Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why

TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
hodj_sl said:
Anyway, altruism is postively correlated with genetic relatedness, so are choice of sexual partners and friends. You can't nurture away nature.
Click to expand...
I am sure gay people are conditioned to be gays and thus free to get out of their chains!

rrr_img_43354.jpg
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
khalid_sl said:
Attacking his degree is kind of silly, it isn't like he is putting himself out there as an authority based on his teaching. Am I not allowed to talk about this stuff either?

Also, in case I am not allowed to talk about this subject unless I can link it to a field closer to mine,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_function
Click to expand...
Depends. We might need you. At some point there might be some algebra andFUCKif I want to do that shit.
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,518
583
Was watching this today and remembered this thread.

This is where all you pro-death, pro-suicide people are heading:

 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Culture of Death: It's not just for Africa anymore.


This is the post-racism world which is coming. Much like tatoo'd camwhores going a2m for a bitcoin is the post-feminism one.
 
P

Papashlapa

Lord Nagafen Raider
154
244
Tanoomba, the real question you're avoiding is who organizes society. That's at the heart of the debate. Capitalism uses a decentralized decision making process that diffuses power widely among the entire society, while communism, socialism, whatever other system you want to put a name to all assign power to the state in one way or another to manage the society for "the greater good". The problem is the "evil" people in corporations exploiting the labour classes are theexact same peopleas the ones in government, with the only difference being that a person in government hasfar morepower to harm you than even the richest billionaire. They're all just regular people. Where are you going to find these angels to run society for us? I've never met an angel, I've only met people. There are no perfect answers, and there are no utopias in this world. There is only the real world, filled with real, flawed people.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Papashlapa_sl said:
Tanoomba, the real question you're avoiding is who organizes society. That's at the heart of the debate. Capitalism uses a decentralized decision making process that diffuses power widely among the entire society, while communism, socialism, whatever other system you want to put a name to all assign power to the state in one way or another to manage the society for "the greater good". The problem is the "evil" people in corporations exploiting the labour classes are theexact same peopleas the ones in government, with the only difference being that a person in government hasfar morepower to harm you than even the richest billionaire. They're all just regular people. Where are you going to find these angels to run society for us? I've never met an angel, I've only met people. There are no perfect answers, and there are no utopias in this world. There is only the real world, filled with real, flawed people.
Click to expand...
Dude, you're just re-wording the "that's just the way things are" defense. People placing a self-determined level of importance on whatthey believethe "real world" to be means nothing.

In a competitive society, people will take whatever advantage they are given to ensure that they are better off. Is this a human "flaw"? Of course not, it's an unavoidable side effect of the system. We're competing, so we have no choice but to do whatever we can to make sure we come out on top. Capitalism was great when it rewarded productivity, when it encouraged innovation. That was the whole point, after all. However, that's not what it's primarily about any more. Now, it rewards those who are most able to exploit loopholes and abuse the system for their benefit. These generally tend to be the people who already have the most power and money already. The grand majority of people alive today are having their lives worsened so that the rich can have more, more, more. The standard argument against this is "But we still live with a higher quality of life than any era that preceded us!" That also meansnothing. A slave with a kind master is still a slave.

I repeat, if you do not believe we can do better then there is nothing to discuss. If you do believe we can do better, the question becomes "why aren't we?" I know why, and it pisses me off. I'm sick of being the slave being told "Stop complaining! Don't you see how well you have it compared to the slaves we used to have? Now polish my boots like a good boy and maybe I'll give you the iPod 5 later, OK?"
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,854
137,953
Tanoomba_sl said:
Dude, you're just re-wording the "that's just the way things are" defense. People placing a self-determined level of importance on whatthey believethe "real world" to be means nothing.

In a competitive society, people will take whatever advantage they are given to ensure that they are better off. Is this a human "flaw"? Of course not, it's an unavoidable side effect of the system.
Click to expand...
When and how will sexual competition be eliminated in the "non competitive" society you have imagined. How is it explicitly capitalism's fault that sexual competition exists?
 
P

Papashlapa

Lord Nagafen Raider
154
244
Tanoomba_sl said:
Dude, you're just re-wording the "that's just the way things are" defense. People placing a self-determined level of importance on whatthey believethe "real world" to be means nothing.

In a competitive society, people will take whatever advantage they are given to ensure that they are better off. Is this a human "flaw"? Of course not, it's an unavoidable side effect of the system. We're competing, so we have no choice but to do whatever we can to make sure we come out on top. Capitalism was great when it rewarded productivity, when it encouraged innovation. That was the whole point, after all. However, that's not what it's primarily about any more. Now, it rewards those who are most able to exploit loopholes and abuse the system for their benefit. These generally tend to be the people who already have the most power and money already. The grand majority of people alive today are having their lives worsened so that the rich can have more, more, more. The standard argument against this is "But we still live with a higher quality of life than any era that preceded us!" That also meansnothing. A slave with a kind master is still a slave.

I repeat, if you do not believe we can do better then there is nothing to discuss. If you do believe we can do better, the question becomes "why aren't we?" I know why, and it pisses me off. I'm sick of being the slave being told "Stop complaining! Don't you see how well you have it compared to the slaves we used to have? Now polish my boots like a good boy and maybe I'll give you the iPod 5 later, OK?"
Click to expand...
Nothing you just wrote is proposing any sort of solution except for saying "if only the world was a better place, it would be a better place". I'm not saying accept the flaws in society and stop complaining, I'm saying you need to be aware of the fact that your solutions can do more harm than good. What invariably happens is we see a flaw in capitalism, a market failure, so we decide to bring in government to fix the market failure. That's a noble intention, but you need to look at theresult, not the intention. You need to compare like with like, and when looking at the results of market failure, you need to be aware of the possibility of government failure as well. The world is not so cut and dry as you make it out to be, and sometimes there are no perfect solutions, only the least bad of two or more imperfect options.

You talk about competition as if it's a bad thing, but it's not. Firstly, competition is a fact of life. Not just a fact of human life either, but a fact of ALL life. However, when you vilify the competition inherent in a capitalist society, you need to be aware of the unprecedented level of cooperation that competition fosters. When you buy a chair, how many people needed to cooperate all over the world to get you that chair? Thousands, tens of thousands even.

When you vilify profit as if it's some evil - and I'm aware you didn't in that post, but it's a common theme in yours and others who favour central planning - you forget that the profit incentivizes billions of people to co-operate with one another to bring together people who want things with people who can provide them. You want to buy a chair, butsomeone needs to go get you that chair, someone else needs to build it, someone else needs to chop down the wood, and so on and so forth. The expectation of profit for their effort is what makes them do this.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
fanaskin_sl said:
When and how will sexual competition be eliminated in the "non competitive" society you have imagined. How is it explicitly capitalism's fault that sexual competition exists?
Click to expand...
It isn't. Stupid question. Did you have a point?
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Papashlapa_sl said:
Nothing you just wrote is proposing any sort of solution except for saying "if only the world was a better place, it would be a better place". I'm not saying accept the flaws in society and stop complaining, I'm saying you need to be aware of the fact that your solutions can do more harm than good. What invariably happens is we see a flaw in capitalism, a market failure, so we decide to bring in government to fix the market failure. That's a noble intention, but you need to look at theresult, not the intention. You need to compare like with like, and when looking at the results of market failure, you need to be aware of the possibility of government failure as well. The world is not so cut and dry as you make it out to be, and sometimes there are no perfect solutions, only the least bad of two or more imperfect options.

You talk about competition as if it's a bad thing, but it's not. Firstly, competition is a fact of life. Not just a fact of human life either, but a fact of ALL life. However, when you vilify the competition inherent in a capitalist society, you need to be aware of the unprecedented level of cooperation that competition fosters. When you buy a chair, how many people needed to cooperate all over the world to get you that chair? Thousands, tens of thousands even.

When you vilify profit as if it's some evil - and I'm aware you didn't in that post, but it's a common theme in yours and others who favour central planning - you forget that the profit incentivizes billions of people to co-operate with one another to bring together people who want things with people who can provide them. You want to buy a chair, butsomeone needs to go get you that chair, someone else needs to build it, someone else needs to chop down the wood, and so on and so forth. The expectation of profit for their effort is what makes them do this.
Click to expand...
WHOA THERE. When the hell did I say government was the solution?

Competition is good because it fosters cooperation (according to your post). Therefore it's the cooperation we're actually benefiting from. Do we NEED competition in order to have cooperation? Of course not.

Profit is not evil. Using "profit" as justification for doing shitty, shitty thingsis. This is what's happening now. That chair you described to me, that a team of people brought to me? It was made of the cheapest possible material they could get away with, built by sweatshop workers in China, and designed to break down and become ugly or unusable in a year so I will have to buy another one. This is where profit-chasing gets us. I'm using a product inferior to what we are capable of producing, built through exploiting poor people in a shitty situation, so that people with billions of dollars can have billions more. You don't have to have a problem with that if you don't want to. I do.

Finally, tests have been done that show that profit motivation produces better results when asking people to perform menial, manual labor. However, when asking people to be creative, the profit motive is far inferior to intrinsic motivation. People are smarter and more creative when they are working for the sake of doing the best job they can do, not when they are working for money. This is not my opinion, it is a fact.

And if you want to say I'm not providing any solutions, here's one I can get behind: The Venus Project. Designed to foster the best we are capable of doing while eliminating the destructive aspects of profit and wealth-hoarding.
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
Papashlapa,

fanaskin has been saying the same thing for months and tanoomba doesn't get it. give it a rest.

cultivation of human instincts aka to win, to compete, to overpower, to dominate would be far more superior than any socialist society. Communism, utopia, has no future.

Because it will always lose.
 
P

Papashlapa

Lord Nagafen Raider
154
244
Tanoomba_sl said:
WHOA THERE. When the hell did I say government was the solution?

Competition is good because it fosters cooperation (according to your post). Therefore it's the cooperation we're actually benefiting from. Do we NEED competition in order to have cooperation? Of course not.
Click to expand...
It's not just the cooperation, it's thevoluntarycooperation. Involuntary cooperation is just slavery. The competition incentivizes people to cooperate with one another not for the benefit of others, but for the benefit of themselves, and in the process helps third parties. That's the beauty of a capitalist system; it harnesses people's inherent tendency to pursue their own interests.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Profit is not evil. Using "profit" as justification for doing shitty, shitty thingsis. This is what's happening now. That chair you described to me, that a team of people brought to me? It was made of the cheapest possible material they could get away with, built by sweatshop workers in China, and designed to break down and become ugly or unusable in a year so I will have to buy another one. This is where profit-chasing gets us. I'm using a product inferior to what we are capable of producing, built through exploiting poor people in a shitty situation, so that people with billions of dollars can have billions more. You don't have to have a problem with that if you don't want to. I do.
Click to expand...
Are you saying there's no market for high quality chairs? Nobody on earth sells quality chairs, made by quality carpenters? Or is it that the higher quality chair costs more than you're willing to pay for it? If you want a high quality chair not made with cheaper materials in a sweatshop in China, you're free to buy one. However, those higher quality materials and higher quality craftsmanship cost more. The better product requires more valuable inputs, of course it's going to cost more! By the way, don't slam sweatshops, those are generally the best jobs those people are able to find, that's why people are beating down their doors trying to get them.

Tanoomba_sl said:
And if you want to say I'm not providing any solutions, here's one I can get behind: The Venus Project. Designed to foster the best we are capable of doing while eliminating the destructive aspects of profit and wealth-hoarding.
Click to expand...
The Venus Project is a top-down managed society. Look at the history of literally every society that's ever been attempted that follows that pattern. It's ended in mass poverty, brutality and oppression. Every. Single. Time. Why? Because the only way to mold society to the way you see fit is to use violence and coercion, and regardless of the most noble intentions of the designer, the power will corrupt him. Using force to make society what you want it to be logically implies you know better than everyone else how they should live their lives. Think about the arrogance of that.
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
Socialist Utopia.
4710174481_b2c5453ab2_z.jpg


Why don't people just buy goods that don't break down easily? Oh, they do? There is a market for both Chinese crap and quality crap? capitalism has lifted millions of Chinese from poverty? From starvation and death? And people just buy these Chinese crap because it's cheaper? Yeah.

I've been an East Asian history student to know long enough about futility of mass movements and "revolution" in a communist society. It is complete shit, fucked Chinese peasants, and completely removed individual initiative to produce more. Millions dead, tradition squandered and completely fucked by the "new left" thinkers.

this is honestly the worst fucking derail I've ever seen. Jesus fucking christ.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Papashlapa_sl said:
The Venus Project is a top-down managed society. Look at the history of literally every society that's ever been attempted that follows that pattern. It's ended in mass poverty, brutality and oppression. Every. Single. Time. Why? Because the only way to mold society to the way you see fit is to use violence and coercion, and regardless of the most noble intentions of the designer, the power will corrupt him. Using force to make society what you want it to be logically implies you know better than everyone else how they should live their lives. Think about the arrogance of that.
Click to expand...
The Venus Project is managed by objective calculations. There's no "forcing" anyone into anything. Hell, let's look at today's society: If you don't like the way things are going, you can exercise your right to protest... and possibly get pepper sprayed, beat up or arrested. Isn't this using force to make society what you want? Power is corruptingRIGHT NOW.

Very often, discussions like these simply devolve into people telling me I don't understand human nature, or I don't get how things are in the real world, but those are just pathetic cop-outs. I know how things are in the real world right now, and they suck. They may be better than they were in the past, but they suck. People think they can use human history to explain human nature, as if all of human history isn't just people adapting to whatever circumstances they find themselves in. Change the environment, you change human nature. Watch more Jacques Fresco if you don't believe me.

I ask you again: Do you think we can do better? Don't go off on another tangent, answer me: Do you think we can do better? If you're answer is "no" I'm wasting my time describing colors to a dog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.