The Random Thoughts Thread

[Jennywocky]

 

[peoplesuck]

my romantic "life" seems so bleak I was thinking a vaginoplasty would be cool because my jeans would fit better.seems worth it. is that bad?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

[redacted]

 

[Gyppo]

my romantic "life" seems so bleak I was thinking a vaginoplasty would be cool because my jeans would fit better.seems worth it. is that bad?

Where did you buy your jeans?

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

good news, everyone!

The Journal of Controversial Ideas, Co-Founded by Philosopher Peter Singer, Will Publish & Defend Pseudonymous Articles, Regardless of the Backlash

 

[peoplesuck]

thrift stores and walmart. thrift stores tend to not have my size in mens...

 

[Gyppo]

thrift stores and walmart. thrift stores tend to not have my size in mens...

What do you mean? Are you like super tall?

 

[peoplesuck]

try super small

 

[Gyppo]

try super small

tbh i don't remember where i was going with that, my mind's whacked out.
i'll try work it thru...
vaginoplasty cuz jeans too big in pelvic region. observations - peoplesuckfemale.
mens trousers too big and not in thrift stores, must go walmart.
peoplesucksmall....
mens trousers too big. womens trousers too small? they'nt na disparity like that.
am i overthinking this? i can't help but feel i'm being really dumb but in sleep deprived school-must-go-to state just.don't.know.
oh, i get it. ur the dog, right?

 

[Gyppo]

pls just say yes. don't make it worse. i'm in real anguish

 

[redbaron]

i think he just means that 'muricans are generally obese, a trend more common in low socioeconomic backgrounds and he as a non-obese person shopping at a store intended for people from low socioeconomic backgrounds tends to not have his size

or yeah maybe he's a dog =O !!

Spoiler

 

[peoplesuck]

to be continued.

 

[Gyppo]

to be continued.

Seriously, send me your address and leg measurements at one inch intervals while I try and locate my thimble

 

[Gyppo]

i think he just means that 'muricans are generally obese, a trend more common in low socioeconomic backgrounds and he as a non-obese person shopping at a store intended for people from low socioeconomic backgrounds tends to not have his size

or yeah maybe he's a dog =O !!

Spoiler

View attachment 3976

ya poor people are overweight and rich people are malnourished and only walk sideways. well, i'd best be off now. i'll exit through the window.

 

[Gyppo]

damn, l8 4 skwl.

 

[Gyppo]

I was replying to another thread and went off on a tangent:

I swear most skills like teamwork and problem solving and shit are absolutely meaningless. I've had a lifelong disdain for things like that, they're just patronising and pathetic (the feeling when you realise most adults don't understand matters of dignity that plagued you even as a toddler, and yet most of them will be way more contented and successful than you as your life accelerates in a downward spiral and you wallow in a despairing philosophical pit transcending the limits of their possible comprehension, amirite ). Now I need to think about a uni application and they want me to spout that out, "prove" using examples from my life (fuck off. The activities I've engaged in didn't form me, I'm the creator. And they're none of your beeswax. Fuck off.) that I can work in a team. Easy, just do a fraction of the work you would've done and try not to care so you can avoid the inevitable infuriation, no?
It's just so bullshitty, I'm strongly considering running to the hills.
Seriously, the majority of people can't hold a pen correctly or remember the alphabet without singing.

 

[Minuend]

[redacted]

Same.

It should be said I'm echoing opinions made from men from within "the scene". I wasn't convinced either, in the beginning, but I can see their point. I can see how that type of perspective could lead to that type of issues. It does make sense considering the type of behavior you see

 

[soupymess]

I hope I come out the other side of this with a friend. Other people are all there is

Such a dog person lmao

 

[Minute Squirrel]

Just got off work

And I've been thinking

I need to wipe my ass

My ass is sweaty

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

yesterday at a bar, out of the corner of my eye, I saw some couple.. probably a date of sorts.. and the dude, for the whole duration of the time I was there, was sitting with this pathetic-looking posture, leaning towards the girl so that his face was about 20 cm from hers the whole time. She was sitting completely straight, looking at him sort of sideways and looking awkward. It looked like he was literally begging for intimacy with her. He looked so pathetic and wimpy that I wanted to walk over and slap him in the face.

 

[QuickTwist]

yesterday at a bar, out of the corner of my eye, I saw some couple.. probably a date of sorts.. and the dude, for the whole duration of the time I was there, was sitting with this pathetic-looking posture, leaning towards the girl so that his face was about 20 cm from hers the whole time. She was sitting completely straight, looking at him sort of sideways and looking awkward. It looked like he was literally begging for intimacy with her. He looked so pathetic and wimpy that I wanted to walk over and slap him in the face.

I would not make fun of intimacy. It's likely you were disgusted because you lack that sort of intimacy in your own life. This culture in the world today is starving for intimacy and there are very few places that you can get it.

 

[QuickTwist]

Hi!

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

yesterday at a bar, out of the corner of my eye, I saw some couple.. probably a date of sorts.. and the dude, for the whole duration of the time I was there, was sitting with this pathetic-looking posture, leaning towards the girl so that his face was about 20 cm from hers the whole time. She was sitting completely straight, looking at him sort of sideways and looking awkward. It looked like he was literally begging for intimacy with her. He looked so pathetic and wimpy that I wanted to walk over and slap him in the face.

I would not make fun of intimacy. It's likely you were disgusted because you lack that sort of intimacy in your own life. This culture in the world today is starving for intimacy and there are very few places that you can get it.

nothing wrong with intimacy. It was the way that guy behaved.

but who knows, the girl probably liked it – she seemed kinda starved of attention

 

[onesteptwostep]

Anyone have questions about kant my kant lecture is today.

 

[QuickTwist]

Anyone have questions about kant my kant lecture is today.

Can you sum it up in 1,000 words?

 

[QuickTwist]

yesterday at a bar, out of the corner of my eye, I saw some couple.. probably a date of sorts.. and the dude, for the whole duration of the time I was there, was sitting with this pathetic-looking posture, leaning towards the girl so that his face was about 20 cm from hers the whole time. She was sitting completely straight, looking at him sort of sideways and looking awkward. It looked like he was literally begging for intimacy with her. He looked so pathetic and wimpy that I wanted to walk over and slap him in the face.

I would not make fun of intimacy. It's likely you were disgusted because you lack that sort of intimacy in your own life. This culture in the world today is starving for intimacy and there are very few places that you can get it.

nothing wrong with intimacy. It was the way that guy behaved.

but who knows, the girl probably liked it – she seemed kinda starved of attention

Sorry, didn't mean to be a loser...

 

[onesteptwostep]

Anyone have questions about kant my kant lecture is today.

Can you sum it up in 1,000 words?

Depends on which part of kant you want to ask. Ill type one up later if you want. Im not the one giving the lecture though, my teacher is lol

 

[QuickTwist]

Anyone have questions about kant my kant lecture is today.

Can you sum it up in 1,000 words?

Depends on which part of kant you want to ask. Ill type one up later if you want. Im not the one giving the lecture though, my teacher is lol

I'd love to see what you have in a general sense.

 

[peoplesuck]

I just looked at the tinder in my area and everyone my age looks 10 years older than me. wtf
also everyone is either a perfect 10 or 200lbs, and when your a small dude even if you are decent looking you cant date 200lb chicks. fml

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I just looked at the tinder in my area and everyone my age looks 10 years older than me. wtf
also everyone is either a perfect 10 or 200lbs, and when your a small dude even if you are decent looking you cant date 200lb chicks. fml

I guess you're stuck with the perfect 10s... although you might wanna adjust your expectations of how perfectly 10 they look in real life

 

[peoplesuck]

I noticed all the girls under 5' are super slutty, what would explain that?
Why are compliments so fucking hard to give or take?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

maybe being below 5' allows one to go under the radar of cultural stigmas

another phenomenon though, is that girls who are slightly above average tall (5'7 or whatever) are the ones who always yap about the guy having to be tall. Girls who are very tall, or short, seem to care much less

 

[soupymess]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07214-2

The plaintiffs, who include 21 people ranging in age from 11 to 22, allege that the government has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by failing to prevent dangerous climate change. They are asking the district court to order the federal government to prepare a plan that will ensure the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere falls below 350 parts per million by 2100, down from an average of 405 parts per million in 2017.

By contrast, the US Department of Justice argues that “there is no right to ‘a climate system capable of sustaining human life’” — as the Juliana plaintiffs assert.

Where am I

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'd love to see what you have in a general sense.

To understand Kant you have to understand David Hume, someone who we consider to be the most extreme and logical exponent of empiricism. Empiricism for Hume was basically this, that there was no such thing as causality, that is, there is no rational explanation of cause and effect of things other than the fact that they happen because of habit or just mere occurrence. This meant that beliefs such as God were in jeopardy because then ex-nihilo, creation out of nothing, can't happen because it's a causality, that something causes something to come into existence. Before Kant there were basically lots of dogmatic statements put out by philosophers on the ontology, (that is, the being of), of God, like for example that God is needed for existence to exist (Descartes), or that God is needed for the established harmony of all things to exist (Leibniz) and so forth, but Kant addressed this problem by stating something new, that there exist this thing called the 'thing in of itself', something that's outside the view of our five senses, something that's outside of our periphery senses. This isn't something that's beyond our reality, but the exact reality as it is, but as itself, just not through our sense of sight or smell or touch or hearing and so forth. Existence of something as it is. Basically, this laptop existing as it is without the need of our senses of sight or touch and so on. Basically for this plane of existence (well it's not exactly outside our plane of existence, but let's just say that it's another plane for now) there exists the soul, the unity of our cosmos, and God. Kant doesn't necessarily state that God exists, but that if God exists, he exists as an entity that is a thing in of itself, something that's beyond our senses, of our space-time (since the senses pertain to the realities of space and time only). Basically he provides cover for God through his thing in of itself, or in other word he shields the existence of God from empiricism/radical skepticism through his transcendental idealism. He doesn't provide a logical proof of God, (rather he demonstrably argues against any logical proofs of God, especially the original 5 proofs) but opens a logical way for the existence of God through the possibility that he exists as a thing in of itself. That's Kant's view on the existence of God, that he can exist, not that he does. On God, this is basically what he lays out in his Critique of Pure Reason, or God when thought of through only by reason.

 

[QuickTwist]

I'd love to see what you have in a general sense.

To understand Kant you have to understand David Hume, someone who we consider to be the most extreme and logical exponent of empiricism. Empiricism for Hume was basically this, that there was no such thing as causality, that is, there is no rational explanation of cause and effect of things other than the fact that they happen because of habit or just mere occurrence. This meant that beliefs such as God were in jeopardy because then ex-nihilo, creation out of nothing, can't happen because it's a causality, that something causes something to come into existence. Before Kant there were basically lots of dogmatic statements put out by philosophers on the ontology, (that is, the being of), of God, like for example that God is needed for existence to exist (Descartes), or that God is needed for the established harmony of all things to exist (Leibniz) and so forth, but Kant addressed this problem by stating something new, that there exist this thing called the 'thing in of itself', something that's outside the view of our five senses, something that's outside of our periphery senses. This isn't something that's beyond our reality, but the exact reality as it is, but as itself, just not through our sense of sight or smell or touch or hearing and so forth. Existence of something as it is. Basically, this laptop existing as it is without the need of our senses of sight or touch and so on. Basically for this plane of existence (well it's not exactly outside our plane of existence, but let's just say that it's another plane for now) there exists the soul, the unity of our cosmos, and God. Kant doesn't necessarily state that God exists, but that if God exists, he exists as an entity that is a thing in of itself, something that's beyond our senses, of our space-time (since the senses pertain to the realities of space and time only). Basically he provides cover for God through his thing in of itself, or in other word he shields the existence of God from empiricism/radical skepticism through his transcendental idealism. He doesn't provide a logical proof of God, (rather he demonstrably argues against any logical proofs of God, especially the original 5 proofs) but opens a logical way for the existence of God through the possibility that he exists as a thing in of itself. That's Kant's view on the existence of God, that he can exist, not that he does. On God, this is basically what he lays out in his Critique of Pure Reason, or God when thought of through only by reason.

Thank you, much appreciated.

I'm an amature philosopher myself. I try and tackle things like Good and Evil existing in the world in my YouTube channel. It would be great if I could get a critique from you on one of my videos.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Sure, what's your youtube channel? Good and evil questions, theodicy related questions, are always fun to ask.

 

[QuickTwist]

Sure, what's your youtube channel? Good and evil questions, theodicy related questions, are always fun to ask.

I'll PM you. I also talk about Truth, Personal Growth, Spirituality & Morality, and Art. Some Psychology is mixed in but I don't really have anything in depth on the psychology front yet.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

prior to last week I almost forgot that each human is designed as a game-theoretically optimized biological machine. In simpler terms: in the end, everyone is a selfish cunt

 

[Pizzabeak]

I noticed all the girls under 5' are super slutty, what would explain that?
Why are compliments so fucking hard to give or take?

I disagree.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

prior to last week I almost forgot that each human is designed as a game-theoretically optimized biological machine. In simpler terms: in the end, everyone is a selfish cunt

Game theory defines rationality in a sense of selfishness, but there are other ways to define it.

For example, let's take a look at the prisoner's dilemma:

Person A and Person B are being interrogated. If A rats out B, but B doesn't rat out A, A serves no time, and B serves 10 years. If A rats out B and B rats out A they both serve 5 years. If B rats out A, and A doesn't rat out B, A serves 10 years and B serves no time. If neither rats out the other they both serve 1 year.

Now, the usual way this is analysed, is that assuming this is a closed system, A serves less time in either case if they rat out B, and B serves less time in either case if they rat out A, so they would both rat each other out, and thus be much worse off than if they hadn't ratted each other out.

But what if the people involved looked at it like this: If A doesn't rat out B, then either the same or a lower amount of time will be served overall, and if B doesn't rat out A then either the same or a lower amount of time will be served overall. So, by looking at this from a selfless perspective, neither would rat out the other, and the total amount of time served is kept to a minimum.

I see no reason that the latter means of rationalisation is invalid or inferior to the former. I don't think it's really a proven thing that people in reality even stick to the former. There are probably aspects of both means of analysis, alongside all kinds of other motivating factors, at play in how people actually function.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

prior to last week I almost forgot that each human is designed as a game-theoretically optimized biological machine. In simpler terms: in the end, everyone is a selfish cunt

Game theory defines rationality in a sense of selfishness, but there are other ways to define it.

For example, let's take a look at the prisoner's dilemma:

Person A and Person B are being interrogated. If A rats out B, but B doesn't rat out A, A serves no time, and B serves 10 years. If A rats out B and B rats out A they both serve 5 years. If B rats out A, and A doesn't rat out B, A serves 10 years and B serves no time. If neither rats out the other they both serve 1 year.

Now, the usual way this is analysed, is that assuming this is a closed system, A serves less time in either case if they rat out B, and B serves less time in either case if they rat out A, so they would both rat each other out, and thus be much worse off than if they hadn't ratted each other out.

But what if the people involved looked at it like this: If A doesn't rat out B, then either the same or a lower amount of time will be served overall, and if B doesn't rat out A then either the same or a lower amount of time will be served overall. So, by looking at this from a selfless perspective, neither would rat out the other, and the total amount of time served is kept to a minimum.

I see no reason that the latter means of rationalisation is invalid or inferior to the former. I don't think it's really a proven thing that people in reality even stick to the former. There are probably aspects of both means of analysis, alongside all kinds of other motivating factors, at play in how people actually function.

you think people make decisions in life based on the utilities of other people? Maybe on a very small scale of community, like a family unit. But other than that, it's every man to himself, my friend.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

you think people make decisions in life based on the utilities of other people? Maybe on a very small scale of community, like a family unit. But other than that, it's every man to himself, my friend.

Well, yeah. I mean... some people are actually nice.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

you think people make decisions in life based on the utilities of other people? Maybe on a very small scale of community, like a family unit. But other than that, it's every man to himself, my friend.

Well, yeah. I mean... some people are actually nice.

Niceness is fragile. In the long run it breaks. Only a set of morals and principles is robust. I.e. you cannot really count on people without the latter.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

you think people make decisions in life based on the utilities of other people? Maybe on a very small scale of community, like a family unit. But other than that, it's every man to himself, my friend.

Well, yeah. I mean... some people are actually nice.

Niceness is fragile. In the long run it breaks. Only a set of morals and principles is robust. I.e. you cannot really count on people without the latter.

Niceness breaks in the long run?

On the contrary, the meek shall inherit the earth.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

you think people make decisions in life based on the utilities of other people? Maybe on a very small scale of community, like a family unit. But other than that, it's every man to himself, my friend.

Well, yeah. I mean... some people are actually nice.

Niceness is fragile. In the long run it breaks. Only a set of morals and principles is robust. I.e. you cannot really count on people without the latter.

Going back to the Prisoner dilemma,

What happens when 2 nice people are involved? They both serve 1 year.

2 mean people? They both serve 5 years.

1 nice and 1 mean person? The nice person serves 10 years, the mean person serves no time.

So there you can see the reasons for and against being nice. The nice person gets screwed over by the mean person, and there is great injustice. But the nice person is keeping the overall suffering of the people down to a minimum. So nice people help the whole, but suffer themselves,

However, what would happen if you got all the nice people and grouped them together, and got all the mean people and grouped them together?

The mean people would screw each other over to oblivion, while the nice people would prosper.

(I'm not necessarily saying I believe that there is a nice versus mean dichotomy that divides the population, but if I said I did believe it, I wouldn't be the first)

(also, selfless versus selfish would have been better terms to use. Also, good versus bad, righteous versus wicked, believer versus unbeliever)

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@Artsu Tharaz
so the way the prisoners dilemma works, is that it's an adversarial game by construction. If one of them has a reputation of always not snitching, then he is exploitable by the other person who can choose to snitch. The game-theoretical solution as per nash equilbirum is therefore to always snitch.

We mostly agree, however. If the non-snitcher has a principle that he will remain loyal to his partner in crime, then yes, he is thinking about a bigger picture than himself, and with that, exposes himself to getting exploited. In the real world, there are certainly cases of "nice" people who will usually do the same, but my point is by default, people are biologically designed to make optimal decisions in a way that benefits them personally – i.e. to snitch, in this example. They might be "nice" for a long time but then at some point fuck you over – they have to actively think about what ethics and principles guide their actions in order to remain "nice".

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

people are biologically designed to make optimal decisions in a way that benefits them personally

But we do have a choice in the matter. Does one wish to stick to this self-centred strategy, or seek to manifest in oneself the selfless strategy?

The selfless strategy may or may not be good for the person who employs it in the long run (e.g. there may be karma), but that is not a consideration for the truly selfless, except out of a recognition of the notion of justice - of receiving a reward for doing good and punishment for doing bad so as to reinforce the tendency to move towards global harmony. Apart from this, the selfless person is willing to sacrifice themself if it will do more good to do so. Of course, to achieve this level of purity may be impossible for a person - we may well have a self-centred instinct at play within us at all times, but assuming there is room to move from one end of the spectrum to the other, moving towards selflessness is best for the world.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Selflessness is a self-reinforcing strategy (by this I mean it achieves the intended effect) in the sense that if employing it does really benefit the world, then the person who is acting as such has achieved their goals. Selfishness is a self-reinforcing strategy insofar as it benefits the person employing it, but if there is something like karma, or a day of judgement from God, then it may be counter-effective (produce the opposite of the intended effects).

There are other possibilities too. The gods of the Greeks, for example, may well have been posited to respond positively to someone who seeks their own benefit and honour, without a requirement that they do good to those around them. And on the other hand, it may well be the case that emplying a selfless strategy results in harm to the world, e.g. a charity that exacerbates the problems it intends to fix through ineffective measures.

All in all though, I believe it best to aim for selflessness.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@Artsu Tharaz
yes, but I'm talking about the real world, though – not hypotheticals. The only reason we exist is that our ancestors were wired to act in their self-interest, like every other life form on earth. If an organism has good genes, in order for those genes to survive, that organism should seek to pair off with other good genes. If it paired with bad genes out of altruism, those genes would cease to exist in a few generations. If our ancestors didn't optimize their selection process, or didn't discriminate based on their own utility, our species would go extinct pretty much at the outset. So for me, it's not really a value judgment that people are selfish, it's just biology. I personally try to act according to specific ethics and principles, but I've learned I shouldn't expect too much of that from others. (Most) people are animals.

 

[onesteptwostep]

rip george h w bush