+- Be Right Back, Uninstalling (https://www.brbuninstalling.com)
+-- Forum: General Category (https://www.brbuninstalling.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=49)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.brbuninstalling.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=59)
+--- Thread: question for _________ (/showthread.php?tid=12824)
Re: question for _________ - Dr. Zaius - 07-21-2014
(07-20-2014, 08:16 PM)Eightball link Wrote: What is a basic skill that (more) people should be expected to have?
A person should be able to adequately operate their vehicle. Just because they can afford an escalade doesn't mean they know shit about how to drive or what buttons and levers move the running boards and mirrors in and out. And fucking turn signals. There are so many shitty drivers here in Minot/ND. It should be harder to get a driver's license in general. source: i worked at a carwash for about a year here, people are literally fucking dumb.
A person should be able to cook a meal for themselves/immediate family that is actually healthy and not fucking ramen and hotdogs. Cooking isn't hard, I live on my own and I can make a variety of healthy, delicious meals if I decide to do so. The problem is motivation to dirty and then clean the dishes, which is a bad habit that comes from being a lazy bastard american. protip it's not much faster to drive to mcdonald's than it is to fry up some chicken and throw together a salad. you're just being an idiot.
A person should be literate. We spend over a goddamn decade in school with mandatory english classes, why the fuck can't anybody spell/read/use correct diction in their everyday lives? That Weird Al parody Word Crimes is a polite jab at this problem.
A person should have some respect, especially in public/around strangers. It is my observation that people's behaviors continue to degrade, especially when you have a lot of people in one area. Overpopulation adds to this issue, but isn't an excuse for being a complete rat bastard to strangers. Now I'm only 22 but I'm under the impression that everything used to be 'Yes, sir' 'Thank you, Ma'm'. So whatever happened with that? I don't think people are being raised by their parents appropriately, and that's just going to be a continuous downward spiral. Too many people who grew up with everything, not giving a fuck and just assuming that they'll give everything to their kids (the tragedy is that these people breed) who will grow up never appreciating shit and expecting the world. I don't even want to be a parent if that's how things are going down.
To expand on that, it's my opinion that ethics and philosophy aren't treated seriously enough in a school curriculum, if at all, and much less in our society. I didn't have a philosophy or ethics class until college. Most people seem not to even care. That scares me, because it feels like most people are just hiding under their religion to make them feel like a good human being.
Most importantly, a person should have an open mind. The greatest tragedy is a closed mind, in my eyes. We're being taught to be closed - minded. We live in a social construct of distraction and constantly increasing stimulation. The driver of this car doesn't want us to question where we're going, they just want us to sit patiently, stare at our phones, listen to our music, until we get to where they're taking us. We'll stop and grab mcdonald's along the way, we'll even go to best buy and grab that new ipad to kill time during the ride. You don't want to think that the driver has any ill intentions, but if they tried driving the car off of a bridge, or a cliff or some such disaster, would the other passengers still be staring at their phones? Who would be paying attention? I like keeping my eyes on the road, I don't trust anyone's driving but my own. Everyone needs to be watching the road. Figuratively and literally.
I know that's a lot to say having never been in the mind of another person, so I'll leave it that these are my humble observations and opinions. It progressed into quite a rant, which I apologize for. There's probably a bit more I could go on about but I can't attach it coherently right now.
Thanks for asking, Tim, I've been wanting to get that out for a while.
2srs
Re: question for _________ - StolenToast - 07-21-2014
Please learn the basics of microeconomics. Whether you believe so or not the concepts of microeconomics affect you every single day and it's painful to watch people try to comment on economic happenings when they clearly don't have a basic understanding of good ol' SnD. Also I found it to be a fun topic but I could tell most of my classmates disagreed...
Elasticity: not just for pants.
Re: question for _________ - rumbot - 07-21-2014
(07-20-2014, 08:16 PM)Eightball link Wrote: What is a basic skill that (more) people should be expected to have?
Cooking? Writing? Survival skills?
GIVING MIND-BLOWING ORGASMS
Re: question for _________ - copulatingduck - 07-22-2014
(07-20-2014, 08:16 PM)Eightball link Wrote: What is a basic skill that (more) people should be expected to have?
Cooking? Writing? Survival skills?
Writing/communication hands down. By far the easiest way to relate to people is good communication and the ability to fluently express ideas. Imho nothing can command respect and charisma more quickly than fluency. I wish I was better at writing/speaking, and I did a concentration in writing in college.
(07-21-2014, 03:03 PM)Dr. Zaius link Wrote: A person should be able to adequately operate their vehicle. Just because they can afford an escalade doesn't mean they know shit about how to drive or what buttons and levers move the running boards and mirrors in and out. And fucking turn signals. There are so many shitty drivers here in Minot/ND. It should be harder to get a driver's license in general. source: i worked at a carwash for about a year here, people are literally fucking dumb.
A person should be able to cook a meal for themselves/immediate family that is actually healthy and not fucking ramen and hotdogs. Cooking isn't hard, I live on my own and I can make a variety of healthy, delicious meals if I decide to do so. The problem is motivation to dirty and then clean the dishes, which is a bad habit that comes from being a lazy bastard american. protip it's not much faster to drive to mcdonald's than it is to fry up some chicken and throw together a salad. you're just being an idiot.
A person should be literate. We spend over a goddamn decade in school with mandatory english classes, why the fuck can't anybody spell/read/use correct diction in their everyday lives? That Weird Al parody Word Crimes is a polite jab at this problem.
A person should have some respect, especially in public/around strangers. It is my observation that people's behaviors continue to degrade, especially when you have a lot of people in one area. Overpopulation adds to this issue, but isn't an excuse for being a complete rat bastard to strangers. Now I'm only 22 but I'm under the impression that everything used to be 'Yes, sir' 'Thank you, Ma'm'. So whatever happened with that? I don't think people are being raised by their parents appropriately, and that's just going to be a continuous downward spiral. Too many people who grew up with everything, not giving a fuck and just assuming that they'll give everything to their kids (the tragedy is that these people breed) who will grow up never appreciating shit and expecting the world. I don't even want to be a parent if that's how things are going down.
To expand on that, it's my opinion that ethics and philosophy aren't treated seriously enough in a school curriculum, if at all, and much less in our society. I didn't have a philosophy or ethics class until college. Most people seem not to even care. That scares me, because it feels like most people are just hiding under their religion to make them feel like a good human being.
Most importantly, a person should have an open mind. The greatest tragedy is a closed mind, in my eyes. We're being taught to be closed - minded. We live in a social construct of distraction and constantly increasing stimulation. The driver of this car doesn't want us to question where we're going, they just want us to sit patiently, stare at our phones, listen to our music, until we get to where they're taking us. We'll stop and grab mcdonald's along the way, we'll even go to best buy and grab that new ipad to kill time during the ride. You don't want to think that the driver has any ill intentions, but if they tried driving the car off of a bridge, or a cliff or some such disaster, would the other passengers still be staring at their phones? Who would be paying attention? I like keeping my eyes on the road, I don't trust anyone's driving but my own. Everyone needs to be watching the road. Figuratively and literally.
I know that's a lot to say having never been in the mind of another person, so I'll leave it that these are my humble observations and opinions. It progressed into quite a rant, which I apologize for. There's probably a bit more I could go on about but I can't attach it coherently right now.
Thanks for asking, Tim, I've been wanting to get that out for a while.
2srs
Brevity. Goes hand-in-hand with communication skills
I'm just teasing though, I did think this was amusing. And a healthy dose of philosophy in my experience can help in situations where people otherwise lack perspective, assuming the curriculum is discourse-centric. In general I think people could always use more perspective.(07-21-2014, 09:22 PM)rumbot link Wrote: GIVING MIND-BLOWING ORGASMS
2nd easiest way to relate to people.
It's easy to forgive a good lover their lack of expertise with language / driving / schooling / cooking / et al
Re: question for _________ - CaffeinePowered - 07-22-2014
(07-20-2014, 08:16 PM)Eightball link Wrote: What is a basic skill that (more) people should be expected to have?
Cooking? Writing? Survival skills?
The ability and drive to continually learn, so many people as they age just give up on learning new things...or never figured out how to pick things up outside of a classroom or maybe a job setting.
Re: question for _________ - FlyingMongoose - 07-22-2014
(07-22-2014, 07:26 PM)Caffeine link Wrote: [quote author=Eightball link=topic=5854.msg280013#msg280013 date=1405905386]
What is a basic skill that (more) people should be expected to have?
Cooking? Writing? Survival skills?
The ability and drive to continually learn, so many people as they age just give up on learning new things...or never figured out how to pick things up outside of a classroom or maybe a job setting.
[/quote]
The ability to drive and understand the speed limits as they properly apply (meaning if it's 45 it's perfectly acceptable to go 80 :p)
Re: Re: question for _________ - Elder - 07-23-2014
Zaius are you coming to acen?
Because you really should
Also I still have your airsoft smart charger
Re: Re: question for _________ - Dr. Zaius - 07-23-2014
(07-23-2014, 09:31 AM)Elder link Wrote: Zaius are you coming to acen? Â
Because you really should
no, regretfully I won't be going. Believe me, I want to, but I have a bunch of other things that take priority over the baddest party of the summer. Maybe in a year or two I can have it arranged and afford it. I need to move out of this shithole of a state before that can happen.
(07-23-2014, 09:31 AM)Elder link Wrote: Also I still have your airsoft smart charger
![[Image: staredad.jpg]](http://webtrax.hu/myfacewhen/faces/lineart-memes/staredad.jpg)
just sell the damn thing i don't even have any of my gear anymore :'(
Re: question for _________ - Luinbariel - 07-23-2014
The party is incomplete without Zaius.
Re: question for _________ - CaffeinePowered - 07-24-2014
The community fund barely got touched this year
Re: question for _________ - Dr. Zaius - 07-24-2014
:-[
are we talking about acen '15? Stupid question I just realized that '14 already happened. I know, I'm a downy's dong.
The issues I foresee attending are setting aside the time from school (in the event I have tests or w/e) and then physically getting there. I don't know how I feel about taking from the fund as I haven't given to it myself in the past, but I am tempted to see how many strings I can pull to get back home for acen '15.
This is starting to mess with my feels now
Re: question for _________ - Eightball - 07-24-2014
(07-24-2014, 11:41 AM)Dr. Zaius link Wrote: :-[
are we talking about acen '15? Stupid question I just realized that '14 already happened. I know, I'm a downy's dong.
The issues I foresee attending are setting aside the time from school (in the event I have tests or w/e) and then physically getting there. I don't know how I feel about taking from the fund as I haven't given to it myself in the past, but I am tempted to see how many strings I can pull to get back home for acen '15.
This is starting to mess with my feels now
Don't worry about taking from the fund. People contribute to it with the sole purpose of getting more members to ACEN, and there are no special expectations or obligations that come attached with it. What I tell people who are interested in attending is: Worry about your schedule, and the rest is secondary.
Another question incoming...
Re: question for _________ - Versus - 07-24-2014
cloudy/overcast is the best weather and i wish it was always like that
also, writing
Re: question for _________ - Eightball - 07-24-2014
Are there any good reasons to ever have children?
I know there are more than a couple BRBUers that have kids or are planning to have them. This isn't a snipe at them (their input here would be valuable), just something that came up in discussion recently. So, let me elaborate a bit. Why do most people have children? A pessimist might say that some people view children as "accessory", something that the parents want to have in a similar fashion as desiring fine jewelry or luxury cars. I bet this is true in a few cases, but perhaps a more reasonable view would be that the parents simply want a family. Yet I feel that this viewpoint is also "selfish". To explain:
Although life can be full of joy and wonder, it can also be cruel, unfair, and painful. Life is not always worth living, and the factors which determine one's quality of life are not predictable (this leads me to certain opinions involving what a parent's responsibilities should be, more on that later). Moreover, an unborn child has no choice but to be born and enter life. With the possibility that the child's life may be "poor, nasty, brutish and short", any justification to conceive the child that serves the parent's interests may be inadequate. The only answers I can find are primarily self-serving.
What do you think? Is life a "gift"?
Re: question for _________ - Neptune - 07-24-2014
The impulse to have children is purely a selfish one. Either they're satisfying a biological need and getting a nagging sensation out of the way, they're getting an external nagging sensation (one's own parents, peer pressure, etc) out of the way, or they're expecting everything to be excellent all the time and get unconditional love in return.
I have heard a co-worker say "It's never the right time. Just have them." basically meaning that you should be as irresponsible as possible. Sure, you don't have enough money and you never will, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have another human being suffering right along with you. But you have to scratch that biological itch. That's my problem with most parents. A lot of them don't have the resources or the basic intelligence enough to take responsibility for forming a brand-new mind and raising it to be the best human being possible.Â
My wife and I don't want kids. She recognizes the biological imperative in herself, but she quickly reminds herself that we'd have to pay for it, raise it, feed it, clean it, make it go through a shitty school system, and all those other things that I either don't want to do or wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. It would be unfair to both ourselves and the child.
So...let's say you have more money and time than you know what to do with and have no problem giving literally all of it (and more) to a baby. You're also educated enough to make intelligent decisions about the most important aspects of someone else's life. Third, you're also ready to erase your own identity in favor of your child, i.e. your life will now literally be defined by your offspring, and you're OK with that. Finally, you're emotionally mature enough to accept the worst like birth defects, accidents, or even intentional harm and still want to risk bringing a kid into the world to possibly experience any of these. If any of those isn't true, then no one is in a position to have a child. Few people are. Yet we do it anyway.
Re: question for _________ - Eightball - 07-24-2014
Quote:A lot of them don't have the resources or the basic intelligence enough to take responsibility for forming a brand-new mind and raising it to be the best human being possible.
This is another point I was considering. If a parent does bring a child into the world, then does he/she not have an obligation to use every means available to provide the best possible life for it? How far does this obligation run? Provide food and shelter until the kid's 18 and legally independent? Pay for his or her collegiate (and beyond) education?
Based on my family history alone (mental illness on two sides of the family, poor cardiovascular health on one), I'm starting to balk at the idea of continuing the lineage. Isn't it unfair to conceive a child who will experience disability? My example isn't very extreme, but few of us would hesitate to chastise a pregnant mother who drinks or smokes. What about two parents that are carriers for a genetic disease like Tay-Sach's or CF? It is "wrong" for them to become repeatedly pregnant, despite being aware of a substantial risk that these children will not outlive them? imo? yes
It seems, though, that adopting a child is a completely different scenario, since it's a decision regarding a child who has already been born. Most of the ethical dilemma is done.
Re: - Luinbariel - 07-24-2014
No kids for me.
People think it's selfish in a way to not have them. I think it's more responsible than having one "because I should" and then resenting the child, who did nothing.
Maybe I would love it. Maybe I wouldn't. It's the maybe that means I won't do it.
Re: question for _________ - rumbot - 07-24-2014
(07-24-2014, 02:37 PM)Neptune link Wrote: The impulse to have children is purely a selfish one.Â
That's overbroad.
From a purely darwinian standpoint, an "impulse" to have children regardless of the consequences could be seen as a behavioral expression of a genetic trait toward sacrifice. That is, despite all "rational economic" reasons, people will have children and sacrifice more than they ever planned to in order to ensure the success of their progeny. In time, the less "sacrificial" humans will be bred out and subsequent generations of parents will be more devoted.
More to 8-ball's question, simply put, it's why we are here. If you succumb to the urge to eat and breath, then you continue to live. If you succumb to the urge to procreate, then you contribute to the continuance of the species.
From my experience, those who are more apt to question whether to have children have had much harder family lives and upbringings than those who have unquestionably always dreamed of raising a family of their own.
Re: question for _________ - copulatingduck - 07-25-2014
As a disclaimer I suppose it is worth mentioning, I don't see morality as black-and-white. I tend to regard choices as existing on a spectrum from immoral > slightly immoral > questionable (neutral) > slightly moral > moral, etc. It comes down to a numbers game for me. As a second disclaimer, I'm at the tail-end of sleep meds kicking in. Thoughts may or may not be coherent, but I find this topic interesting enough to come up with some semblance of thought/points worth considering. I apologize for the word vomit
First, a point I once heard while discussing the subject, that I've always found fascinating to consider:
Quote:If you decide not to have progeny, you would be the first person in your lineage to make that decision.
And second, a rebuttal to the allegation that impulse to have children is purely selfish: I would submit for consideration, that perhaps refusal to procreate is selfish. I'd further posit that were it not for rampant procreation, there is some possibility that our species would not be as advanced as we are today.
Personally, I'm on the fence personally about having children. I hate kids, but I'm open to the possibility that my mind can change. I wouldn't want to do it from a position of hardship. However, on the subject of morality regarding starting a family from a position of hardship: I feel the morality of that choice - at best - would depend on circumstances. Conceiving a child to a junkie family to grow up in the trap? Probably very poor judgment, questionable morality at best, trending towards immoral. Clean family/community, poor income, low risk of birth defects? Much less questionable.
One has to be careful about labeling conception under a given set of circumstances as immoral. Something else to consider: Who would enforce a given morality code? Is it immoral for a family living below the poverty line to have children? Many might agree, and perhaps the idea has merit. How about a child that would be at high risk for birth defects? Again, questionable. But what degree would constitute too high? Where do you place the threshold for moral vs immoral? Should there be a governing body that enforces the morality? As an interesting aside, a Virginia man was recently offered an interesting plea deal: In return for reduced charges, he has agreed to have a vasectomy. To be clear, he has an extensive criminal record, matched only by his extensive line of progeny. The issue bears some resemblance to the outdated (in America) practice of compulsory sterilization. To be clear, inmates in prison at one time were sterilized, many times against their will, onstensibly because of the increased risk they placed on their respective populations. I would wager that most would agree the practice is immoral. How different would enforcing the morality of conception be from compulsory sterilization? How different would it be from the one-child policy in China?
To shift gears a little bit, and ignore whether enforcing the morality is in and of itself moral, some other brief points. There have been several studies I can recall that suggest diverse groups perform better than non-diverse groups. To take some liberty with the implications of said study: for peak performance then (for some given metric), it's important for groups to have a wealth of diversity and perspective. If we would consider advancement of the species to be moral, then is it morally imperative to ensure that tomorrow's leaders have a wealth of perspective, through racial and socioeconomic diversity?
Because I'm rambling, incoherent and tired:
Personally, I do not believe giving children a "good" upbringing is imperative in the traditional sense. A parent is not obliged to fund their child's schooling. College can be helpful, absolutely. But believing college mandatory can in and of itself be a trap. There are certainly degrees that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The fact that so many youth express remorse after college is indicative of that fact. Vocational schooling is massively under-utilized. Some two-year programs pay much more than some 4-year programs. From personal anecdotes, I have heard of 20yr veteran PE's quitting their engineering jobs to work trade positions such as welders and crane operators, because the financial incentive exists. Further, I don't think giving a child an expensive home to live in does right by them. Anecdotally, I know plenty of kids with parents who were well off, and the kids are still useless brats in their 30's. In short, I don't believe strong finances to be a moral-imperative of child-rearing.
While there are certainly trends that show kids in poor households are at higher risk to lead what are generally considered fulfilling lives: think prison, poverty, etc - they are just that. Trends. Plenty of rich, educated people fail to live "happy" or fulfilling lives. Likewise, plenty of poor, uneducated people somehow still manage to have lives full of happiness.
Personal opinion: I think a family is obligated to provide food and shelter. I believe they're obligated to educate their children, to the best of their abilities, whether that entails sending them to school or teaching them to run a farm. And I believe they should teach their child how to live a happy and fulfilling life, albeit that is probably the hardest and most abstract. That might entail demonstrating how to provide for a community, and thereby showing them the kindness and gratitude of strangers. Or maybe it would involve teaching them how to live off the land. Perhaps it just takes showing them the value of a hard day's work. Happiness comes in many different forms, for many different people. A parent's obligation is to do their best to teach their children how to be happy and productive. For some, that will come much easier than for others. For a few, it may never come at all. To put it bluntly: it's just not in the cards for some people. That doesn't mean the parents made a mistake, so long as they did their best. There exist wildly successful people whom, at birth, must have seemed the victim of some cosmic cruelty. To present them as evidence that anyone can succeed would be disingenuous, surely. However, the evidence does exist that even people born, say as quadriplegics, can be happy. I would suggest that the act of conception in itself is not inherently moral or immoral. Rather, I believe the process of child-rearing itself to be the crux of the issue, with respect to morality.
tldr; idk. It's not selfish to want children. I don't necessarily think it's selfish to not want them either. It's simply selfish to have children, if you aren't prepared to do your best. (I suppose in retrospect, this brings into question the morality of carrying a child, when it's known that the act of childbirth will kill the mother). As another tangent, a Documentary that I think worth checking out for some of you who have might hangups, and maybe even to those who don't: Happy. It's not particularly deep, but it provides some very interesting perspective regarding the idea/concept of happiness.
And probably apologies for rambling. I'll be surprised if anyone manages to muck through this tomorrow.
Re: question for _________ - copulatingduck - 07-25-2014
As an aside, I completely neglected one of 8ball's more interesting points:
Quote:It is "wrong" for them to become repeatedly pregnant, despite being aware of a substantial risk that these children will not outlive them?
Hopefully I'm of a mind to come back to it tomorrow, since it's a point worth discussing. Knee-jerk reaction would be that yes, it'd be immoral to continually procreate if your offspring are at a huge risk for debilitating diseases. That does kind of contradict some of my earlier statements though, so I'll have to ruminate for a while.