571–575 of 575 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying it's literally 0 implies a belief that free will doesn't exist (predeterminism), right? If so, who are you trying to convince here? :p It's complex.
To play devil's advocate: Free will not existing doesn't mean that your environment doesn't affect your outcomes. On the contrary, in fact. So convincing you means that I am the environment that affects you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In order to get into Zuckerberg’s position in the first place, you need to have a highly competitive personality type. And competitive people want to win at EVERYTHING, all the time. It’s a constant compulsion. Even if they might intellectually understand the distinction between “just a game” and “actual serious time”, they don’t “feel” that distinction in their bones. They have no off switch.
I have trouble believing that highly competitive people enjoy winning against people who aren't trying to win. Catan has a lot of luck, you'd expect to lose a lot of games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In order to get into Zuckerberg’s position in the first place, you need to have a highly competitive personality type. And competitive people want to win at EVERYTHING, all the time. It’s a constant compulsion. Even if they might intellectually understand the distinction between “just a game” and “actual serious time”, they don’t “feel” that distinction in their bones. They have no off switch.
Reminds me of this post[0] from a few weeks ago: >A couple years back, I got a job offer from an investment bank to help them win zero sum games against people who didn't necessarily deserve to lose. I had tried very hard to get that offer https://www.hgreer.com/PlayingInTheCreek/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I was asked about the best correlate for being evil, honestly trying to make the world a better place by determining how specifically others should live would be on top of the list by a huge margin. Really? Telling people, "hey, don't give other's poison, that's bad"... is worse than giving other's poison? You actually believe that? To give some context, I used to smoke. For a long time! Nobody wants to smoke. T…
Yep, I used to smoke too. I wanted to smoke and i still sometimes miss social and contemplative aspects of it 17 years after stopping, even though any chemical cravings stopped in a couple months On the later part, your comment was very insightful too, cause you are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. 1) You decide for others what is good for them, implicitly treating their judgements with contempt. 2) When…
I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm saying it because it's true and you need to know.
You are objectively arguing for things that are _worse for you_, at your own expense, for other people's gain. Other people who don't know you, don't care about you. Who, if you died, not only would they not care, they would not even notice.
That, is pathetic. That, is self-destructive. You are not selfish enough. You are not mean enough. Not only do you allow your exploitation, you revel in it. As if your own desire for your destruction is a moral virtue. As if you are more pure, more forgiving, because you forgive even the ultimate crime against yourself.
Such forgiveness is not a virtue, it is a cancer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, I used to smoke too. I wanted to smoke and i still sometimes miss social and contemplative aspects of it 17 years after stopping, even though any chemical cravings stopped in a couple months On the later part, your comment was very insightful too, cause you are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. 1) You decide for others what is good for them, implicitly treating their judgements with contempt. 2) When…
> "This pathetic, self-destructive method of thinking can't be right.", dismissive contempt. I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm saying it because it's true and you need to know. You are objectively arguing for things that are _worse for you_, at your own expense, for other people's gain. Other people who don't know you, don't care about you. Who, if you died, not only would they not care, they would not even notice.…
1) The important part is FOR ME. Back to my original comment, some doctors claim you need 5 hours of cardio a week for optimal heart health and some papers even claim prolonged sitting is harmful regardless of exercise. Woe the furniture maker that sold you a chair to sit upon while commenting, they are harming society by destroying your health! You could also think of coffee, beer, meat, sun exposure, gasoline, cycling accidents, extreme sports; or million things known only to the state of California to cause cancer.
Sure, smoking is a lot more harmful than most things, but why is it that you get to decide which tradeoff is reasonable and which isn't?
So,
2) While I was smoking I was engaging in voluntary transactions with tobacco companies.
While tobacco companies are not angels, and do a lot of shitty things tangential to their main function, like most organizations, I am grateful they provided me with cheap, good quality, varied cigarettes back when I wanted them. That itself is in no way evil.
Deciding for others with moral indignation how they should live though, is.