Take two IMAO fans. They are right-wing, hate commies, etc
One is a former socialist, the other was raised right-wing. Who understands socialism better? Probably the former socialist. He's also more likly to have commie sympathies, but that's another issue.
The point is being a former-X generally means having a pretty good understanding of X. Because actually being X usually means understanding it well.
Now, imagine someone who was a former everything. Every important tradition, he's either a former or current member.
I like composing on AIM.
curi42 (1:40:05 AM): if sum1 gets angry at u (wants to hurt u) then in future interactions u spend creativity trying to avoid this happening again. this creativity doesn't go to progress. and with avg ppl in our society, for just one or two instances of anger, we're talking a large proportion of all the creativity going to the interaction.
curi42 (1:41:52 AM): but that's not the only drain! even if someone has never been mad at you, if you know of any hangups they have (that you don't know how to fix), you get to spend creativity skirting them. any sort of potential meanness or immorality too.
curi42 (1:42:31 AM): this includes things as subtle as if you mention X, person will ask followup questions probably including something about Y, which will be awkward, because either for your own reasons "nevermind" would be hard to say, or b/c person won't stop pushing there.
curi42 (1:43:07 AM): almost all of this work is done inexplicitly. it just comes out as feelings of being uncomfortable with a potential action.
curi42 (1:44:06 AM): in some cases, for example socially akward situations where speaking would be a good idea, this is even known to manifest itself as being at a total loss for words
curi42 (1:45:21 AM): for most of these issues, absolutely the last way to fix it would be to sit in a circle and reveal your most private feelings on the matter. if that was gonna happen, it would only make people far more cautious to avoid issues they aren't comfortable with coming up at all (and thus progress on them happening)
curi42 (1:46:09 AM): but aside from the honesty and caring lefty solution, this problem is barely acknowledged to exist and no solutions are proffered.
to clarify, "absolutely the last way to fix it would be to sit in a circle..." isn't just a huge understatement. doing this would not only not fix it, but would hurt things.
also to clarify, the lefty example is just one example chosen b/c i don't like circle types. the point b4 is general.
PS if the title confuses u, look at the capital letters
was just in an argument with people who think the value of money in the hands of hungry people is more than the value of that money in the hands of rich people. and who think foodstamps are better than monetary charity. they seem to imagine all their charity cases as having American values and being fairly moral people. except people like that don't end up starving. the vast vast majority of starving ppl suck and use resources very badly.
Imagine a man who spends his days trying to get a chance to rape his neighbor's wife or steal something. At dinner, he serves himself first, as much as he likes. Sometimes he takes all the food. His family splits the rest. Half the time he doesn't finish what he takes, and then throws it away. If he catches anyone trying to take his food from the trash, he beats them. Even if he doesn't, he beats his family regularly anyway.
The wife is submissive, uncreative, and supports her husband. She thinks he is a great man and doesn't feel mistreated.
The children will grow up to be just like their parents.
Do you want to give this family charity?
And imagine they get some. It goes to the father buying whores and booze and maybe the odd donation to a nice charity like Hamas.
But that's why it's foodstamps not money, you say?
Well, if the foodstamps provide less or equal food to the current budget, then they just buy that much less, and preso chango the foodstamps are just like money.
What if they foodstamps provide more food than they currently buy? Well first off they stop buying their own food and get that money. Then they could sell the extra, or just throw it out if it's not very much. Or maybe, just maybe, the male kids will get to eat it. Even if they do, how did that help anything? They grow up big and strong to better beat their families and sap Western resources.
BTW it's not hard to imagine people much worse than the ones I described.
Frank,
No moral compass points exactly perfectly straight. We all have some flaws. And also, we all have somewhat *different* sets of flaws.
So when you write about what you're best at, it will help a lot of your readers to improve, and straighten their moral compasses. This applies even if they don't notice, and even if you don't notice.
So know you have done and are doing good, and feel proud.
Posted on IMAO in this thread
this is amusing. It states you must be 18 to use their service, and also states they do not discriminate on the basis of age.
Alcohol cannot have complex effects on human personalities. Just the same as banging your head. Why? Well, the alcohol we drink is one fairly simple molecule. It doesn't have information about human personalities, and thus couldn't target parts of one. And it's not evolved in that regard (no selection pressure).
But couldn't it just happen to be the right thing to have one specific effect?
Well, first off, now you're explaining things by "maybe the world just happens, by luck, to be just the way I thought it was."
And secondly, if it only takes something as simple as alcohol (the molecule isn't many thousands of atoms, just a few) to make people more liable to cheat on their girlfriends, then why haven't we yet designed a chemical to make people act more chaste?
Thirdly, people are very different, and store information in their brains differently. They vary so much as to confuse scientists, so what are the chances a plant happened to grow in a way to work on everyone (including past people, even).
---------
Genes also lack the information to complexly effect one's personality.
Genes also never got a chance to evolve this ability, because once people had personalities and there were selection pressures on them, memes, which evolve much faster, would always do it first thus removing the selection pressure.
And again, it would be quite a huge feat of luck for some gene to just happen to have the right qualities to effect the personalities of many different people.
ok so disney wouldn't distribute moore's movie. said it was un-patriotic. didn't want it.
now it makes money. the lefty news seems to think disney is now mad about missing out on the cash. *ahem*
but it gets worse. they allege the movie is being censored (via an R rating) by angry disney stock owners. who, they implied, were mad for financial reasons.
in other words, the LEFT is so hell-bent on looking at things through the lens of money, that when people do something on principle, they can't see it. and say incoherent things (getting the unfair rating would have had to happen b4 the film made any money.... makes much more sense they censored it b/c they don't like it) when they explanation the right did something bad on principle works so much better (still bad, but much better).
insurance is the exact opposite of gambling, and vice versa
most people think the primary thing about gambling is that overall the casino takes a little of your money. this is true, but not primary.
insurance companies also take a little of your money. but that's ok. insurance is great anyway. most services charge you, so we can't judge gambling that simply.
what insurance does is take a little money from you most of the time (in most universes), but give you a bunch now and then (in a few universes) when (where) you need it most b/c disaster struck. this is great, because it allows you to have a higher minimum quality of life, which is worth the fee, and worth somewhat lowering your max quality of life.
gambling, on the other hand, takes money from you most of the time (in most universes), and gives a large pay out rarely (in a few universes). the basic effect is to make most of your life worse (most universes), but create a few spikes of huge wealth (in a few universes). this is the exact opposite effect that insurance had. this raises the maximum qualify of life you may experience, but at a cost to the minimum.
BTW this mostly applies to gambling that's either high-stakes that you only do a couple times, or to stuff with a very low chance of payout (lottery, maybe slots too, not sure). if you were placing lots of small bets at 49% odds, the effect of gambling would be very minimal, as your luck would almost always average out even within a single gambling session. (so all you'd really be doing is paying the fee to not do much of anything)
when you buy perishable food, you sometimes won't be in the mood to eat it before it goes bad.
when you serve yourself a plate of food, you will sometimes put too little on the plate and get seconds. so too will you sometimes put on too much and throw the excess out.
when you cook, sometimes you will mess up, and the food will turn out gross.
some food you buy just won't be very good quality (like some fruit that turns out mushy or not sweet)
sometimes you won't read the labels closely enough, and will buy the wrong food by accident
sometimes you will make food for someone else, but because of miscommunication it won't be wanted.
sometimes you will start to cook some food, then change your mind about what you want to eat.
when you buy more than a bite of something new, you may not like it, and would thus throw most of it out.
the error rate on all these things goes down with skill. thus younger people, esp young children, tend to have a higher rate of throwing food out.
this is all to be expected. you shouldn't be upset in the slightest if 10% of the food you buy isn't eaten. more if you are young, or have young children, or have many children.
and none of these things qualify as "wasting" food.