Skip Navigation

User banner

LengAwaits

@ LengAwaits @lemmy.world

Posts
5
Comments
225
Joined
3 yr. ago

Buy, Sell, Eat, Repeat,

Buy, Sell, Eat, Repeat,

Buy, Sell, Eat, Repeat,

Buy, Sell, Eat, Repeat.

  • Sam Altman Says If Jobs Gets Wiped Out, Maybe They Weren’t Even “Real Work” to Start With

    Jump

  • This is the tricky nature of "value", isn't it?

    Something can be both valuable and detrimental to humanity.

  • ‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat

    Jump

  • If you'd gotten this response to asking the question "How is the game played?" to someone insinuating that they knew how the game was played, would you feel that you'd gotten a satisfactory answer?

  • ‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat

    Jump

  • How is the game played?

  • Mass Shootings at Two Homeless Camps After Fox Host Called for Homeless to Be Killed

    Jump

  • We're In Hell is a fantastic channel with excellent, well researched content. Easily in my top 3 these days, along with PlasticPills and SomeMoreNews.

  • Tyler Robinson Left Note Vowing to 'Take Out Charlie Kirk': FBI

    Jump

  • Thank you!

  • Tyler Robinson Left Note Vowing to 'Take Out Charlie Kirk': FBI

    Jump

  • Care to analyze any of the statements that have been called out? Or maybe copy/screenshot any of the comments discrediting them if you have the time?

    I'm not trying to be an asshole, here, but everything beyond the first sentence or two in your comment is just character assassination (ad hominem). Obviously the guy's credentials are not in law, but that doesn't automatically invalidate his analysis since we've got no concept of who he's able to consult with behind the scenes.

    I don't have a BlueSky account, so I can't check the comments for myself, only see the root posts.

  • Trump supporters report higher levels of psychopathy, manipulativeness, callousness, and narcissism

    Jump

  • If you're interested in the methodology used, here's a link to the full study.

    Essentially, they didn't ask if the person thought they were a psychopath; They asked questions to which the answers reveal underlying character traits. Of course, no method of data collection is perfect. If you want to know what steps were taken to filter out insincere subjects, that information can also be found within the full study.

  • When you grow up

    Jump

  • Sure, let's discuss the nature of want, then, if that's your chosen distraction.

    And no, I don't have any self respect. I will wank all day long. Self respect is for people who take themselves far too seriously. I only mention your intellectual status due to the fact that you seem to take yourself very seriously.

  • When you grow up

    Jump

  • Why wait for later? I've asked plenty of questions in just my previous comment that we can discuss. Once you've proven that you engage in good faith, logical discourse I'll be happy to talk to you for as long as you'd like about whatever topics.

    Speaking of which, you never answered my question about whether you've ever been wrong about anything! I'm still waiting to hear from you on that one! The most intelligent people I've met in my life always seem to be the most capable of admitting that they don't know nearly as much as they wish that they did.

  • When you grow up

    Jump

  • I'm not interested in discussing the concept of justice with you. You argue in bad faith, as though you're playing a zero-sum sports game and are willing to cheat to "win".

    What relevance does that have to the fact that your premise is logically flawed? You've latched on to some perceived "gotcha", which is wholly unbecoming of an intellectual such as yourself.

    The difference between an acceptable want and a want in a controlled population is a red herring that you've latched onto and extrapolated on in your own mind. Not only that, but your fixation on that quote represents a clear misunderstanding of my ontological intent.

    Answering this desperate question of yours has zero relevance to the fact that your statement "The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else." is logically flawed via the fallacy of consent. Unless, that is, you can prove otherwise?

  • When you grow up

    Jump

  • Well it sounds like you've read into my comments far beyond my meaning, then.

    As to how I refuse to apply "oppressor" to the hawk... I can see why you would advance that idea, but the definition of oppression defies it, by my view:

    verb: oppress

    • keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority.

    *edited to fix a copy/paste mistake (consent should have been oppress in the definition)

  • When you grow up

    Jump

  • You have repeatedly failed to address your own inconsistencies, and have ignored direct questions such as:

    "As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor."

    When pressed too much on any of your inconsistencies, you latch onto something else and attempt to shift the discussion. Your statement, "The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else." remains logically flawed despite these contortions.

    I fail to see how my position lacks consistency. If you can more clearly explain how I've been inconsistent, I'd be happy to address that. I disagree with your assertion that the rodent is being "oppressed" by the hawk, and you have not provided sufficient reasoning for why I "must accept" that position, upon which your "logical chain of meaning", such as it was, is based on you putting words into my mouth and then dictating what I believe. This is yet another fallacy (strawman fallacy).

    I do have a question for you that's somewhat off topic. Have you ever been wrong about anything? I am and have been wrong a lot in my life, and I've found it's much easier to reconcile and manage my state of mind when I acknowledge that I am not infallible in my thought or belief.

  • When you grow up

    Jump

  • noun: consent; plural noun: consents

    • compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another

    noun: agency; plural noun: agencies

    • the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power

  • When you grow up

    Jump

  • Sure. A rodent that runs from or struggles against the talons of a hawk is demonstrating non-consent to the idea of being predated or consumed. It does not consent to this arrangement, and thus it resists, however futile such resistance might prove to be.

    As to your second question, I'm afraid I'll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.

  • When you grow up

    Jump

  • An understanding of consent is important to the topic at hand, certainly, but your reply does not address the fallacy of consent, nor does it demonstrate a particularly strong grasp on the root concept of consent. Consent exists whether or not you believe in it. Much like the sun.

  • When you grow up

    Jump

  • Ignoring the fact that society's builders, such as you describe them, constructed society a priori, you're falling prey to the fallacy of consent.

  • When you grow up

    Jump

  • At every point people can always want whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean it can come to pass as it may not be in the realm of possibility. I could want to go to the moon right this minute but it obviously isn’t going to happen. A person about to die in a prison cell may want to get out but that’s probably not going to happen. They are free to want it and by that, they necessarily also want to suffer from the perceived lack of freedom. Or, they can want what is in the realm of possibility, and have their wants met. Prison or the mundane existence of earth’s gravity, you have the option of wanting what is possible or what isn’t possible. Wanting the suffering of the lack, or enjoying what is given. But neither I nor anyone else can make someone want what they don’t. I can just point out that there are options and it’s on the individual then to then weigh if the options are truly in the realm of possibility for them - I can’t make that choice for them either.

    So you agree, then, that your sentence "The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else." is logically flawed?

  • come on

    Jump

  • "trump banner dc"

    You'll find it to be a very effective search engine query.

  • When you grow up

    Jump

  • You can’t resist a system and simultaneously demand the right to enjoy the fruits of that system.

    I'm not sure how this point has any relevance to this discussion. No one brought up demands.

    Is there any point by your view, excepting death, at which you believe a person is no longer able to exercise their wants?

  • politics @lemmy.world
    LengAwaits @lemmy.world

    Democratic Senators Team Up With MAGA To Hand Trump A Censorship Machine

    www.techdirt.com /2025/03/21/democratic-senators-team-up-with-maga-to-hand-trump-a-censorship-machine/
  • Programmer Humor @programming.dev
    LengAwaits @lemmy.world

    19871122 - Catch The Wave!

  • A Boring Dystopia @lemmy.world
    LengAwaits @lemmy.world

    Consumer, we have detected that you are above the poverty line. The 99¢ price printed on this Arizona tea can only applies to those below the poverty line. Your total comes to $3.67.

  • 3DPrinting @lemmy.world
    LengAwaits @lemmy.world

    I'm not sure...

  • Late Stage Capitalism @lemmygrad.ml
    LengAwaits @lemmy.world

    Cartier boss with $7.5bn fortune says prospect of the poor rising up 'keeps him awake at night'

    www.independent.co.uk /news/business/cartier-boss-with-7-5bn-fortune-says-prospect-poor-rising-up-keeps-him-awake-at-night-10307485.html