Lurker > Reigning_King

80/80

I think I've always know this on some level which is why I've always been obsessed with making up stories and characters since I was little, since even a child can conceive of a "better" world than the one that exists, although it is just that, an imaginary world.

A way to prove this is tricker but think of it like this. Say you have three doors in front of you and you are asked to open one of them. One door has a prize, one a penalty, and one has nothing and obviously you have no way of knowing which holds what. Once you open one door the others will be locked for the rest of time. From here say you open the first door and it is the penalty, this is obviously bad. Say you open the second door and it is nothing, well you could argue that it isn't good or bad but you would be wrong. You see, if you opened the second door that means you didn't open the first door which means you couldn't have received the penalty and thus were not "saved" or "fortunate" to avoid it. You can imagine a "what if" where you did get it but that is just a "what if" and is irrelevant because it never happened and because humans can only perceive time in one direction it will never happen effectively nullifying it. This also works the same way for you missing out on the reward, you didn't so much miss out as you never had any chance to get it in the first place, you were lied to. Hell for all you know there was never a prize or penalty go begin with and you were just being manipulated. Now lastly say you open the third door and win your prize, most would say there's no way to twist this into a negative thing but I have several. Firstly similar to the other doors if you opened the third then you didn't so much as "win" or "benefit" but are merely accepting something you were destined to gain and you were never at danger of getting the penalty or the empty door. Secondly a prize is only a prize under certain conditions, if you win a bunch of money and then someone murders you for it the next day then you would regret opening the third door right? Someone will say that this applies in reverse to the penalty, that opening door one could have some roundabout positives but the difference between the two is in that reality you would be guaranteed to suffer in exchange for a boon that may or may not ever come compared to a "boon" with suffering that WILL come. That brings me to my third point against door three, that being that humans (and all living things) only exist to desire. If you are given what you want or get a prize that might make you momentarily happy (happiness being the most fragile emotion by the way) but you will simply start striving for more in short time. Now I know what you want to say "Well RK you did manage to prove all of the doors are bad, but surely one must be the best and the one the worst." to that I ask you to consider that action creates fate. I mentioned this above but to explain a bit more, once you pick a door you were fated to pick that door. That doesn't mean you were predestined to pick that door from the moment you were born or anything, just that by opening one you lock yourself into that path and because the relation we have with time you were "fated" to pick that door. What this means is that whichever door you picked it is the worst door because they all have negatives that you will feel and the negatives of the other doors are rendered nullifying and void in your reality. Like the second door you can never be sure of the contents of the other doors either after opening them. Even if you still think the prize door is the best, if you opened the penalty door you have no way of ever knowing if the prize door even really existed and if you did open a "prize" door you don't know if the other two doors had prizes behind them making it even more meaningless than I already pointed it out to be. Now take everything I said and apply it to real life and you'll see that every action we take, every interaction we have, every single aspect of the universe is the worst possible one since it is the one that exists while any "better" or "worse" ones don't exist and never will and thus can't be compared to reality.

Mead posted...

so delusional for you to even act like the two are similar

one was a crime committed by a small number of individuals and the other was a directed attempt at overthrowing democracy

So looting, vandalization, assault, and so on are ok in your book as long as it's just criminals being scum and isn't overtly political? What are you trying to say? Why do you think that me wanting criminals to be held accountable in that instance means I somehow don't want them to be held accountable in this instance? Jesus Chirst political thinking really does a number on people's reasoning ability.

Also way to out yourself as the delusional one when you say the crimes were done by a small number of people. Yeah, I'm really sure it was just like a dozen people who cleared out all those stores and caused all the destruction. There are plenty of pictures online if you need a reminder of how bad things got.

Now if only people had done this sort of thing for the rioters who burned down businesses, vandalized property, and looted anything not nailed down across most of the major cities of the country last summer.

honkzilla posted...

I like it when people put themselves on blast by admitting that they don't know how to follow a threaded discussion

It's like a giant "I say very little that matters" sign

Right and the attitude redditors have of being starved for attention and saying/doing whatever they can to be recognized and rewarded by their """community""" is a great side effect of that format I'm sure. Reddit is absolute trash my guy.

PunishedOni posted...

just wondering. hows your day going

Same as usual. I haven't left the room I'm in for a few days but I might need to buy some water later today. I just read and play video games and stuff, it's pretty comfy. How are you?

PunishedOni posted...

ah. do you think you spend more time talking to women or reading 4chan posts about women

The latter, why?

Mead posted...

a pedophile?

Lol this is pretty funny coming from you given that post you just made in that other topic about not immediately judging groups and being more accepting and shit. Nothing but empty feel good phrases I suppose.

PunishedOni posted...

do you spend a lot of time on reddit

Gross, no. Reddit is an even worse forum than this one, the garbage is hardly navigable. The only time I ever go there is if I'm looking something up like for a game and Google has no other relevant results to point me towards.

Really I'm much more of a 4chan guy nornally over this place but I kinda got perma banned there and since I'm not at home it's more trouble than it's worth to evade it.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

That only helps when "yourself" is not an asshole or a creep, though.

Second one yes, first one no. There is definitely a noninsignifcant percentage of women who like men who are assholes.

Mead posted...

Funny how you have to build up a false straw man to argue against

Funny how you ignore the rest of the post that bytfo and don't know what the word argue means.

adjl posted...

Taken to its logical extreme, that approach would support exterminating all of humanity to ensure that nobody ever committed a murder, which is obviously stupid.

Is it? Do you just turn a blind eye to it and shrug saying "oh well, humans have been murdering each other since the dawn of time, nothing we can do to stop it entierly"? Well actually there IS a solution to that problem and it isn't the violent ons you bring up here.

Mead posted...

I dont think youre giving most children enough credit. Most are smarter than youd think and I think most would see the logic in what Im saying. At a certain point the safety of the many supersedes the preferences of the few.

Funny how the people who worship the vaccines and demand everyone takes it even if they don't consent to do so are the same ones most worried about their safety, almost like they don't trust the effectiveness of the very thing itself. If the "many" is comprised purely of the small percentage of people who want the get the vaccine, can't get the vaccine, and are actually at a high or moderate risk of taking covid badly (so nearly all kids who fit the first two are excluded here), AND are still healthy enough to actually make use of outdoor and public events/venues then the amount of people who have a preference for not wanting to take it and would be arrested in your sadist and insane plan is far, far larger so that "logic" of yours doesn't even work here. Your "plan" would create untold amounts of real suffering, magnatudes more than things going along as they are now to fix the illusionary, neurotic suffering of people who need something to be afraid of because the media told them to be afraid.

You don't need to grant me anything Zeus I'm just saying it like it is. Up until literally this year France for instance had no AOC law (it is now 15) and what Americans would consider pedophilia wasn't outright accepted there but they were pretty lax about it. There was a case a few years ago where the French government refused to charge two men who had sex with a 13 year old with a crime because the girl consented and there was no proof she was harmed by the event(their words, not mine mods). Japan is another example of a first world country that had set the "strike zone" much lower than we would be comfortable here. A decade ago you could buy videos there in public stores that would earn you a prison sentence here. Both countries are trying to change/cover up stuff like that but it is almost exclusively because of international pressure from the US, not because they suddenly decided something was wrong with their cultures.

There are regions that still have strong faith in religion and a reverence for virginity where child brides are a thing still and others where the woman (or little girl in this case) is supposed to basically just pump out babies and the issues that come up from teen pregnancy here aren't nearly as important. In the case in the OP I would bet that the main reason the mom was fine with it was because the man "took responsibility" and had the means/desire to care for the child and the... other child, so all was right with the world in her eyes. It just is like that some places even if 12 is still on the younger end.

adjl posted...

For reasons we've been over exhaustively but you've decided not to care about because you're inexplicably attached to being wrong, that was a bad idea.

Even if you're correct that it was a bad idea, so what? Since when do humans need to act optimally like machines at all times instead of doing what they want to do? Smoking, drinking, overeating, promiscuity, etc. are all "bad ideas" but we don't try to force people not to do them as long as they're adults.

Mead posted...

Anyone that is eligible but hasnt been vaccinated by the end of the year without a valid medical exemption should be viewed as a person who has volunteered for deportation.

If they want to stick around then they should be treated as an illegal immigrant.

How on earth can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you throw out insane ideas like this so detached from reality that a child would laugh at them?

adjl posted...

And getting vaccinated is very obviously the most effective way to ensure they don't have to.

...Not really? All you have to do is walk outside, you don't need a vaccines to do that. Hell I went on a cross country trip where I was outside and moving from town to town for a solid month and a half and I don't have (nor will I ever get) the vaccine.

Zeus posted...

Yeah, that's kinda racist. And ridiculous, since I'm pretty sure most nations set the AOC higher than 12 >_>

Just because a law is technically on the books doesn't necessarily mean it is regularly followed or enforced. There are absolutely certain cultural groups who look at this kind of thing completely differently than most Americans would. Really as far as things like this subject goes America is more on the prudish side, some of the states having the AOC at 18 would be ridiculous to most of the world's population. Like cultural norms are different between cultures, that's pretty unavoidable.

jramirez23 posted...

One of the weird things I have heard is that we typically celebrate business people who have put together a good plan and monitor all aspects of their company in a detailed, organized fashion. But if you take this same approach to something like finding a partner, it just seems weird to a lot of people. Maybe not as much anymore. What do you think of that?

Well romantic love is basically a socially acceptable and widespread form of psychosis so in a bizarre way it makes sense for people to not want it to make sense the way many other things do.

DiduXD posted...

Why am I not surprised to see stuff like this?

...Because it has happened many times before? Why would you find it suprising?

Criminalt posted...

It took a while for the mechanism of transmission to be properly understood, there was a lot of confusion and misinformation, and even by the middle of the decade there still remained uncertainty and fear about whether or not it was even safe to shake hands with someone who's gay. Gay men were treated as likely carriers of a deadly disease simply on account of their sexual preference, because their sexual preference was deemed to be their "lifestyle". It was as much about perceptions of the disease and of those whom it affected as it was about its health impact.

Ah. I will admit I didn't think of it like that at all. I suppose the saying "hindsight is 20-20" is appropriate here but if I do sit and think about it I suppose I had heard things about the paranoia people had. While I wasn't alive to see that play out for myself I've seen plenty of examples of how irrational fear that can twist people here in this era so it checks out.

Criminalt posted...

When a lot of your friends and people you love start dying from some new disease called AIDS, you know the 80s are a shitty decade to be gay. That's not looking back on it through a "social media addicted, outraged lens".

Wasn't the issue with AIDs more of a promiscuity and lack of basic safe sex practices thing more than sexual preference? After all if a couple only sleeps with each other and they both know the other person has been tested and they have a trustworthy character then it's almost impossible for any issues like that to come up regardless of if they're straight or gay.

PunishedOni posted...

david benatar isnt gonna fuck you bro

Good, seeing as I'm a guy and I'm only attracted to women.

Really it should be the other way around. Anyone who does use their reproductive ability should have to pay the state a large sum of money every year after they have their first child and if they can't they should either accept sterilization to prevent them from doing it again or if they refuse that they should be incarcerated to atone for their sins and prevent more.

sodium-chloride posted...

I don't understand the mindset of people who go into huge indoor public spaces like grocery stores and malls without a mask on.

Seems pretty simple to me, they don't want to wear one so they don't wear one.

What I don't get is the people who will be out jogging or riding a bike without anyone else anywhere near them and yet they still wear their mask. My best guess would be that it's virtue signaling or some sort of psychological dependency issue but who knows.

Gaawa_chan posted...

You really are incapable of responding to a single thing people actually say, aren't you?

I'm not sure you should be saying something like that when that whole post I quoted was you going after a strawman that nobody brought up.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Homelessness is not something that someone does. Being a victim of domestic violence or being kicked out of your home by your family is not a choice. Being laid off is not a choice. Being mentally ill is not a choice. Housing prices going up while wages stagnate is not a choice. Economic crashes are not a choice.

Of course you think that everyone who is homeless just refuses to work or some nonsense like that. Most of the homeless people I have known DO work, including underage homeless people. You're just relying on stereotypes to do your arguing for you.

You're completely missing the point of that post btw.

Well you got the meaning I was trying to get across orginally and that's the main thing.

...Yeah? I mean yeah technically I don't have a permanent place to stay myself but I'm not a veteran and I have enough money saved up to just stay in motels and stuff.

Mead posted...

nope

Fair enough, it is prison slang after all.

Mead posted...

nope theyre just gonna arrest or fine any homeless seen in those areas

Have you ever heard the expression "three hots and a cot"?

Zareth posted...

Didn't you hear? The BLM riots last year literally set the entire country on fire. We're still cleaning up all the ashes.

Well I'd call that hyperbole but there was still plenty of damage to be seen a year later in several of the cities I passed through recently. Cities specifically like Chicago, Minneapolis, and Seattle. Most of the small towns I went through in states like Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Montana were completely untouched and peaceful and had been at the time.

I figured this would be another helpful topic to bring up in line with some of my other ones since someone said something about it. I'll keep it short though since I'm very busy right now.

I choose not to have friends, just as a choose not to have a girl friend, co workers, neighbors, and I put as much distance between myself and my family as possible. The main reason is largely the same in each case, that being that I don't like being used. Any time anyone EVER interacts with you it is because they want something from you. It can be attention, entertainment, money, a sense of belonging, an emotional sponge, etc. etc. The list goes on forever but it is undeniable that a reason or reasons from the list are behind every single human interaction that has ever occurred in the world.

Most people either don't notice this because they are so used it things being this way that it doesn't register or they know that they are just as guilty as anyone else and shrug their shoulders and go with it. Not me, I'm done with letting myself be used on a constant basis. People who can see clearly enough to accept what I've said so far might claim that something like friendship (or the other relationships I mentioned) while still ultimately being two people using one another it is beneficial for both parties and is a symbolic relationship so it shouldn't be shunned but that is only true from a relative standpoint. Friendship has more rewards compared to weak relationships you might have with a co-worker you hardly talk to but it's still objectively trash overall. It isn't a win-win, it's a lose-lose because just like machines that are 100% efficient can't exist you will never get more than what is taken from you in a relationship with another human and while the rewards in friendship are higher so are the costs.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

if youre so smart why dont you have any friends

Do you really want to know? It's a complicated topic and I don't want to derail this important thread. Who knows, more people who have never done anything meaningful to solve the problem and just sit around and agree with other people in an echo chamber might be just what we need to end this scourge once and for all. Wouldn't want to get in the way of that.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

you can turn the @ feature off

I don't have a problem with the feature, it's pretty cool actually. I just don't like getting excited that something cool happened and then being disappointed when I find out it's something like that.

Mead posted...

@Reigning_King youre the last person who should be calling anyone childish

Says the person trying to agitate me for no reason by doing something I just told someone else not to do.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

hey @Reigning_King can you address this post please

Don't @ me over something of that caliber. Just because a post is long doesn't mean it's good but I guess you still found it impressive. For one there is no way to verify the account as described and even if it was completely true it is merely anecdotal and not at all the norm. Once you get past all that self congratulatory gloating is a denial of common sense and reality by doing things like implying it isn't the norm to be selfish or that something like homelessness can just be solved the same way one would a math problem. It's childish naivete and will forever be nothing more than powerless words because it denies human nature. I wouldn't be surprised if that poster was a wannabe communist for similar ideological reasons, a chaser of pipe dreams that is to say.

There are so many sympathetic people on this board it brings a tear to my eye. I'm sure all of you would be happy to let some homeless people camp in your yard or even move into your home with you. At the very least I'm sure you donate plenty of your extra money and possessions to those less fortunate than you and you aren't just saying things because they "feel" right without actually thinking them through.

So if anyone remembers that first post I made, did anyone think I was talking about letting kids watch porn involving other kids when I said some types might be more helpful than hurtful? I feel like if anyone had taken that away from what I said I would have gotten called out for it but I didn't because obviously that isn't what I was trying to say at all.

The mods thought differently I guess though. Weird they'd even leave this thread up if that's the first place their minds go.

Wait, sorry for the off topic post but did they change it so that when someone has you on ignore you can't read their posts? I can't see #14. Man that's wild, when did that happen?

Hmm.

I know that the vast majority of child porn these day is created by the children themselves via webcam and sexting strangers (and created in far greater amounts than ever before at that) who they think of as "friends" or whatever since every kid has a cellphone these days. Kids are also able to circumvent most parental controls, if their parents even bother to make the gesture in the first place. Basically it seems like an unclosable Pandora's box kinda situation where as long as you have kids, the internet, and porn the three are going to get all mixed up together. In a situation like that maybe trying to mitigate things by openly letting kids watch certain kinds of porn would help. I mean when I was a kid and got caught looking at naughty magazines back in the day I distinctly remember being scolded and told it was bad because it degraded women, what if I had been looking at something that didn't though?

...Or we could solve the problem by just not having any more kids and breaking the conditions for the problem existing in the first place, just a thought.

Entity13 posted...

What I do imagine is someone trying to avoid a sore arm only to end up with a sore everything, or worse - that and the inability to pay for much-needed respiration.

Good thing not everyone has to suffer that fate though, right? My room mate caught it back when things were really bad and thankfully he just lost his sense of taste for about a week. We laughed about how him getting to stay home from work for two weeks catch up on his video game backlog was more than worth that minor drawback.

CaptainStrong posted...

Being a smoker or over eater doesn't endanger everyone you go near.

Huh? Seems like you moved the goalposts there but whatever. Can't vaccinated people still spread the virus anyways? I know I've seen pro vaccine people here say that.

CaptainStrong posted...

Because a lot of people are dumbasses who don't know what's good for them and maybe giving them money will get them to get vaccinated.

We don't pay people to stop smoking or over eating and making themselves overweight though.

Also before someone tries to twist this, I'm not saying something that can't be justified shouldn't necessarily not exist if it doesn't already. Alright?

That would be an incredibly lame reason, almost as bad as the conspiracy nuts in a way.

Personally I'm not getting it because I've been programmed with God's failsafe so I'll accept whatever comes of not getting it.

This is part two of my anti-natalism topic. Seeing as no one on this board was able to come up with a legitimate counter in the time it has been up I figured it was time to move on to this since I've proven that bringing new people into existence is immoral. So this topic has nothing to do with those who might exist but those who do exist, you and I.

"But why do I need to justify my existence?" you might be asking, well honestly you don't need to, but it is a matter of morality I'm looking at once again. To justify something means to defend it by proving that it is reasonable or morally correct. Morality dictates that he who causes unjustified harm to another is wrong to do so and those who cause harm regularly or in great amounts are cruel and immoral. There is some leeway with that rule however in that sometimes causing suffering for a greater good can be accepted, the greater good being the justification. I don't think many would disagree with that.

What most people refuse to admit however is that simply by existing they cause untold amounts of harm and suffering to living things. It is a universal sin, an orginal sin, no human is exempt no matter how righteous they might try to act. All life forms stand a top a pile of corpses, and the apex predators stand on piles of corpses made from piles of corpses. Humanity is by far the most deadly apex predator to ever exist. I'm not just talking about things like meat consumption either, our society rises only by propping it up on more death and suffering, human death and suffering more so than other animals.

Every single facet of your life is infused with the unheard or unheeded cries of suffering. Unless a reason can be provided that proves the suffering caused to others is reasonable despite its perpetuity and strength there is only one conclusion to come to.

So I ask those of you who have accepted my challenge, what is your proof of validity, your reasoning, your end goal that will justify the pain you cause?

I'm not saying you all have to agree with TC or anything, but what is the point of posting that they're wrong without even bothering to try to refute their claim? Seems pretty silly at best and malicious at worst.

Now that's sus. Why on earth would they pay people to take something that's good for them? Logically it should be the other way around.

sodium-chloride posted...

it's entirely plausible that the dude shot during a gun fight happening on-screen. it'd be pretty difficult to tell what a real gunshot vs a movie shot would be

Why would you say something like this that is completely false?

adjl posted...

which is only reliably attainable with high vaccination rates.

itp: low population density areas don't exist

Kimbos_Egg posted...

Who

ARE

You?

Tengu_Spam
Sleeping_King
Dreaming_King
and this one Reigning_King are the usernames I've gone by (not counting one off joke alts). Surely one of those is familiar to you since I recognize your user name.

You were this close to getting it. I'll leave it to you as homework if you want.

Kimbos_Egg posted...

God do I regret making this topic

Next time read the article properly to help avoid making a misleading title and you should be good.