As you like. Customer is always right, eh?

No, Satorri, those three religions all share the same god, though they have (partially) different teachings regarding that god.
And different though they may be, they all worship Abraham's god.

Oh no, I've been meaning to convert to grid from pitbull due to everyone telling me it shows debuffs so nicely ...

Re:SBF - just have it installed and active for a raid and it will pick up the buffs and debuffs, then start to sort out which ones you want showing - using whitelist or blacklist (depending on if you want everything but X and Y or just X and Y), it took me a while, but once you've got one "group of buffs" how you want the rest are really easy.

Try Acheron for "what just killed me" type of thing. It can be made to show what heals, buffs, debuffs and incoming damage you took over the last upto 60 seconds before your death.

Yes, but do I really want to? Not a good feeling.

Bear in mind, Cider, I don't mean to say that all Law/Religion/etc *always* fly in the face of nature, or are meant to defy it, only to highlight the belief (as this is all just one of my working theories) that these things are inventions, man-made, and quite fallible.

Many people fall into one of two pitfalls:
1.) They believe law, etc are natural discoveries like the ocean or a new continent. The codes are the way the universe is and they are somehow infallible.

2.) They are necessarily based on some universal Truth (capital 'T') that is readily understood.

I've been trying to dig deeper, to scrape the surface. Murder is such an easy example as most people find it revolting on some apparently fundamental level, but I can't seem to find any solid ground underneath. It is a self-fulfillment, and it is one that's tenets are easily bled into natural killing, or forgone when it something else seems more important (like your example of genocide produced by figures in power).

Sticky wicket. Still, I write it to get the thoughts on paper. The comments are very helpful for continuing the contemplation.

Don't confuse belief for understanding.

Anything is possible does not mean you just have to really want it to be true. Anything is possible is an assumption, one of many in the foundation of my philosophy. The point is only that you have no reason to believe you *cannot* breathe underwater, that too is an assumption. So if you're making assumptions, why choose inhibiting ones? If it is possible to breathe underwater, it is a matter of how, not, "let me jump in the water and REALLY REALLY want to breathe, and I will!"

Ending the universe is also a matter of understanding. Anything is possible, perhaps, but getting into the void is a trickier subject still. Existence vs Non-existence is a tricky thing for which we have no foundation, only a nice imaginary idea so far.


And, Martie, Jews, Christians, and Muslims may share some common elements of faith, and *may* exist in a branch of the same tree in monotheism, but they would not agree that they believe in the same God. That's why they are three different faiths. Not even all Christians believe in the same God, they have fundamental distinctions that they are certain the others have gotten wrong, thus the different sects of Christianity.

No, what you are talking about is a completely different direction of philosofy.

It's different and quite complicated in itself, but when used in a simple form, it's basically a way of saying "discussing anything is impossible and pointless."

I'd have reported to a GM and seen what they thought of that. Plus they are usually okay with gearing issues.

Otherwise, spam his name in trade and make sure everyone knows not to pug with him. And report him to his guild if he was in one.

With the water breathing, you first need to assume that the universe truely exists and isn't a figment of the imagination. Hense if you can't prove reality itself exists, you can't prove or disprove that you can breathe underwater (or even breathe at all, come to think of it).

And hense, such trains of thought are eternally stuck in the depot. So we just assume reality does exist and go on from there.

All the snide remarks aside, thanks for the interesting read, Satorri. Now, perhaps it is me reading this in the early morning. But what is the point you are trying to make with these posts? The text and the ideas are interesting enough to warrant reading, nonetheless. To me it feels like you're providing the arguments without the actual message you're trying to get across.

If everything is possible, it is possible to travel back in time without dimension hopping.

However, this can only be true under the assumption of a universe and the concept of time traveling. If you assume that you travel back in time to the universe, then yes, you would be correct. However, if the concept of time traveling is merely going to a parallel universe (which comes under the assumption that there are multiple universes; a multiverse if you will), then the man with the universe ender did successfully end the universe, just not your universe.

Also, anything and everything is possible. Now, if it's probable is a different story...

[Begin Ramble]
Well, I am rereading a few of my favourite dystopian (and dystopian style) books right now, so my mind is on the subject.

Morals are often convoluted for the majority of the 'future' population. The so-called arbitrary laws are now not for the benefit of the human race-or even in line with human nature-but instead focused on the benefit of one person or group, regardless of the rest of the world.

At any rate, my current combination of exhaustion and dystopian literature made me think (specifically about 1984 by George Orwell) that what you were saying had something to do with dystopian society in the comments about creating laws and morals. Well, I also didn't fully understand what you had written due to my aforementioned state.
[End Ramble]

No, but if there is some freakish form of mutation present in a human that allows them to absorb oxygen from water, then they'd probably be able to breathe underwater unaided.
Of course, divers having been breathing underwater through some help of machinery for some time, and since Jadage didn't specify that exception, he's quite wrong.

Of course, if the majority of people determined what was correct, we'd all say god exists (since contrary to what Satorri claimed, all jews, christians and muslims believe in the same god, and those three religions claim to have over half the world population as members.)

I don't believe everything is possible, and even from all the myriad possibilities, not everything is achievable.
One of the strongest reasons for not everything being possible is that it all doesn't add up. If everything is possible, then everything will happen eventually. Since everything will happen eventually, eventually, a time machine will be built.
Since everything is possible, a device that ends the universe will be built.
Since everything is possible, someone will travel back in time with a device to end the universe, and end the universe.
Since the universe still exists, that person did not end the universe, which leads me to conclude that not everything is possible.

That is ignoring all the right-out contradictions that the 'everything is possible' scenario creates.

just because they think they can doesn't mean they can. I could believe that I could beat Lebron James and Kobe Bryant 2v1 in basketball, doesn't make it true.

Would people sit around and be satisfied if everything was provided for them freely and easily? Or are constructs such as law and governance an extension of the natural man that will occur regardless? I lean towards the latter, and part of that means accepting that a lot of our laws are based on our nature, not built to counter it.

In anthropology, one of the first things you'll learn is how universal some things are to the human condition. Killing is a particular one. While cultures have different laws and values on different types of killing, it is universally true that -- where possible -- malicious killing is a quick way to get yourself shut out of the community. (I say "where possible" to exclude situations where the killer cannot be shut out due to power reasons)

The concept is the same in modern, large societies as it is in small tribes in South Africa and the Amazon. It's also true in social animals, such as gorillas.

The social constructs are, in my opinion, when laws act against our natural perceptions. For instance, a society that requires 10,000 people to have their beating hearts torn out of their bodies to keep the sun appeased.

Regarding number 1: can you bend your knees backward?

But if a person believes 100% that they can breathe underwater, then they can! In their own mind...

I can say with absolute certainty that it is impossible for a homo sapien to breath underwater. Just because you tell yourself it's not impossible doesn't make it possible. It just simply can't be done. A person would be unable to breath underwater because oxygen does not exist in gas form underwater, and that is what we need to breath.

So, our concept of what is impossible is also shaped by what others have done or failed to do. In the workings of our mind, you can easily disprove something, simply by looking at the basic biology of our species.