Wuzzums

Sounds to me like you weren't that much into her anyway. I got the impression from your original post that she was the cream of the crop, which is why breaking up with her because of some interests of hers seemed absurd to me. She hanging out with those types of people on a regular basis does seem like a red flag.

I'm very confused about the whole dynamic here. You broke up with her because she had friends? You didn't say her friend was someone that had a bad influence on her, or that dragged her down somehow. I'm guessing it was just someone she had a common interest with. Then you qualify your ex as a true friend, and you said she also saw you as a true friend. Why did you sacrifice true friendship for some person that had some common interest? And here's what I really don't get. You could've just went through the trouble of going to a concert with her so she wouldn't have to go with that person you don't like. You did not go to the concert with her, she went with someone else, you broke up with her because she went with that someone else. Basically you two broke up for having different tastes in music. How was your relationship based on virtue and rationality again?

If one is to follow that definition and there's a person that has the principle of "always wearing a hat" then it would mean that whenever he's not wearing a hat they are immoral. I myself define morality by defining its opposite, evil. Evil is the initiation of force. The opposite of initiation of force is the non aggression principle (NAP). Thus morality = NAP.

You made a very long post and nowhere do you say anything as to why you're "interested" in her. Sounds to me like both of you are confusing sexual attraction with "interest". If this is the case, are you sure you're feeling betrayed and not just jealous? But what's principle? You just basically told him that if he goes for her you'll feel resentment towards him. Would he have felt the same way if you were the one that slept with her?

If artificial intelligence will be indistinguishable from human intelligence, morality would be as much for it as it is for us. True AI will have the capability of making its own choices regardless of its programming. There's a fantastic game that deals with this exact issue: And a movie that's kinda so and so but deals with some key aspects of AI:

Thank you all for all the great responses. It's comforting to know that my reluctance in making a "no turning back" decision is well founded. I guess I needed a reminder that life is a zero sum game and succeeding at it is like a balancing act.

Hello, I'm writing this because I'm at a time in my life when some important decisions have to be made and making them without this community's input seems imprudent. Like most people, I have had many hobbies which I was passionate about yet one of them evolved from being something I wanted to do to something I needed to do. Drawing (or illustration) is my passion and it is that by which I quantify time. Time spent drawing is time well spent. Time spent doing anything else is time not spent drawing. It's always at the back of my head. Currently I work as a surgery intern, or a surgeon in training to be more clear. The job is not that bad and it promises a great future but it's very time consuming, and a future in which I'm spending less and less time drawing doesn't sound that great of a deal to me. People basically work really hard, for a really long time in order to enjoy lavish long vacations. I myself spend my vacation time catching up with all the drawing I didn't do because I was working for so long. I'm not putting this forth as a complaint, I'm just pointing out I would rather draw than go on a vacation. It's my first job (first statist-esque job that is) and I'm only 8 months into it. I got it in my head that after one year I should spend the next one solely focusing on turning my hobby into a job. Does this seem wise? Please keep in mind that this is not a money issue, you will laugh out loud at how little I make as an intern thus my reluctance to give up my current job does not stem from that. A lot of success stories are of people of working in some job they don't particularly care about to sustain themselves and after a long painful haul they finally turn their passion in a career. So I've been thinking, doing things you don't want to do is just training yourself into doing those particular things you won't want to do in your "dream job" but which are essential for success. Basically, is the job the catalyst that might help you succeed in your passion, or is it the thing that's holding you back? Do you go to work thinking you would much rather do anything else? Is this the "normal" mindset of having a job? If it's not, how did you achieve the opposite mindset? How did you manage to get a job in which the reward is the job itself? Another thing I'm thinking about is that maybe I'll be much happier working as a doctor. It's a concept that puts a smile on my face, but if that's true I might not be able to succeed as one because my current passion is what's holding me back. If I had the same drive in my current job that I have in drawing I would easily be on top. Maybe I'm not working in the field I should be working in, or maybe I'm just confusing the temptation of doing whatever I want with the drive to succeed. Maybe success is just willpower with rare sprouts of motivation. I really want other people's input on this.

reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/menkampf/?count=25&after=t3_3e6ykm

Just the media desperately trying to make the recent shooting fit a narrative. You know it's quality journalism when the sources listed, well actually the source listed is someone's tweet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wt8zvuWHwA Importing massive amounts of welfare recipients is a step forward to a better world somehow.

What a complete waste of money. They should have been studying why people eat food. This question has plagued great minds for millennia and it's about high time we get an answer.

Doug Stanhope has this grea bit about people offended by words:

The way I've always looked at things is that science is for describing the world through research and philosophy solely deals in logic. In other words science requires hard evidence to disprove a claim whereas in philosophy logic suffices. I don't need to do a study on whether or not a square circle exists but I do need to do a study on whether or not a black swan exists.

I see this as a glimpse of the compromises we would have to make in a anarchic society. A petition to ban the books is basically a certain number of clientele publicly declaring that they will withhold business from a provider if the provider is offering business to some individual they don't like (an individual which they're ostracizing). It's not the initiation of force therefore I don't see this as an issue. Even if we don't agree with people's decisions we still have to honor them. Mistakes will be made, prejudices will influence judgement, and false propaganda will still have an influence. Banning someone from giving a talk is not against free speech because people have a right to not listen. However actively denying said talk to those who want to listen is. This is the internet, getting your voice out there has never been easier. Amazon is only one of many options that let you do that and its their right to choose whether or not they should provide you with the service. Personally I have never bought anything from Amazon and me asking them to not ban this guy's book would be disingenuous. Not all businesses cave under the pressures of SJW's. For instance Protein World have been attacked by these people being accused of fat shaming, female objectification, etc. Their response was a flat out attack against them. It's easy to see why because their business caters to fitness nuts and not body-positive SJW's. Same goes for this whole gamergate debacle. If the gaming industry will let the culture of victimhood have a stranglehold on games they will in time see how bad this will be for sales, their clientele being gamers and not SJW's. They will do a 180 because the market demands it so.

I myself am struggling with the notion that the poor need support. How did you come to this conclusion? Another thing you should clarify to me, and yourself, is what the definition of "poor" is.

A satirical stab at third wave feminism which I really enjoyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf6NmKc7Tq4 Extended versions of the songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSEe7YPHjvw

This is one of my greatest achievements. The cult of victimhood is destroying itself and I have put exactly zero effort in to make this happen. It's just amazing to watch. I have invested no resources into this and look how much damage it caused.

One of the most important things I learned from Stefan was that people rarely act irrational and when they do it's because of ulterior motives. They are gaining something from not accepting the truth. Speaking as an atheist, it was a lot easier for me to give up on religion compared to someone raised in a mormon community. After I became an atheist, none of my family relationships changed, nor did my relationships with my extended family, nor the relationships with my friends. Point I'm trying to make is that subtracting faith from your life will also subtract the elements in your life built around the faith (maybe friends, family, support, and so on). Is it fair to say your wife is thinking about the long term consequences of your newly discovered ideals? Are the consequences of losing the faith acceptable compared to the benefits of keeping the faith? I think you're spot on, if you want to persuade her into accepting your point of view you would need to show her how much better your life is because of it.

I didn't move. I got a job in my hometown that I plan to keep for a year to prepare myself for the job I'll get when I'll finally move away. Or at least that's what I tell myself. It's funny though. I only have a couple of months to the job "deadline" yet I feel that it wouldn't be so horrible to stay another year. And I know that another year will turn into 2 years and so on. Then I'll think to myself I've invested way too much in this one career path I shouldn't throw it aside. Even though I'm fully aware of the sunk costs fallacy, I can't help but feel like it's a safe and wise route to take. Very odd.

Catch 22 By Joseph Heller, and read by Jim Weiss. I really recommend the audiobook, Jim Weiss adds a lot to the narration.

I like how he has 100k+ subs. Maybe common sense will finally become common.

That's what I find most confusing about Moore's statement. In a lot of his work cities get destroyed. For instance the final fight between Zod and Superman is very reminiscent of Moore's run on Miracleman (now Marvelman). In it two golden era superheroes (i.e. 50s style Superman where the only swear word is "golly") are put in the real world. One thing leads to another and they have this epic fight which leveling the whole city killing hundreds of thousands. I don't know what he's exactly criticizing, superheroes today for not having grown (which they have) or culture as a whole for not living up to the standards of the time (which is a self defeating argument because culture sets its own standards). There's also a 3rd option in which he's trolling like a pro. He's a master at making vague statements just to get the conversation going, it's his superpower and he's very candid about it. Or maybe he's just bored with superhero comics and wants people to stop talking to him about it.

Alan Moore's writing has always tried to put the superhero genre in a realistic setting. He portrays superheroes as flawed humans, this is in opposition with Grant Morrison's style which portrays superheroes as symbols, perfect creatures in a two dimensional world. There's never really any heroes in Moore's stories, no central figure that's "the good guy". For instance in "V for Vendetta" the central figure is a mad terrorist maybe as worse as the regime he's fighting against (the Guy Fawkes mask is a hint). However the movie makes it clear that's he's on the side of good, which is a simplistic view of a more nuanced problem. I believe this is where Moore is coming from. People now are leaning more towards the view of heroes as symbols, which he opposes. However, if these billion dollars movies were about more complex characters he wouldn't be so critical about it. Also it is important to note he doesn't really watch movies, and I doubt he reads mainstream comic titles anymore, so his view might be one out of ignorance. The heroes he hears about are making waves at the box office are far more complex than their 70s-80s original versions, which is what Moore is probably most familiar with. He's incorrect when he's saying the old culture is keeping this century's culture to develop. Much like music, the superheroes mirror the trends of the new culture with characters being vastly different from one generation to another. The Superman from my generation was the father figure that eventually saved the day no matter how dire the situation. The Superman of this generation is a guy with incredible power that somehow destroys a whole city for some reason or another. A great quote from a screenwriter about the "Man of Steel" movie: "A superhero movie where a city doesn't get destroyed should be a Superman movie"; yet the movie make a fortune at the box office. Different generations, different points of view. We still have Mustang cars today, that doesn't mean the Mustang car is holding back car development, and that doesn't mean the Mustang of yesteryear is the same with the Mustang of today.

In a free-market species will be preserved either by donation or by hunting itself. If hunters want to kill lions then there's profit to be made from breeding lions for sport. If people care about lions there's profit to be made from taking care of lions. This is not a hypothetical because it's exactly what happens in Africa. Can you guess which of the two, hunters or lion enthusiasts, are doing a lot more to preserve the species? It's the hunters. A lion costs about 200 000 $ to hunt/kill as far as I know. And these hunters don't just want to kill any lion, they want the strongest, healthiest, biggest lion possible. So it's an added incentive for the breeders to take care of these bred lions as good as possible (maybe offer them better conditions in the habitat than in the wild). It's like the chicken population. Once we found out they're delicious their numbers increased exponentially. Louis Theroux has a great documentary on this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=40W_hc_q8XU Honestly, I fucking love how the free market solves everything. It's the hero we need but not the hero we want.