Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Radio Controlled]

If I steal somebody's arm, they'll be motivated to get a new one, and the overall increase in the number of arms will increase productivity and economic growth.

My God, Ayn Rand was right!

As examplified in her famous quote "An arm for an arm will make the whole world RICH RICH FILTHY RICH!"

[Flying Dice]

Problem is that meaning or deep emotion is usually unilaterally cruddy ones. I'd much rather spend the majority of my life drinking milk and ginger (chocolate milk and something not ginger, anyway, since ginger tastes ruddy terrible to me) than spend most of it gargling feces-draino cocktails. I got tired of the "world is mud" bullshit back when I actually was stuck in classical literature for several years straight (never again).

I'd strongly say there's a lot more room to be explored in regards to upbeat and healthy interactions between characters than most everyone gives credit, though. You don't have to have shitty people being shitty to one another in a shitty situation to impart meaning, and positive emotions can get just as gorram deep as negative ones. Slice of life can be fluffy without being vapid. High literature may tend to disagree with that, but there's a ruddy reason I don't read that well constructed drek anymore.

Terry Pratchett's books are a good example of optimistic books with a deep meaning.

Pratchett's books also absolutely love their complex characters and non-linear morality. That's a big part of why they're interesting, the people are genuine and believable despite the often absurd circumstances in which they are placed and the farcical send-ups of archetypical plots in which they take part.

On a somewhat related note, "good" cannot exist in a vacuum. It's a meaningless idea on its own in the same way that "cold" is meaningless without heat.

Cold can -only- exist without heat. Cold is -defined- as the lack of heat. If there were no heat there would be -only- cold.

EDIT:
There's a word for concepts like that that are abstract things defined simply by the absence of a concrete thing (cold is the absence of heat, dryness is the absence of water, silence is the absence of sound, etc) but treated lingustically as if they were real in themselves; but I can't remember what the word is. Do any of you know?

Sorry, I meant that in terms of linguistic concepts, rather than physical laws -- we understand the meaning of "cold" because the meaning of "heat" or "warmth" exists; they aren't binary opposites in the sense of good and evil, but conceptually each relies on the other; even if we were to express things in terms of degrees of heat/sound/whatever, there's the implication of a point at which there is no heat/sound/whatever, thus we define temperature, loudness, &c. not just based on an arbitrary scale, but also relative to that point of absence. I probably could have expressed myself better if I'd just said that meaning arises from conceptual heterogeneity -- there must be an alternative to or variations on a thing in order for that thing to have meaning.

Oh, it's on the tip of my tongue. Damn, that's going to bug me for ages. :|

[Frumple]

... somehow not hard, and yet it's literally the deadliest job in the US. Um. Alright, then.

It's not the most skilled of labor, no, but it is hard work as well as very dangerous and incredibly vital. The wage is low because it's not terribly skilled and most people aren't actually aware of how dangerous it is, nor overtly cognizant of how vital a service it is, which leads the general public to devalue the work despite it really not deserving that.

[Orange Wizard]

I thought agriculture/forestry was the most lethal? Maybe that's just NZ.

[Eric Blank]

There's also the fact that people might not be willing to pay more than they already are for trash collection. Raise the price too much, people stop paying, that wage increase you just got ends up being a demotion when you're laid off because people would rather burn it/throw it somewhere you don't need to pay for it than pay your employer.

[majikero]

TERA online is on steam so I went to try it. I LIKE its gameplay but it just doesn't click. I'm not sure why its so. I mean, I've played worse games that clicked.

[Tawa]

Trying to get Akinator to guess Danny2462, and it seems to keep thinking he's a porn star or something. Apparently he's not child friendly O.o

He's not GAME friendly.

Toady is apparently child friendly, but Dwarf Fortress dorfs are not.

[Graknorke]

There's also the fact that people might not be willing to pay more than they already are for trash collection. Raise the price too much, people stop paying, that wage increase you just got ends up being a demotion when you're laid off because people would rather burn it/throw it somewhere you don't need to pay for it than pay your employer.

Who directly pays for it though? I don't think anyone in an english-speaking country at least. Probably not many other places either.

[Putnam]

why is it that when topic of computer dialog boxes are broached, some people's reading comprehension instantly assumes the most ingratiating posture of surrender imaginable

[Bauglir]

why is it that when topic of computer dialog boxes are broached, some people's reading comprehension instantly assumes the most ingratiating posture of surrender imaginable

Because they spent all their ammunition in the war on time travel. Nothing left but white flags far as the mind's eye can see.

[Baffler]

There's also the fact that people might not be willing to pay more than they already are for trash collection. Raise the price too much, people stop paying, that wage increase you just got ends up being a demotion when you're laid off because people would rather burn it/throw it somewhere you don't need to pay for it than pay your employer.

Who directly pays for it though? I don't think anyone in an english-speaking country at least. Probably not many other places either.

You underestimate the power of privatization.

[Bohandas]

Had someone try to tell me today that unequal distribution of wealth is a good thing that should not only be allowed to happen, but encouraged if possible.
No idea why because he would definitely not fall on the "has stuff" side.

I actually know the rationale for this. The argument is that the "have nots" will look at the "haves", and desire to "have". This will motivate the "have nots" to work toward pulling themselves up, and that process will create the innovation and economic growth that helps everyone. Essentially, he's arguing for jealousy as an engine of growth.

I remember this! This is from Hesiod's Works and Days

"So, after all, there was not one kind of Strife alone, but all over the earth there are two. As for the one, a man would praise her when he came to understand her; but the other is blameworthy: and they are wholly different in nature. For one fosters evil war and battle, being cruel: her no man loves; but perforce, through the will of the deathless gods, men pay harsh Strife her honour due. But the other is the elder daughter of dark Night, and the son of Cronos who sits above and dwells in the aether, set her in the roots of the earth: and she is far kinder to men. She stirs up even the shiftless to toil; for a man grows eager to work when he considers his neighbour, a rich man who hastens to plough and plant and put his house in good order; and neighbour vies with is neighbour as he hurries after wealth. This Strife is wholesome for men. And potter is angry with potter, and craftsman with craftsman, and beggar is jealous of beggar, and minstrel of minstrel."

[HooliganintheFort]

Was hugged by this random kid I did not know. Need to think about my life for a second.

[Flying Dice]

The central issue with that argument, of course, is how it actually plays out -- leaving aside the problems inherent in any unbalanced distribution of wealth. If the system is constructed in such a way that those at the top have effective ways to kick away the ladder that they've climbed to the top, people will eventually stop innovating and exerting themselves to an exceptional degree after the realization that they will not significantly advance their station regardless of what they do. Furthermore, it leads to the excusing of ethically reprehensible behavior: American slavery was supported by poor white farmers who didn't and would never own slaves because they had dreams that they would own slaves one day. Lax, loophole-ridden tax law is allowed to persist in part because people don't want to change things which they think have the potential to benefit them one day. It's why you find relative have-nots supporting Rand's brand of "fuck you got mine" thinking because they hope that they'll eventually be able to adopt the same attitude.

[Bohandas]

The central issue with that argument, of course, is how it actually plays out -- leaving aside the problems inherent in any unbalanced distribution of wealth. If the system is constructed in such a way that those at the top have effective ways to kick away the ladder that they've climbed to the top, people will eventually stop innovating and exerting themselves to an exceptional degree after the realization that they will not significantly advance their station regardless of what they do. Furthermore, it leads to the excusing of ethically reprehensible behavior: American slavery was supported by poor white farmers who didn't and would never own slaves because they had dreams that they would own slaves one day. Lax, loophole-ridden tax law is allowed to persist in part because people don't want to change things which they think have the potential to benefit them one day. It's why you find relative have-nots supporting Rand's brand of "fuck you got mine" thinking because they hope that they'll eventually be able to adopt the same attitude.

Or in other words, because they're stupid.