Doctor Strange does his vision of the future thing and this determines his actions from then on. “Only 1 scenario in which they win.”
=
“The plot has to go this way, BECAUSE MAGIC.”
Other win scenarios seem plausible without this.
Consider this:
1 After losing on Titan, Dr. Strange takes his people (or just him) somewhere Thanos can’t follow, even with the Space Stone (Mirror Dimension, maybe?).
2 Dr. Strange then arranges some scenario in which when Thanos comes after the Mind Stone, which is guarded by the Scarlett Witch and Thor wielding Stormbreaker. Dr. Strange locks them all in a time loop which EITHER repeats forever (stops Thanos) or until Wanda/Thor kills Thanos
Dr. Strange was willing to lock himself in an endless time-loop to save the earth. Wouldn’t he do it for 1/2 the universe?
And “Should’ve gone for the head” seems to suggest they could’ve won of Thor had, in fact, gone for the head.
So locking Thanos in a time loop where he has to fight a Stormbreaker-wielding Thor—and let’s add the Scarlet Witch too—seems like they could in fact kill Thanos, eventually, if they were in a timeloop that runs over and over. They only have to win once.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As Putnam notes, the fact/value dichotomy fails because it never manages to actually distinguish the two entirely, due to a kind of necessary entanglement (or kinds) between putative "facts" and "values."
What we have is a situation of distinction where in some facts are not values, some facts are values, some values are facts, and some values are not facts.
What we do not have is a fact/value dichotomy which amounts to a metaphysical dualism.
This is one of my rules. I use language quite carefully. When someone response to something I have said by calling it "word salad," nothing is lost by blocking them.
There is no possibility they are being an honest interlocutor.
Anyone with more that a child's level of acquaintance with theology should understand that talk about God will always be quite unlike talk about anything else, unlike talk about any creature (which everything but God is).
This does *seem like* a huge incoherence in transgender ideology.
It seems as if it is absurd on its face to say that children can consent to medical "transition" and a lifetime of medicalization and sterilization, but not consent to smoking a cigarette or having a beer.
An honest atheist (if there were such a thing) might say that he does not believe in an uncreated creator. No!—he must pretend that the concept of an uncreated creator is nonsense!
As if everything that does an action need be susceptible to such an action!
A lot of picture-thinkers will form an image of what’s being talked about and then think something that only belongs to the image belongs to the idea itself. Which in turn causes them to miss/reject other cases that instantiate the idea but don’t fit their particular image.
Descartes gives an example of the limits of substituting pictures/the imagination from concepts/the intellect:
Consider a chiliagon, a thousand-sided figure with equal sides. Conceptually, this is easy to understand, but it is impossible to picture clearly and distinctly.