Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Choose Optimism

secularhumanism.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 222 posts

Re: I Choose Optimism

#181

Post by deltasevennine »

8note wrote: post #178
deltasevennine wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider a rock. Is it negative or positive? It is neither. The rock is proof that you can be neutral. Enlightenment is realizing that everything shares the same nature as a rock.

Now consider the rock that somebody threw at your face, and knocked out your tooth. Is it still neutral? The neutrality is gone as soon as people are involved

You don't get it. Your blindness is laid bare by this example.

You present this example to me as if the truth doesn't even matter. WHY did the person throw the rock? That is the truth behind it all. Seems like a critical part of a hypothetical situation that is entirely missing from your example.

Your biases are so strong that you didn't even feel a need to mention it. It's like talking about a flying turtle without describing why or how the turtle can fly. You inserted so much emotion and violence into this hypothetical situation that basically you are blinded by the fact that it's missing a critical point.

And that is the essence of what I'm talking about. A state of mind. If you can't view the situation neutrally. Then you are crippled. Forever blind from asking the critical question and realizing the ultimate truth.

But let's be straight here. The OP of this article is not in an emotionally charged situation. She's a neutral arbiter observing a changing world shielded from all the flying rocks being thrown all over the place. And from this neutral vantage point she makes a choice... she says, I choose to be biased... I choose to lie to myself... I choose to be an optimist.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#182

Post by neilwilson »

peteradio wrote: post #147
neilwilson wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have a debt of £50 and you have the corresponding £50 asset that you like to look at, then you don't need any material amount of energy to get to that state of happiness. I have to remind people all the time of a simple truth - there isn't a one to one relationship between money and stuff. And money isn't real. It's largely an illusion. At best a social relation.

If I mortgage the singular life supporting planet we are aware of and don't pay back the debt...

Then whoever gave you the debt will be bankrupt, and whoever you paid the debt to will be rich.

Money doesn't stop at its first use. And debt is nothing more than allowing you to spend the real thing without selling it first.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#183

Post by neilwilson »

davisoneee wrote: post #122
neilwilson wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must have a way of paying the debt back, or you wouldn't have been able to obtain the resource you did on a promise. The people doing the deal with you accepted your promise to repay. They don't do that for the fun of it. Debt is just a way of spending things without selling them first. You can either borrow against your car to spend it, or you can sell the car to spend it. Either way if you consume rather than b…

The financial crash would like to have a word with you. Many people gave 'resources' to people who couldn't afford the debt, because with many layers of obfuscation, and perverse incentives for mortgage providers, they made it look like many more people could afford it than actually could. Further...payday loans...loan sharks...people get money for things they can't afford, and can't realistically pay back, all the t…

And bankruptcy sorts all that out. That's why we have it as the reset mechanism.

Capitalism without the threat of bankruptcy is like Catholicism without the threat of hellfire.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#184

Post by xmprt »

neilwilson wrote: post #110
xmprt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. I agree that debt is important for society to function however taking on debt that you don't invest into yourself is literally ruinous and not in a hypothetical way - tons of people's lives have been destroyed by getting into too much debt that they weren't able to pay back. > Yes. Because those you spent it with must have, or you wouldn't have been able to buy anything with it Th…

You must have a way of paying the debt back, or you wouldn't have been able to obtain the resource you did on a promise. The people doing the deal with you accepted your promise to repay. They don't do that for the fun of it. Debt is just a way of spending things without selling them first. You can either borrow against your car to spend it, or you can sell the car to spend it. Either way if you consume rather than b…

> You must have a way of paying the debt back, or you wouldn't have been able to obtain the resource you did on a promise

This simply isn't true. On small scales, people lose their businesses and families declare bankruptcy. That's why I said this isn't a hypothetical. And on a large scale it causes financial collapses if many people go bankrupt at once.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#185

Post by jshen »

thrown_22 wrote: post #174
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in theory, yes. In practice, the Russians have captured a large nuclear reactor and may use it as a dirty bomb if things don't go their way. Can't turn a solar panel or windmill into a weapon like that. You could turn a hydroelectric dam in a weapon though, I believe that's the plot of a few films. And solar heat collectors are impractical death rays.

Yes, thank god Russia doesn't have the worlds largest nuclear stock pile of weapons to threaten the world with and has to steal others countries nuclear power plants to threaten them with a dirty bomb. On their border. Less than 100km away from the nearest Russian city.

It does make sense because they will claim that the Ukrainians did it, which they’ve already started to lay the groundwork for.

Also, nuclear plants can be a target for plenty of states or groups that don’t have nuclear weapons like terrorists.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#186

Post by Cthulhu_ »

orang2tang wrote: post #158
boxed wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no threat, unless you do exactly what I say. Yea, that's the threat. > I should note that I used to have the same opinion as you! No judgement! Common thing to hear. I have never believed anyone has ever gone from a strong atheist who reads the bible and can so obviously see the cruelty and madness, and then suddenly turn around and become a christian apologist? It's just as believable as the bible in the fi…

>There is no threat, unless you do exactly what I say. You do your taxes every year so you can avoid jail time. But you won't simply call out to Jesus Christ with a true heart and ask for salvation? Think about it! That's all it takes!

Our Lord and Saviour Donald Trump will save us from the evil tax man though! We just have to believe He won the 2020 election and we will be saved!

(actually this is a thing, some republicans like Ted Cruz (he ate my son) are going on about how the IRS should be abolished: https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1561360677255643136)

Re: I Choose Optimism

#187

Post by Cthulhu_ »

orang2tang wrote: post #126
boxed wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point is that God loves his people enough to save them, the Church will expand, and Christ will return in glory. ish. It also promises that not even death is an escape, but that God will raise all the dead and judge an enormous majority to be literally thrown into a valley of fire. Reading the Bible I see more of a threat, than a promise.

But just as sin entered the world through one man, it was defeated through one man as well, Jesus Christ. There is no condemnation for anyone who believes in Jesus. So being saved from hell is quite simple, which is why it's called "the good news" or the gospel. And that's God's plan for humanity, and he's begging you to simply seek this man named Jesus. God's wisdom is made that much more powerful in what some might…

Christianity falls apart if there is no fear or belief in repercussions after death.

Why not just be a decent person without being threatened? It's how the majority of people in the world do things.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#188

Post by Cthulhu_ »

davidkuennen wrote: post #29

I've always been an optimistic person and consider myself to be very happy. People around me who are more pessimistic often seem unhappy. I see no value in beating myself down on things that I cannot control. The world around me is beautiful. I just have to make the best of it day by day. Facing hardships is a natural part of life.

I think it's like a defense mechanism; it's better to have a constant sense of mild unhappiness than to pretend everything is fine. Because I can see how a lot of people see the subject of this post as a "just think happy thoughts!" kind of advice.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#189

Post by Cthulhu_ »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #9

American homes in 1950 averaged 983 square feet; by 2014, the size had nearly tripled to 2,657 square feet. Today, 91 percent of our homes are air-conditioned. This is not actually a good thing. This is actually a problem.

It also does not mention the distribution and availability of affordable housing. I mean I like to think it's better than it was in 1950, but it's far from perfect - and a country the size of the US with the economy of the US can and should do better for its people.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#190

Post by robertlagrant »

AftHurrahWinch wrote: post #165
robertlagrant wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice, the Russians have captured a large nuclear reactor and may use it as a dirty bomb if things don't go their way This is still theory unless they actually use it for that. Also, Russia's own Kursk 2 isn't very far from the captured one. They could turn that into a dirty bomb too. Recency bias on a threat shouldn't overwhelm normal analysis.

No, it shouldn't overwhelm it, but it should inform it. There is no proliferation risk associated with wind, solar, geothermal, etc. Where I live is at risk of declining political stability in the near future. I don't worry about living next to a nuclear power plant because I'm worried about maintenance or operational safety or whatever, I worry about what happens when a thousand men with machetes and an apocalyptic…

> No, it shouldn't overwhelm it, but it should inform it. There is no proliferation risk associated with wind, solar, geothermal, etc.

Note my example was also nuclear. I don't know what you're countering with this.

Post reply on HN