@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

Ah yes, so now if you're single you not only have to deal with the pain of nobody wanting to be with you, but you get punished by the government for not having children. Seems very reasonable and not at all cruel. Not to mention that punishing people for the state of their family is something a tyrant would do, not a reasonable government.

I don't agree with this at all. Leaders should be people who actually have had to deal with the real world that most Americans experience on a daily basis. I don't give a damn about their IQ or their SAT scores.

the shrink usually doesn’t make a claim on 10% of your income.

Good news (pun intended): neither does Christianity. You're encouraged to give what you can, not required to give 10%. 10% is just a decent reference point for "it hurts but is bearable".

I don't personally think that the fertility rate is a problem, so I don't think a solution is needed. But if one is going to try to solve it, punishing childless people is just about the worst way I can think of. Like I said, a lot of people who have no children are that way not by their own choice (infertile or nobody wants to marry them). Punishing those people (who already are unhappy with their situation) is just plain cruel.

Happy Easter to all my fellow Christians ( @urquan and @TheDag are the specific individuals I remember, but I know it's more than just you two :))! It's a great day, death itself is conquered! I hope everyone has a wonderful Easter Sunday.

I have co-workers who rave about ChatGPT, but I don't think it's all that useful. I will occasionally get desperate and ask it something, but most of the time it just makes shit up. That said, there are a couple of use cases that it actually handles well.

  1. When I need to knock out a quick script for something, but I don't want to spend time looking up the APIs to do what I want (or in the case of bash scripts, I can't be arsed to learn the syntax). Easy enough to check its work and it's usually correct.
  2. When I need to find documentation for something, but the documentation is poorly organized (looking at you, AWS). ChatGPT generally gets this right as well and again, it's easy enough to check.

So overall, it is a nice laziness aid in some situations but mostly is pretty useless. I really can't understand the hype around it.

I mean... if we're going to go with the "Christians and other" framing (which we really shouldn't but whatever), it seems to me that it should be "Christians and Protestants". Since Catholicism is both the OG and the largest Christian group.

I'm not competent to litigate the dispute of whether the Catholics split from the Orthodox or vice versa, so I will leave that be. But either way, they are the OG in comparison to the Protestants.

It provides a sense of pride when beating the game. The fact that some people cannot beat the game but you can, is a potential source of pride. If you enable everyone to beat the game, it is gone.

This is, to be blunt, a character flaw and not a good argument against difficulty settings. If your sense of pride in your own accomplishments depends on others not being able to do it, that reflects pretty poorly on you.

I find your other arguments flawed as well (though I don't want to go point by point because I find that kind of obnoxious). I think that the "it doesn't affect you" argument for lower difficulty settings is correct, and that your arguments don't really counter it.

if that is the case then it isn't stupid and probably a message that still needs to get out there.

Unfortunately feminists instantly shout down even the mildest, most sympathetic form of this message as "victim blaming". I've seen it happen many times. The idea that one should take any steps to try to avoid being a rape victim is very much taboo in the public discourse.

I agree. But it's not rape.

This is very simple. If you consent (no matter how ill founded the consent is), then it's not rape. I similarly think that statutory rape is very much not rape, and that the only reason it's called such is because people torture the meaning of words to try to give something moral weight.

One of the problems of American culture (or perhaps even human culture in general) is that people try to make everything maximally bad as a rhetorical tactic. They aren't willing to say "this is bad but not (really bad thing)". Well I'm willing to bite that bullet. If you have sex with someone too drunk to effectively say no, even if you were feeding them drinks to achieve that, it's not rape as long as they consented. We can, and should, frown on and punish that behavior. But it's not rape.

But the failure mode there is that we are liable to deceive ourselves and let ourselves off the hook too easily if our only standard is subjective difficulty.

That, too, is a character flaw. It's honestly not that hard to set reasonable standards for yourself which are genuinely challenging to you. If someone is lacking in character such that they aren't willing to do that, then there's nothing you, I, or anyone can do to help them.

We aren't talking about economic value here. We're talking about the virtue of overcoming challenges, which is not limited, and in no way requires an external reference.

Yes, because they didn't consent.

No, of course not. I frankly am surprised you think I said that, because I was very clear that we should punish someone who gets a girl drunk just to have sex with her. Just because something isn't rape doesn't mean it's morally permissible.

No it isn't. A person of good character strives to excel because excellence is its own reward, not because they can beat others.

Assuming they can consent, no. It's very bad and should wind you in prison for a long time. But it's not rape, because that word means something specific. "Rape" is not a catch all term for "any evil behavior involving sex".

Then I think your argument isn't very good because virtue is not lessened by lack of scarcity. Almost nobody murders people, but that doesn't mean it's not valuable to refrain from killing. And if someone really struggled with anger issues such that it was a real struggle for them to not get violent with people, I would say they should be proud at their success even though most people find it easy.

Cooking. It's not hard to do, almost everyone can cook to some extent. But when I cook a dish that is challenging (for me), I'm proud of it no matter how easy it would be for most people.

Are you proud of breathing? No, because everyone can do it.

No, it's because it isn't challenging for me. Whether other people can do it doesn't factor in.

Are you proud of knowing how to swim? No, because it's extremely common to be able to swim.

I am in fact mildly proud of knowing how to swim, because it was challenging for me to learn. Less proud because I haven't swam in years and so I've lost the skill somewhat, but I still have reason to be proud of the effort I made.

This is as true for achievements as it is for physical goods.

It's not at all true for achievements.

Are you sure that your sense of pride is completely independent of your environment?

Yes, of course I'm sure. The pride is in the challenge I overcame, not because it makes me better than anyone else.

That's certainly an edge case. But I don't think it invalidates my position.

If you can't decouple your sense of moral outrage at bad acts from a discussion over what words mean, you're going to have a real bad time on this forum. My position here isn't even that spicy. We have a guy who literally argues for pedophilia being OK, we have people who think that the Jews are to blame for everything, etc. Saying "I think x act is immoral but it doesn't fall under the definition of y" doesn't even register compare to some of the arguments here.

This is exactly right. I think that if an adult has consensual sex with a teenager, that's not OK (with various edge cases as we know from statutory rape laws). I think if anyone talks a 9 year old into having sex with them, we should lock them up and throw away the fucking key. But it's important to maintain the meanings of terms, so I think they should be under different laws than rape because they aren't the same.