YOU made the gambling thread
1 Like
I don't have the time to read your books, I have other things to do, but I looked at the summary via gemini.
My take:
Mutual Aid - hyper focuses on the individual case of survival of the fittest and ironically uses cases such as ants working together in colonies to demonstrate how cooperation is more important than survival of the fittest but never mentions common occurrences when you scale out where ant colonies operate as a single organism fighting against other similar organisms such as other ant colonies. Yet there are also cases of ant colonies working together as well. So there is clearly nuance and it's not so cut and dry. Already this feels like an overly optimistic and simplistic viewpoint, but hey I'm just writing an ancient book before the internet and AI existed so I don't blame the author for their naive/simplistic perspective because their world was much smaller back then when the book was written.
The point being there isn't a definitive 'right answer' or optimal path for surviving, it is whatever presents the best opportunity whether it be through self-preservation or cooperation.
And cooperation requires all parties to partake and be present in the agreement, but what about when there is 1 party which refuses to cooperate, negotiate, or operate in good will? Then we go back to survival of the fittest. Individual humans are the same as ants, we have our own self interest but we abstract and become part of a larger organism. Family, friends, company, nation, etc... And when it comes to shared resources, what if there are disagreements and people refuse to accept the terms or renegotiate?
Theory of Justice - I'm not even gonna address this because it makes me do an eyeroll like when I used to see vendors demonstrating their software working on the perfect, simple setting with perfect data and no anomalies and then when you ask them if they've done testing on the real world they're like well no because we don't have access to data so you give them the data and they come back and bitch how the data isn't perfect to their model i.e. it's not my fault that my software doesn't work on the real world, it's the real world's fault for not fitting my perfect software so they demand you postprocess real world data to fit into their models as a solution rather than redesigning their algorithms to be more robust, like no i'm not gonna account for edge cases, you're going to eliminate all edge cases first and then hand me the data. How's that apply here? Well this theory of justice talking about fair conditions and fair distributions already builds on an arbitrary and untested system/theory like let me just invent some imaginary system and talk about how it will make the world a better place. Please feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood the ideas. :)
2 Likes
Ok, that's strange because I would think that my decisions which caused me to lose money and complaining about myself are exactly the type of things that a person can change about themselves but now you're saying that's not the case? You believe in fate and destiny or something?
That's not what I'm saying at all, but whatever you are the one putting words in my mouth and saying shit like how I think genocide is virtuous so you're clearly not trying to discuss in good faith, you've already made up your mind and immediately take an antagonistic position against anything that does not align with your views by having your brain insert these made up assumptions about my viewpoint (like I think killing innocent people is virtuous? LOL), in order to vilify me so you don't even need to critically consider the ideas being presented and just dismiss it all like 'nah not gonna listen to what a fucking disgusting nazi has to say' so whatever.
I understand lions and humans are not the same, but they still have more similarities than differences and you think just because you can exercise your frontal lobe to process facts and reason, the majority of other humans can do it too? Nah, a lot of humans are probably just as cognitively aware as those lions in a lot of cases and you're just attributing your own humanity/personality towards others you haven't even met because of your own bias just like some people who own a fish tank think their fish swimming up to the top of the tank when they see the owner is a sign of love and not a desire to eat. Believe whatever you want.
1 Like
Majority of humans have lion brain yet I leave my car keys in my car and have never been stolen from
You live in a nice area or you've just gotten lucky, but that case is anecdotal so it doesn't really prove anything anyway and it's not valid IMO to make an assumption based on that experience that expands across all humans.
Your brain is broken
2 Likes
Finally someone properly rebutted the "read a book" argument
This is a great day for NADota and online discussions everywhere.
I missed him saying that. I was going to make a joke about him using ai to summarize it. I am prescient
Its hard to not believe that bitcoin is about to double while spy decreases here
4 litecoin will be worth 1 bitcoin
fsjal.jpg
Doge is coming back in a big way
Go back to your dog house
What the fuck is wrong with you
I mean it is pointless to critique a critique that read a wikipedia paragraph other than the fully developed ideas laid out by the book.
It never says this, no data that, not real. But you don't know that. It is just a convenient way to dismiss things that explain the world better than you can because you don't want to care about genocide.
Should the anglo Californians have finished lynching every last Chinese person? I don't know when your family arrived, but you could be arguing against your own existence.
Whether I exist or don't exist makes no difference, you don't get it. Humans are in no danger of going extinct but yet you seem to have this idea that all (human) life is precious and sacred.
Also comparing Asian immigrants in America to Palistinians in gaza is not remotely similar. Asians did not try to overthrow the government, they did not commit terrorist attacks, they did not try to impose their religion on the locals, they did not try to claim that the land of America belonged to them because the original settlers came from Asia.
BTW What happened to the native American indians? Are they successfully integrated into the rest of the USA or are they all living on their own shithole gaza strips across the USA and nobody is talking about it because the government doesn't allow it and won't let that conversation happen? They got fucking glassed and that's why America is America today.
Also hilarious that you're like you didn't really read the book unless you read the ENTIRE BOOK PAGE TO PAGE but i won't even address any of the ideas you presented and correct you because I CANNOT EVEN FUCKING RECALL THE BOOK I'M TELLING YOU TO READ HAHAHA
HaVe U rEad the BIbLE?