Everyone gets the life they deserve. The question is not why you have such a terrible life, but why you are such a terrible person to deserve such a terrible life. If you're not enjoying the life you've made for yourself, then perhaps it's time to become a better person? Just a thought. Feel free to fester in your own misery, though, if that's what blows your hair back.
>>28764379
Thanks Ayn Rand
>>28764379
whaddup eith the normalfags hanging out here lately tbqh familio
>>28764544
I'm starting to decode the lingo here. "Normies' and "normalfags" are apparently anyone who takes responsibility for themselves.
>>28764584
DELET THIS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
FUCK OFF BACK TO PLEBBIT BITCH FAGGOT!
>>>>r/delusional
>>28764668
Hey, it's no skin off my back if you want to sit in your own filth for the rest of your life and complain that no one has changed your diaper for you. It's YOUR life. The world isn't fair. No one ever promised you the world would be fair. If you want to deliberately inflict misery on yourself to protest an unfair world, who is going to care except you? I sure don't.
>>28764584
There's no da vinci code here, just a cesspool of autism
>>28764767
>doesn't care
Gee ur such a gud person :)
>>28764830
So what are you going to do about it, Melvin? Cry? Boo hoo, the bad man on the Internet doesn't care about me. Fill another pissjug with used Code Red and stick in La BlIue Girl until the big bad bully goes away and you can get back to shitposting about how all women owe you a blowjob.
>>28764879
and what do you propose these people do, besides put forth an earnest effort?
I'm alone, and the complete opposite of miserable.
Subhuman normies truly are laughable.
The key really is to bee yourself instead of "improving yourself" aka code for "BE LIKE US OR FUCK OFF". Wanna know why you fucks are miserable? Even if you try to change, you will still remain in your place. Trying to change for others is the worst thing you could ever do.
Bee yourself even if it means being alone, and learn to find happiness in it. Or be a dumb fuck like the rest, normies and failed normies alike.
>>28765141
Not one of these people has EVER "put forth an earnest effort" or they wouldn't be in the situation they are. The whole reason they're losers is not because they're fat or ugly or stupid or poor; there are plenty of people who overcome much worse challenges every day. The reason they're losers is because THEY DON'T FUCKING TRY. They failed a couple of times, then folded like a lawn chair and said, "oh well," and went back to jerking off to traps and My Little Ponies. And now they spend all their time blaming other people because they're too lazy to keep trying.
>>28765252
I've always wished I could tailor my personality to fit everyone's ideal person profile, but it's futile. Seems no matter what you do there's individuals who will find you unsavory, and that's alright. So what should your resolve for it be, to tailor your personality so that it appeals to the broadest possible audience or for the ones you love most? Beee yourself no matter the cost? I never have answers, only a bunch of questions that borderline on rhetorical.
>>28765268
I agree. Except for
>or they wouldn't be in the situation they are
The same situation, no. But there are so circumstances that are out of your control, as long as you put the effort forth I can't find a valid reason for faulting yourself. I say that with the admission that all my nonexistent misery IS self inflicted and that it really is my fault.
>blaming other people because they're too lazy to keep trying
I'm not sure whether it's laziness, lack of motivation, disillusionment. I do know that if it's results you're looking for a can do attitude will get you further than anything else. Get with the program, if you will.
>>28764379
Posting for the truth
>>28764379
THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE
selfish vapid cunts all of them
>>28765753
>>28764379
Maybe if that fat fuck would get his own body in order before harassing other human beans he would get a hand drawing.
Fucking fatties, thinking they can do anything they please.
>>28764379
>2016
>Not conversing with your misery on the reg
I talk to my misery all the time
https://youtu.be/ptlrWKUkdmo
>>28765616
Tailor your personality so it fits the only person who will ever really matter.
You.
You donkey.
People come and go. But if you will be content and happy with yourself, you will be fine whether you are alone or surrounded by hubris.
>>28765794
>>28765873
he's an autograph hunter. He stalks celebrities at the airport then sells the signed shit on ebay.
Define "better person"
Also that implies that good people always get good lives and bad people always get bad lives, and that's obviously not the case. It's called a just world FALLACY for a raisin.
>>28765268
It never stops being convenient to blame all that's wrong with the world on the world's laziness, does it? Cry out 'stop being lazy, people' from time to time and be absolved of all further responsibility, have your conscience acquiesced, feeling that you've done your part. So easy, so simple, nearly enviable.
>it's a "People actually believe the Just World fallacy" episode
Fuck off normalshits
>>28765984
>Its a "anon gets baited with the same thread over and over" episode
I want this rerun to stop airing
>>28765961
>>28765984
You know, there's a middle ground between "everyone always gets everything they deserve" and "no one ever gets anything they deserve." The just world fallacy doesn't say there's no connection between what you do and what you get, just that it isn't ALWAYS the case. But then, I wouldn't expect you to understand logic, given that this is really about just finding justification for continuing to do absolutely nothing for yourself and then blaming everyone else for not catering to your whims.
>>28765915
The great thing about this mentality is that when you start being awkward in a situation or feel like the other person is creeped out... Well that's not your problem, that's the other persons problem.
Me? I didn't do anything to be awkward, must be your world view. Sucks to be you, I'm over here relaxed and amused
>>28766279
Middle ground, sometimes relevant as it is, doesn't mean that a half-applied fallacy, such as yours, is half-acceptable. It is not acceptable at all. Your fallacy is that you posit dependence of quality of life on the individual's own choices, which elucidates no causal relationships between QoL and nature and nurture and contributes to a society in which those aren't studied. Motivational exhortations such as 'stop being lazy' are not nearly as effective at improving the society's lives, productivity, happiness, creativity, as improving the neurological factors at play, e.g. via genetic modification, surgery, or medicine. And even improving the environmental factors, such as upbringing and schooling, require disavowal of personal responsibility. Insofar as you allow for existence of personal responsibility for one's life, there are causal influences on one's life that you refuse to acknowledge and, therefore, potentially improve. Opening the full range of causal relationships to scientific study and amelioration requires full rejection of agency and self-determination.
>>28764379
To some degree this is true. But it looks like you believe in the 'just world hypothesis' which is a lay theory explaining away why some people are in bad situations in order to justify and valid yourself and give you a greater sense that you have power in this world and more control and the world is essentially a good place.
>>28764379
>I have a good life
>I totally deserve this (sic)
>I totally earned this through my lifestyle and choices (top fucking kek)
>other people have a bad life
>they don't deserve anything, only I do
>they made bad choices, it's their fault
>they didn't try as hard as I did (lol), it's their fault
>I'm scared of the possibility that life is random
>I'm in denial because accepting the concept of an unfair world would mean I'm a worthless little cunt that thrived on daddy's money, expoiting others and luck
>>28766628
This. Self-determination is basically a great equalizer. It endows everyone with the same magical, spiritual kernel of agency, 'you, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, can change your life', so that the infinite differences are dismissed. It's basically the way to simplify the world, so not to have to think about it and the problems it poses.
>>28766628
>>28766661
You're the cancer which is infecting r9k. If I could, I'd kill you. You deserve death. Through your actions here, you are hurting real people by convincing them that nothing is their fault or responsibility. I wonder how many robots have committed suicide because of the lies you spread here.
>>28766963
It's okay to be angry. It's a natural response when shown your worldview is wrong.
>>28766963
Every time you claim that 'a person is responsible for their lives' and that 'they should try harder', you diminish the likelihood that they one day realize that it's not an effective way to help people's suffering, that such exhortations in practice fall on deaf ears, and that the only substantial way to help people is working at the basics: better education, better medicine, better living standards, early identification of genetic indicators of poverty and violence and such.
>>28767054
Eat a dick, choke on it, and die. You deserve your life of misery. I only wish it was worse.
>>28767098
Your aggression, leading people to associate it with people who posit self-determination and who neglect study of nature and nurture as can reveal real causes of people's suffering, is actually helpful through discrediting you in their eyes. Therefore it's only desirable that you be aggressive.
>Everyone gets the life they deserve
>he still believes what his mom told him
>>28767156
It's not that. It's just it's a free blamecard. You can blame whosoever ever claims that your life depends on anything but yourself for 'cowardice'. It's fun.
>>28767269
>>28767156
I mean:
>'I've been insulted and I feel bad.'
>'SUCK IT UP COWARD!!!'
>'I'm ill and the pain is awful.'
>'WHAT A BITCH COWARD!!!'
>'I'm failing my studies.'
>'CRY MORE COWARD!!!'
Rather than trying to prevent the slander by the insulter, look for best medicine, or find better text books/sites. That's why Buddhists are so hell-bent on saying 'focus on your own perceptions and emotions'. Because it shifts the blame onto the sufferer and keeps attention away from the issue.
>>28767331
In other words, people who behave like this refuse to tackle the general problem.
>>28764379
You're right, OP! You've figured out what I've spent five years of my life trying to! It's all just because I'm lazy!
It isn't my severe depression that keeps me from going outside! Of course not! That and the suicidal tendencies are just me being LAZY! The crippling anxiety that prevents me from having meaningful relationships or prolonged conversations, even with my own FAMILY, that's just me not wanting to change and become a better person!
Or maybe, just maybe, you need to realize that not everything is like your mom fucking told you when you were five, and not everything is fucking black and white. Not everyone can fucking help who they are, and not everyone can change it.
>>28767420
Stop being a lazy coward grasping for excuses.
>>28767436
Gotta love these short, angry replies these long and thought out posts get.
>>28767436
>having severe mental illnesses means nothing
>normalfags are this stupid
Fuck off back to pleddit, you faggot.
>>28767331
>>28767054 is right, everything is determined by your upbringing and some genetic, but mostly upbringing. my parents poor choices in life got me to where I am now and I was powerless to change the outcoming. I can track the exact moment parts of my life went to shit, even 10 years before I was born. Of course I will never tell them that, because they "tried their best to raise me a good person". well good job you got a weak beta at the bottom of the social ladder.
>>28767436
continue repeating meaningless buzzwords to make yourself feel good
>>28767462
>>28767467
>>28767480
>implying I'm not SEVERELY EXTREMELY ABSOLUTELY TRANS-POLY-FLUID-EXISTENTIALLY depressed, anxious, self-loathing, self-hating, self-abhorring, and also shy
But unlike you, I realize that it's all in my head and still get out of my bet. Boo fucking hoo.
>>28767515
>out of my bet
*bed, shit
Sometimes my depression gets so bad I make typos.
>>28764379
And when complete and utter cunts, totally horrible and reprehensible people, have perfect lives? What then? They deserve it, do they?
There is no karma. There is no just world.
>>28767515
Doesn't really sound like you have any of those if you can just say "it's all in your head" and ignore them.
>>28767549
I'm depresseder than thou.
>>28767515
Did I say I was half of those fucking retarded tumblrina things? No, I was professionally diagnosed by three different psychiatrists of having severe depression and anxiety. I have two legitimate, crippling mental illnesses that you cannot just fucking "overcome". You obviously don't have either if you can't understand that.
>>28767555
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE DEPRESSION, YOU ARE PROBABLY JUST SAD YOU FUCKING NORMIE, SLIT YOUR WRISTS AND DO THE WORLD A FAVOR AND GET RID OF THE FUCKING IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT ACT LIKE MENTAL ILLNESSES AREN'T REAL
>>28767584
Hey, anon, chill. It's been satire. I decided to drop it now because I don't want to risk genuinely spoiling your evening. Not everyone on /r9k/ is still a 'just fix your life' idiot, yet, don't worry. I've never personally been depressed, but I hope that I understand your plight. Have a nice evening.
>>28767515
>>implying I'm not SEVERELY EXTREMELY ABSOLUTELY TRANS-POLY-FLUID-EXISTENTIALLY depressed, anxious, self-loathing, self-hating, self-abhorring, and also shy
just kill yourself
>>28767616
You liar! You were just trying to steal my precious (you)s!
>>28767651
>implying my motivation wasn't both
>>28764379
As somebody who has had both a horrible life and an amazing life at different times, I can verify that this is not true.
Especially when you're a child. It's just the roll of the dice. The only thing you can do is become financially secure in order to weather any storms as an adult.
>>28764379
Just because someone is less attractive or lacks social skills, that doesnt necessarily mean that said person is evil by nature.
OP' remark reminds me of the talk of the old european aristocracy. They always said that commoners deserved the life they had because they were not cult enough (like they had a choice), in order to justify their position. Look at them now... all gone.
Or maybe (check this out) its op that is scum for he is incapable of putting himself on someone elses shoes, let alone understanding their position, and hes the one who deserves to fester in his own misery.
Let that sink in for a bit.
>>28767725
Aristocracy doesn't exactly 'deserve' its position since free will is not a thing, but they've reached because they won the genetic lottery of intelligence and ambition. The most adventurous chiefman would set out on a raid, if he was smart, he would out-tactic the other tribe and get loot. If he was still smart about it, he'd invest it wisely into administration, and so on... the ruling caste forms naturally out of the smart and the undertaking (only one of those is never either enough or sufficient).
>>28767786
>never either enough or sufficient
I meant just, *enough... was thinking about necessary/sufficient and miswrote
>>28767786
They didnt won any genetic lottery. If you see their lineage what you have is a a group of dubious ability, due to both their ignorance of the commoners lives and their own consanguinity after years of forced marriages, whose position rested in the shoulders of their ancestors. Hence their fall.
>>28767786
That's the first generation of a new ruling caste you're thinking of. The ones who rise to power after some catastrophe wipes out the previous ruling caste. The second generation, their kids, are born into it and are spoiled. They're not skilled or smart and often they fuck up and destroy whatever their parents built.
The aristocracy that formed across Europe was horrible. Full of morons and legitimately insane people. They stayed at the top purely due to what their ancestors built.
Every so often a smart one would come along, though. That one would take up responsibility and make some reforms and go down in history as a great person.
>>28767849
>>28767890
Obviously intelligence/stateruling ability can degenerate in one particular dynasty, no one denies that, but if you notice the bigger picture, this only proves my point. Who always replaces a degenerating line? Intelligent/ambitious courtiers, OR intelligent/smart leaders of neighbouring states, OR intelligent/ambitious commercial or media agents perhaps, if we're talking about this kind of tacit power. Being the actual stringpuller ALWAYS comes to IQ.
'They stayed in power only owing to their successors' successes' isn't really true. Of course there can be some dynastic inertia so to say, but as soon as a ruler really deviates from the cognitive requirements so to say, deposition one way or another is imminent.
>>28764379
Nobody deserves anything. You're born with a body, raised by a society, and any change you exert on your living conditions is exerted by this body as shaped by this society. You are not responsible for what you are. Nobody is. The insane homeless person is not. Chad is not. The single mom raising 3 kids from 3 dads is not. We are as responsible as apes, as dogs, as flies, as trees, as dust. We just are.
>>28767933
>>28767849
>>28767890
That said, I agree that would be immensely entertaining to test the IQs of various past dynasties and see the correlations between the state's military, economic, social, ... indicators.
>>28767933
So the majority of them are born into and did nothing to deserve it. So they get to live lives of fantastic luxury, doing whatever they want. And whatever they want could typically wind up being quite cruel and involving some serious abuse of those the put beneath them.
>>28767969
*between individual rulers' intelligence and the...
>>28767934
I agree, but you really should know better than to voice this as directly if you're not underage.
>>28767987
Again, I agree with >>28767934 in that nobody deserves anything, but let me point out that even a incompetent, revolted-against, overtaxing ruler would still probably outsmart me on an IQ test.
>>28764379
Nah you're pretty much spot on. I figure my self-loathing is based at least somewhat on reality so hating myself is justified especially when I never find the courage to change my life in any meaningful way.
>>28767934
Recipe for being a lazy, spineless, uncaring, stupid, ignorant schlump. In other words, you're a perfect robot. Continue frogposting and then die unloved and unlamented.
Point is: peasants didnt lived like that because they "deserved" or because they were inherently evil or dumb. Even "smart" traders required permition from the local lords to conduct business. They were in that situation becauset their elite forced them to.
In our original subject, people here cant date not because they are scum or just have low IQ (it could be, but its not always the case). They are, for most part, just ugly or lack social skills because they didnt have enough opportunities or they just had one hell of a life.
>>28768145
Why must you be so upset over these things anon? All you do is spout slurs and insults.
>>28768198
It's just naive 'if u disagree with free will u look like this' (remember this from the fedora pic?) attempt to embarrass us through association. He knows that many people who reject it are exceptionally accomplished, if not more accomplished than believers in it.
>>28768017
Due to them having access to better education? In some cases, yeah. But keep in mind that the main thing those high-class private schools do is help forge connections and networks. If you went to private school then you will be prioritised ahead of other people going for certain jobs, regardless of how well you did in that school.
>>28768264
>'if u disagree with free will u look like this'
(Of course, it's actually 'if u disagree with ME u look like this', but that's another story.)
>>28767934
Yeah but you still need to try to have some values and standards. Morals and ethics and all that.
>>28768297
Nonexistence of free will doesn't make morality disappear. You still have to act morally, you just can't blame people who don't -- which is only the better, considering that this leaves you with personal responsibility to ensure that they change.
>>28768354
>>28768297
In other words, morality itself dictates that we reject free will.
>>28768354
>>28768383
I think we have us an anti-budda boys.
>>28764379
Yeah, that is why rape and murder shouldn't be punishible. They got what they deserved :^)
Fuck off back to whatever hole you came from with your just world delusion.
Out of curiosity. The guy on op's pic: did he wanted the autograph to sell to others or was he really a fan? lol
>>28768518
is he back?
>>28767993
>I agree, but you really should know better than to voice this as directly if you're not underage.
Well I don't. What do you mean?
>>28768145
>Recipe for being a lazy, spineless, uncaring, stupid, ignorant schlump.
I'm actually married, have a PhD, friends and am on good terms with my family. I also read a lot of philosophy in my spare time though.
>>28764379
It sure is normalfag in here. No one "deserves" anything.
>>28768518
Please provide a counterargument to the fact that rejection of free will entails impossibility of shifting the burden of ensuring a state of affairs to another person, 'if they want to be happy, then they should just make themselves happy', instead entailing necessity of ensuring it myself ('if I want them to be happy, I must work myself at providing them the living situation, knowledge, and means to, because they have no agency in which I could trust and their brains are constantly vulnerable to exhaustion and resignation wrought by external factors, which it is my responsibility to counteract').
>>28768612
he has the same BLARGH THERES NO FREE WILL BLARGH BLARGH hysteria and he follows up to himself so yeah i think it's antibudda
>>28768297
Normatively speaking? Or is that an utilitarian statement?
>>28764544
This is far from a mainstream philosophical stance. If it was, leftism would be extremely unpopular.
>looking for more robot philosophy
>bump
>>28769473
Robot philosophy is pattern recognition, wondering 'why' and 'what if'. This corresponds to rejection of free will, emotional indifference, and looking into things' causes and consequences instead: 'why did he do that?'. Normal philosophy is reaction, emotion, and belief in free will: 'that asshole, he did it because he wanted to do it, I'm gonna...'.
>>28764379
That isn't even ugly,almost good looking,if only he lose a (quite) a bit of weight.
>>28768791
Dunno, m8. Just saying don't behave like an animal. Don't maim or kill just because you're angry, don't fuck or rape just because you're horny, don't run away just because you're scared, etc. You know, we're animals but don't just act on the emotion at the time. We're better than that.
Don't live in the moment. That's what mindless beasts do. We have codes, standards and ideals.
>>28764379
My life sucks and I ate agree. Every robot here probably deserves the misery we put ourselves through.
>>28769518
>>28768944
As it were, if you believe in free will, your dissatisfaction at somebody's behaviour hits squarely at the imaginary agency of that person that you see in them, and produces a feedback of indignation, rather than dissipating gently into the infinity of causes that had effected that behaviour.
>>28769599
> We have codes, standards and ideals.
We do, as a matter of fact, have standards and ideals, and follow them in our behavior. To most philosophers, however, the interesting question is if there is any objective justification for morals, or if they are just subjective beliefs.
>>28769676
Morality is subjective in the sense it'll be divisive whether, say, shoplifting to give a hungry, but not really starving nor homeless, kid an apple is okay or not, but some things like 'tell the truth' or 'define your terms' yield pretty well to objectivization as proper.
>>28769718
>Morality is subjective
>some things like 'tell the truth' or 'define your terms' yield pretty well to objectivization as proper.
So what is it?
Also, aren't you a bit overconfident, considering philosophers have been trying to tackle the question for ages?
>>28769749
I didn't say they are objective. I'm inclined not to define them as such, so to keep my worldview parsimonious, containing as little as possible. What I hinted at, granted carelessly, was the human tendency to codify things as OBJECTIVELY x (e.g. 'right' or 'good') just because I feel so.
>>28769676
I would like to think there is an objective justification. Perhaps something like the best way for us to work together and advance as a species is to hold similar ideals.
>>28769801
Except that it's a non-sequitur to define something as objectively right just because it advances the species (or even all species ever). If it's been found to advance the species, then it's all fine, but that's all that can be said about it. We must keep ourselves from gratuituously adorning our concepts with terms such as 'objectively...' -- that's religion.
>>28769841
>gratuituously
Shit, misspelled after all. I'm cutting myself too much slack recently Google-wise. Sage.
>>28769841
Fair enough. After all, only a sith deals in absolutes.
>>28769883
>only a sith deals in absolutes
Or at least some do. Cheers.
>>28769801
That's very different; because it only works out as objective if you can show that "working together", or a consequence of working together, is objectively more moral.
>>28769788
You don't have to use so many big words, we're all friends here.
I'm not sure what the content of your post is though - you're saying, you wouldn't claim they're objective, but you observe that people tend to treat them as such, and talk of them as if they were. I guess that's true, but it's not a particularly philosophical insight isn't it?
>>28769676
Morals are subjective. Next question?
>>28766963
>people born with genetic disorders that eat away at their ability to walk
>people born into piss poor households
>life is what you make of it, just B urself
>dude just make the best of a bad situation lmao
you are scum
>>28769930
>You don't have to use so many big words, we're all friends here.
I'm consistently surprised by people's attribution of my choice of words to desire to impress/downtalking.
>>28769930
>it's not a particularly philosophical insight isn't it
It's not, but maybe it has some neurological value. Maybe we can use it to isolate the brain malfunction that makes some people speak of 'God being the transcendental absolute encompassing all possibility of...' instead of real things. Religiosity is genetic after all.
>>28764379
Everyone gets the life they deserve.
Absolute bullshit, get a grip you fucking moron and fuck off with your just world crap
>>28770016
>implying OP doesn't deserve the flak he's getting ITT
>>28769958
A lot of very smart people would disagree. What makes you so confident you know better than them?
>>28769996
>It's not, but maybe it has some neurological value. Maybe we can use it to isolate the brain malfunction that makes some people speak of 'God being the transcendental absolute encompassing all possibility of...' instead of real things. Religiosity is genetic after all.
Here I'm an optimist for once: Man's tendency to believe in gods doesn't strike me as a great riddle. We have brains that are very well equipped for dealing with persons and single causes, and creating in- and outgroups, as that was what survival in the savannah depended on. Scale it up, and you have religion. I don't see a big riddle.
>>28770032
>A lot of very smart people would disagree. What makes you so confident you know better than them?
That's an appeal to authority and to ignorance at the same time.
>>28770032
>in- and outgroups
Yes, I know that one aspect of the concept of 'God' is just an analogy, 'my spear : me :: the world : ?', but I'm more interested in isolating the linguistic reason that religious people, druggies, etc. come with their word salad. You can take any other concept, such as 'reality is an illusion' or 'consciousness permeats...' and you'll get the same kind of conviction that refers to nothing. It's pretty important that we remove it from society.
>>28770075
...or at least demonstrate that it's just a neurological artifact, so that no attention is paid to it and no time and efforts consumed by engaging it.
>>28770075
>That's an appeal to authority and to ignorance at the same time.
It's a plea for modesty.
>>28770130
All of our beliefs are "neurological artifacts", including all of maths, or the idea that neurons fire in patterns to represent facts. Some represent the world well, some less so, but that they are running on brain matter is not how they differ.
>>28770027
>implying OP isn't a master baiter
I have no hair, fuck you OP
>>28770228
>It's a plea for modesty.
That's a fucking revolting way to sugarcoat appeal to authority as.
>All of our beliefs are "neurological artifacts"
Mentioning which is about as relevant as saying that since all 4chan posts are rendered using HTML, they're all equally true. Clearly the distinction I'm interested in refers to where they came from, whether they're based on observation or just the fact that some brains get lost in thinking about infinity.
tl;dr stop shitposting.
>>28770822
I'm not saying it's inherently discrediting to your argument that people with PhDs disagree. I'm making a meta statement: if you take a step back, don't you see reason for skepticism?
>Mentioning which is about as relevant as saying that since all 4chan posts are rendered using HTML, they're all equally true
No. It's equivalent to saying that "that the statement 'anon has a little penis' is just rendered HTML says nothing about its truth value".
>Clearly the distinction I'm interested in refers to where they came from, whether they're based on observation or just the fact that some brains get lost in thinking about infinity.
No idea how that relates to 'neural artifacts' ...
I think you like big words too much for your own good. You'd probably get further with a bit more intellectual modesty.
>>28770905
>a bit more intellectual modesty
Translation: 'I want you to stop thinking what you're thinking'.
>>28764409
underrated post. ooohhh boy original comment woowoooo
>>28770934
Indeed. I want you to, instead, wrap everything you're thinking in quotation marks and add: "what have really smart people said about: ..." before.
Engage with their arguments for a bit. Then, come back and see where you end up.
Realizing you were wrong is good. It means you're not intellectually bankrupt yet.
>>28771025
Wow, subtle. You appealed to authority in the first line while cushioning its glaringness by an '...what I actually meant is just to read more of what they have to say' in the next one. I must say this is somewhat new. It's rather rare to see an original manipulator nowadays.
>>28771064
>>28771025
Also, this has almost completely overshadowed its little brother of the classic sufficient/necessary-fallacious 'there is no science without mistakes' (designed to make me question my beliefs without you having to provide counter-evidence, just because of a connotation that 'it's fine to be wrong', so as for it to lead to 'oh okay, perhaps I'm wrong...'). Very nice, too. I foresee a great future for you.
>>28771176
>>28771064
>>28771025
And finally, the little appeal to vanity at the very end is a nice touch as well.
>>28768145
You seem like a fucking ignorant dumbass keep feeding your fucking ego cause it's all you'll ever be egohead
>>28771064
>>28771176
>>28771219
I honestly don't recognize myself in that at all.
>>28771750
Good, that will make your shitposting all the easier.
>>28771761
All of this seems a bit ad hom to me.
All I said was: before you're making such grand claims with great confidence, maybe you should look at the books that have been written about the topic.
>>28771845
>maybe you should look at the books that have been written about the topic
A gratuitous (did I spell it right this time?) tip: the reason you didn't specify exact titles or even a specific # of such books is you need to secure yourself a backdoor whereby to accuse of illiteracy infinitely, without a defined requirement.
>>28771926
I trust in you that you'll find some yourself, and I don't believe I'm necessarily so much better at you than making a decision here - we're all just seekers. If you're much too lazy to google stuff for yourself, I can probably think of some though.
>>28764584
No, not really.
By the way fuck off.
>>28771976
>we're all just seekers
...equalizes literally every peddler of religious bullshit ever. 'I-I might be wrong, but at least we're both equal in we both don't know everything!!!' The last-ditch attempt to connote some sort of self-doubt in the other person, when all else fails.
>>28772024
>>28771976
In other words, you're implicitly hoping for the non-sequitur of inferring from 'we're equal in that we can both we wrong' 'we're equal in that our competence in the matter at hand is equal'.
>>28764379
This is bullshit. I have seen how workers with the same skills get paid 10x more or less depending on country they were born into.
Inequality due to things outside one's control isn't just a meme.
>>28766963
Cognitive dissonance at it's finest right here.
>>28772094
That's not the first time he threated violence on /r9k/ by the way.
>>28772105
>threated
*threatened
>>28772024
>...equalizes literally every peddler of religious bullshit ever.
I was thinking of Popper and Socrates, actually.
Maybe you DO need some book recommendations after all.
>>28772075
>In other words, you're implicitly hoping for the non-sequitur of inferring from 'we're equal in that we can both we wrong' 'we're equal in that our competence in the matter at hand is equal'.
I'm not sure what this means, but probably not.
>>28772153
Reading science teaches philosophy of science infinitely better than reading philosophy of science.
>>28764379
>m-maybe if I cover my mouth and cough people won't think I was trying to talk to her...
>>28772178
>Reading science teaches philosophy of science infinitely better than reading philosophy of science.
That's probably why Kuhn and Popper read so much science. So here's your first book tip: Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; Popper, Conjectures and Refutations.
On the other hand, we're talking about ethics here, which science will, in fact, not teach you.
>>28764668
This is also called "just world fallacy" and "victimblaming".
Basically people are really good at avoiding cognitive dissonance and avoiding depression. People want to believe that the world is just, because otherwise they are prone to become depressed. People avert their eyes from anything that reminds them about the unpleasant truth.
See http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/24/how-bad-are-things/
>>28772265
>Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
The book that made people shift from relying on 'science was wrong before' into relying on 'science was really really really wrong before many many many times'?
>>28772292
>shift from relying on 'science was wrong before' into relying on 'science was really really really wrong before many many many times'?
In fact, I just realized that that shift was nearly paradigmatic.
>>28772292
Structure was interpreted in a stupid way by a lot of (stupid) people, but I am optimistic here and believe that you might take something useful from it.
Take that as a compliment, if you will.
>>28772315
Not really; we have clearly not built a Normal Science on 'science was really really really wrong before many many many times'.
Read Structure, it's a good book. (Although not really about the topic.)
>>28772273
>"victimblaming".
Oh boy, I didn't think I'd see the day where SJWs invaded /r9k/,
>>28772354
>I am optimistic here and believe that you might take something useful from it
'It's not an insult, honest! :^) '
>>28772365
How am I an SJW if I consider /r9k/ victims of modern male-hating society?
>>28770945
>implying robots read books and know who ayn rand is
>>28764379
I know you don't believe this.
Good bait, if nothing else it brings the philoso-fags out of the woodwork.
>>28772386
That's actually genuinely a compliment. I said, stupid people take dumb things from the book; however, I recommend it to you (implying I believe you're not stupid). What are you going on about?
Not meant to disparage your argument, but you seem really bitter and defensive here. I'm not attacking you.
>>28764379
>You were a Chad in another life and weren't humble, now you must suffer as the people you bullied
>You can't escape the cycle by killing yourself, you'll just be reborn as a pig for slaughter because you didn't appreciate life
>You'll keep going lower on the totem pole until enlightenment is absolutely unattainable because of your shitty entitled disposition
>>28772473
>entitled
UOOHHHHHHHHHH YOU SAID THE SECRET WORD
is this another 'if you think happy thoughts you life will get better' thread...a happy hobo on the street is still going to be sleeping in dog piss later on, despite being 'happy'
>>28772354
>>28772451
Also nice 'the book isn't harmful, it's been just misunderstood and misapplied by the majority of its readers' ...*nods to >>28772273*... ...victim-blaming. You blame the 'stupid' readers, rather than blaming the author for producing a hamfisted piece of shit of a book, a haphazard gallery of a couple science's past failures with a final '...that's all I'm saying, now it's your time to connect the dots whether science is really as infallible as you think it is, wink wink, hope you're a rational person capable of critical thought, see ya'.
>>28772554
>>28772451
(Of course in reality, he could hardly be blamed even if free will existed, he probably just needed cash badly.)
>>28772273
Go ahead, be a victim for your entire life. No one will stop you. If you want to spend your entire life blaming everyone else because you're too lazy to fix your own problems, it's entirely up to you. That's the wonderful thing about this world; we all get to live the life we want.
It's just unfortunate that your spineless whining is convincing impressionable young robots in here not to try again.
>>28772438
>ayn rand
A yes-no random number generator?
>>28772594
>>28772554
Sorry, you've lost me with this. It frankly said reads rather paranoid.
>>28772663
'What?! I'm not trying to get off scot-free from implying that you're mentally ill by saying that that mention of paranoia was just a figure of speech! Not at all! What are you, paranoid?'
>>28764379
>Everyone has the same chances and opportunities in life
>up bringing and social circles has no influence on your biology
>everything your parents and the people around them do/did is completely controllable by you from the second you're born and is no different/has no impact on your development
>everything is okay just try harder anon!
nigga pls.
>>28772633
Hey, I thought I'd ask you to address a past post in the thread. It's been a long long time that I did that. Could you please address >>28767331?
>>28772706
I feel somewhat reinforced in my suspicion that you are rather overconfident. For example, here you seem to attribute some thought to me, if I'm reading this correctly? If yes, then: I do not even understand what you're saying, but I really don't find myself in it, so if you're trying to predict what I'm saying, you're way off.
Well, this has been a tremendously unproductive discussion.
>>28772633
are you really that naive to think we arent the product of our environmnts and upbringings? we turned out like this because there is no other way we could have turned out. we are the sum of our past experiences and knowledge. we cant be any more or less. the phrase "people get the lives they deserve" is bullshit, it implies that karma is real.
>>28772786
>somewhat reinforced
>somewhat
LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME I'M SO SELF-QUESTIONING AND SELF-DOUBTFUL IMITATE ME IMITATE ME DOUBT YOURSELF AS WELL
>>28764379
>Everyone gets the life they deserve. The question is not why you have such a terrible life, but why you are such a terrible person to deserve such a terrible life.
I agree.
>>28772813
Well, not necessarily that self questioning. It can become a bit cumbersome. There is a healthy balance here though.
>>28772814
Anon anon, OP will just 'it was obviously a figure of speech' backpedal. Literally all connotative, hyperbolic phrasings are going to be retrospectively redefined as 'innocent rhetorical flourishes of speech'. How new are you?
>>28772633
>we all get to live the life we want.
Stopped reading there.
You are naive as fuck.
>>28772813
You should question and doubt yourself, you bluepilled ignorant normie.
That doesn't mean you should constantly feel like shit about yourself but you shouldn't just ignore everything that isn't positive reinforcement. That'd be arrogant and unproductive.
>>28772860
See >>28772851.
OP doesn't give one fuck about convincing anyone of the literal layer of his threads. He's operating wholly on the connotative level; he exclusively aims for you to think *minimally* less in terms of nature and nurture, so that you no longer relate your behaviour to nature/nurture, but instead are *minimally* more likely to dumbly exhort your friends and such. It's gradual.
>>28772868
>You should question and doubt yourself
I'm pretty sure that this has literally never been said otherwise than as an appeal to ignorance.
>>28772868
In that guy's defense: I'm the poster that guy's arguing against, and I'm rather bluepilled, by this board's standards.
>>28772932
That's stupid. People say that all the time in other contexts than appeals to ignorance, such as me ITT.
You and I agreed on X, I just brought up a note of concern: a lot of smart people have argued about X for a long time, so our confidence about the state of X should not be too great. This is clearly not an appeal to ignorance.
Again, my verdict is overconfidence.
>>28772932
If you didn't doubt yourself you wouldn't be able to improve yourself because you'd believe you're perfect. Doubting yourself doesn't matter as long as you still do whatever you were planning to do.
If you didn't question yourself you might think all of your actions and thoughts perfectly ok, correct, and fine. Which is not always true. You are sometimes wrong, and this includes your opinion on yourself.
You need these doubts to accomplish what the OP wants, improvement.
I believe you can change yourself for the better despite your genetics and upbringing, but acting as if they have no impact on your happiness is just straight retarded.
>>28764379
horoscope-readin mouth-breather
>>28773032
>a lot of smart people have argued about X for a long time, so our confidence about the state of X should not be too great
Wrong. Claimer's intelligence is not a criterium of the claim's trustworthines -- ...trustworthiness (strictly speaking, having had other studies by the person/institution replicated) is.
That's not even to mention that we're not discussing empirical findings even, but free will, which is essentially giving a huge finger to science as a whole.
>>28773090
Another retard who confuses questioning oneself with SAYING (note the phrasing of my post) 'question yourself'. Questioning yourself, and teaching to do it, is vital, but it must only be taught by examples (as banal as even this very one, where I indicate a distinction between x and *saying* x). When someone says 'be critical', you can be sure that they only say that because they are aware of no particular applications of that mindset.
>Everyone gets the life they deserve.
Prove it.
Oh wait, you can't, because it's a lie.
>>28773663
It's not a lie strictly speaking. OP's just going to say 'the "everyone" was clearly an exaggeration', then refuse to acknowledge that 'your life depends on you' is not even wrong because there's no way to devise a study verifying it.
>>28773681
...At which point future is hazy: he might take the 'what I meant by "yourself" is neurological measurements of stubbornness and such' backpedalling route, or the 'not everything can be made into a study' religious route.
>mfw OP's word literally carry no meaning
babby's first philosophy.
>>28773681
>It's not a lie strictly speaking. OP's just going to say 'the "everyone" was clearly an exaggeration'
An exaggeration is often pretty much a kind of lie.
>then refuse to acknowledge that 'your life depends on you' is not even wrong because there's no way to devise a study verifying it.
"studies" aren't the only way of proving things. Sound rationalistic arguments are another way (although their premises may end up referring to studies)
>>28773681
It's funny how someone who runs around like a headless chicken, shrieking "FALLCY FALLCY FALLCY SQUAAWWWWK!", constantly straw-mans all over the place like a fundie christer.
>>28773731
wow
wowblox
>>28773718
>"studies" aren't the only way of proving things.
Except they are in the realm of human behaviour, which is physical to the core -- unless you're going to arbitrarily posit an exemption for human beings, that 'human behaviour is self-originating because magical manifest human destiny, and as such even as it is related to nature/nurture, we can still DEFY IT'... which is the very problem with this thread. Embrace of free will is not wrong, but not even wrong.
>>28773842
>>28773718
Also kudos for me for predicting your pseudopoint in >>28773704.
>>28773842
>>28773718
In other words, I could make a thread about fucking algae 'getting the life they deserve, and their future being exactly what they choose to do, and the necessity that they take responsibility for their growth', except people for evolutionary reasons cultivate the notions of their agency a bit more strongly than that of marine lifeforms, whence the 'how can you compare...?!?!'.
>>28773623
>Claimer's intelligence is not a criterium of the claim's trustworthines -- ...trustworthiness (strictly speaking, having had other studies by the person/institution replicated) is.
This isn't about trust. It's about doing your homework.
People have written about this. Before having a strong opinion, you should read the literature.
>That's not even to mention that we're not discussing empirical findings even, but free will, which is essentially giving a huge finger to science as a whole.
I'm not sure what this means, but I'll just make a confident prediction here and claim you've not read Peter Strawson, Galen Strawson, Robert Kane, Harry Frankfurt, Eddy Nahmias, nor Benjamin Libet, Patrick Haggard, Michael Shadlen.
>>28772008
Solid argument friendo.
>>28773922
>This isn't about trust. It's about doing your homework.
'This isn't about (dropping a random term from my post), it's about (sounding sternly).'
> Peter Strawson, Galen Strawson, Robert Kane, Harry Frankfurt, Eddy Nahmias, nor Benjamin Libet, Patrick Haggard, Michael Shadlen
I hope that you did run a /[A-Z][a-z]+ [A-Z][a-z]+/ regex to harvest those from that page... did you?
>>28774005
>I hope that you did run a /[A-Z][a-z]+ [A-Z][a-z]+/ regex to harvest those from that page... did you?
What page? I picked them from memory. (I had to google how to spell Eddy's last name though, and I had forgotten Haggard's and Shadlen's first names.)
>'This isn't about (dropping a random term from my post), it's about (sounding sternly).'
Well, have you done your homework? Have you read any of these people, or anybody else who's written important stuff on the subject?
I wouldn't put having squinted at some Dennett from a distance before above you, actually. Maybe a bit of Sam Harris.
>>28772900
Is OP of the semitic disposition?
So where do the roughly 6 million north koreans who are ignored by their government's census and left to starve with the threat of life imprisonment or death if they make themselves known factor into your worldview?
>>28774150
Karma. The big wheel keeps on turning.
>>28774128
At the risk of him saying that I 'stalk' him again (though that hasn't happened for a long time, him seeming to have been since content to call me mentally ill), I'm going to tell you he's Canadian.
>>28774150
'If you can't even tell a slight rhetorical hyperbole, then you're clearly not the kind of person this thread is addressed to.'
>>28774226
>I 'stalk' him
>>28774358
So basically, >>28774128, you can search for this image in the archive -- unless OP has been altering it to change the hash, though I doubt it -- and see what kind of discussions he posts it.
>>28774397
*in
inblox
>>28774397
>>28774358
Also I just thought, it would be pretty hilarious if the exclamation marks weren't there for faux 'importance' of the message, but for OP to find it easily.
>>28774481
Take your meds, Casimir.
>>28774516
Nice guess, but that name is pretty aged by now, mostly had by 50-60-year-olds by this point I think.
>>28774557
>>28774516
That said, I recently realized it can't be ruled out that OP will one day set out to 'inform' /r9k/ about another poster who speaks against his agenda, and I probably shouldn't reply to him just as lightly as I would or I risk trivializing him to observers.
>>28774599
(After all, he *did* literally issue a death threat in >>28766963, and it would be pretty unfortunate to imply through overly light spirits that he's not as dangerous as he at times seems.)
>>28764379
>Everyone gets the life they deserve
except when your a dindu right normo?
>>28764879
no one wants your help faggot, let us complain.
>>28772633
gotta love when these sheltered, pampered normies who where handed everything, egg on about how virtuous they are. Dude, even if you believe we are responsible for our own shit lives, you know that you still had/have it better then 99 percent of the world simply because you're western right?
you didn't do shit to get where you are and neither did I.
>>28772633
haha holy fuck stfu dude
>we all get to live the life we want
we literally DO NOT get to do that, we get to move the needle a little a tiny bit in one direction based on the predetermined patterns that lead to us screaming and crying from the womb one day; the shit you are saying is so detrimental to human progress because it pressuposes that everything it up to the individual when it just is not the fucking case. At all.
Who's going to have a better life, the person born into povery and mental illness, or the person born into mass wealth and family structure?
Of course people can and should strive to improve themselves, but shut the FUCK up when people come to vent because they can't. It is absolutely possible that some people cannot, and will not EVER improve their lot ON THEIR OWN, and people like you, and the thinking you have makes it WORSE, because people will not come together on a societal level to fix it if they believe it is the individual's "fault"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
It's too bad everyone in here is a meat machine and so is incapable of learning basic psychology.
I always try to be nice with people, partially because I am not really outgoing and I don't try to engage in confrontation.
But really for me....I don't care how cute or handsome you are if you act mean to someone or look down on people in face to face situations and it's completely uncalled for you look ugly.
>>28776666
If a 'psychologist' thinks that self-consciousness isn't predetermined, he would be a disgrace for his profession...had it not been already disgraced beyond repair. An average STEM undergrad has more psychological insight than a psychology postgrad.
>>28776764
Satanic quints says you're an idiot.
>>28776794
What quints? Even quads were a post before, you singleton.
>>28767420
Oh God, another of those "muh fee-fees" faggots. Depression isn't real, stop being a fucking loser.
>>28776979
Right, and bait isn't real either, and you totally posted that post in earnest.
>>28777013
Bait is real, but that wasn't bait, you beta.
