Forum Replies Created
October 16, 2019 at 9:53 pm #28919
Robert the title of this discussion is “financial independence / retire early.” It is not “wait 30 years for your crashed investment to hopefully rebound”.October 16, 2019 at 3:18 pm #28914
Crashes and sellouts are merely interruptions to a lifetime investor.
People never learn.October 15, 2019 at 9:06 pm #28892
Jake hit the nail in the head. Stock pick advice makes sense only if you are invincible to crashes and bankruptcies. But no one is. Stocks are risky investments and it’s a matter of time until the next crash happens. And it will. And you’ll be a turkey.October 14, 2019 at 10:14 pm #28879
Indeed “de-evolution” simply doesn’t make sense. It’s confusing progress with adaptability. No species systematically becomes less adaptive to their environment unless there is a useful trade-off and recently acquired traits are only lost when they are no longer useful or at least aren’t worth the benefit vs. cost. You cannot de-progress with evolution. It’s not an up or down scale. It’s a “this species has survived and adapted or it hasn’t and it’s extinct”. Those are the only two qualitative comparisons you can make with evolution. They lasted or they didn’t. Anything else is highly subjective and biased conceptualization of a non-progressive system.October 13, 2019 at 1:11 pm #28863
By contrast, cats are stone cold killers who do only WTF they feel like doing if you like it or don’t. My little kitty is on the alert for anything in her purview she might kill. She will actually chase a fruit fly around my apartment hoping for a chance to kill it.
Yeah because when you come home from work, you don’t want your buddy to jump around excited to see you. You wanna see your free loading flat mate chase after a housefly.October 12, 2019 at 9:14 pm #28846
Primates are inherently violent. All species closest related to humans are, somewhat intelligent, social, somewhat emotional and capable if extremely barbaric violence. In isolation humans are not that bad (but can be). Putting together a bunch of humans in one place is a recipe for horror with, of course, very breif exceptions when humans follow an exceptionally enlightened philosophy and peace and order reigns. But otherwise, yes, humans are extremely ugly when collected in numbers (more than a handful of families loosely arranged). It may sound overly cynical, but that’s what recorded history shows. I don’t know how anyone could possibly survey world history and conclude otherwise. War, harsh laws, enslavement, misogyny, petty squabbles, serfdom, religious oppression and a high level of cruelty. People tend to fight this picture (Dr. Bob for example in his extremely sanitized history of Christianity) by pointing out those brief moments or those rare civilizations were more humane than others or that one civilization was a little better in some aspects than another. But these exceptions define the rule. Humans, when put together in numbers, are cruel, violent and insane.
As for cultural evolution, I’d say there have been a few extremely brief moments where a society had something slightly approximating what we have in the modern western democracy. And we are living in a very unique time with law and order and individual respect and rights and a general aim of avoiding suffering. Ever since this project took shape there have been forces aggressively trying to chip away at it. And based on human history, I cannot imagine how this could possible last more than another century or two. Which is why I say…do not take for granted this very special time, where at least in our countries, humans aren’t out of control cruel, vicious and insane. Enjoy these freedoms while they last and make every moment count. Women should, of course, fight for more equality, but also feel incredible pride in what they have uniquely achieved in the history of humanity and enjoy this rare opportunity to have a voice. Someone who is LGTBQ+ should take advantage of every opportunity as though they are thousands of repressed souls living in countless other civilizations in time and even today. Atheists should enjoy every chance they have to openly speak about religions that want to oppress them and others.
We are only one very small step away from those in Afghanistan. To answer your question: yes, That’s how humans have evolved to this point. As Reg said, evolution never stops. Judging by the overall evolution of primates…I wouldn’t hold my breath.October 9, 2019 at 6:17 pm #28815
Nice. And now that the well fed cat has a bird carcas in its mouth, it can go home and present it to its underlings (the humans) who may have the leftovers when the cat is done with it.October 9, 2019 at 10:49 am #28808
A hispanic support group is not a particularly unbusiness like idea. If it helps integrate hispanic workers into the working enviroment, encourages inclusivity and comraderie…then that’s very good for the working enviroment and productivity. Same with a rainbow flag. Reducing a toxic atmosphere in general is extremely good business sense especially in a large office. I don’t see the problem with a bible quote if EVERYONE is a believer. However, I can’t think of any particular reason to put a religious quote on the wall, when you can find a perfectly good substitute that doesn’t create tensions between the people of different religions. If you want to express your religion you can wear a cross around your neck or put a Jesus doll on your desk.October 8, 2019 at 5:33 pm #28801October 8, 2019 at 4:09 pm #28798
Unfortunately a small number of people do have a hormonal imballance. It’s something they cannot help. To shame them would be like shaming gingers for having ginger hair. If you like doing that kind of thing, then go for it.
But trying to protect the feelings of someone who has no physical problem but overconsumes is ridiculous overreach. If we look at parallels you’ll see how absurd this could get. He is a terrible father if we cannot provide for his family after losing all his money to online-poker? Hey now…that is gambling shaming! He spends so much of his free time watching animal porn I really don’t think it’s healthy. Hey now…that’s porn-addiction shaming! My mother can be one of the most unpleasant bitches when she is loaded with anxiety (most of the time), she is incapable of relenting or leaving anyone in peace…when she leaves a room everyone sighs in relief. Hey now…that’s anxiety shaming! I think we will have to let go this employee, he’s addicted to morphine and I fear it could get out of control. Hey now, thats opiates-shaming! My friend likes ragaeton so much he plays it on his phone on the subway for everyone to hear, annoying the shit out of everyone because he doesn’t believe in headphones and thinks the whole world loves his music. Hey now…that’s annoying-shaming! My friend doesn’t wear deoderant and it gets so gross in the summer people stopped inviting him to BBQs. Hey now…that’s organic-living-shaming!October 8, 2019 at 8:04 am #28786
Does anyone have an actual opinion about extending free speech to the internet, workplace and in organizations and sportsteams?October 8, 2019 at 8:01 am #28785
In a democratic open society, yes religion is a choice as an adult. You may be heavily influenced by family and friends but there is nothing stopping you from changing your religion, if you are willing to deal with the social costs. But that is the same for ALL sets of ideas. If you come from a family of communists and realize you are a hard core liberterian, you will pay a notable cost for coming out of that closet. Your family may even despise you for it. And so it is with many other sets of ideas like being anti-war, a rationalist, vegiteriansim, conspiracy theories, anti-government paranoia and so on. The United States is not Saudi Arabia. You can change your own set of ideas, you simply have to pay the social cost to do so. Criticizing those ideas are totally free game in western democratic open societies.
In Canada and most of Europe, religious groups aren’t allowed to make certain offensive comments outside of church. For example in Spain a bishop was advocating “gay conversion therapy” and was sanctioned by the government. That’s a bishop in a catholic country being told not to be homophobic. The same goes for Muslim groups who publicly support the demeaning and subjugation of women in the UK. And in Canada if you are a Jewish group and publically call for wiping out every palestinian off the face of the planet you will get zinged.
What you won’t get in any trouble for is criticizing the ideas of religions, ideologies, a set of beliefs and ideas. And that goes both ways. Just don’t attack, discriminate, intimidate or make life a living hell for people who happened to be born with a certain quality that cannot be changed.October 8, 2019 at 7:17 am #28782
To give you an idea how biased the british newspapers can be take a look at these headlines after the Lux. PM got fed up and pissed off with Boris.
Guardian: Boris HUMILIATED!
BBC, Independent, Sky, FT, London Times: Boris is a no show
Telegraph, Sun, Star: Boris AMBUSHED!
There is absolutely nothing similar to this level of bias in American newspapers. Sure on television news there is, but even then the left leaning tv and online news channels are a LOT less biased than FOX and a whole lot less biased than say, the Guardian in the UK. It’s pretty hard to even call CNN that left wing. Compared with many other worldly publications and from a Canadian or European perspective, CNN seems totally centre wing.
October 7, 2019 at 7:06 pm #28772
- This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by Davis.
Companies have censored content since the beginning of the US. Can you imagine The Gap doing nothing if an employee tapes a sign to the front door of a shop saying “The Gap is a bastard corporation”? Or if an employee went around telling all the female employees they had nice tits? I’m pretty sure the employee would be fired and you wouldn’t see people protesting “free speech”.
Youtube has the right to remove any content it likes. It doesn’t allow sexual content. Is that inappropriate censorship? What about videos involving animal abuse? Or videos of ISIS beheadings? How about videos that incite violence?
All of those categories don’t fall under any “legal” ban. They are restricted for the same kind of reasons outright agressive racist and homophobic content is prohibited. Youtube doesn’t want to be a forum of hate mongering and it’s good business sense. If you want to blab about those stupid faggots, there are several websites that actually encourage those kinds of videos. The government isn’t stopping American citizens from using those.
Religion is not equivalent to race/gender/sexuality. One is an inherant quality. The other is a set of ideas you choose to believe as an adult. It’s not my fault I’m LGBT. I cannot do anything about it and I should be able to live my life without encountering harassment and intimidation for simply being born. It IS my fault for being an atheist. My choice. And as I have the right to advocate for atheism, I have to take the same criticism. If Dawkin’s focuses on religious ideas, his content will not be taken down. If his content focuses on “those dirty muslims” then it probably will as it not only violates their policies, it violates the policies on most websites, universities, work places, schools, sports teams, clubs and the media…for the last few decades.
October 7, 2019 at 4:12 pm #28766
- This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by Strega.
I’m not concerned with hate speech in public. That’s legal in the U.S. (mostly) and not in Canada/Europe/NZ/Australia. Those countries have made their decisions and have to live with the consequences. Hate speech is widely reported in the U.S. and so are hate crimes. You can interrupt a funeral and tell grievers that he deserved to die “because God hates fags”. You can terrify difference communities through intimidation and endless insults. You can ensure many LGTB stay in the closet by agressively yelling out faggot at every LGTB couple you see holding hands. So a lot of people reap the benefit (say whatever shit you want) and the most vulnerable in society pay all the consequences. Hate speech is mostly prohibited in Canada, Belgium and Spain and hate crimes there are relatively low (compared to the US). There is an undeniable correlation between the two (and when politicians use the rhetoric of hate as well). So I think it all depends on if you value the idea of being able to say biggoted trash talk or value yourself or others being able to live their lives without random insults, intimidation and crimes committed against them because of their colour/gender/sexuality. But anyways, each country has made up their mind and such laws won’t change any time soon…and I’m grateful to live in a country where I don’t have to worry about such toxic life-limiting ostracizing painful bullshit.
My question, however, is should the same principle apply in such things as: university lectures, youtube videos, an employee tweeting about their job.