stops and doesnt come back anymore.

However, what builds up is pressure, so it was not an ideal solution.

The next discovery I made was drinking a lot of water at once, about 700 mililiters at once.

It was much better, but from that discovery, I concluded that maybe overeating also reduces depression.

Turns out thats true too. If I eat a lot of food at once, I become happy.

Other discoveries were positive thinking, simple problem solving, one meal per day, learning new things... all which were shown to help with depression.

But my best discovery was pure accident.

I wanted to see how much calories I can reduce daily without losing weight.

It was sort of a test to see how much food I really need.

The test itself also came as an accident, because I got sick and couldnt eat for a few days, and since I didnt feel hunger, I wanted to use the opportunity and for research purposes after that I reduced calories daily to about 1000, then increased to 1200 later.

However, when doing this research, I didnt think it would have effect on the mood and depression.

I couldnt help but notice that my mood greatly improved.

Depression didnt return at all.

To my surprise, reducing calories to about 1200, and eating once or twice a day, seems to work surprisingly well to solve depression.

Even after I controlled for other factors, such as water intake and how often I drink water.

It seems that simply reducing amount of calories alone does great against depression and improves mood significantly.

In research, its really important to write everything down, because thats how you notice causation/relation.

In fact, I dont think much research is possible if I rely on my memory alone.

Okay, so after testing some decks, it seems to me that yugioh is now all about spamming monsters.

There is simply no point in making trap deck, even hand traps seem to be a waste.

The principle of duel is quite simple.

Your goal is to have card combinations, the more the better.

Trap cards simply harm the card combination, and they arent really guaranteed to work to stop opponent.

For example, 

I put in my deck 3x Ra sphere mode, 3x lava golem and 2x primal being.

All other cards I put in deck serve the purpose of summoning.

For example, my kashtira deck is 3x of each kashtira card, 3x Ra, 3x Lava Golem, 2x Primal being.

And thats what works.

But as soon as you place trap cards, such as solemn, your deck starts being less consistent.

This is true since trap cards are non-combination cards.

Yugioh is all about combination cards now.

Basically, 2 or more cards which form a combination.

Without combination, you cant do much.

But trap card means one less card in your hand.

So where you would otherwise have 2 available combinations, too much trap cards in deck can reduce the number of combinations to 1 or even 0.

And since many combinations get stopped, the goal is to have as much combinations as possible.

Trap cards reduce your combinations certainly, but they arent guaranteed to stop opponent's combinations.

For example, if you go second, you wont even be able to use traps, since opponent will go first.

And if opponent succeeds in summoning monster, traps cant do anything against it.

This is very different from before.

Back in the old days, yugioh was all about trap cards.

In fact, summoning 1 monster and setting 4 traps was common play.

Now, it is basically non-existent play.

Its simply because monster spam decks got too much support.

Most of the top decks can summon over 5 monsters every turn, and traps cant counter that.

The only thing which counters that is if you also summon that much per turn, and if you have cards like Ra sphere mode to clear up the field.

I think that children should have freedom.

The thinking is simple.

If you say:

"I have a right to tell a child what to do."

I ask:

"Is this a child you own? Is this child your property?"

If the answer is no, then I dont see why would you be able to command someone who is not even your property.

If the answer is yes, then you support slavery.

It is clear that during spring, summer and fall there are many sources of food in the wild which can be used for survival.

But during winter, there is almost nothing green.

I say almost.

Pine tree needles remain green even during winter.

Now, many sources say that they contain vitamin C, which is good because you are not going to find many sources of that vitamin in winter.

But I was wondering, do they have calories?

Calories which are useful for humans come in four forms:

protein, fat, sugar and alcohol.

Some sources say that pine tree needles have up to 8% protein.

Now, 8% would be 8 grams of protein in 100 grams of pine tree needles.

1 gram of protein is 4 calories.

So 8 grams of protein would have about 32 calories.

They also contain fat, which could add more to calories.

Pine trees are available in winter, and for the whole year.

However, there is a question of if they would be a significant food source.

Because usually, a source of calories must satisfy 3 standards:

1. That it contains enough calories per 100 grams

2. That it weighs enough

3. That you can eat it in an amount which gives you lots of calories

3 is most important. Even if 1 and 2 is satisfied, 3 could be unsatisfied.

At my best guess, pine tree needles have about 50 calories per 100 grams.

Since they are tiny, one would assume that they dont weigh much,

but one could also say that their water content would add to weight.

Mililiters are a meassure of volume.

Water weighs about 100 grams per 100 mililiters, so assuming 70% water content, 100 mililiters of blended pine tree needles would weigh at least 70 grams.

Of course, when not blended, it has greater volume since air fills empty space.

Another question is: are pine tree needles harmful in greater amount?

The answer would probably be yes at some amount, but exact amount is unknown because pine tree needles dont have people willing to eat lots of them to prove how much is too much.

People mostly use pine tree needles to make tea full of vitamin C, and certain guides say that you can chew pine tree needles to get vitamin C.

Of course, always make sure to identify the tree properly.

Yew tree is poisonous, for example.

What is the purpose of a brain?

To learn and to create new knowledge based on learned knowledge.

You are your brain.

That is your purpose.

I noticed that the more you learn, you open new paths which you didnt know before.

In fact, many things are related, and learning about one thing can make you realize new knowledge about other things, since knowledge about one thing can be applied to other thing as well.

Brain constantly learns, but brain must first learn about things which interest it, and then move on to other things.

Since the brain is made to learn, it means you are made to learn.

And in this century, learning is easy.

You have google and AI willing to explain anything to you.

Its on you to write down and learn.

Writing down is important, because human brain forgets some things or fails to remember them correctly.

The amount of knowledge in the world is great, and each person is interested in something.

So to learn what you are interested in is your purpose!

"Iron armor made with conviction and courage

Our tanks go forward

If the enemy provokes our bravery

The enemy camp will become sea of fire

We are the brave Korean tankists

And the breakthrough to annihilation is ours

The steel armor is the wings of the storm

The cannon strikes like fists

The heaven lake trembles to the sound

Of our victory cry

We stand up for the final battle

And our tanks will stand at any time

The thunders will punish invading hordes

For the motherland is a safe fortress

Lets go towards our goals without hesitation

Chew and spit them all 

We are the brave Korean tankists

We raise the victory flag

And the tanks will raise at any time"

Now, most of the people have probably never heard of catkins.

Catkins grow on certain trees, such as hazelnut trees, pine trees...

I was not familiar with what catkins were until recently, when I saw them on tree branch.

It obviously wasnt the fruit of a tree, so I figured it must be pollen.

I took about 30 of them from tree, I weighed them and they weigh about 25 grams.

Thats a good weigh, so then I wondered if they have calories.

So I did research, and apparently, they are called catkins.

While there is no exact data on them, some sources say that they contain lots of protein and are edible.

Now, when collecting catkins in a survival situation, you must know that only certain trees have edible catkins.

So you must know how to identify a tree before you can eat from it.

Trees were historically a source of survival for ancient people.

Fruit trees, nut trees, berries... were very important food for them.

I know that trees are very easy to grow, and berries are also easy to grow, so I plant them often in an effort to create great food source.

Trees like hazelnuts, walnuts... live very long and dont require any care if you live in area with sufficient amount of rain.

I do plan to plant about 60 tree transplants in total.

I dont plant seeds, because they have high failure rate.

Transplants so far had over 90% success rate, and they give fruit much sooner than seeds do, so they pay off much more.

I like planting trees much more than I like planting vegetables.

Trees require much less work, just involve more waiting.

But if you plant dwarf tree, you wait less. 

Apparently, one of the apple dwarf trees I planted started producing in year two.

So since vegetables involve lots of tilling and weeding, and trees dont involve that, and since trees are more beneficial for the environment, I chose to grow lots of trees and only some vegetables.

With trees, all you have to do is learn how to plant properly, make sure there is enough space between trees and water after planting.

For some time I have lived on around 1000 calories, so after slowly losing weight, I increased calories to 1200 per day.

At that point, I also changed the way I drink water.

I used to drink water often in smaller amounts.

Now I drink water twice a day in larger amounts at once.

After doing those 2, I stopped losing weight.

Apparently, 1200 calories is enough for me.

And my mood has been good ever since I reduced amount of food I eat.

It seems that my bad mood in the past was result of eating more food than I need.

Now, there were certain flaws in this experiment.

The most obvious flaw is amount of calories in food.

Only certain foods have exact calorie number on them.

For other foods, I had to rely on data about it from internet.

The other flaw is that I wasnt able to keep up with one meal per day, but often I practiced one big meal per day and one much smaller one later.

But regardless, this experiment yields fantastic results.

It stands as opposition to overeating.

I stated before that overeating also makes person happy, which is true because if you eat way more food than you need, you feel happier.

But this experiment seems to be more effective because not only I feel better than when overeating, but I enjoy food more.

So to sum it up, there is:

1. Eating 1200 calories, which feels better than overeating

2. Eating a lot, but not overeating (causes bad mood)

3. Overeating, which feels good

It seems that the option 2 is the worst, option 3 is second best, and option 1 is best, as conclusion of the experiment.

I was told that I reject religion because my religious parents didnt beat me enough when I was a child and because they spoiled me.

And I thought "yeah thats probably true".

Maybe if my parents hit me more when I was a child, they would beat the satan out of me.

Because really, to be religious you must have great fear, and what better way to give your child fear than to beat him.

In fact, without fear, there is basically no reason to be Christian or muslim.

You only become Christian if you have fear of hell.

I spend my days on Earth living as half-Christian half-Satanist.

I do try to be nice and kind, but every day I feel the dark world pulling from within.

Which is why I must say now: gay is okay.

In fact, I think its not okay not to be gay.

Being straight is wrong.

We live in the world full of Christians and muslims.

This means that religious people reproduce faster than atheists, which is true, according to some studies, atheists do reproduce less.

So is religion beneficial for reproduction?

If so, what is reproduction beneficial for?

Nothing.

So what is religion beneficial for, again?

Nothing.

Religion is just what you get when people believe in magic, and to no great surprise, religious people are more likely to believe in fortune telling, ghosts, supernatural things...

Science is not like religion,

because in science, you believe in something after you get proof of it,

where in religion you believe in something and spend years searching for proof for it, and then when you find no proof you still keep believing.

The religion is based on no logic, as there are thousands of Gods, and you picked one of them hoping that your guess is right.

Now excuse me, I gonna go pray to Zeus.

Every argument has a counter argument to it.

However, the science behind writing a counter argument goes very far.

It is not as simple as "I need to explain how that argument is incorrect".

Each argument has premise and conclusion.

So attacking premises or conclusion is the usual way, but lets explore different options when writing a counter-argument.

The different ways of writing counter-argument are:

1. Challenge assumptions by asking for proof.

Many arguments have assumptions as their premises.

Therefore, pointing out that premises are assumptions, or pointing out that they are unproved, greatly diminishes the strength of an argument.

Also, one must know that sometimes premises are true, but conclusion doesnt follow.

Conclusion drawn from facts can still be an assumption, if it is not logical that such conclusion follows from facts.

It is sometimes possible that even if opponent presents evidence for premises, there could be more evidence against those premises than there is for them.

So by presenting evidence which disproves a premise, the argument collapses.

This can be done by presenting studies, facts, statistics or examples which disprove a premise.

Its not always necessary to disprove premises.

It can be enough to present a different option which has more or equal evidence to support it.

For example, presenting a different premise or different conclusion from same premises.

If one of the premises is:

"If it rains today, I wont go outside."

You can challenge it by saying that there are cases when you go outside when it rains.

You can also say that its possible to go outside when it rains.

This places doubt on the premise.

Outweigh is a form of indirect negation.

You basically concede that argument is true, but that it is outweighed by your arguments.

This usually works better if there is a comparison done.

Even if premise is conceded to be true, and if conclusion is also conceded to be true, it could still mean that the argument doesnt prove the topic enough.

This happens when argument only covers one part of the topic, or doesnt cover all cases.

Such arguments are incomplete and depend on hidden assumptions to be accepted as true.

By pointing out how argument doesnt cover the case it is supposed to cover to prove the topic, and by pointing out that there are indeed such cases which are not covered by the argument, it diminishes the argument's strength.

This is usually considered as trolling, but every argument depends upon some assumption being true or false.

For example,

"I see a building" is a premise which depends upon an assumption that what you see is what is real and that you are not just insane or hallucinating or that your brain isnt deceiving you.

This is considered as trolling tactic, since it moves the debate to what cannot be proven or disproven.

But since every argument becomes challenged when it meets these limitations, this is still a form of counter-argument.

Argument could be true and everything, but still it could be not relevant to the topic.

It sometimes happens that people try to change the definition argument uses, and use definition which isnt commonly accepted.

It is also possible that people misrepresent the meaning of the definition they use.

If opponent's one claim contradicts with another, he will logically have to concede that one of the claims is false.

If opponent uses logical fallacies, his argument becomes invalid if you point out which logical fallacy is he using.

Some arguments dont need to be attacked directly, but they have whats usually described as "undesirable outcomes or costs".

Basically, by pointing out that if given argument is true, then things which disprove the topic also must be true.

This is similar to reframing an argument, where you concede that argument is true, but that it works for your case or against your opponent's case.

By limiting your opponent to an options which he must defend to defend his argument, it places doubt on if said argument is true.

Now, all of you already know that most of the formal debates come with character limit or time limit.

This basically means that as long as you use full character limit or full time limit, opponent cannot respond to each of your sentences individually.

In most formal debates, people dont respond to each sentence, but break the logical link between premises and argument to negate it by presenting counter options or proving that premises are false or assumptions,  or try to outweigh the argument.

However, gish gallop changes the rules of the game.

In gish gallop, there is plenty of arguments and reasons which make it impossible to respond to them all.

And since there is plenty of them, outweighing them is also difficult.

The basic way of doing gish gallop is to write as many as possible independent reasons which support the topic.

They must be independent reasons, which means that they dont depend on each other.

That means, if one is proven wrong, others still stand as true.

Whats also important in gish gallop is to avoid assumptions, but use facts as reasons.

That way, you will be creating lots of conclusions in minds of those who read it, even if you yourself never state those conclusions.

And opponent will not be able to dismiss them as assumptions either.

Gish gallop is also useful when attacking an argument.

Instead of focusing too much on building one counterargument, you use plenty of smaller ones, forcing opponent to negate each if he is to save his argument.

The goal in gish gallop is to create a situation where it takes more text for opponent to refute your argument than it takes you to write it.

This basically leaves opponent with only 1 option, which is to drop some of your arguments and instead try to outweigh them indirectly.

But gish gallop is not easy work.

Thinking of enough reasons to fill character space with takes time. 

You can of course use google and spam facts and statistics, but that only works on some topics, apparently those where there is a lot of facts and statistics supporting one side of the topic.

Now, the best example of successful Gish Gallop is Trump.

In fact, it made him president once.

He won countless of debates by saying too many things in short amount of time, basically overwhelming an opponent.

Many people would vote for Trump simply because they think Biden is worse.

But people in 2020 voted for Biden because they at that time thought that Trump is worse.

Its a common reasoning fallacy of

"If Biden bad, Trump good"

And

"If Trump bad, Biden good"

What this reasoning fails to see is the other option:

"Both are bad".

Politics in USA are no longer about who is good.

Politicians dont even try to be much good, but they just spread propaganda to make the other guy look worse.

And Trump is not the cure for this.

Trump had his chance as president.

It didnt work out well.

In my opinion, Biden is far from perfect, but that doesnt make me support Trump.

I concede that Biden is not doing very well as president.

Its hard to deny it when Israel is being supported in doing what it does, which could result in a lot more wars than what we have now.

I understand that Israel has nukes, but that does not mean it deserves unconditional support in what it does.

But Trump would also support Israel.

Trump would support Putin.

Americans have a bad habbit of "If current president is doing bad, elect the other."

What we must understand is that Trump is not someone who fights for democracy.

While Biden fights against Putin, Trump will concede to Putin, giving him victory so that he can move on to next target in the future.

It will also send message to dictators world wide that "yes, you can get away with invading a country and even profit from it greatly.".

To claim that it wont send a clear message how being aggressor is good, is clearly false, as Putin winning in Ukraine would be an example of how being aggressor is good.

So Trump is not a cure.

He will not save USA from anything, just like he didnt do anything special the first time he was president.

So far I mostly focused on having lots of debates at the same time.

Now I want to try to have one debate at the time, so that I put more effort and time in one debate.

Right now, I have the open challenge debate about Communism.

Unless someone accepted by now, here is the deal:

I am ready to change the topic a bit, but I am not ready to change the definition of Communism.

Communism is basically defined as democratic ownership, and thats what the topic will be about.

I can make it "Communism vs Capitalism" or something like that, but the definition of Communism is taken from google as it is, and you can use whatever definition of capitalism you want.

A lot of the times I was in conversation with someone, any time I used logic they clearly dont understand, they looked at me as if I was stupid.

Now, obviously, this creates the question:

Why do smart things sound stupid to stupid people?

And if smart things indeed sound stupid to stupid people,

Is it possible that things which sound stupid to me could actually be smart and I just dont understand them?

I wanted  for a long time to reach for the idea of dialectical materialism, but I was busy.

Now I finally found time to do great research on the idea of dialectical materialism, based on Karl Marx's view of Hegel's dialectical argument.

It might be difficult to understand at first, but later I will follow up with example which makes it easy to understand.

Lets first explore what is dialectical argument.

Dialectical argument is based on law of non-contradiction.

It is made of:

1. Thesis

2. Antithesis

3. Synthesis

Thesis is the first position, original position.

Antithesis presents contradiction to thesis.

If antithesis is true, the thesis is false.

If antithesis is false, thesis stands true.

Then a synthesis happens, where either antithesis is negated either thesis is negated.

If antithesis is negated, thesis stands true.

If thesis is negated, original position is false, which gives birth to new position different from the original one.

Synthesis either maintains original thesis either creates new thesis which is different from the original one.

Antithesis is negation of thesis.

Negation of antithesis is negation of negation.

So, by simple deduction, synthesis is one of these:

1. Negation of the negation while maintaining thesis

2. Negation of negation by changing thesis, creating new thesis

3. Negation of thesis while upholding antithesis, where antithesis becomes new thesis

Lets now look at the example, and how dialectical materialism sees capitalism.

Capitalists are seeking to get as rich as possible.

Workers are also trying to get as rich as possible.

There are limited resources in society.

Therefore, the more capitalists get rich, the less wealth is there left for workers.

1. Worker's wealth is thesis

2. Capitalist's wealth is antithesis, which increases at the expense of worker's wealth, which means at the expense of thesis.

One cannot increase without other decreasing.

Antithesis cannot increase without thesis decreasing, because they are in contradiction.

The synthesis only has 3 options:

1. Negation of worker's wealth, so abolishment of capitalism.

2. Negation of capitalist's wealth, so abolishment of capitalism.

3. Balance between capitalist's wealth and worker's wealth which makes it possible to maintain thesis and antithesis.

Karl Marx argues that both 1 and 2 lead to Communism, as it is not possible to abolish worker's wealth or capitalist's wealth without abolishing capitalism.

While Karl Marx concedes that option 3 maintains capitalism, he argues that option 3 is much harder to achieve than either option 1 or option 2.

This is because option 3 is the only thing maintaining capitalism in existence, and both workers and capitalists are actively working to abolish option 3 in their favor.

Then follows the famous negation of the negation.

Since survival of society is negated by its own contradiction which is capitalist's wealth being contradictive to worker's wealth, one must negate this negation, which means to negate capitalist's wealth, to produce a new thesis, a new society, a communist society that is not negated by any internal contradiction, where worker's wealth is not negated but upheld.

This new society must not have capitalist's wealth, therefore must negate capitalist's wealth.

Marx argues that crisis in capitalism is caused when capitalist's wealth prevails over worker's wealth, or when worker's wealth prevails over capitalist's wealth.

Since its impossible to keep them in balance all the time, crisis happens often which shakes foundations of society.

New society, society without contradiction, can only be society which is neither capitalist, nor feudal nor slavery.

So it must be society which either always maintains balance between capitalists and workers (government regulated economy)

Or 

It must be society without capitalist's wealth, which is Communism.

Since government regulated economy is, by nature, difficult to keep in check, since it often either leans to workers or to capitalists, it is not a good synthesis.

This leaves only Communism as the option.

Communism must, therefore be society without contradiction.

It must be a society entirely ruled by workers, as it cannot be a society entirely ruled by capitalists.

This means that workers dictate the distribution of means of production and of wealth, as opposed to capitalists dictating it.

Christians make up 65% of prison population, despite being 60% of population in USA.

So atheists ratio of population to prison is 30:1.

Christian ratio is 1:1.

So atheists are 30 times less likely to go to prison.

Now, some have thrown unsupported counter-argument that atheists in prison lie about being Christians.

We only know if someone is an atheist or Christian if they tell us.

To claim that we shouldnt trust people about that would just translate into not being able to say who is a Christian and who is atheist.

This would lead us to absurd position, but statistically, it still works against Christians.

Thats because if we replace "christian" with "people who say they are christian", 

we still reach the conclusion that people who say that they are Christians, are more violent.

Statistics are not something which is easy to escape, as we can clearly see.

So Christians must concede that people who say that they are Christians are more violent than people who say that they are atheists.

Obviously, there are only two possibilities:

1. God exists

2. God doesnt exist

So one can concede that 2 is impossible to prove and 1 is impossible to disprove.

Humans have limited knowledge, and even if there was actual proof of God not existing, it would be negated by category of omnipotence, where apparently an all powerful God can create proof that he doesnt exist and present that proof to humans.

So one must concede that existence of God is unknown and impossible to disprove, which makes his existence possible.

This creates the situation where God both exists and doesnt, since both options cannot be proven neither wrong nor right.

Of course, atheists can claim that theists need to prove their claims, but per law of proof, a claim that cannot be disproved can be true or false, and taking either position does not mean being more likely to be correct.

So naturally, not taking position that given claim is true is not any more likely to be correct.

And since there is a possibility that God exists, theists can justify their belief with that possibility alone, since it is not proven that God's non-existence is more likely, nor can it be.

So even if they had burden of proof, it would be satisfied to a great amount.

Further, since this puts theists at an already equal proof grounds where their claims cannot be disproven, the only thing theists need is to slightly move the proof towards their position.

So presenting arguments such as intelligent design which makes God(intelligent supernatural) necessary to explain the existence and organization of logical consistent laws of universe in the entire universe,

where otherwise there is no other explanation as to what created them and what upholds them constantly and why different laws dont exist,

where God's will and intelligence can explain why such laws are maintained everywhere equally, and why different laws dont exist.

Arguments such as those can move the proof slightly in favor of theists, or so would they assume.

But then we reach an interesting point, which is kinda what places theists back in position of lack of proof.

Option 1 isnt limited to one God.

Option 1 includes all Gods, known and unknown, revealed and non-revealed.

This basically means that an infinite amount of Gods are possible.

So even if theists could prove that God generally exists, they would not be able to prove that their specific God exists.

Theist's position is not "God exists".

Theist's position is "My God exists".

So, in this silly outcome, even if theists were to prove God, they would not prove their God.

Because they believe in a specific God with specific attributes, they cannot prove their God even if they prove God in general.

And that leads to question: "How did Christians select their God?".

Since its impossible to equally consider an infinite amount of Gods, it follows that something other than such consideration had to cause Christians to select their God.

Christians, of course, make an assumption that only the revealed Gods are possible.

A flawed assumption, but it is their only choice.

And from that assumption, they make way towards "selecting" their God, apparently Christian God, through deduction

by usually misrepresenting all other religions, not even studying them, ignoring them, and basically just accepting what their parents taught them.

So no, one cannot say that Christians selected their religion.

Selection would imply a choice, and choice would imply being informed enough and would imply consistent results of choices coming from different circumstances.

Religion cannot be considered a choice, because in most cases it isnt.

If type of family didnt determine your religion, we would expect to see same ratio of Christians being born in Christian family as the ratio of Christians being born in muslim family.

But we dont see same ratio. Not even close to same.

If you are born in a Christian family, you will most likely be a Christian.

If you are born in a muslim family, you will most likely be a muslim. (Not Christian).

How is it a choice, if a type of family you are born in greatly determines your religion?

It is not really a choice.

Most people are limited to going with what they are taught.

Most Christians didnt select their religion.

They simply inherited it from their parents.

I have been thinking why I like the games I like, so I took their characteristics to explain which characteristics make better games.

Feel free to disagree, but here it goes.

1. Being easy and being difficult

Games should have difficulty options, but if not, it would be good if game was closer to easy.

Game needs to get slightly more difficult as you progress.

So the start should be very easy, basically impossible to get killed at the start due to enemies doing not much damage.

I really hate games which give strong enemies right at the start.

Like, you dont have time to learn the game slowly.

2. Strong character

Character shouldnt be easy to kill.

I really dont like it in games when some enemy can one shot me.

3. Character that gets consistently stronger over time

Character shouldnt be always equally strong, and character shouldnt be stuck on one power level too long.

Character should get stronger over time consistently.

4. Character should be able to do lots of damage to enemies

I dont like games which put you against bosses which take 5000 hits to be killed.

5. Farming levels should be possible, simple and easy

If there is a leveling system, it should be possible to farm to increase level

6. Farming gold/money should be possible in game

It should come together with farming level

7. Game is supposed to make you feel much stronger than ordinary characters and only 20% stronger than bosses.

I feel like this one doesnt require much explanation.

The game shouldnt focus on being difficult or complicated, rather game should focus on giving you lots of weak enemies and then one strong boss. 

That way, you first fight against numbers, and then against one stronger character.

8. Game should never make you feel weak

I dont like games where you are forced to fight enemies which you have to put lots of effort to beat.

I also dont like games which force you to run away from enemies because you cant beat them.

9. Lots of options, powers, weapons

There should be, obviously, lots of options to give more freedom to player, and options should be working well.

No one likes useless options/useless powers in games.

The proof in science follows premises which often get confused by people.

This is not going to be simple to explain, but lets start.

Lets start with first explaining what isnt proof.

Example:

A causes B.

Conclusion: B exists, therefore A exists.

Its like saying:

On day when it rains, some of the ground will be wet.

Some of the ground is wet today, so it rained today.

This is false reasoning.

Ground can be wet because someone spilled water on it, because  soil is usually naturally wet even when it isnt raining, because there is  snow left from yesterday... and so on.

Just because A causes B, doesnt lead to conclusion that if B exists, A exists.

Thats because something other than A can also cause B.

The correct way is:

Only A causes B.

In this case, if B exists, A exists.

Another incorrect way of proving is:

A includes B.

B exists, therefore A exists.

This is a very wrong way of proof.

Thats because other things can include B too, and A is unproven to exist, so unproven to include B.

Its like saying:

On days when it rains, ground is wet.

Ground is wet today, so it rained.

The correct way, again, is:

Only A includes B and A must include B.

As long as something other than A can include B, existence of A is unproven.

As long as it is possible for A not to include B, as long as it is possible for B to exist without A, A is unproven.

Another incorrect way of proof is:

If A, then B.

B exists, so A exists.

For same reasons as before, this is incorrect.

Now, lets move to correct proof.

Lets look at first example:

Premise: If A, then B.

Conclusion: A exists, so B exists.

This is correct conclusion as long as premise is correct.

Other correct forms are:

If A exists, then B doesnt exist.

A exists, so B doesnt.

If A doesnt exist, B exists.

A doesnt exist, so B exists.

If A doesnt exist, B doesnt exist.

A doesnt exist, so B doesnt exist.

In all 3 cases, the existence or non-existence of A derermines existence or non-existence of B.

Second example:

Premise: If A, then B.

Conclusion: B doesnt exist, so A doesnt exist.

As long as premise is correct, conclusion is correct.

Third example:

Premise: If A, then B doesnt exist.

Conclusion: B exists, so A doesnt.

Correct conclusion.

Fourth example:

Premise: If A doesnt exist, then B exists.

Conclusion: B doesnt exist, so A exists.

Final example about "if" way of proof:

Premise: If A doesnt exist, then B doesnt exist.

Conclusion: B exists, therefore A exists.

First: 

Premise: A includes B.

Conclusion: A exists, so B exists.

Second:

Premise: A includes that B doesnt exist.

Conclusion: A exists, so B doesnt exist.

Third:

Premise: Lack of A includes that B exists.

Conclusion: A doesnt exist, so B does.

Fourth: 

Premise: Lack of A includes that B doesnt exist.

Conclusion: A doesnt exist, so B doesnt exist.

Other ways of proof are:

A includes B.

If B doesnt exist, then A doesnt.

Lack of A includes B. 

If B doesnt exist, A exists.

A includes lack of B.

If B exists, A doesnt.

Lack of A includes lack of B.

If B exists, A exists.

There are:

Option 1

Option 2

One must be true and the other must be false. There are no other options. If one is true, the other is false.

Disproving option 1 proves option 2.

Disproving option 2 proves option 1.

Proving option 1 disproves option 2.

Proving option 2 disproves option 1.

Those are the standards of scientific proof, as taken from basic laws of logic.

Any questions, feel free to ask.

I felt the need to explain the difference between proof and non-proof, to clear up common logical errors which happen.

I want to make this as simple as possible, so I will start by explaining reasoning first.

Reasoning usually comes in form of premises and conclusion.

Deductive reasoning is more logically accurate, but it can be based on assumptions.

Example:

Premise 1:

If it rains today, I will bring an umbrella.

Premise 2:

It rains today.

Conclusion:

I will bring an umbrella.

We see that as long as premise 1 and premise 2 are true, conclusion logically follows.

So is this reasoning based on facts? 

No, not even close.

This is because none of the premises are proven to be true.

Premise 2 is an assumption.

There is no proof it rains today.

Premise 1 is an assumption too.

There is no proof that I will bring an umbrella if it rains.

It is not disproven that it rains today and I wont bring an umbrella because I forgot and was in a rush, or maybe I just like walking in rain without an umbrella, or it didnt rain much and I figured I wouldnt need it.

So since every premise is essentially unproven assumption, this reasoning is based on assumptions.

The other form of reasoning, without the use of "if" would be inclusion, category reasoning.

Premise 1:

I will bring an umbrella on days when it rains.

Premise 2:

It rains today.

Conclusion:

I will bring an umbrella today.

Despite changing from "if" to inclusion, it still stands that every premise is an assumption.

The claim "I will bring an umbrella" is included in category "on days when it rains".

But this inclusion is an assumption.

It could be possible that there are days when it rains and I dont bring an umbrella, therefore making the premise an assumption.

Since its not proven that I will bring an umbrella on days when it rains, the premise is essentially unproven.

Another form of reasoning is options reasoning, which is "this or that".

Example:

Premise 1:

It wont rain

or

I will bring an umbrella.

Premise 2:

It rains.

Conclusion:

I will bring an umbrella.

Since "or" in this reasoning means that when one option is true, the other is false,

when "it wont rain" is false, then "I will bring an umbrella" is true.

But premise 1 is still an assumption, because both options can be true.

It can be true both that "it wont rain" and that "I will bring an umbrella", since people can obviously bring an umbrella even on days it doesnt rain.

Also, they can both be false.

It can be false that it "it wont rain" and it can at the same time be false that "I will bring an umbrella".

So what is reasoning based on facts?

Its reasoning where every premise is a fact.

Example:

Premise 1: 

Sun exists.

or

It is false that Sun exists.

Premise 2:

Sun exists

Conclusion:

The claim "It is false that Sun exists" is not true.

Premise 1 is a fact, since Sun can logically either exist either not exist, but not both and not neither.

Premise 2 is a fact, since Sun is observable to exist.

Conclusion then logically follows.

So, reasoning based on facts is reasoning where every premise is an observable fact, and conclusion logically follows from true premises.

This reasoning uses "if" premise when that premise can be observed.

For example, when we observe that "if there is source of light, there will be light".

It uses inclusion when inclusion can be observed.

Example:

"Not all dogs have tail"

It uses "or" when logically, options are presented which cant all be true,

where one of them must be true, where all except one are false,

where there are no other options, such as Sun which either exists  either doesnt.

That is reasoning where every premise is an observable fact.

I am curious, would anyone support the government action of giving printed money to all buisnesses?

So any buisness which earns more than certain amount of money and employs more than certain amount of workers would gain additional money from the government.

Would you agree with this system?

And what amount of money would you agree that buisnesses receive?

Should it be more money to bigger buisnesses, or same for all, or per employed workers?

"SEOUL, Jan 24 (Reuters) - North Korea is developing artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning for everything from how to respond to COVID-19 and safeguard nuclear reactors to wargaming simulations and government surveillance, according to a new study.

International sanctions imposed over its nuclear weapons program may have hindered North Korea's attempts to secure AI hardware, but it appears to be pursuing the latest technology, wrote study author Hyuk Kim of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) in California.

"North Korea’s recent endeavours in AI/ML development signify a strategic investment to bolster its digital economy," Kim wrote in the report, which cited open-source information including state media and journals and was published on Tuesday by the 38 North project."

"Some of North Korea's AI researchers have collaborated with foreign scholars, including in China, the report found.

Seoul's spy agency said on Wednesday it has detected signs that North Korean hackers had used generative AI to search for targets and seek technologies needed for hacking, though it appears they have yet to use it in actual cyberattacks.

The National Intelligence Service said it was closely monitoring the situation.

Communications technology is heavily restricted and monitored in the authoritarian North.

During the COVID-19 pandemic North Korea used AI to create a model for evaluating proper mask usage and prioritising clinical symptom indicators of infection, Kim said in the report.

North Korean scientists have also published research into using AI for maintaining the safety of nuclear reactors, the report added.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog and independent experts said last month that a new reactor at North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear complex appears to be operating for the first time, which would mean another potential source of plutonium for nuclear weapons.

The AI development presents many challenges, Kim wrote.

"For instance, North Korea’s pursuit of a wargaming simulation program using (machine learning) reveals intentions to better comprehend operational environments against potential adversaries," he wrote.

"Furthermore, North Korea’s ongoing collaborations with foreign scholars pose concerns for the sanctions regime.""

There are these options:

1. There is God who punishes atheists, but not christians

2. There is God who punishes christians, but not atheists

3. There is God who punishes both christians and atheists

4. There is God who doesnt punish christians and doesnt punish atheists

5. There is no God

Assuming unknown probability of each option, these being the only options, we see that 4 out of 5 options are either beneficial either neutral to atheists, same as for Christians.

The main point of debate is which options are more likely, but assuming unknown probability, we see that there is no reason to believe atheists will have it worse, not even by number of options.

From what I can conclude, facts should remain the main point of any discussion.

In discussion, there are:

1. Facts which prove the topic

2. Assumption A which disproves the topic

3. Assumption B which disproves assumption A

4. Assumption that both A and B are false, leaving only facts

5. Assumption that both A and B are true, but negate each other, leaving only facts.

Going by number of options, there are:

1. Facts

2. Assumptions which disprove topic

3. Assumptions which prove topic

4. Assumption that 2 and 3 are false assumptions

5. Assumption that 2 and 3 are true assumptions, but negate each other

So we can see that by mere number of options, assumptions which disprove topic are only 1/5, where all other options support topic by upholding facts are 4/5.

So how does it happen that 1/5 assumption ends up dominating over 4/5, carrying conversation into meaningless rant?

Thats because 1/5 often gives enough doubt to actually be considered, and because it creates a hole in the story which facts cannot explain or cover.

What also happens is that facts get turned into assumptions.

Because every fact must be observable to be verified, it already follows that non-observable facts are non-verified.

And even observable facts have weaknesses, apparently depending on an assumption that what you see is really there and not an illusion.

Also assuming that conclusion from observation is correct and not itself an assumption.

So really, most discussions tend to go to area of assumptions.

But there is a way to counter assumptions, and that is by using lots of facts.

Even if opponent keeps using assumptions, there is nothing which says that those assumptions are correct.

But facts are correct, because most people assume that what we observe is what exists.

So facts do tend to help change people's mind, where assumptions always leave conversation at nowhere.

However, assumptions will always be the main weapon of those who do not have facts.

Anyone who has a smartphone knows:

Reduce brightness on screen and battery will last longer.

Turn off internet or unnecessary apps and battery lasts longer.

Turn on power saving mode and battery lasts longer.

This made me wonder: does human body have "power saving mode"?

Of course it does.

The main trick is in metabolism, which is the amount of energy body uses.

I figured, if I reduce my metabolism, I will need less food.

So, here are the scientific principles I followed in an experiment of living on just under 1000 calories a day:

1. Sleeping for 12 hours

When sleeping, you burn less calories. Therefore, longer sleep means less calories burned per day.

Some monkeys sleep for 17 hours, so I figured its probably to conserve energy.

So I decided to sleep at least 12 hours a day.

2. Dehydration

Water increases metabolism, therefore not drinking water reduces metabolism. 

I decided to only drink a little bit of water when I feel thirsty.

3. One meal per day

Its obvious that digestion uses calories, and eating often is related to increase in metabolism.

So by logic, one meal per day is supposed to reduce metabolism.

4. Under 1000 calories meal

There is a theory among scientists that reducing calorie intake causes body to conserve energy, causing that less energy is needed to function.

5. No activity

Activity burns calories. Therefore, lack of activity saves calories. Of course, I was not able to practice this completely, as no activity is very difficult to maintain.

6. No coffee

I wasnt able to go without coffee, as I like coffee, but coffee increases metabolism.

7. Losing weight

When person loses weight, calorie needs decrease. So less weight translates to needing less food to maintain weight.

8. Slow, shallow breathing

The more you breathe, the more calories you use. Faster, deeper breathing uses more calories.

9. Skipping eating for a day or two

Not eating for an entire day can reduce metabolism further. I did start by skipping eating for a few days.

10. Keeping comfortable temperature

Being exposed to cold increases metabolism.

So what are the results?

I spent some time not eating, then I moved to eating a bit.

Despite being on somewhat less than 1000 calories a day for the past few days, I am not really losing as much weight as expected. 

I am barely losing any weight, despite being overweight and eating much less calories than daily needed to maintain weight by official data.

So I figured I probably managed to reduce my metabolism and adjust calorie needs to somewhere about 1000.

What are the applications of this particular research?

There is survival application. In survival situations, you will want to survive longer with same amount of food.

There is some military application, as there are scenarios where soldiers get cut off and are forced to survive with limited supplies.

I dont recommend people trying to copy this. Its a new research and 1000 calorie diets arent exactly well tested for safety.

There are only 2 options:

A. God exists

B. God doesnt exist

One could say, because there is no proof for A, B is true.

But that would be an assumption that B is true if there is no proof for A, because B can be false even if there is no proof for A.

Thats because there is also no proof for B.

One could even say it in a different way: A is true because there is no proof for B.

Since logic works both ways, it follows that its an assumption to treat either way as true.

So to conclude, absence of proof is not proof of absence when you have two contradicting options, both without proof, where one must be correct.

However, absence of proof doesnt fall outside of facts, but in the facts of probability.

Fact is something which is proven by observation.

By observation, we see that God either exists either doesnt.

Its a fact that one of those must be true, and its a fact that we dont know which one.

Therefore, we would be dealing with 50% chance of God existing, since by laws of probability, when two options have unknown probability where one option must be true, it is treated as 50% probability.

When probability is equally unknown on both sides, it follows that both sides are equally possible since unknown probability of one side equals unknown probability of the other side.

Since its impossible to prove that something supernatural doesnt exist, you could say that religious people have an advantage in proving God.

Therefore, denying any proof they present would just return the status of probability to 50%, which is a good probability for religious people.

But religious people gave attributes to God, such as "completely good", which led to problem of evil.

Since "completely good" contains only good and its actions result in only good, the existence of evil humans contradicts that, as existence of evil humans is a result of God's action of creating those specific humans.

Therefore, God's action resulted in evil humans, where lack of that action would result in no evil humans.

So you could say that religious people harmed their own cause by giving God attributes which God cannot have.

Its not a proof that God doesnt exist, but it is a proof that their specific "completely good" God cannot exist.

"Washington — Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, heading into a major test as she takes on Donald Trump in the New Hampshire primary this week, criticized the former president, in whose Cabinet she served, on Sunday for his relationship with "dictators that want to kill us."

"You can't have someone who's trying to buddy up with dictators that want to kill us," Haley told "Face the Nation."

"Instead, you have to let them know what we expect of them. That's the difference.""

Can anyone answer the question why dictators, enemies of democracy, racists, nazis support Trump?

Its interesting that revenge often leads to slippery slope where people attack each other into infinity.

Smart people dont waste time with revenge because:

1. Revenge causes more problems

2. Revenge causes revenge

3. Revenge doesnt fix people

With stupidity being in decline, world will go above its previous customs, abandon them and accept better ones. Hopefully.

I say that there should be an option to have a debate without voters.

I know some of you will say: "you already have that in forum"

But I dont, and neither do new users.

In forum, debate is not 1 vs 1, and debate does not come with character limit or round limit.

Now, most of my debates dont get votes anyway, so I am not really talking about me here.

But I noticed that site lets you have open votes, or judges, but it doesnt offer an option to have a debate without voters.

Debate without voters would be just like formal debates on ModernDebate. Its not something made up by me.

So I figured, on standard debates, there could be an option to have a debate without voters.

Now, anyone can see that most of the debating happens in forum where there are no voters, so its not a crazy idea to give option of no voters to formal debates in the debate section.

Having debates with voters might even prevent people from debating, because most people dont like losing and having voters basically guarantees someone "losing".

What this site also needs is a guide, especially a guide on topic creation.

Most new users cant seem to figure out which topics are auto-loss, which is what led to endless win farm in the past.

Also, most new users write a wall of text with no spacing, making debate essentially unreadable.

While that may be good strategy to overwhelm an opponent, it seriously harms the will of anyone to read that.

Also, there needs to be, like in video games, a guide appearing at the start, as soon as someone makes an account.

It needs to be simple enough so that anyone can understand, short enough so that they dont skip, and interesting enough to stay in memory.

I know that the site right now is not really growing.

Debate sites dont tend to be popular because only a small minority of people is interested enough in formal debating to search for a site specifically for that.

Most people want "safe space", so I figured that if you teach people how to debate anything and give them "safe space" with no voters to perform that debating, it might actually encourage them to stay.

I know that this site isnt originally meant to be a safe space, but most people are fragile. They cant handle defeat. They instantly quit the site.

So I figured that maybe give them safe space, which is not forum where they get destroyed in 4vs1, and which is not debate with voters where voters cause defeats and essentially act as 2vs1.

I know that there cannot be totally safe space in debates, but it can be pure 1vs1 with no any outside input from others to the debate itself.

There are three types of free healthcare:

1. Private payed by government.

2. State owned 

3. Private payed by the poor with money provided by government which doesnt include obligation to spend on healthcare

Lets examine these 3, and why only 3 works well.

In case of 1, what happens is that private doctors know that government will pay any expense for the poor people, so private doctors do lots of unnecessary procedures and examinations on poor people,

essentially wasting resources and causing overcrowded healthcare system.

In case of 2, doctors get lazy. State-employed doctors often care much less since they dont make profit from helping patients.

In case of 3, poor people would be able to choose if doctor gets the money and which doctor gets money. They get to choose which examinations to have and which not.

So it seems that case 1 is the worst, case 2 is only slightly better, and case 3 is poor people spending money according to own interest, which is most optimal.

Of course, how to implement 3 is a bit more of a question. Do poor people get free income? Do they get money if they get sick?

Its a question because not all poor people have same healthcare requirements. Some have much more healthcare needs than others.

I am thinking that government should have a group which examines the cases, and sends money accordingly.

What must be noted is that almost every system of free stuff is open to either abuse either not being effective enough.

Technically, giving poor people 500$ per month would help them a lot, but it wouldnt help much in cases of severe illness which takes more than 500$ to treat.

I dont support universal basic income, since I dont see the point in giving money to both rich and poor equally.

Technically, you are only supposed to give money to the poor or poor unemployed, but not in enough amount to make it preferable to be unemployed.

So I am guessing poor people should be getting 500$ per month. Thats 6000$ per year, which is about 180 billions in total for US. 

Its not a significant cost per year, where universal basic income would be much higher (1,8 trillions).

We all know how buisnesses work. Each buisness tries to make profit. Profit, by definition, means earning more money than you spent.

So each buisness tries to take more money from economy than it put in it. The more profit buisnesses make, the more money is taken out of circulation.

Think of kinda like this. I invested 1000$. I got 1200$. Now there is 200$ less dollars in circulation than it was before.

Therefore, the more profit buisnesses make as a whole, the less money there is in economy. 

This would produce an effect where buisnesses have to fight and fight until there is not much money left, causing collapse of economy.

Thats why money printing is mandatory in capitalism. The extra money which would be injected into economy increases profit rates by increasing available money to make profit from.

Before 8-9 days, I got sick and couldnt eat for first few days. I ended up eating about 300-400 calories per day since then. Now, I did lose weight, which is good because I am overweight.

But what I also noticed is that my depression didnt appear even once since then. Of course, it was collerated with lack of masturbation, so maybe that had some effect too.

Now, I heard stories before that anorexic people choose to eat much less food because it feels good. For them, its not just about getting skinny, but also about curing depression.

I did watch Eugenia Cooney's videos on youtube. She is extremely skinny and people judge her. I figured that she doesnt do it just for views, but because not eating feels good after some time.

When it comes to smartphones, I would almost always prefer to buy a new smartphone.

You may ask: why?

Well, first, new smartphone will get software updates for years.

Software updates improve everything, especially battery life and design.

New smartphone has new battery.

While I personally know how to maintain battery in smartphone so it stays good for years, most other people dont. Most other people will overcharge (above 80%) and let battery drain below 30%.

Used smartphones may malfunction.

When it comes to used smartphones, you will mostly get them online because the greatest amount of offers is online. There are also stores which sell used smartphones.

But with this, there comes a problem of possible malfunction. In fact, you might not even notice that smartphone has some malfunction until few months after.

Used smartphones are outdated.

Everyone knows that new smartphones use latest technology. While used smartphones may be cheaper, they are basically an older technology. This affects everything from battery life to performance.

So I would almost always prefer to buy new rather than used smartphone.

Does same apply to all other products? Well, in some yes, in some no.

Cars you mostly want new, for pretty much similar reasons as smartphones.

Any transport device, you want new.

Computers are kinda better used, unless you are after some latest technology for gaming.

TV is in most cases better used, unless you are after some high resolution.

Many countries tried to solve low birth rates by offering rewards.

What must be understood is that these rewards themselves are virtually meaningless and low. The mere cost of raising children outweights these rewards.

It is more profitable to be without offspring. 

So naturally, to counter, state must make it more profitable to have offspring, and not at all profitable not to have offspring.

So, a tax on people without children!

The less children you give birth to, the more tax you pay!

The tax should first apply on people who are 18-22 years old, because highest female fertility is at ages 15-22, and 18 is when you should be paying taxes.

Some countries have very low birth rates, such as Japan and South Korea, and unless they introduce some punishments for not having offspring, these countries will cease to exist in few hundred years.

The lowering of birth rates is a slippery slope. When birth rates lower, population gets older. Older population is less fertile, causing further decrease in birth rates, which further makes population older.

Its a cycle which, if not broken, guarantees country's collapse.

Trickle down economics say that if corporations, stores and wealthy get tax breaks, it will trickle down to everyone else through lower prices.

So, would you support printing money as a replacement for all taxes?

So instead of collecting 4 trillion in tax, you just print 4 trillion dollars.

Now, keep in mind that USA already prints trillions every year. It wouldnt be a significant change in printing.

However, printing money would mean that no money has to be spent on collecting taxes. Collecting taxes is expensive, because it employs lots of people.

Printing money might sound as unfair to the poor, but with no taxes, it also means everyone has more money.

And inflation has a delayed effect. It only comes into effect after printed money is mostly spent.

(Example: if you printed 10 trillions, but spent none, there would be no inflation because none of the printed money entered economy).

I know some of you will say "Germany printed lots of money and ended with mass inflation".

The difference is that printing can be limited. Germany printed too much money, much much more than few trillions per year, on a population much smaller than in USA.

So I am curious. How many of you think that printing money could/should replace taxes? It has already replaced good part of them, so can it replace all of them?

"Russia's use of North Korean missiles in Ukraine will help us figure out how effective they actually are on the battlefield, military analysts said.
South Korea's ambassador to the UN accused North Korea of using Ukraine as a "test site" for its nuclear-capable missiles on Wednesday.
Joonkook Hwang said Russia used them in attacks on December 30, January 2, and January 4."

First, what must be said is that this article thinks that North Korean missiles used in Ukraine will be same as the ones that would be used in war with North Korea.

This article obviously doesnt understand North Korean military first policy, which prioritizes North Korean military over military of its allies.

It is very unlikely that North Korea would give its best missiles to Russia in an amount that would be equal to their use in South's war with North Korea.

Russia might get few good missiles from North Korea in exchange for technological secrets, but to claim that any calculation can be made about their effectiveness is unrealistic.

This is because in case of war with North Korea, it wouldnt be just mass amount of nuclear weapons that would be used most at once to break holes in defense, but also biological weapons and artillery all at once. This would be very different from simple conventional weapons used in Ukraine and a slow, defensive way of warfare.

In fact, even if South Korea could stop 80% of North Korean nuclear missiles in first wave assuming 100 nuclear missiles, it would still mean that at least 20 nuclear weapons would hit South Korea, which would create massive holes in defenses making further defense almost impossible. Ukraine has not faced the same, but still struggles to stop missiles and drones.

Reality is that war in Ukraine cannot be a basis for any calculation about North Korea.

I am not Christian because:

1. I dont want to kill gays.

2. I dont want to kill trans.

3. I dont want to praise a God who after creating people, tortures those people by burning them alive for all eternity.

4. I dont think its okay to rape women.

5. I dont think its okay to beat children.

6. I dont want to live a life thinking that I am a sinner just because I was born.

"The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics about a fictional scenario in which an onlooker has the choice to save 5 people in danger of being hit by a trolley, by diverting the trolley to kill just 1 person."

The trolley problem gives you a choice to take action that kills 1 person, or take no action which results in 5 people being killed but not because of you.

Now, rules would say: 

Its always wrong to kill innocents.

Therefore, you acting to kill 1 innocent person would be wrong even if it saves 5 lives as its result.

Consequentialism based on life or happiness would say:

Action that contains harm, but is more beneficial than harmful, is a good action.

Therefore, such consequentialism would justify the action that kills 1 person to save 5.

Consequentialism based on reduction of pain would argue that its same either way, as those 5 people would likely experience a lot of pain in life and even cause pain, so saving them this one time does not guarantee a reduction in pain.

But what I noticed is that most people are incapable of comparing benefits and harms. In fact, most people fall for bias and search only those information which support their view. Therefore, most people are not capable to use consequentialism in a way that its supposed to be used. This is why for them, its better to rely on rules.

The basic rules, such as do not lie, are often violated by people who think it brings some greater benefit. But ultimately, it produces a society of liars, because you cannot lie and expect that nobody else does the same.

I got food poisoning.

Apparently, meat and animal products are much more likely to contain harmful viruses and bacteries.

I learned the hard way.

Couldnt sleep for the entire night due to pain below chest.

Cant drink even one whole glass of water without puking. I must drink very slowly. It takes me an hour to drink one cup of water.

Must go to the toiled 5 times a day due to diarrhea.

The main argument of capitalists is that government intervention always makes things worse.

They follow premise:

P1. Government interventing to help poor people will not help poor people, but will harm poor people.

Now, while its true that historically, there were countries with very little government intervention, most of the rich countries today have lots of wealth redistribution.

Thus, capitalists would have to defend position that countries with most free market have least poverty.

This position is very hard to defend, because

1. Countries with least poverty are countries that have lots of government intervention.

2. There is no country on Earth without wealth redistribution

Also, they would have to defend that capitalism on its own wont produce the effect of wealth moving up.

Because wealthy people would have much more wealth without high taxes, it follows that their buying power would increase. Thus, they would consume more products from market, and market would increase production for the wealthy while reducing production for the less wealthy.

Since in capitalism, the richer you are, the easier you can compete and more you can consume, there is basically no guarantee that making rich richer helps the poor.

Capitalists would argue that:

P1. Not helping the poor motivates poor people to get a job.

While it is undeniable that poor, if being left on their own, would be forced to die or find a way to survive on their own, this doesnt result in much good. First, the job they might get would likely be the lowest wage job. They would likely have no money for health service, leaving them in very vunerable position if they get sick.

Second, the unemployment rate in countries with lots of wealth redistribution is very low.

Third, poor people having access to health services payed by government ultimately makes them more productive, where without health services their health would decay and force them out of workforce.

Christians consider God as real.

They justify it in two ways:

1. They say that they have proof, just that other people dont understand such proof.

2. They say that there is no proof, but that they can consider God as real even without proof.

1 is obviously false, because Christians never presented any clear proof of God.

Now, lets talk about 2.

There are these options:

1. If we have no proof that X exists, then we shouldnt consider X real.

2. It is false that "If we have no proof that X exists, then we shouldnt consider X real".

Christians who think that they should consider God real even if they have no proof for God's existence, they must defend position 2, since position 2 is the negation of position 1, and position 1 is negation of Christian position.

To make it simple, they must defend that sometimes people should consider things as real without proof.

Then they must explain why position 2 works with Christian God, and not with any other God or unproven being.

But thats exactly the point. 

Christians are more likely than atheists to believe in all kinds of assumptions and fictions. Christians are more likely to believe in demons, monsters, spirits, ghosts, vampires, political lies, conspiracy theories...

It seems that abandoning proof as a requirement for something to be considered real sends you onto the slippery slope of the magical world where things are considered real with no proof except pure imagination, fiction and assumption.

Of course, one can consider something as real without proof. But should one really do that?

I prefer empiricism a bit more for two reasons:

1. Logic can be used incorrectly, and often is.

2. Facts are more reliable than reasoning

Rationalism creates knowledge from logical laws. For example, a contradiction means that something is wrong.

But rationalism is limited in this way, because in any reasoning without clear contradiction, rationalism can easily lead to incorrect conclusions or to wishful thinking. Even mathematicians, who work with most pure form of rationalism, make mistakes.

Empiricism, on the other hand, focuses on gathering as much knowledge as possible, first.

Its best to use both empiricism and rationalism, with slight focus on empiricism because you need facts before you can reason. In facts, facts often support correct logic, where mere thinking about contradictions could itself contradict with an unknown fact.

By law of logic,

"Every thing has a cause."

As long as "cause" is also a thing, it follows that each such cause needs its own cause.

So where is the beginning? The beginning can only be that which isnt caused.

Therefore, the only true beginning can be "nothing".

"Nothing" doesnt require a cause, since its not a thing.

But nothing can create something. In this exchange, "nothing" stops existing and "something" is created.

Therefore, first existence could only come from nothing. It couldnt come from "something", because first existence is first "something".

Now, I have already covered why morality is most likely arbitrary.

Thats because any moral standard is ultimately a product of choice, or a product of desire, or a product of will. Since any moral standard can be rejected and different one can be accepted instead, it follows that morality is something equal to wish. Any moral reason is ultimately an arbitrary reason that can be rejected or accepted at will of anyone. Arbitrary reason is not, as one might think, the actual cause. The will is the actual cause for accepting or rejecting a standard. Thus, standard is always a choice.

But some Christians have stated that God created logic, and that God can do illogical things.

Wouldnt this make logic itself an arbitrary product of God's will?

Logic, by itself, has these self-evident rules:

Non-contradiction: Something cannot both be and not be at the same time, cannot be true and false at the same time.

This rule is mainly about the impossibility of both existing and not existing at the same time.

If one were to completely deny this rule, he would have no way of forming any logical thinking. Plus, he would have no way to demonstrate his thinking, as we have never observed anywhere something both existing and not existing at the same time.

In fact, its not even possible to imagine. Even our imagination cannot imagine something that both exists and doesnt at the same time. Its simply impossible to imagine.

So when people claim that God can do illogical things, is that a mere assumption?

If we have these two claims:

1. Object A exists somewhere

Or 

2. It is false that object A exists somewhere

How is it possible for both claims to be true? The second one being true means that first one isnt.

Yet in an illogical world of God, they can apparently both be true.

Of course, some thinkers have claimed that both can be true at different times. However, the time of claim one is included as time of claim two, since claim one itself is included in claim two.

So, by logic, two contradicting claims must mean that one is false.

Another law of logic is excluded middle.

This means that claim can be either true or false, but not both and not neither.

Illogical world of God would defy this logic, but how?

How can something neither exist nor not exist?

Even law of identity, which states that X is always equal to X, would be defied.

These logical laws form our universe, but if God created them, that would make logic itself arbitrary.