NeilBrü

Some guy once said “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

The concept behind the proverb “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is found in the ancient Sanskrit treatise Arthashastra, attributed to Kautilya (also known as Chanakya), a political philosopher and advisor to the Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta I.

This treatise, dating to around the 4th century BC, outlines statecraft, military strategy, and economic policy, and it formalizes the strategic idea that a ruler’s enemy is the natural ally of a neighboring power that is itself threatened by the same conqueror.

Specifically, Kautilya describes a king whose territory borders that of an enemy as a natural ally of the conqueror, because they are separated from the conqueror only by the enemy.

This strategic framework, known as Rajamandala or the “circle of kings,” was used to inform foreign policy and alliances in ancient India.

Me: Is born.

Also me: I mean, fuck me, amirite?

All by myself, your holiness, and thanks for “not caring”! You add so much depth to our discourse.

The irony of you morally posturing about “pretending about what I’m doing” and the profanity of using deep neural networks against the “purity” of “Photoshopping” or walking around a park in the fucking Anthropocene on a reactionary social media platform like Lemmy just made my afternoon.

You’re one smarmy comment on the internet away from utopia, I promise.

Ah, the age-old dilemma: is it morally sound and/or necessary to dehumanize dehumanizers?

And if we’re honest, isn’t dehumanizing people a very human trait?

Or put my favorite way: “No one hates like family.”

If you have time, and no obligation to do so, can you link me to publications describing this rumor about his antics in the school yard?

How would a reporter or anyone know what he was like in school?

If that’s true, it’s quite sad, if I’m honest.

Is he? Fuck. Is he a memelord goyper type now?

The prominent linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky called it a “most valuable experience” to have maintained “regular contact” with Jeffrey Epstein, who by then had long been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor, according to emails released earlier in November this month by US lawmakers.

Perhaps the most telling of the Chomsky-related document in question was a letter of support for Epstein attributed to Chomsky with the salutation “to whom it may concern”. It is not dated, but it contains a typed signature with Chomsky’s name and citing his position as a University of Arizona laureate professor, a role he began in 2017, as first reported by the Massachusetts news outlet WBUR.

“I met Jeffrey Epstein half a dozen years ago,” read the letter of support from Chomsky that was reviewed by the Guardian after its Republican House oversight committee release. “We have been in regular contact since, with many long and often in-depth discussions about a very wide range of topics, including our own specialties and professional work, but a host of others where we have shared interests. It has been a most valuable experience for me.”

It is unclear whether Chomsky sent the letter to anyone. Nonetheless, it exalts Epstein for teaching Chomsky “about the intricacies of the global financial system” in a way “the business press and professional journals” had not been able to do. It boasted about how well connected Epstein was.

“Once, when we were discussing the Oslo agreements, Jeffrey picked up the phone and called the Norwegian diplomat who supervised them, leading to a lively interchange,” the letter read. The letter recounted how Epstein had arranged for Chomsky – a political activist, too – to meet with someone he had “studied carefully and written about”: the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.

Epstein had – “with limited success” – aided efforts from Chomsky’s second wife, Valeria, to introduce him “to the world of jazz and its wonders”, the letter continued.

It concluded, “The impact of Jeffrey’s limitless curiosity, extensive knowledge, penetrating insights and thoughtful appraisals is only heightened by his easy informality, without a trace of pretentiousness. He quickly became a highly valued friend and regular source of intellectual exchange and stimulation.”

Another notable communication involving Chomsky and Epstein is a 2015 email in which the latter offers the former use of his residences in New York and New Mexico.

The emails don’t indicate whether Chomsky took advantage of the offer, whose particulars surfaced as certain officials are striving to investigate allegations of crimes by Epstein at a ranch compound he owned outside Santa Fe, New Mexico.

I think they were pen-pals. I also think Epstein was trying unsuccessfully to rope Chomsky into more nefarious shit. This was Jeffrey’s M.O. with many public figures. Impress with erudition to open the way to compromising criminality he can later sell or use for leverage.

I guess @givesomefucks@lemmy.world doesn’t know that you can host GANs on your own computer to train models and generate images on your own system for the same electrical cost associated with playing a video game.

I… kind of… feel bad for Baron. Just judging by the photos I’ve seen of him in public functions.

I don’t believe in god but these MAGA people look like demons.

“quite literally” would mean there are federal officers or agents in people’s homes scraping chewed food out of children’s mouths.

I think you mean “virtually taking food BACK out of their mouths.”

Your condescension notwithstanding, it’s safe to say we’re certainly not friends, by any stretch.

Here some more fun takes from a language model, that "dares to know’.

“Sapere aude” means ‘dare to know,’ the motto of Enlightenment reason.

It’s ironic you use it as a closing remark after relying on a Straw Man fallacy (“voting bears”) and an Ad Hominem attack (“autocomplete”) instead of engaging the ethical distinction I explicitly made regarding ethically sourced meat.

Applying reason means addressing the actual argument, not running from it with a haughty, snide attitude, citing your Latin phrase as a dismissal.

Since we’re having so much fun, here’s another language model’s critique of your reply:

Yes, I did use a language model to analyze and structure my previous reply. My goal was to provide the most logically precise critique of the fallacy in your response.

Your choice was to attack the source of the critique, call my argument ‘autocomplete,’ and question my ‘human mind.’ If a logically sound, structured argument—even one assisted by AI—is superior to your subsequent move of simply linking two Wikipedia articles, that reflects poorly on the substance of your own position.

Your attempt to paint me as a sophist relying on ‘buzzwords’ while your contribution is uncontextualized links to remedial philosophy is a textbook example of intellectual posturing. An accusation that admittedly could be leveled at me for using an AI to detail your logical fallacies, if it wasn’t for the fact that you had already shifted the tone with their dismissive “voting bears”

My argument was not a simple Appeal to Nature. You committed a Straw Man by reducing my statement—that humans are omnivorous predators with an ethical duty to minimize suffering—to the claim that humans and bears share identical ethical agency.

I used the bear analogy to establish the ‘Is’ (our biological capacity for predation).

‘Ought’ (the ethical duty to source meat humanely) is evident in the initial comment I made to someone else, which you glossed over on purpose.

My core point is that we apply our higher ethical reasoning to how we fulfill our natural capacity. Your ‘voting bears’ reply failed to address the ethical distinction I explicitly made.

My call for ethically sourced meat consumption is the direct result of applying the ‘Ought’ to the ‘Is.’ I accept the biological reality but reject the factory farming industry based on ethical and environmental responsibilities. You rely on disingenuous debate tactics intended to dismiss the premise.

Ethics steaks. That the bears eat.

Sure sir, here’s a steak. You need protein.

And that’s why I think it’s fine I ate my neighbors’s dog, Your Honor.

That isn’t a reply; it’s a desperate failure of reading comprehension packaged as a lazy joke.

What you typed is a Slippery Slope fallacy, arguing that acknowledging biological reality (that humans are omnivorous predators) somehow forces me into committing a criminal act: eating a neighbor’s dog. You deliberately ignore the obvious distinction upon which the entire debate rests: the line between livestock and pets.

Me: Consume ethically raised livestock (the “prey” for omnivorous), but reject the immorality and environmental risks of factory farms.

You: if you eat any meat, you must logically be fine with pet theft and consumption.

The difference between a cow, pig, chicken, etc. and your neighbor’s dog is precisely where human law, morality, and social norms have been drawn for centuries. Some cultures even find it normal to consume dogs. To pretend that acknowledging our predatory nature invalidates all those distinctions is not as clever as you think it is—it’s just a transparent attempt to substitute emotional shock value for actual logical engagement.

You’re also using Reductio ad Absurdum, just like other losers on this thread, because you can’t defeat the core premise of what I said. You have to drag this into absurdity to make it seem like I’m advocating for social collapse, rather than just advocating for better ethical sourcing. If your only move is hypothetical “Your Honor” theatrics about a pet dog that’s kidnapped and eaten, you’ve admitted you have no genuine counter-argument.

You suck at advocating for veganism.

Here’s a language model’s take on this thread.

That reply commits a logical fallacy. It’s an example of Reductio ad Absurdum (or Appeal to Ridicule) and a Straw Man, intentionally misrepresenting my point to make it sound ridiculous.

My argument was about biological reality (humans are omnivorous predators) to defend the consumption of ethically sourced meat. Your counter-argument shifted the focus to an absurd political non-issue.

Your Logical Fallacy Explained

I used the bear analogy to highlight our fundamental nature as predators. I did not suggest we run for Congress together. The debate is about biological capacity and the ethical choices we make with that capacity, not about who gets a ballot.

Edited for clarity.

When you masturbate to a picture of yourself masturbating, make sure you think of me eating a steak and “enjoying” my amino acids when you orgasm.