@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

I have literally never in my life seen a shirt or sweater that costs $200+. The most expensive shirts I can get cost $100 each, and those are dress shirts (which most people will only ever need one or two of). Everything else is less, often significantly less. The most expensive jeans I have ever seen are Levi's that sometimes cost upwards of $100/pair, but you don't need many and they last years and years. Most people only need one suit, two if they're really feeling fancy and want different colors (and again, those last for years and years).

I'm definitely with @FiveHourMarathon on this one. I can imagine someone who is trying to spend massive amounts of money might spend $10k+/year, for sure. But I can't imagine how someone might have normal clothing habits where they spend that kind of money without even meaning to.

At least with Am14S3, there is a requirement that an individual "engaged in" insurrection, yet even there, we have briefs by eminent Constitutional scholars submitted to the Supreme Court saying that it is sufficient for Trump to have simply done nothing to stop it.

That's true, but let's be blunt: that's not an opinion those scholars arrived at based on an impartial reading of the Constitution. It's motivated reasoning which stems from the fact that they really don't like Trump and want to see him go down regardless of whether he deserves it. It's not an example to follow.

without it your original post is just so wrong as to be jaw dropping.

Hardly. The original post was obviously correct to me, and it was surprising that others were willing to do confidently (and incorrectly) declare it wrong. The point @f3zinker was making from the beginning is what he clarified in his edit: to Aella (or anyone else reading people here for that matter), you are a nobody who doesn't matter. You can't possibly affect behavior by shaming people from such a position of unimportance to them.

The problem with your argument is that denying the divinity of Jesus goes way far beyond the other examples you mentioned. There are a lot of dogmas in Christianity that you could deny and be super heretical: the Trinity, that Jesus was legitimately human, and so on. The Muslim example, or the early Christian practices differing from today, are in that ballpark. Orthodox Christians (small-o, not the denomination) would be aghast at a lot of things and say "this is heresy and you are bad", but at least those people would still be nominally Christian.

Denying the divinity of Jesus is in a whole other ballpark. That's the one thing Christianity is about at its core. The entire point of the faith, in every denomination, is "Jesus is God, and so we worship him". That's the fundamental split with Judaism (and with Islam too for that matter). If you don't agree on that, then you are not Christian and there's no two ways about it.

There's no evidence that pristine integrity is actually of some overriding practical value

Nobody ever said it was. But it is valuable, and it's more valuable than anything practical can offer. Your character is the one thing that nothing can ever take away from you. Material possessions come and go, social status comes and goes, even health comes and goes. But your moral character is always exactly what you make of it, nothing more or less. That makes it far more valuable than those other things.

I don't disdain "things", because they are indeed pleasant. But I don't trade my character for them either, because that would be a very poor trade.

I firmly disagree with both you and @Walterodim. I myself didn't marry until I was 32, but I assure you (patting myself on the back incoming) that I am both loyal and smart. It just so happened that I didn't meet a woman who would give me the time of day until I was in my 30s. Same goes for a good friend of mine. He's a good man in every way that matters, but he's never found a woman to settle down with. He would love to have one, but isn't having any luck with finding them. Same for a guy I grew up with in my church. He married in his 50s, but he's a good man who is very much worthy of respect. He just never met anyone before then.

The problem with the view you both are espousing is that there is a huge factor of luck in dating. You may simply never meet a person who you are attracted to, who is attracted to you, and who is good marriage material. You can tip the scales in various ways, but ultimately it's not in your control. Casting aspersions on someone when they could simply be an unfortunate victim of bad luck isn't a good thing to do, imo. It also kind of comes across as myopic - maybe you had the good fortune to meet someone who you could marry when you were in your 20s, but not everyone else is going to be so lucky and you should be sympathetic rather than judgmental.

Does anyone know of some kind of open source version of the ChatGPT bot? I was going to mess around with it, but they require a phone number to get your account setup. I refuse to give out my phone number, so I am looking for alternatives.

If OP is drawing a distinction between "settlers" and "immigrants" which is not immediately obvious, then it's on the OP to lead with that. As @TheDag said: OP needs to start by demonstrating that America is not in fact a nation of immigrants. Furthermore, OP has to demonstrate that it is in fact a lie (the term "lie" means it must be a deliberate falsehood, rather than an innocent misconception). OP doesn't do either of those things though, instead just hand waving them away. Well fine, but then the rest of his argument is built on quicksand and holds no water.

One of the other members of this forum (I can't remember his name right now, stupid brain) is utterly convinced that he is so ugly that he can never have any success with women unless he settles for a literal meth head or someone so obese that he would be her caregiver more than her boyfriend/husband. He has further convinced himself that the way to solve this is to undertake a somewhat dangerous trek through the Alaskan wilderness ("the hock"), because apparently women will be able to subconsciously sense that he is the kind of man who risked his life and lived to tell the tale. He believes that this is a quality women value, and that this is the best way for him to attain it (other ways are being a soldier and living through war, shit like that).

This dude has had basically everyone (myself included) tell him that he's full of shit, that he has perfectly reasonable prospects with women as it is, that even if he didn't this won't fix them because women don't actually value men risking their lives, etc. He does not ever listen to anyone, but continued to post about his ideas every single week in the wellness Wed threads without a word of our advice getting through to him. He eventually got banned for this, because it was really obnoxious (though he was a good enough poster outside of this single topic, it came up a lot).

Anyways, as I recall dude is planning to do the hock in February, so this is basically @benjaminikuta giving us a "he seems to be really going through with it you guys" sort of update.

There's nothing wrong, for example, with having wargaming, Magic The Gathering, and videogames as your main hobbies, but these are not high status activities, and if you lead with these you look like someone who simply doesn't notice what's high status and what's not.

I think you have some valid points in this paragraph, but I think one thing you are overlooking here is that many (myself included, though I'm happily married at this point) explicitly do not want someone who cares about status in the first place. Someone who rejects someone because their hobbies are "low status" is someone I want out of my pool ASAP, because I consider chasing status to be a serious character flaw. So depending on what you are looking for, this item you have listed as a negative is actually a potential positive.

Also I personally subscribe to the theory that you should get the most contentious things out of the way pretty quickly (not on the first date, but within the first few months or so). If something about you is a dealbreaker for someone, no amount of time is going to undo that - so you may as well get it over with and not waste time on a doomed-to-fail relationship. So in that sense I also think "be yourself" is very good advice, because it ensures you aren't faffing about dating someone who is never going to like you anyways.

Nutrition isn’t a serious barrier, so what’s your excuse?

I don't think there's anything immoral about eating animals. I don't need an excuse.

I agree that sex without a condom is better, but let's not go into absurd hyperbole territory here. Sex with a condom is still really good and well worth it.

Nicotine works. Cocaine works.

It's pretty disingenuous to say "we have existing obesity cures that people don't use" and then bring those two up as your examples. You know damn well why people aren't using those things to fix obesity, and it isn't because they prefer things other than thinness.

I agree. People are jumping to conclusions. I have no doubt that Brinton is a thief, but the reasons why he is a thief are unclear at this time. Maybe he has a fetish for stealing women's clothes, as people have suggested. Maybe he wanted the bags to use them. Maybe he wanted the clothes for normal, non-fetish purposes. Maybe he's just a kleptomaniac and steals things compulsively.

The fetish explanation is certainly one possible explanation, but it's not the only one. It isn't even the most likely one, imo. Asserting that we know why this man is stealing bags is premature at this time.

With all due respect, "I do what I want" is not a viable approach to building a quality space. FNE was given a warning, not a ban straight off (presumably because she is a good poster and it wasn't a serious infraction), and that's all that it needed to ever be. It was because she chose to escalate things that she got banned temporarily, and it was perfectly reasonable.

What? No they don't. Only a minority of drivers go that fast anywhere I've lived.

Can't tell if serious security bug, or Zorba is having a schizophrenic moment.

Nobody cares (well, apparently except you) if the Fremen are realistic. They're cool. And for the rest, even if 40k does it more to your liking, the fact remains that Dune did it first and deserves credit for that.

I don’t know why gun rights advocates don’t just admit that yes, if all guns were confiscated and a very strict licensing regime was put in place gun homicides would likely drop substantially.

Because the way politics works in the US, all the nuances and caveats you listed (and which are a key part of your overall point) would go completely unheard by people. We live in the country of the soundbite (not that we are necessarily unique in this, of course). The instant gun rights advocates said "I admit that if all guns were confiscated, murder rates would go down", every single gun control proponent would be writing editorials that said "even gun rights advocates admit gun control works". They would run campaign ads that go "Senator so-and-so admits gun control works (insert sound clip here). Yet he voted down these measures every time, blah blah he is the devil vote for me instead." In short, it would be a complete disaster for gun rights and for the careers of those who advance them. The latter outcome is probably the bigger of the two, of course, since politicians are pretty much the most self-serving creatures in existence. But even people honestly considering the cause of gun rights would have some concern about the former outcome.

It's kind of like when Scott Alexander writes an essay about some controversial topic or other. Every single time, he includes a million lines trying to say "yes, if you take this one sentence out of context it sounds bad but that's not what I'm saying and you fail at reading comprehension if you think that". Every single time, there's at least one person who is unscrupulous enough to take that sentence out of context and use it to demonize him. And every single time, Scott is caught off-guard because he made the mistake of believing he was dealing with people who are acting in good faith. Or at least until he stopped writing about controversial topics (which is probably the right call for him).

So yeah, that's why gun rights advocates don't do what you're suggesting. I'm not saying that's praiseworthy of them, or even that it's merely acceptable in a "I don't like it but I understand" kind of way. Just that's why. The gun rights people are playing politics, and politics is full of flat-out evil people who will twist your words into a weapon against you the instant they can. So they prioritize not giving those people ammunition.

Well no, because the poor effectively wouldn't get taxed (see point 3). But also, I don't really think it's a bad thing if we have a completely flat tax. It's not "regressive", it's fair. It's not a hill I would die on, but I don't think the usual arguments as to why we should tax the poor less are particularly persuasive.

No, that's wrong. Nobody ever wins forever. Your "victory" is really just sowing the seeds of future hatred and violence.

No, not at all. Why would I care if someone thinks that?

I disagree here. It is actually absolutely counterintuitive how shallow the ocean is compared to the surface. Also the whole how thin the crust of the earth actually is.

Also, how many people actually randomly know what the width of the USA is? I certainly don't, and tbh I doubt I'll remember it past 10 minutes from now. It simply is a completely useless fact that has no reason to stick in my brain.

It absolutely is an unreasonable ask when the OP is leading with an unproven, apparently false, argument.

She also doesn't mention Asian people. I think you're reading too much into this. This is standard issue woke signaling, not a serious indication she can't/won't represent the needs of white people. I certainly wouldn't vote for her because I find this sort of thing maximally obnoxious, but I think that your interpretation here is off base.