User Controls
Fuck it, I'm posting Lanny's social security number
-
2016-10-09 at 4:36 AM UTCWhat's wrong with wine? It's far more flavorful and easier on the stomach. I even water mine down with 2-3x the volume and add pure sucralose as a sugar free sweetener. (Wine does not taste nearly as good unsweetened, anyone who says otherwise is most likely pretentious and being affected by a wide variety of cognitive biases, has never actually tried sweetened wine and judged it impartially, or doesn't have a proper understanding of the mechanisms behind "acquired tastes". And I don't use excessive amounts, just enough to optimize it. Many wines have residual sugars that sweeten them, this is just a better form, as sugar is terribly consumed in excess by the vast majority.)
-
2016-10-09 at 4:49 AM UTCwater it down with some s.pellegrino
-
2016-10-09 at 5:05 AM UTCI can’t stand getting drunk off wine anymore. I got super drunk from it once and puked all over myself. Ever since if I try to drink to much of it too fast I’ll feel sick.
I do like just drinking a glass with dinner or something though. -
2016-10-09 at 5:12 AM UTCI can drink a bottle in a sitting.
-
2016-10-09 at 8:32 AM UTC8717 Johnson Drive
South San Francisco, CA 94080 -
2016-10-09 at 1:11 PM UTCThat doesn't seem to be a valid address. Also, Lanny lives in a studio (last I knew, unless he upgraded) in San Francisco. South San Francisco is a separate city.
-
2016-10-09 at 3:06 PM UTCyou guys are faggots, lots of people work in san fran but live elsewhere and take the BART.
[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=12px]Box 339, El cerrito, CA 94530[/SIZE][/FONT]
-
2016-10-09 at 3:31 PM UTCLanny doesn't drive and hates long transits. The convenience of being within walking distance of where he needs to go, other than taking a short bus or rail ride to work, is worth the heavy price premium, which he can well afford, having graduated from a respectable university with a degree in computer science, and with high marks to boot, and now working in the financial district for a firm in that sector. Even while attending university he was willing to pay the premium to be close to campus.
There have actually been multiple studies documenting the cumulative detrimental impact of commuting. I myself hold such a seething hatred of driving and dealing with other people that I refuse to purchase a vehicle until self-driving cars have become well established. Time is valuable, it's absolute madness to waste it in exchange for income. Of course, many people are idiot natalists that move to the suburbs because it's "a better environment to raise children in", school districts and cheaper housing, which they damn well need due to parasitic nature of children, the strongest there is on Earth. Did you know the average professional only spends an average of about an hour a day interacting with their children and that parents actually rate the act as one of their favorite/enjoyable activities? Fucking idiots, get what they deserve. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
GrrrAAAAGH, Lanny, I swear, if you're ever corrupted by a woman's wiles or lose track of reason and give in to the call of your diseased ancestry, the selfish genes that corrupt human monkeys, I HOPE YOU DIE!!!!! -
2016-10-09 at 3:52 PM UTCBut money is cheap and like that spambot says "everyone wants have automobile to achieve their destiny at breakneck speeds and move across vast distance with minimal effort" or something like that.
I'm saving up a few thousand dollerydoos to buy one myself, Waking up at 6am and standing in the cold to catch a bus is fucking lame.
-
2016-10-09 at 4:19 PM UTC
That doesn't seem to be a valid address. Also, Lanny lives in a studio (last I knew, unless he upgraded) in San Francisco. South San Francisco is a separate city.
I just generated a random address with some online service lol. -
2016-10-09 at 4:29 PM UTC
Lanny doesn't drive and hates long transits. The convenience of being within walking distance of where he needs to go, other than taking a short bus or rail ride to work, is worth the heavy price premium, which he can well afford, having graduated from a respectable university with a degree in computer science, and with high marks to boot, and now working in the financial district for a firm in that sector. Even while attending university he was willing to pay the premium to be close to campus.
There have actually been multiple studies documenting the cumulative detrimental impact of commuting. I myself hold such a seething hatred of driving and dealing with other people that I refuse to purchase a vehicle until self-driving cars have become well established. Time is valuable, it's absolute madness to waste it in exchange for income. Of course, many people are idiot natalists that move to the suburbs because it's "a better environment to raise children in", school districts and cheaper housing, which they damn well need due to parasitic nature of children, the strongest there is on Earth. Did you know the average professional only spends an average of about an hour a day interacting with their children and that parents actually rate the act as one of their favorite/enjoyable activities? Fucking idiots, get what they deserve. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
GrrrAAAAGH, Lanny, I swear, if you're ever corrupted by a woman's wiles or lose track of reason and give in to the call of your diseased ancestry, the selfish genes that corrupt human monkeys, I HOPE YOU DIE!!!!!
If you genuinely enjoy having/raising kids. Then what's the problem? If you are willing to pay in time and money to have kids you're obviously very keen on having them. Also this is a point i agree with Lanny with. In having kids and making them as happy as possible you increase net happiness, you are doing something good. -
2016-10-09 at 4:47 PM UTCHaving children and making them happy fulfills a need that had no need to exist. It's absurdly egotistical and selfish, you created the fucking need! You created someone to make you feel needed, to nurture, to devote your time to, pour countless resources into, instead of devoting it to others that already exist or higher, intellectual, matters that are of actual importance and will advance us the final goal!!!
You cannot do good by having a biological child, it is an ethical impossibility.
And for the overwhelming majority of people it does not lead to a net increase in happiness, not by a longshot! Selfish genes, what your body desires isn't what's necessarily optimal for you as an individual. It's revolting how poor a grasp of evolution the vast majority have, it being so rare to see people espouse an advance, developed and nuanced, view. As long as the genes are spread sufficiently the behavior they invoke need not raise your individual utility, your instincts can be destructively, deadly, wrong.
For example, when you picture yourself with a daughter I'm sure you imagine a perfect, very cute, little girl with just the right personality. When you think of children you've met, if you desire them, your might goes to the most positive and notable examples due to cognitive biases. You don't see it as genetic russian roulette, the countless moments that are unpleasant, completely unremarkable, the enormous costs. -
2016-10-09 at 4:57 PM UTCI don't want to feel needed Mal Mal, i just want to take care of and hug a loli. If i make her happy in the process win/win.
-
2016-10-09 at 5:36 PM UTCYou don't know what's good for you or what you really want.
Also:
Love that man. -
2016-10-09 at 5:40 PM UTC
You don't know what's good for you or what you really want.
Oh? And you do? King of the Autistic? If you think you know what i want and what is good for me then you're even more removed from reality than i thought you were. How the fuck do you know what i want and is good for me nigger? -
2016-10-09 at 6:03 PM UTC
-
2016-10-09 at 6:17 PM UTC
GrrrAAAAGH, Lanny, I swear, if you're ever corrupted by a woman's wiles or lose track of reason and give in to the call of your diseased ancestry, the selfish genes that corrupt human monkeys, I HOPE YOU DIE!!!!!
Not that I think there's any real risk of that but why me specifically? There are multiple posters on this very forum that have had children and I don't see you out there professing the wish they'd die.Having children and making them happy fulfills a need that had no need to exist. It's absurdly egotistical and selfish, you created the fucking need!
We've already had this discussion. There are varieties of good that are not preceded by moral necessity. It might be good of me to help my neighbor paint their place but there is no strict need for me to do so. Almost every moral theory has some notion of supererogatory action.You created someone to make you feel needed, to nurture, to devote your time to, pour countless resources into, instead of devoting it to others that already exist or higher, intellectual, matters that are of actual importance and will advance us the final goal!!!
Maintaining intellectual or artistic activities in 70 years time does seem to require a supply of new humans at the moment. Maintenance of a human population, towards whatever ends you do consider worthwhile, may not justify most children born today but it does justify some. -
2016-10-09 at 6:32 PM UTCThis thread is about you. I genuinely desire the death of everyone who reproduces. if you met me in real life you'd likely have me as having the angriest demeanor, being in a state of wrath for a longer period, than anyone you've ever met. Part of the reason why I distance myself from people to such an extent. Only stating this to give you a portrait or the person behind the text, see the feasibility of the veracity of my word.
I agree, but in this case it involves the creation of another life, which cannot consent, to fulfill that need; condemning them to life and, at present (given our current state of knowledge and technology, the future being unknown), death. Don't you agree that there's something profoundly immoral about this and that, unless we devolve into total deconstruction and following to extreme and logical conclusions (which I'm not completely against), the involvement of life radically alters it, invokes separate categorical arguments/lines of reasoning? You clearly ascribe more value to "living" beings that the atoms that compose them.
No it does not, there's such a massive amount of material to consume that even if new production were to cease at this moment you would never experience more than a tiny sliver of it. Regardless, there's the issue of hedonic elitism, but in practical terms, there are sound reasons to value them more than the crudest animalistic drives (Why do the themes in arts entertain us so? I know, I know.) As for justifying some children, there's once again the issue of genetic russian roulette, probability. You don't know what will occur for certain. Of course, that applies to essentially everything, every decision, we make in our lives to some extent. And, once again, it involves the lives of others which are cast into the cosmic brutality for our own selfish desires.
Completely ungrounded and untethered. "Like talking to a robot" you once said. The mentality I've developed is incredibly alienated and continually closer to a machine than being of flesh. A large part of the reason why I've progressively posted less over the years. -
2016-10-09 at 6:45 PM UTCI will make lots of lolis just to spite you Malice.
-
2016-10-09 at 7:48 PM UTC
I agree, but in this case it involves the creation of another life, which cannot consent, to fulfill that need; condemning them to life and, at present (given our current state of knowledge and technology, the future being unknown), death. Don't you agree that there's something profoundly immoral about this
If you're a consequentialist then consent never had any intrinsic significance (not to say it's not important, but consent is really only useful as preference indication which may or may not be the same thing as utility depending on who you ask), I'm sure there's a neat logical argument somewhere about this for deontologists (kind of like Kant's argument against the possibility of consenting to slavery but in reverse), maybe the simpler approach is to simply say there is no being, no will, and therefore no consent to be violated.
In any case consent a non-issue.
That doesn't change the fact that having a child does represent a certain level of suffering that need not have been the case, and that is an issue. The fundamental question becomes if a given life is worth having, or if we can anticipate at the time of conception, if a life is more likely to be worth having than not. Perhaps the most compelling way to an answer is by introspection: is there any life worth having? What's the worst life worth having? Is this life likely to be better or worse than that? In the case of discourse with most people it's quite easy to use their own life, by merit of their continued participation in it, as point of refrence, we can all imagine naturally possible better lives than our own, ergo at minimum such lives are justified.
But even if you don't think your own life is worth living, surely you can imagine one which is. It might be difficult, it might seem like whatever convinces you that the life you live today is not worth living, particularly issues of existential angst, would remain an issue in any possible life but that's to mistake an object of your experience for the human condition: existential angst does not rack the whole population, most people don't even know what the term means. So you might think "ignorance doesn't solve the problem" which sure, that's true, but if it entails that such lives are not worthwhile you have to assume the rubric by which a worthwhile life is determined is "correctly identifies and resolves XYZ problems" which is fundamentally difficult to establish. As soon as you venture away from self-assessment of the value of life you'll need to propose an objective measure of value which, if you want to, then sure let's see it followed by the demonstration that no life can measure up to it..No it does not, there's such a massive amount of material to consume that even if new production were to cease at this moment you would never experience more than a tiny sliver of it.
The value of art or science is not merely instrumental in satisfying me personally. Categorically I won't experience human extinction, but that doesn't mean it's not my interest to avoid it.As for justifying some children, there's once again the issue of genetic russian roulette, probability. You don't know what will occur for certain. Of course, that applies to essentially everything, every decision, we make in our lives to some extent.
I don't see how that's an issue, like you said, nearly every decision has a level of uncertainty in it. We merely need to weigh the expected outcomes against each other. Even uncontrolled, unguided population growth, in the absence of changed survival conditions (something that doesn't hold indefinitely of course) should produce about the same distribution of traits which has sustained our civilization for this long. The absence of new humans fails in this dimension. And this of course this ignores our ability to control genetic outcomes, and ignores environmental factors entirely (I know you have your standard line about social and environmental factors having minimal impact on child-rearing outcomes but it's yet to convince the rest of us). If you consider cultural output as worthwhile it at least seems justifiable to roll the dice in the crudest conceivable model to sustain it.
