‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’ • Hacker News Board

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#541

Post by jf- » Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 2:32 AM UTC

radford-neal wrote: post #533

jf- wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh? Would you like to tell when is a _good_ time for your father to die? The later the better. > And maybe taking care of a parent with dementia is actually more of a problem when you're older and have kids of your own? It would certainly be easier to deal with when you have more stability in your life and are more emotionally mature. > At my advanced age, I have the advantage of remembering things like the argumen…

Well, it may be that you're not ageist. You may instead be anti-natalist. If we were talking about a 20-year-old having a kid, you might go on about how they don't have the maturity necessary to take on such a responsibility. And of course it's obvious that you shouldn't have kids if you haven't achieved an upper-middle-class level of financial stability. Then there is the matter of genetics. Do you have ancestors wh…

Would you like to assign me any more imaginary opinions? Your reply is an exercise in whatabouttery: ignore this harm because look at all those harms over there. Controlling the age at which one has children is within one’s power to control, and helps to alleviate obvious harm. Nothing you have said or can say will change that.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#542

Post by thrower123 » Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 2:33 AM UTC

52-6F-62 wrote: post #131

keiferski wrote: post #17

I’ve always thought life is a balancing act of “building” and “experiencing.” Building relationships, communities, homes, organizations, education (your self) and experiencing other countries, different jobs, lifestyles, foods, etc. Western culture as a whole has gone a little too far in the “experience” direction. You can see this in little ways, like the fact that Legos are sold as pre-planned structures and not ge…

> like the fact that Legos are sold as pre-planned structures and not generic building blocks This is completely tangential, but to be fair they're sold in both ways. I'm what most people would call a grown man, but I still can't help myself (or my girlfriend sometimes) and we pick up the odd set. You can still buy large sets of mixed blocks, as well as the models. I've got a few models posted around my place because…

I haven't bought anything since the end of the LOTR era... killing the last vestiges of the classic themes has been a big misstep for LEGO.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#543

Post by rglover » Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 2:34 AM UTC

sambroner wrote: post #341

pojzon wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read a bit about "SMV" and "MMV" and believe me you can change that tinder filter to 20-25 and get even better results.

I would not advice reading about these topics, nor do I think they're rooted in science.

Not rooted in science, perhaps, but in empirical evidence? Boy howdy.

I used to be 260lb and invisible to most women. I decided to get my act together, start lifting weights, and dropped a significant amount (nearly 100lb over the last three years) and wouldn't you know: interest is through the roof. Couple that with a burgeoning business and money getting stable and it's point and shoot.

Most men (people) don't like that reality because it means a few harsh truths about looks, status, and money. It also means you have to take responsibility for your results which is the antithesis to ideologies that push as-is self-acceptance and "good enough" ideals. That is to say, my starting to understand and accept this reality hurt beyond belief. It took the better part of a year to really swallow the changes that were taking place.

You have a ranking and women especially are either subconsciously or (for a select few) consciously aware of it. Coincidentally, men are too (read: they don't like you climbing the ranks; their behavior in response makes this clear). I've lost a lot of friends in the process of getting my stuff together—people who I'd consider second family. Serious food for thought.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#544

Post by saeranv » Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 2:34 AM UTC

adamrezich wrote: post #538

saeranv wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Belief in science is nothing like belief in religion. The former, ultimately, is a belief, based on evidence, in the scientific method (empirically acquiring knowledge). So yes, I would argue that even if someone doesn't understand all the scientific principles behind climate change, they can still reasonably trust "science" and "scientists", since that work is built on top of empirically-backed, peer-evaluated resea…

"Science" and religion are both equally fallible because both are interpreted, disseminated, and perpetuated by man, which as we all know is about the most fallible thing there is. It's obvious and demonstrable that various religious institutions have had varying levels of corruption over the years as their power has waxed and waned based upon how much faith the people have in them. Why is it such a stretch to see th…

Let's put it this way, do you feel a monarchy is as equally corruptible as a democracy?

Both are institutions constructed by greedy, corrupt, stupid, fallible human beings. It's just that the latter has built in several mechanisms to address this. Like science.

So over a long period of time, democracies have proven to be less corrupt then monarchies, and like-wise, science has proven to be less wrong then religion.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#545

Post by gus_massa » Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 2:35 AM UTC

samhain wrote: post #523

jf- wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s more a value system, or maybe an ideology, than a religion. Though I’ll agree the two do more or less occupy the same cognitive space. There is no need for anything mystical to be involved. Today we are experimenting with new phenomena that have never been available to humanity en mass. Effective birth control, gender equality, freedom from restrictive social norms, all of these are very new, and indeed evolut…

>Effective birth control What if at the end, we end up realizing that all there is to life is a struggle in order to propagate our own DNA, and that really this struggle may not be worth it? Humanity as a whole could decide that this is all there is, and then that ultimately there really is no point other than what you make it. What if humanity bucked it's genetic programming, recognizing it for what it really is. An…

The other half of humanity that think that birthing children really is a blessing will outnumber you.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#546

Post by jf- » Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 2:39 AM UTC

hanoz wrote: post #535

jf- wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I debated about whether to post this, because it’s rather emotive, even unsettling, but on the off chance it might actually sway someone, I will. The average life expectancy for a male in the USA is 76. All other things being equal, a 51 year old father will die when their offspring is 25 years old. This is too early to lose a parent. Think about how this would have effected you, reader of this post. This is also ass…

I don't wish to belittle the hardships and sadness having an elderly parent at a relatively young age may potentially bring, but the alternative you're suggesting is never being born , which surely is even less preferable.

No, I’m suggesting that you have your children earlier in life. It’s best to think of it like a certain number, the exact genetic identity of the kids is a toss-up anyway, and if you really want to argue that point you’d be arguing for being responsible for people not being born every day.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#547

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 2:40 AM UTC

jf- wrote: post #487

radford-neal wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a kid at age 51. That was 11 years ago. My age has caused no problems whatsoever. I don't expect it to be a problem in the future. People who are no longer young should simply ignore this sort of advice. Unless you're in (seriously) poor health, just go for it.

I debated about whether to post this, because it’s rather emotive, even unsettling, but on the off chance it might actually sway someone, I will. The average life expectancy for a male in the USA is 76. All other things being equal, a 51 year old father will die when their offspring is 25 years old. This is too early to lose a parent. Think about how this would have effected you, reader of this post. This is also ass…

[deleted]

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#548

Post by adamrezich » Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 2:48 AM UTC

saeranv wrote: post #544

adamrezich wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Science" and religion are both equally fallible because both are interpreted, disseminated, and perpetuated by man, which as we all know is about the most fallible thing there is. It's obvious and demonstrable that various religious institutions have had varying levels of corruption over the years as their power has waxed and waned based upon how much faith the people have in them. Why is it such a stretch to see th…

Let's put it this way, do you feel a monarchy is as equally corruptible as a democracy? Both are institutions constructed by greedy, corrupt, stupid, fallible human beings. It's just that the latter has built in several mechanisms to address this. Like science. So over a long period of time, democracies have proven to be less corrupt then monarchies, and like-wise, science has proven to be less wrong then religion.

Define "democracy." Purely democratic systems are absolutely fallible; mob rule is a thing man is prone to falling prey to in such systems. This is why basically nobody uses straight-up direct democracy today, especially in the age of everyone having read/write access to a global information network in their pockets at all times.

But even putting that aside, and accepting for sake of the argument that the political system in use in countries such as the United States is a "democracy" ...still, yes. Did political corruption magically disappear overnight when we stopped being ruled by monarchs? Were all monarchies corrupt to begin with?

"Democracy is to monarchy as science is to religion" is an incredibly muddled comparison that does not make much sense when you break it down. Modern Christianity would not be where it is today without Protestantism questioning core fundamental beliefs and then-current leadership. When does what is accepted as "Science" get to have its version of Protestantism, questioning not just the dogma of "settled science" (the most hilarious oxymoron of all time), but those who spread it to the masses as well?

Why is it that Christians, even Catholics have no problem admitting to the fallibility of what they consider to be their holiest of institutions, yet atheists seem to believe that "science" is inherently always impossible to be anything but utterly pure use of the scientific method conducted with nothing but the utmost honesty, at every level?

The motivations of man are not always pure, especially when in positions of power and/or authority. Even if you want to disregard religion entirely, at least take lessons from the history it has given us.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#549

Post by hanoz » Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 2:51 AM UTC

jf- wrote: post #546

hanoz wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't wish to belittle the hardships and sadness having an elderly parent at a relatively young age may potentially bring, but the alternative you're suggesting is never being born , which surely is even less preferable.

No, I’m suggesting that you have your children earlier in life. It’s best to think of it like a certain number, the exact genetic identity of the kids is a toss-up anyway, and if you really want to argue that point you’d be arguing for being responsible for people not being born every day.

As long as you're suggesting not having one at 51, the point stands. But indeed, it is philosophically difficult.

Re: ‘I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life’

#550

Post by radford-neal » Fri, Nov 30, 2018, 2:55 AM UTC

jf- wrote: post #541

radford-neal wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it may be that you're not ageist. You may instead be anti-natalist. If we were talking about a 20-year-old having a kid, you might go on about how they don't have the maturity necessary to take on such a responsibility. And of course it's obvious that you shouldn't have kids if you haven't achieved an upper-middle-class level of financial stability. Then there is the matter of genetics. Do you have ancestors wh…

Would you like to assign me any more imaginary opinions? Your reply is an exercise in whatabouttery: ignore this harm because look at all those harms over there. Controlling the age at which one has children is within one’s power to control, and helps to alleviate obvious harm. Nothing you have said or can say will change that.

Your statement that "the age at which one has children is within one’s power to control" is just obviously false. Especially for men. But also for everyone, if you're trying to time things to mitigate other disadvantages.

In reality, you may be 51, and may be in a good position otherwise to have a kid, and the question is whether being 51 is a reason not to. And the answer is "no", it is not. Not unless you also think that other people with non-major reasons not to have a kid shouldn't. In other words, not unless you think nobody should have kids.