Poll: Do you believe in psychics, extraterrestrial life, time travel, other universes?

Page 22 of 37 FirstFirst ...
12
20
21
22
23
24
32
... LastLast
  1. #421
    Immortal Darththeo's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    7,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    -snip-
    Once again, you cannot use "we don't know everything" as a reason to discount everything we know.

    You are arguing because are knowledge is limited (ie not perfect, aka imperfect) we cannot make a judgment on the certainty of something occurring.

    Everything we know, everything we observe, etc ... points to life being likely. As we study, we find out that prior assumptions we made are either wrong, more common than we thought, or we misguided by bias of looking for Earth-like life. You are proposing because we cannot know for certain, we cannot make a judgment ... that's garbage.

    No assumption we have made on what will be needed for life has ever become more restrictive. So you are literally just that annoying kid in a glass going "You can't know for sure therefore you are wrong." You are blind to your own arrogance on this topic because you think a mere statement of a mathematical possibility discounts all data we have.

    The evidence that p is likely high is our evidence that you can observe. What evidence do you have that supports that it could be low besides it is mathematically possible?
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  2. #422
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Yeah, it didn’t happen the way you remember it. You simply created a false memory. This is a phenomenon that people know can happen. Unlike having psychic visions years into the future.



    I’ve certainly had deja vu moments like that. But like I said before, it’s just an interesting anomaly where a sensory input leads the brain to associate it with the feeling of a memory that never really happened.

    As for those remote viewing experiments in the 70s and 80s, they were an absolute farce. Conducted under the loosest control conditions and declassified because they were completely useless. There have never been any verifiable examples of psychic ability that could stand up to the most rudimentary scientific scrutiny. Never.
    Nothing was created. It happened. There have been many instances recorded that could not be explained any other way. If it didn’t happen to you, there is no way for it to be proven or disproven by anyone else. The remote viewing projects did produce some amazing results but the accuracy was not 100% and therefore was deemed to be not reliable for making major policies based on it.

    A name for you. Edgar Cayce. His story is truly amazing and to this day unexplained.

    All I am saying is that I know for a fact that seeing into the future is possible. Whether other people can amplify it and see things not connected to them personally is another story. I agree that practically all those who have tried to gain fame and fortune from it have been frauds but I also believe that some of them did have experiences in a limited fashion like me but tried to capitalize by falsely expanding it and claiming to be able to do it at any time on demand. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t just decide to do it. It happens completely at random and out of nowhere. The fact that it can’t be done on demand completely negates the possibility of it being tested in any meaningful way. Therefore, scientific scrutiny means nothing and is essentially useless. Like other things, you can’t prove or disprove supernatural events by natural means. It’s completely futile to even try. Science does not have all the answers and never will.
    Last edited by Dch48; 2021-10-18 at 02:59 AM.
    Desktop ------------------------------- Laptop- Asus ROG Zephyrus G14
    AMD Ryzen 5 5600X CPU ---------------AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS with Radeon 680M graphics
    AMD RX 6600XT GPU -------------------AMD Radeon RX 6800S discrete graphics
    16 GB DDR4-3200 RAM ----------------16 GB DDR5-4800 RAM
    1 TB WD Black SN770 NVMe SSD ------1 TB WD Black SN850 NVMe SSD

  3. #423
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Not only do we not know for sure, but we really don't know even a little bit. Our knowledge of how likely OoL is is profoundly incomplete. There is no useful lower bound we can determine on the chance life starts on a planet.
    We don't have an upper bound either. We have no idea how likely OR unlikely the emergence of life is.

    We don't know if there's some "factor X" that's required to start the process; this could make Earth a special case, but nothing of the sort has been discovered. All we're left with is the elementary factors of chance that govern how the pieces come together and interact. We have no idea how that happened, either, we only know what was definitely in the mix to start with: liquid water, carbon chemistry, and a source of energy for the system (usually light from a star). None of those is particularly rare in the universe: most water on earth is believed to have come from elsewhere in the solar system, carbon/hydrogen/oxygen (the basic requirements of carbon chemistry) are abundant in the universe, and many if not most stars have planets.

    So given that we don't know how likely or unlikely the specific conditions were that lead to the beginning of life, but we DO know what ingredients were definitely required and that those are not rare.

    So what is more reasonable: to assume that a process reliant on very common ingredients is extremely unlikely? Or that a processes relying on very common ingredients is not extremely unlikely? Again, we don't know the exact likelihoods for either - but given what we DO know, which seems more reasonable here?

  4. #424
    @Dch48

    I already told my story here about visions of the future. That makes 2 of us...3 if u count my friend who also had them.
    Is absolutely not controlled but...it happens sometimes in our lifespan.
    All i want to say is...if stuff like this is possible, who is to say no crazier shit is out there? we never know

  5. #425
    Quote Originally Posted by Chadow View Post
    @Dch48

    I already told my story here about visions of the future. That makes 2 of us...3 if u count my friend who also had them.
    Is absolutely not controlled but...it happens sometimes in our lifespan.
    All i want to say is...if stuff like this is possible, who is to say no crazier shit is out there? we never know
    Exactly right. We don’t know and scientific investigations are useless in this area.
    Desktop ------------------------------- Laptop- Asus ROG Zephyrus G14
    AMD Ryzen 5 5600X CPU ---------------AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS with Radeon 680M graphics
    AMD RX 6600XT GPU -------------------AMD Radeon RX 6800S discrete graphics
    16 GB DDR4-3200 RAM ----------------16 GB DDR5-4800 RAM
    1 TB WD Black SN770 NVMe SSD ------1 TB WD Black SN850 NVMe SSD

  6. #426
    Quote Originally Posted by Dch48 View Post
    Nothing was created. It happened. There have been many instances recorded that could not be explained any other way. If it didn’t happen to you, there is no way for it to be proven or disproven by anyone else. The remote viewing projects did produce some amazing results but the accuracy was not 100% and therefore was deemed to be not reliable for making major policies based on it.

    A name for you. Edgar Cayce. His story is truly amazing and to this day unexplained.

    All I am saying is that I know for a fact that seeing into the future is possible. Whether other people can amplify it and see things not connected to them personally is another story. I agree that practically all those who have tried to gain fame and fortune from it have been frauds but I also believe that some of them did have experiences in a limited fashion like me but tried to capitalize by falsely expanding it and claiming to be able to do it at any time on demand. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t just decide to do it. It happens completely at random and out of nowhere. The fact that it can’t be done on demand completely negates the possibility of it being tested in any meaningful way. Therefore, scientific scrutiny means nothing and is essentially useless. Like other things, you can’t prove or disprove supernatural events by natural means. It’s completely futile to even try. Science does not have all the answers and never will.
    This is flawed thinking in every conceivable way.

    "could not be explained any other way": this is the argument from ignorance fallacy; just because other explanations have not been provided doesn't mean your proposed explanation is automatically true. This is not how proof and evidence work AT ALL - evidence is proof positive, you don't simply get to a conclusion through the exclusion of other propositions, because the number of proposed (but unproven) propositions is a set of infinite size.

    "I know for a fact that seeing into the future is possible": you don't KNOW this, you (at best) BELIEVE this. If you had knowledge, you could provide an epistemological basis, and provide evidence. You can't - or you would have, and pocketed your Nobel prize in the process, for proving clairvoyance is real. All you have is an assertion, and conviction; that is a far cry from knowledge.

    "you can’t prove or disprove supernatural events by natural means": the burden on proof is on the one making the claim, since (as above) the set of potential things to be disproven is arbitrarily large. If something CANNOT be proven, it cannot be investigated and it cannot be part of any rational argument (which requires falsifiability). The counterargument is simple: disprove please that what you claim wasn't caused by an omnipotent, undetectable elf named Zachary. Oh, you can't? Well checkmate then, guess Zach's done it again. Since such claims can be repeated ad infinitum and are, epistemologically speaking, on the exact same argumentative footing as yours (i.e. none at all), this is not a valid process for arriving at truth claims.

    "Science does not have all the answers and never will": impossibility has to be demonstrated, just like possibility has to be. We don't know if science can explain EVERYTHING, but so far, we have no discovered a better method for investigating truth claims about reality, and we have discovered nothing that would point towards an impossibility for science to, in principle, explain anything about reality. There may be limitations to human understanding, certainly (if nothing else, then related to the limitations of our physical brains), but there is nothing so far that even hints at conceptual limitations to scientific methodology. If you have proof of such limitations, present it, pass Go, and collect your Nobel prize.

  7. #427
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    22,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    We know nothing of the kind.

    If p is sufficiently large (compared to 1/N) then we can say with high probability that there is life elsewhere.

    But how can we conclude that p is that large? There is no way to put a probability distribution on possible sets of laws of physics, which are ultimately where p comes from.

    So, no, you are just projecting your preferences and/or prejudices and dressing them up with a spurious assertion that life must be highly likely.
    So I think this is where the disconnect is coming from.


    When we say highly likely we don't mean every planet should have life. What we mean is that there are SOOOOOO MANY stars and planets that life almost had to have formed on at least one other planet.
    MMO-Champ the place where calling out trolls get you into more trouble than trolling.

  8. #428
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    My two cents:

    Psychics - If we're talking about full blown Professor X or Akira style psychic abilities, then no. I don't believe that mind reading, telekinesis and mind control are a thing. Fortune telling and other stage style psychic stuff? Again, not really. I don't believe that people can look into a mystic ball to see the future or speak with the dearly departed.

    What I do think may exist though, is people that are just naturally perceptive in a way that most people aren't. That they take in information in a unique way, that they may not even consciously realize. Something so rare, that we just don't have a grasp on it. This lets them know or understand things that seem almost impossible to the rest of us It's not magic or mystical, just a way that some people have rather unique abilities no different really than those that can see more colours or have near photographic memories.

    Extraterrestrial Life - Do I believe in little green men from Mars that come here to shove probes up our asses? No, no I do not. Do I believe that we are utterly alone in the wide, wide universe? No. Whether there is life out there that we would immediately recognize as such or not is beyond me, but I believe that the universe is simply too big for the circumstances that allowed for life to happen on Earth to not have happened elsewhere as well.

    I highly doubt we'll ever have a moment of alien life invading our planet and wiping us out. Rather, given our history, I'd say it's far more likely that one day we'd be doing that to other worlds.

    Time Travel - Assuming we're talking about movie type Back to The Future shit here, then I just don't see how. Ignoring how the smallest of changes could be catastrophic to the future of those going back in time, I think the simple fact that we aren't regularly encountering time travellers from the future shows us that it's either not possible, or that our race doesn't survive long enough to ever discover it.

    Other Universes - This one I have no idea, and frankly, I don't think my brain is really equipped to consider it. My understanding of time and space is, I think, too... linear, I guess, to really consider the possibility or implications.

    What I do think is that if such a thing does exist, we would be hard pressed to be proud when comparing ourselves to what an alternate version of us has done and achieved. Because I don't know what's the scarrier thought: that some other Earth has done a considerably better job than we have and we learn truly how terrible we are, or that there could actually be a group out there worse than us, and what kind of society/world that would look like.
    This guy gets it!

    I would say science based mind reading and mind control could be a thing in the future but not at this point atleast, we dont understand how brain even works yet (we can only manipulate it to a lesser degree, mostly with drugs). Brainwashing however is a thing and could be counted as mind control, but even that doesnt work on every person so technically not mind control.

    Other universes is such a broad idea too, how would they exist? are we going by the idea that there are alternate dimensions or by saying universes are like galaxies but much much much bigger.
    The latter could be true but we would never be able to observe it since light doesnt travel anywhere near fast enough to show us that far.
    The former... highly unlikely, by our current understanding, or we simply lack the brains and capabilities to ever be able to observe them.


    We shouldnt be asking if theres alien life... we should be asking: are we ever able to detect it?
    Spacefaring aliens is not the only type that could exist, dinosaur-equivalents would be counted as alien life if they evolved in another planet... yet we would never be able to detect them unless they invent a radio or something more powerful, which would emit detectable signals.
    Last edited by Otaka; 2021-10-18 at 03:50 AM.

  9. #429
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Just because government would kill to protect secrets doesn't mean they will kill everyone to protect secrets. That's why you are saying something I am NOT arguing for. You are asserting that if X is true, it must be true in all circumstances, I am not arguing for that.

    The best conspiracy theories are ones with just enough truth to be reasonable, regardless of how ridiculous the theory is.

    First off, I don't "believe" in Area 51, it is a real place that exists. Do I believe Area 51 has Aliens? No. Do I believe the government is using Area 51 as a cover to hide the fact they have aliens somewhere? Also no. Do I believe in aliens building pyramids? No, because more pyramids we know why and even how they were built. I am treating this conversation as a thought experiment, nothing more.
    Then why? If whistleblowers do what they do and don't get killed, why would those with supernatural powers fear for their life so damn much that not a single one "real deal" supernatural people has come forward to present themselves?
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  10. #430
    Quote Originally Posted by Otaka View Post
    Spacefaring aliens is not the only type that could exist, dinosaur-equivalents would be counted as alien life if they evolved in another planet... yet we would never be able to detect them unless they invent a radio or something more powerful, which would emit detectable signals.
    There's considerable debate about this. To think that life has emerged elsewhere is not a particularly far-fetched proposition (for various reason), but that doesn't say much about WHAT KIND of life. Perhaps most life in the universe is exceedingly primitive, and the real bottleneck is the emergence of life in an environment and under circumstances that would allow for diversification - or perhaps the very precondition of having a mechanism that allows for heredity plus mutation is rare. And as you say, any form of life that doesn't actively MAKE itself known would be quite hard to detect, particularly at interstellar distances. However, it wouldn't be impossible. You wouldn't necessarily need something like radio signals to detect life on other planets - it's conceivable that we could detect passive byproducts of life as well, such as organic compounds in atmospheres. Current technology isn't quite there yet, but it's not inconceivable that we might be able to detect atmospheric composition of exoplanetary objects at some point in the future, and while that probably wouldn't give CONCLUSIVE evidence for life (barring some extreme cases) it could give a good indication for likely candidates.

    All of that is future talk for now, though. We haven't even really explored our solar system to any degree beyond superficial scrapings here and there, if even. Let alone other parts of the galaxy, not to mention the universe. But plausible models and predictions for future methodologies do exist, and fields like exoplanet research are exploding at the moment (stay tuned for the launch of the new James Webb Space Telescope at the end of the year!).

  11. #431
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    This depends on what kinda of time travel yo are talking about. Time is relative. It's possible that time for 1 person moves at a faster rate for another person. enough that 1 person could experience years while the other only days
    sure thing, time dilatation im completely onboard with. But i doubt thats what op meant with time travel.
    None of us really changes over time. We only become more fully what we are.

  12. #432
    I find it hard to believe in psychics when I drove past a pub one day that was going to host a psychic reading night and there was a sign across it saying "Closed to unforeseen circumstances"

  13. #433
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I agree. It's not. But there is a difference between "fame" and "infamy". "Fame" means the majority of the eyes that are on you are positive, meaning they like you and would like you to be well. Meaning that if something were to happen to you, there would be an uproar. Fame also means more reach, and more resources for yourself. You would be protected. I imagine it'd be a similar thing with the pope. Look how famous the guy is, and how many other people dislike him, especially from other religions. And yet he hasn't been killed yet.
    For sake of argument, lets say our supernatural being is a random guy, capable of literally healing people of ANY illness, simply by touching them.

    This guy literally blows the pope out of the water. He will be orders of magnitude more famous. Every christian religiows faction on earth will be fighting over him as the re-incarnation of christ, even if the guy is personally an atheist. God help us if he is born Moslem. You straight up can not compare something like "the pope" who is simply the human face of the catholic church, to a being who basically proves the existence of things that are beyond natural human understanding. His mere existence will be a 100% polarizing effect across billions of lives.

    What about science? Why would science want to kill off someone with supernatural powers? Science thrives off new ideas and ways of thinking. Someone bringing a previously never-seen-before thing, like supernatural powers, would become a metaphorical gold mine for more studies and breakthroughs.
    Spend the rest of your life as a guinea pig as research labs try to figure out how your shit works? Basically never, ever be allowed to actually live your life with any kind of personal freedom? Yeah, hard pass.

    Why would the government want to kill someone with supernatural powers?
    Why WOULDN'T the government want to kill someone with supernatural powers? Unless they can be controlled by the government, they are a destabilizing element to society in general simply by existing. Not only because by their very nature, people will gravitate towards them, but because depending on the nature of their ability, every other government on the planet is going to want them. I mean, if my above mentioned healer guy showed up in the USA, do you think for a second the Government would let him out of their sight? The ability to heal people would instantly be a high demand item for EVERY VIP and Celebrity on the planet. Every government on earth would be trying to recruit him with threat or favor to be the personal attendant of their President or Prime Minister or whatever.

    You really think rando Joe Shmoe with a gun would be able to kill a worldly famous, protected person? I imagine they wouldn't be able to even get near that person, much less have an opportunity to kill them.
    I wasn't specifically talking about individual actors, rather more I was speaking towards the generalized type of Mob Mentality / Mass Hysteria that could result from such a thing (especially when you get social media involved), but since you brought it up: Famous people get killed by random nutjobs all the time. Literal dozens of them in my lifetime, and that's only talking about the ones I hear about in the circles I pay attention to (mostly North American / European news). More fame isn't going to guarantee you better protection, but it sure as shit will guarantee you a larger following of psychos.

  14. #434
    Immortal Darththeo's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    7,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Then why? If whistleblowers do what they do and don't get killed, why would those with supernatural powers fear for their life so damn much that not a single one "real deal" supernatural people has come forward to present themselves?
    How do you know no one with "real deal" supernatural people hasn't presented themselves?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    So I think this is where the disconnect is coming from.


    When we say highly likely we don't mean every planet should have life. What we mean is that there are SOOOOOO MANY stars and planets that life almost had to have formed on at least one other planet.
    That isn't what he is arguing.

    He is saying our evidence is insufficient because there could be something we do not know that could reduce the odds so small that life becomes impossible elsewhere.

    He doesn't understand this argument requires more than just math to be considered a valid counter of the claim life is likely elsewhere.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  15. #435
    The Operative : "Key members of Parliament". Key. The minds behind every military, diplomatic and covert operation in the galaxy, and you put them in a room with a psychic.

  16. #436
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Once again, you cannot use "we don't know everything" as a reason to discount everything we know.
    As usual, you misrepresent. I certainly can use "we don't yet have enough evidence" to say we can't know. I'm not denying we might eventually know.

    You seem to be saying we're allowed to reach conclusions that we cannot justify from evidence. You seem to be stuck in thinking from 500 years ago.

    You are arguing because are knowledge is limited (ie not perfect, aka imperfect) we cannot make a judgment on the certainty of something occurring.
    Not at all. I'm saying current knowledge is so incomplete we cannot make a useful determination of the likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe. It's not that the evidence is imperfect, it's that it's inadequate. I even listed evidence that potentially might be obtained that, while still imperfect, would be enough to allow us to conclude life is likely in the universe.

    Everything we know, everything we observe, etc ... points to life being likely.
    Repeating this lie doesn't make it true. It just makes you a liar. I have explained over and over why current evidence is inadequate to reach this conclusion.


    You are proposing because we cannot know for certain, we cannot make a judgment ... that's garbage.
    No, that's another of your lies. I'm saying current evidence is inadequate. I'm not saying only perfect evidence would be adequate.

    No assumption we have made on what will be needed for life has ever become more restrictive. So you are literally just that annoying kid in a glass going "You can't know for sure therefore you are wrong." You are blind to your own arrogance on this topic because you think a mere statement of a mathematical possibility discounts all data we have.
    We've found certain things a likely not obstacles to life being common, but that doesn't mean life is common. It only means that those things aren't the obstacles. But I explained this already.

    The evidence that p is likely high is our evidence that you can observe.
    This is a false inference, due to observer selection bias. As I have already explained. The more uncommon life is, the biased our position is. This exactly cancels out our observation of ourselves. Another way to see this: if life were uncommon (due to OoL being extremely rare, let's say) what would look different from what we already see? You seem to think we can rule that possibility out, so what's that observation that rules it out?

    ​What evidence do you have that supports that it could be low besides it is mathematically possible?
    All that's needed to justify that statement is the observation that life being uncommon is consistent with the evidence.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    He doesn't understand this argument requires more than just math to be considered a valid counter of the claim life is likely elsewhere.
    No, the cluelessness is entirely on your side. I don't need to prove life is unlikely elsewhere. It's your job -- that you totally suck at, btw -- to demonstrate that the evidence implies life is likely elsewhere. I just need to put up scenarios that are (1) consistent with the evidence, and (2) contradict your claim, in order to show that you are blowing smoke. I don't need to prove any such scenario is real. The obligation to prove your statement is on you, not on me to prove the opposite.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    So I think this is where the disconnect is coming from.


    When we say highly likely we don't mean every planet should have life. What we mean is that there are SOOOOOO MANY stars and planets that life almost had to have formed on at least one other planet.
    Yes, I know what you're saying. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, that argument is bogus. It is not valid to conclude that life is likely just because there are lots of stars.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  17. #437
    "We don't know enough to be certain of our uncertainty" strange argument.

  18. #438
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    For sake of argument, lets say our supernatural being is a random guy, capable of literally healing people of ANY illness, simply by touching them.

    This guy literally blows the pope out of the water. He will be orders of magnitude more famous. Every christian religiows faction on earth will be fighting over him as the re-incarnation of christ, even if the guy is personally an atheist. God help us if he is born Moslem. You straight up can not compare something like "the pope" who is simply the human face of the catholic church, to a being who basically proves the existence of things that are beyond natural human understanding. His mere existence will be a 100% polarizing effect across billions of lives.
    Anything "beyond human understanding" only remains so until it's investigated enough to reach a conclusion. The weather was once "beyond human understanding", for context. I used the pope as an example of an internationally famous person that is not being killed off any time he pokes his head out the window.

    Spend the rest of your life as a guinea pig as research labs try to figure out how your shit works? Basically never, ever be allowed to actually live your life with any kind of personal freedom? Yeah, hard pass.
    And you're going to absurd extremes if you think such a person would be locked up permanently like cattle and never allowed a single basic freedom their entire life.

    Why WOULDN'T the government want to kill someone with supernatural powers?
    Sorry, you don't get to flip the question around. You were the one who made the claim that the government would kill people with supernatural powers.

    Unless they can be controlled by the government, they are a destabilizing element to society in general simply by existing.
    The entire world at large is proof that you're wrong. Look at everything that happened around you. Did those people that invaded the white house in the US got killed off for being a "destabilizing element to society"? Did the BLM protesters get killed off because they're "destabilizing elements to society"?

    because depending on the nature of their ability, every other government on the planet is going to want them.
    So, instead of protecting them, the government would want to kill them off. Brilliant.

    I mean, if my above mentioned healer guy showed up in the USA, do you think for a second the Government would let him out of their sight? The ability to heal people would instantly be a high demand item for EVERY VIP and Celebrity on the planet. Every government on earth would be trying to recruit him with threat or favor to be the personal attendant of their President or Prime Minister or whatever.
    That's a big reason to not kill them off. Not to mention medical scientists would want to study him to find out how to cure incurable illnesses like Parkinson or dementia.

    I wasn't specifically talking about individual actors, rather more I was speaking towards the generalized type of Mob Mentality / Mass Hysteria that could result from such a thing (especially when you get social media involved),
    Social media would act as a deterrent. When you get all eyes of the world on you, with the majority of them being in a good light, it's not easy to kill said someone off.

    but since you brought it up: Famous people get killed by random nutjobs all the time. Literal dozens of them in my lifetime, and that's only talking about the ones I hear about in the circles I pay attention to (mostly North American / European news).
    Dozens! Oh, my god, dozens of famous people died in your lifetime!!!

    ... Remind me again, how many "famous people" exist in the world right now, that you know of? And then make a ratio of how many died compared to how many are still alive. Is it 1:1? 1:10? 1:100?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    How do you know no one with "real deal" supernatural people hasn't presented themselves?
    Because if they had, we would know of it. Simple enough.

    He is saying our evidence is insufficient because there could be something we do not know that could reduce the odds so small that life becomes impossible elsewhere.
    Where does the odds become so small that it becomes "impossible elsewhere" when our universe is, as far as we know, near damn well limitless in size?
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  19. #439
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    It is not valid to conclude that life is likely just because there are lots of stars.
    While the probability may remain the same, mathematically the outcome does indeed become more likely the larger the population of the sample. If your chances of drawing a black ball from a pool of 50 balls is 2%, drawing once vs. drawing ten times doesn't change the probability of the singular event (still 2%, if you put the ball back each time) but the probability of hitting the black ball at least once DOES go up.

    So if you assume that the likelihood of life emerging on a planet is X, then you looking at 1 planet vs. 1 billion planets doesn't mean X increases, but it DOES mean the chances of X happening at least once DO go up.

    Unless, that is, you propose that life is contingent on some kind of factor that doesn't simply scale proportionately with population size.

  20. #440
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And you're going to absurd extremes if you think such a person would be locked up permanently like cattle and never allowed a single basic freedom their entire life.
    As the only known living specimen capable of doing what they do? Damn straight they would spend the rest of their natural life under a microscope. The scientific community won't let that go. Hell, I can 100% see some of the less reputable government backed science organizations arguing that "human rights" probably wouldn't even apply to them since them being able to do what they do probably means they might not even be human.

    The entire world at large is proof that you're wrong. Look at everything that happened around you. Did those people that invaded the white house in the US got killed off for being a "destabilizing element to society"? Did the BLM protesters get killed off because they're "destabilizing elements to society"?
    You haven't been paying very much attention if you honestly are making that comparison. Especially BLM. I mean, fuck, the Trump admin was literally ready to sic the military on them if they could get away with it, and they did have cops out there using extreme force "rubber bullets to the face, shoot first, arrest second, ask questions twenty third" style in a lot of those protests. The only reason they weren't straight up killing people is because you don't generally do that in polite society.

    Also, "the entire world at large" literally disagrees strongly with this assertion, as there are countries all over the globe who are willing AND able to use lethal force to subdue destabilizing elements. China for one.

    So, instead of protecting them, the government would want to kill them off. Brilliant.


    That's a big reason to not kill them off. Not to mention medical scientists would want to study him to find out how to cure incurable illnesses like Parkinson or dementia.
    Just because one government might manage to use them in a positive way doesn't mean that every OTHER government isn't going to view them being attached to the first as a direct threat. If they throw their lot in with the USA for example, China and Russia are likely going to take a dim view of another superpower having that kind of wildcard in it's pocket.

    Social media would act as a deterrent. When you get all eyes of the world on you, with the majority of them being in a good light, it's not easy to kill said someone off.
    Social media literally has 30% of the USA convinced that Vaccines are evil and part of a government conspiracy to turn you into 5g antennas or other dumbass shit. You honestly think, even for a second, that that would change in this instance? No way in hell the individual in question ends up "with all the eyes of the world on them in a good light" after the facebook trolls get wind of their existence.

    Dozens! Oh, my god, dozens of famous people died in your lifetime!!!

    ... Remind me again, how many "famous people" exist in the world right now, that you know of? And then make a ratio of how many died compared to how many are still alive. Is it 1:1? 1:10? 1:100?
    Completely irrelevant. You postulated that fame would protect them. I pointed out that there are literally dozens of examples (and that's probably pretty low) that directly refute your point. Fame didn't keep some guy with a rifle from blowing JFK's head off, and he was fucking president of the USA. No amount of fame will keep anyone alive if someone is determined to see them dead. And considering just exactly how much of a total paradigm shift the existence of such a person would be to the world at large, you can bet your ass there would be a lot of highly determined crazies out there.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •