2025-01-30 at 2:53 AM UTC
say someone is a "rapist", right? there are 8 billion people on this planet. if you poll all 8 billion people asking whether they have empirical knowledge that someone is a rapist and only like 17 of them answer in the affirmative, i'm sorry, but that shit probably isn't real. does it replicate?
oh he "murdered your family in cold blood in front of you"? proof, libtard?
it's not real.
2025-01-30 at 4:24 AM UTC
But what if you are the criminal?
2025-01-30 at 4:26 AM UTC
Scientifically speaking I don’t think I can deny my own existence. Philosophically though, perhaps.
2025-01-30 at 4:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Elbow
N=1, it's literally just an anecdote. Not to be trusted.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2025-01-30 at 4:44 AM UTC
reality is statistical
quantum rape
2025-01-30 at 5:14 AM UTC
I think scron is rubbing off on you too much.
Also you’re starting to adopt traits of his personality.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2025-01-30 at 5:15 AM UTC
absorbed through the skin
2025-01-30 at 6:56 AM UTC
If "crime" requires widespread, direct empirical validation to be considered real, as the initial argument posits, then the modern state's legal framework crumbles. How can a state claim authority on matters where only a tiny fraction of the population has firsthand knowledge? This logic extends to the very notion of law itself. If enforcement relies on a centralized authority distant from the lived experience of most individuals, its legitimacy is questionable. Bitcoin and tribal DAOs offer a glimpse into a world where this centralized authority is eroded. Bitcoin, by decentralizing currency, undermines the state's financial power, a key pillar of its control. Tribal DAOs, with their community-defined rules and internal enforcement mechanisms, demonstrate a localized, personalized approach to "justice," directly contradicting the state's claim to a monopoly on it. In this context, "crime" becomes a subjective, community-specific concept, not a universal truth defined by a distant and arguably uninformed state. What one group considers a transgression, another might not, further dissolving the idea of objective criminality. The result isn't necessarily a harmonious utopia; it's more likely a fragmented landscape where competing "truths" clash, and power dynamics within and between communities determine what constitutes acceptable behavior, rather than some abstract, state-sanctioned notion of "crime."
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
