Kalbear

Members
  • Content count

    47,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

About Kalbear

  • Rank
    57 Warning Points
  • Birthday 10/26/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://addictedtoquack.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The worst BwB meetup area EVER

Recent Profile Visitors

17,831 profile views
  1. Because in 30 years time it's weird that Amos never got into it with anyone else, especially Bobbie. I know what he normally does - and that happens on the show as well - but again, given a long enough timeline it's odd that this is the time that it happens. Hell, it's weird that in 30 years time Amos is still around with the group. Given how close he came to almost killing Holden (or having Holden almost kill him) over and over, him having anything like a long life expectancy is odd.
  2. I've gone to a mattress store and cut off all the tags. I also shit on every single bed. I had a big breakfast.
  3. To be really really clear, the argument put forward was not that Cuba was a horrible place or had horrible people, and all the talk about how awesome a people it is really doesn't matter in this context. The argument by @dmc515 and others was that Castro was something of a piece of shit. All the talk about how good the place is run makes me think the argument about Mussolini making the trains run on time was what really mattered. Even if it's true about Cuba, that has nothing to do with the arguments against Castro. It does not excuse Castro desiring to nuke the US and being willing to sacrifice his nation to do so. It doesn't excuse Guevara's exploits either.
  4. Well, yeah, largely. And note that I don't mean to imply that just because the origin of your idea is likely an intrinsic, monkey emotional value means that it's a bad idea or somehow wrong, nor do I mean to imply that my idea is better. That moral judgment doesn't factor in here. You should be aware of it though - that somehow there's a 'natural' way to do things and other ways are 'unnatural', and why one is good and one is bad, and as @lokisnowpointed out what we consider natural and unnatural is largely a product of individual moralities, not something particularly universal. And if that's the case, do question the origins of it and whether they are meaningful and really do matter. I don't pretend to know either, but the general thought in my mind is 'better things'. People would be unable to reasonably do things like war, wouldn't tolerate for a second massive famines, wouldn't waste food, wouldn't allow things like recycling to not happen. There are probably extremes - and that would make for an interesting book, where someone fell into paralysis because of the fear of crushing a parasitical worm in their house - but having more of it seems like a good thing in general. It's obvious that selfishness is an important trait. But it's also clear that it causes a lot of short-term failures in planning. Being unable to even empathize with others outside of your monkeysphere is another problem. Probably because everything has diminishing returns, including sources of happiness, and there are other things worth pursuing than happiness. Sure, I don't know either! But the solution to not knowing isn't 'therefore, don't ever do anything' - it's to experiment and figure things out, and try again. And the idea that somehow these things are horrible because they're not 'natural' is especially disappointing.
  5. I liked the book too. But I didn't love it like I did Nemesis Games.
  6. That's a very different question - what the US CAN do - but the notion that people actually care one way or another is obviously flawed. And the idea that the US can't do much to dissuade one of its allies from blockading a port when they rely heavily on US assistance to do things like, well, blockade the port and actually launch airstrikes is somewhat laughable. And people in the US aren't that concerned about problems in their country, either. What has happened since the Las Vegas shooting as far as laws go? How about the Texas shooting? How many people still don't have power in Puerto Rico? How many homeless are there in Seattle? People just don't care that much unless it affects their personal lives heavily or it is something super duper scary.
  7. Nah. Yemen, right now, is having hundreds of people each day die of hunger. 2.1 million people are malnourished. Even saying it that way is too big a number, but people are still not 'freaking out'. If people were even vaguely caring, they'd be telling their congresspeople right now that this must be fixed ASAP. They aren't, and it's not being reported, and it's not being fixed, because it's just too far outside of people's general value for it to matter to them. And I can say this reasonably because this has been going on for well over a year, and little has been done.
  8. It occurs to me that the reaction of something being 'unnatural' as far as a process goes is precisely your purity/disgust values triggering, which is naturally part of your innate things. You think of something interfering with you 'naturally' and object to it. But if you talk about it like therapy - something like antidepressants, or physical fitness - probably fine. If you talk about it like surgery? Nope, totally wrong. Huh.
  9. But here's the thing - you don't own your moral behavior. Your moral behavior is a product of the environment you live in and the genetic happenstance of millions of years of bizarre social mammalian codings, along with random stuff that just happens to work out vaguely okay-ish. I will once again link to my favorite video of all time - unfairness in Capuchin monkeys. The point is that things like fairness, care, obeying authority, disgust, fear, joy of acceptance - these aren't things that are just learned - they're innate traits of humans as mammals, tied intrinsically to us at a very basic level. Now, it's cool that you want to become super awesome and enlightened on your own. That's great. That's also an obvious problem, because you're only caring about your personal achievement, not how well it works for humans everywhere or how it works in the long term. And you'd rather choose that way even if it means everyone else fails and the world sucks and there's absurd amounts of suffering because it is somehow more 'legit', even though it's very obvious that the objectively 'better' version is 7 billion humans who have a long-term existence largely free of suffering, pain and hate towards each other. And you're telling me that you prefer the 'natural' way while talking to me thousands of miles away on a computer.
  10. I don't honestly know, though I know that Wayne has never been particularly useful in using his science to help the community in any way, shape or form. Unlike, say, Iron Man. Anyway, back to the narcissistic assholes of the actual world.
  11. Basically TR was Batman if Batman actually did the smart thing and used his money and influence to change the country and fix things instead of punch bad guys.
  12. I don't understand this argument at all. It's bakkers viewpoint that humans would remove compassion to better further their pleasure, but that isn't remotely a certainty or even the most likely option. Here's an example - humans have a capacity to genuinely think about and care about 100 or so people at a time. When numbers get bigger than that they don't cause compassion. This is one reason why people freak out about seeing one war ravaged Syrian child, but don't freak out when they hear 50,000 people died. What if we changed that so you could care about every single human? That all of their lives and care and dreams actually mattered to you? Forever Peace did something like this, and it was an interesting concept. This seems far from being a soulless husk to me. Another one - what if we remove the tendencies of tribalism in humans? We remove the innate desire to protect those in our tribe and harm others? To justify the atrocities of our in group and punish the others, even though they are the same actions? What if we could engineer humans to deal less with short term gains and desires in favor of longer term values? Before you say this is cultural, monkeys were recently given money in an experiment and the results were that the monkeys behaved virtually identically to a human marketplace - bad short term decisions, impulse and waste, etc. And that doesn't get into the medical issues that can be fixed- depression, anxiety, psychosis, trauma. How is this dystopic?
  13. On the moral relativism thing - my office mate was this Romanian woman, and she was 100% in favor of Ceaucescu when he was in power and afterwards. She liked that he was strong, that he killed his enemies, that he imprisoned people who spoke out against him, that he ruled the country with strength. If you go to Russia and talk to most people they'll say how happy they are with Putin. That doesn't in any way, shape or form change the atrocities committed.
  14. I guess I don't understand the argument one way or another. Stability doesn't mean static. Most people experience a fairly 'stable' life by comparison to the Roci, but they go through massive changes simply due to chance and life happening. We can argue about whether or not wiping out half of Earths population and influence would tend to make things more or less stable in the universe (it wouldn't) or if it's okay not to show stability for 30 years, but really it doesn't matter, because the reality is that people do change quite a bit in 30 years time. Here's an example: why wouldn't Bobbie and Amos had a fight like they did in 30 years? Amos got pissed because Clarissa was possibly going to die and he couldn't do anything about it - is it that reasonable that Amos wouldn't have gotten pissed like that in 30 years time? To me, that seems odd - either he would have become significantly more stable and chill over the years or he would have exploded like that many times.
  15. Apparently Natalie Portman almost killed her career thanks to Star Wars.