EightBitBlood @ EightBitBlood @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

184

Joined

2 yr. ago

ROFL: Retarded Or Fucking Lonely. In your case, I think it's both.

Right so this is a different concept to the definition of "duty" you gave previously.

It isn't.

Please explain the difference between both to prove it.

I provided an analogy. Which doesn't contradict anything.

I also already provided the definition of what an analogy is so I could mention it now.

Because your ignorance is very predictable.

I also accurately guessed you'd be backpedaling to saying there's a seperate concept of duty.

And here we are.

Next up - you refusing to explain your own claimed differences between the concepts of duty.

The problem isn't my answer. It's your willful ignorance to understand it.

Simply put:

I asked about duty, not about "biological duty".

Explain how these are different. Otherwise they aren't.

Would love to hear your explanation as to why voters chose Trump over Kamala that doesn't boil down to being duped into conflating popularity with functional policy.

Our government is a clown show of reality TV rejects that you have rationalized as qualified due to a diet of purely manufactured infotainment.

Anyone with any meaningful government experience has done nothing but warn you about how little fucks Trump gives about this country, but you think because he puts himself in front of an American flag he has every right to store all our countries most valuable secrets in a bathroom with a fax machine readily accessible to any foreign agent willing to pay Jared more billions.

Trump has done nothing but shit in your mouth, and the only one believing it tastes good is you. Too bad generations of Americans will now have to eat it too because you've been tricked into thinking punishing made up enemies somehow equates to societal progress.

Analogy:

a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

My first attempt at explaining "biological duty" was through an analogy.

Breathing. Shitting. Pretty obvious tasks your body has a "biological duty" to perform without your consent if you are to survive.

If your heart stops beating, you die If you don't breath, you die.

Are you personally choosing to make your body do these things at all times?

No. Your body is doing it for you (regrettably).

Why is your body doing that?

My answer: It's because our genetic code evolved to have a duty to preserve our existence.

You answer: shrug emoji

If you want to insist that you can't understand what I mean when I say "biological duty" then you're gonna have to explain how your heart beats without you thinking about it.

Because frankly, at this point, I'd love for you to be right about me making up "biological duty" when it comes to your body and the heart that keeps it going.

Whether you want it to or not, your body is forcing you to preserve yourself. Which is a basic concept in biology, and readily observable in all living things if you ever bothered to go outside.

First result from Google:

"biological duty" refers to the inherent functions or purposes that living organisms are considered to have, often relating to their SURVIVAL and reproduction.

So to put it all back in context for you to obstinately refuse to consider:

You aren't the reason your heart beats. You aren't the reason you get hungry. You aren't the reason you feel lonely.

That's your body.

It does its own thing to guarantee your survival. Whether you want it to or not. Which is why it's considered a "duty." In the biology books I previously mentioned you need to read, this is defined as your bodies "biological duty" of self preservation.

All humans have it. Whether you understand it or not, you have it too.

It forces you to eat. It forces you to breath. It forces you to sleep. But more importantly, it forces you to build an environment where you can obtain these things in the future too.

Birds build nests. Beavers build dams. Humans build small familial communities.

These provide you with food when your body can't. These provide you with a place to sleep if you have none.

Ever feel lonely? Yeah, that's your bodies way of telling you you're "hungry" for socialization. Socialization that when developed enough, can provide you reproductive options, and food / shelter security.

Your body wants you to meet other humans to guarantee your survival. Your body wants you to help these people as that both increase your chances they will help you survive, and bonus, releases a fuck load of dopamine to make you feel good.

So:

Everyones bodies, regardless of their control over it, compels them to survive and to help other humans due the same - which over time, creates groups of people helping each other mutually beyond what they are capable of providing themselves. This grouping can be a family, or any other grouping of humans as I previously mentioned.

At scale, this means all humans are working to benefit themselves and others. Which in turn benefits the species as a whole.

So if you are human, your DNA is literally programmed with an unavoidable duty to preserve you and other humans as far as it possibly can.

If you occupy a human body, then that body is programmed with a biological duty to preserve you and other humans.

Unless you are:

A) Depressed B) Sociopath C) Sourrounded by wealth C) Not human

This is the same answer I've always provided. It is a very simple and widely accepted answer to the questions you have asked.

If you want an answer, you now have one.

But you don't want an answer. You just want to feel special about something ignorant you thought of, never defined, never researched, and now clearly can't back down from.

Second definition from Google / dictionary:

Duty - a task or action that someone is required to perform.

"the queen's official duties"

Or in the way I used it:

The "human biological duties" we all have specifically required for human survival.

You brought up the importance of "duty" and how it's something my point didn't fit, but the responsibility of defining it was up to you. Yet you failed to provide a definition, just like you've failed to say literally anything this whole conversation.

I knew you'd fail to define "duty" which would allow me to provide it in turn and fully prove my point. Which I just did.

So now you're fucked.

You're clearly incapable of admitting fault, listening, or forming a coherent concept that isn't just your opinion disguised as questions.

All you can do now is split hairs (look that one up yourself) so your next response will be to move the goalposts of your question somewhere else you feel you can still be right.

Lemme guess - another definition of duty? Maybe a weaker one you will claim you really meant, but clearly just failed to provide in the first place and now are just scrambling back to?

Or, you really are just a boring troll who gives zero fucks and will now say your question has nothing to do with duty after forgetting how hard you just really went in on that being the key part of the argument you never made.

There's another option you could take: Your question has been answered in full.

Which is very much what a reasonable person would do at this point. But it's pretty clear that's not what this conversation is actually about for you anymore.

The definition of "duty" fits my point perfectly, unless you want to explain it how it doesn't.

You didn't say any of that.

That's what my second comment saying just that was for.

You didn't understand my original point (and still don't).

Which is why I made a second comment explaining that you can ctrl+F for "children" and replace it with "family" to better understand my point.

The answer to your question can be found in multitudes of philosophy, ethics, and biology books. I encourage you to read them instead of trolling here for the sake of your own ego.

Because this question of yours:

Why does one have a duty to improve one's own future or the future of one's family?

Has an obvious answer. One that you can reach by asking similarly obvious questions.

"Why does one have a duty to eat?"

Or breath?

Or sleep?

Survival. That's why. Without eating, sleeping, or breathing you die. Without a community to help provide security for these things, you also die. (Unless you want to tell me humans aged 0-8 are expected to survive if yeeted into the wild? I sincerely doubt you would too despite being older)

Survival is a BIOS level operating function of everything living.

And the same point I first made along with everyone else that you will continue to ignore.

So it's not so much a "duty," as a biological compulsion similar to being hungry. Making us all want to survive, and eventually thrive for a happy life. And the only way that happens is if we work to maintain or improve our environment. (Like eating when you're hungry). Our own biology pushes us to do that through internal reward mechanisms that spiral out into a feedback loop of prosperity. Like when you body tells you something tastes good, and you want to share that taste with a friend.

Your question implies an unsaid argument that is essentially the fast food equivalent of nihilism. That humans don't matter, and our lives are meaningless.

No offense, but you are either too young or too far up your own ass if you think you're on to anything new with your question. It's been answered hundreds of times throughout history by people far smarter than us, and I'm not going to hold your hand through understanding something you are clearing saying just because you want to feel special when saying it rather than learn an actual answer.

If you want to feel that life is meaningless, go right ahead. But stop pretending that you can't give it meaning yourself. I've given you the basic biological one, you're gonna have to open a book if you want the rest.

I haven't made an argument.

Then why are you saying I'm wrong? About what? What point are you defending if you never made one?

These are not rhetorical questions.

Playing pin the tail on your point isn't a game others should be playing for you. Say what you're thinking out loud, or it isn't worth saying.

Because this:

Your answer is limited to parents only.

Is completely wrong.

My answer is limited to family. Children of which were the best example. However, any human can be your family. Adoption, Friendship, and close relationships all form the bonds that can make up a family. And helping better our families helps better their own environment which in turns helps others. No human relationship requires a biological componant for you to be in their family.

So my answer is indeed for all humans.

You're either a troll or an edge lord that's too young to understand their own Temu version of nihilism.

Literally open any book on morality, read it, then ask yourself why humans are compelled to feel "right" about what they are doing.

They want to feel that way because we are social animals who are biologically compelled to help each other. Which strengthens our communities, and therefore our lives in them. We even evolved to release dopamine in our brains when what we are doing for that community feels "right" aka morality.

This works for all humans (except sociopaths.)

Helping other humans literally makes you feel good, and improves the quality of the community you live in for a better future. The closer you feel to that community (family) the better you feel when helping them.

There you go. All humans.

And why we should treat each other well due to our basic biology (it makes you feel good) and improves of our own futures and that of our families.

Looking forward to hearing about how this is still wrong when compared to the point you've never made.

You're "forced" to pay taxes for the stability it provides the entire community.

Here's a great study on what causes crime:

https://sentencing.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/sentencingnvgov/content/Meetings/2022/08.24.22%20NSC%20Mtg.%20Agenda%20Item%208%20PFJ%20What%20Really%20Lowers%20Crime.pdf

Overwhelmingly most crime and violence in a community is related to the ability it's people have to earn income, housing, and healthcare. The very things our taxes are supposed to provide a security net for.

The taxes "forced" on you, to a point, are necessary for the stability of our communities. And the reason that stability is fading in most American cities isn't becuase of illegals, it's because of conservatives lowering and diverting tax revenues away from the social programs necessary to minimize crime. (Because those programs are "socialism.") Also conservatives fighting to never raise the minimum wage for a generation of Americans. What are the conservative policies on housing again? Oh yeah, people now have to compete with corporations to get them, so prices will never lower.

People are generally happy to pay taxes towards social safety nets when they understand the basic economics of the security it provides. Especially when there is a scientifically proven increase in violence and crime that comes from the erosion of that security.

If you feel "forced" to provide basic economic security to other Americans for the benefit of your entire community, and it's safety - then you don't have to look far to find a conservative who is against charity. Just look in a mirror.

Thanks! And appreciate it.

I'm more trying to trap the troll with bait than just feed it.

While I was honest about what I said, it leaves the troll with no place to go that isn't morally reprehensible.

So they'll either stop, or continue on with some shallow belief that the value of human life can be quantified. The conversation ends there eitherway 👍

Why?

Survival of the human species.

Which should be an extention of your own personal will to survive if you are not a sociopath, narciccist, or suicidally depressed.

The entire history of human civilization has pretty much only moved forward when we worked together with like minded goals.

This is because the power and skill one person can obtain will always be dwarfed by the power and skill obtainable by hundreds or thousands. Even the most impossible problems to solve, like landing on the Moon without computers, has been conquered through the collective will and skill of our species. But rarely, if ever, by an individual.

During the industrial age, the goal of working together was the improvement of our livelihoods and well being. Now in the information age, it's about survival.

No Billionaire has the skill or power to stop climate change.

But enough of us together do. Unquestionably.

Unless you only care about yourself and can't see the benefits of what working towards a goal that isn't your own can bring.

No offense, but your argument is that of a rich white liberal that's too insulated by money to bother reading about the overwhelming economic benefits of things like taxes, and regulations.

Basically, in case you didn't know - as someone else mentioned - you live in the same world as everyone else.

And what that means is that this world very much has an effect on your day to day life in what opportunities and options it provides you. All of which are not at all decided by you.

The quality of institutions, education, healthcare, and security you have access to are directly related to the skills and efforts of the hundreds of people running them. Not yours.

You will be better educated, have a better job, and have better health in these communities because these are things ONLY others can provide YOU.

So working towards improving these jobs, and the people doing them, also allows you access to that improvement. When a communities environment improves for all in it, that certainly includes you.

That's the short of it - but unfortunately we live in a world where billionaires have decided that's just all bullshit instead of accepted science with hundreds of years of validated experiments in sociology, economics, and anthropology to confirm.

So now because of the actions of billionaires who have been taking from all our communities for the benefit of themselves - we are now ALL in the same prisoners dillema. They have created an environment for us all where we only have the following choices:

A) Be too distracted by the firehouse of social media bullshit to do anything. B) Be a coward and convince yourself to do nothing. C) Work together to combine resources and prevent our own extinction.

Billionaires are actively working towards our own existential demise, so you are either choosing to fight against that or do nothing to let them kill us all.

So to answer WHY:

It's so the future is one where your kids are happy instead of living as slaves in a dying world. Your inaction guarantees the later result.

Bonus: everyone becomes happier when working towards a better future if you ever decide to try.

Sure, that's what Trump is doing - but does he even realize it?

A toddler learning to walk gets a lot of attention from his parents when he tries to stick a fork in an outlet.

If that Toddler wants more attention, they'll do it again and again without ever realizing how close to being electrocuted they are. Eventually that Toddler grows up learning all the wrong lessons, and if they come from enough money they never suffer or learn the consequences for acting that way. That Toddler, now adult, still craves negative attention from adults, and acts like an insufferable asshole to get it, grabbing people by their genitals, doing drugs, and never getting punished because of their parents wealth.

Do they know they're an insufferable asshole? Do they know their actions - done purely for attention - have a bigger impact on those around them?

I don't think they do.

They are too emotionally underdeveloped and intellectually stunted to ever understand their own motivations.

When it comes to Trump, I don't think there's a chance in hell he knows he's even doing his "big ask" strategy. I think he's at the mental capacity of a toddler doing to the world what worked for him to get attention from his deranged parents.

He'd ask them for big things, like an entire business he can run to get their respect, then settle for a small loan or something else he'd never get from them otherwise because his parents hated and mocked him for taking their handouts instead of working on anything himself.

He's a toddler doing what worked for him to get his parents attention on a national scale, and I sincerely doubt he even understands his compulsion to behave that way.

Based on US history? Yes. Based on the overwhelming majority of experts? Yes. Based on basic economic theory? Also Yes.

Pretty sure Microsoft has already damaged the Xbox brand by boycotting it themselves. Which certainly makes this easier.

It's a picture of the stock market melting down...

...from a time frame of 2021 and on.

Which implies the growth from that time until now is somewhat meaningful in comparison to the dip that specific time frame does its best to minimize.

Which to me, seems intentional. Kinda like you're being a dick. Which is why I responded like one in turn.

If that was all an accident:

Then apologies for calling you an idiot and listing in detail all the ways I agree with you about the market melting.

Yep. There's this strategy called "pump and dump." It's often used by the wealthy to inflate stock prices before cratering them to buy at discount.

Idiots like you see line go up for a while, and think:

• I'll buy at a discount as it falls

Instead of noticing the "pump" part of the scheme, also visible in your image.

Unless you want to point to some economic windfall happening between 2022 and 24 that explains all that growth, it is very likely from downsizing, buybacks, and off market darkpool price manipulation. (Which now happens regularly these days with every blue chip stock around 5pm).

Historically, Tariffs lead to a recession in 1830 (15% Tariffs), a Depression in 1930 (20% Tariffs), and now with a 40% plus Tariffs on basically everything, we are likely to see the complete disembowlment of the US Dollar and all the market dominance we built with it.

You better get your completely misplaced premature celebration out now, because you are going to be eating crow the rest of this year, and far into the future. There's no amount of bullshit Trump spin that will bring our markets back. We are unquestionably fucked.

I will gladly check back here in 8 months to provide an updated chart, seeing as you will certainly be too embarrassed to do so.

Just FYI, you're arguing with someone that agrees with you.

I agree with you too, but only about your main point. Not "all men."

That assumption is the same logic as bigots and the very "men" you are trying to chastize. Let me just rephrase what you wrote to make my point:

It truly is 'all women' when it comes to a discussion about being involuntarily celibate. Using whataboutism to studiously ignore the issue at hand.

You literally are using the same arguments that incels do to justify their hatred and punishment of women.

Just changing the who and what in that argument does not make it a logically sound one.

Anecdotally, I'm a man, and one that has literally saved a woman from being arrested for assault because I recognized she was having an extreme bipolar manic episode, and not just "going crazy" like her female friends believed when they called the cops on her.

The belief our penis prevents us from acting humane is laughable bigotry.

If you want to make a scientific point, don't follow it with unscientific insults.

I don't disagree. But I have a unique take on the fall of empires and the evil inherent in humans.

Imo, evil is a byproduct of human selfishness. Taking without empathy towards where it's coming from. Money, power, property, and even life itself.

There are people that do this because of their isolated environment. (Raised to think anyone that doesn't look like them isn't human, and therefore it's alright to exploited them for gain.)

And there are those that do it because they are sociopaths.

While Sociopathic diagnoses isn't an easy thing we can pin down. In a world where our social behaviors can be dramatically affected by our genetics (autism) it's not hard to assume sociopathy is just another manifestation of something like autism. Just a more extreme one - where a person literally is incapable of understanding others as human with emotions like them.

These people are born incapable of understanding that other people have feelings at all. So they don't contribute to communities, they don't help others, they just lie and pretend to be like others to exploit for their own gain. They lie to appear social and kind (towards some), as that attracts others in that group they can easily take from.

You know the uncanny valley? The unsettling feeling we get when we see CG that looks human, but doesn't quite move or act like a real human?

imo that's an evolutionary response to our habit of breeding sociopaths. They pretend VERY hard to be human, but lack the natural primate communal instinct everyone else is born with. They look human, but don't act like it compared to the rest of the community.

In smaller groups, like towns or families, these people can be kicked out and otherwise ostracized to protect the smaller community from being exploited.

But in larger communities, it's an all you can exploit buffet. In larger communities, sociopaths thrive because there is an endless amount of trusting people they can exploit. If they fail, they just move on to the next group of suckers.

If they manage to extract enough power, then all they have to do is keep lying to maintain it. But always, and eventually, at the cost of the larger community itself. There is a finite limit of exploitation that once reached, no longer serves to preserve the larger community, just the power of the sociopaths in it. The community collapses, as it's support mechanisms have been diverted to the sociopaths, and the sociopaths are then unable to lie any longer and usually blamed / killed / ostracized for their bullshit now that it's obvious.

So while sociopaths are thankfully not the norm when it comes to humans, just a few in a group can take down our largest efforts to civilize.

This is why smaller human cultural groups tend to have much longer histories than massive empires. (Bushido and martial arts still exist, but the Shogunate does not). We are always going to breed sociopaths, and in turn they will make sure we never get too big for our own good.

Problems arise when the world itself is now fairly united, and sociopaths have no where left to run and hide.

If we want our biggest countries and empires to persist longer than 250 years, then we needs laws that prevent sociopaths from doing their thing.

I'm a big fan of wealth caps. Because it's non intrusive on a person's genetics, and the only people that complain about having 800 mil to spend instead of 1 billion, are sociopaths.

Anyway. That's my way of saying:

• We are not all evil, mostly it's sociopaths (and the wealthy brought up inhumane bubbles.)
• Sociopaths are the reason every human empire has fallen.
• There's a lot of powerful sociopaths running the world because we spent decades collecting all our best resources together in large shiny empires that called the worst of us like a moth to flame for their exploitation.

Oh I don't disagree at all there either.

I should have been more clear in that SOME of what's being pushed to you is rhetoric. (Especially with the Poilievre side of the media being almost identical to MAGA in that way.)

I never meant to imply that anti-American sentiment is ONLY from rhetoric. It's been embarrassing to be an American for years now, so likewise I understand the feeling of disgust towards us and our behaviour.

But a large reason we are in this position is because we became divided on the wrong issues. Every conversation and headline became blaming Dems or the GOP for where we are instead of the oligarchs that have financed both parties for decades. The project 2025 BS is their wet dream, and Trump just needed their money to win and stay out of jail. Selling us all out to them to do so.

So now that I see that same money heading Canada's way, to likewise divide you against yourselves and us - I feel it's worth noting caution. Be sceptical of inflammatory headlines, and wary of others that downplay obviously bad things like a politicians criminal record. (wtf America).

But blaming the majority of American citizens is like blaming the majority of Russian ones at this point. It's Putin / Trumps desires our governments are acting on, not our own.

The biggest difference is most of us have guns, and aren't afraid to Luigi them towards our oligarchs. Fingers crossed we solve this one way or another before it affects other countries worse than ours.

Don't disagree. But the majority of Americans didn't vote for this. Our system is just out-dated and has been slowly rigged over decades to benefit the few over the many. MOST Americans have never wanted Trump to be President. Many have spent years trying to get others to understand the consequences of his first election, and what is now his second term.

But the voices of the many, are easily drowned out by the voices of the few who enough resources to purchase all our social spaces (Twitter / Facebook) and fill it with bad actors posing as other Americans who spout oligarch rhetoric.

But our oligarchy have only radicalized a minority of us, not the majority.

So while I understand your frustration with Americans, at least 1/3 of them have been fighting against this shit for a long time, and another 1/3 have done nothing. (Which is a different conversation

The point is - this bullshit is now bleeding into Canada and the rest of the world. So the Americans who have lost their country to it might have the best information to share about preventing it.

"Divide and Conquer" is the name of the game, and now that the US is Divided between right and left, billions of dollars of disinfo is now getting aimed your way instead.

With "Canada hates Americans" being the headline Trump wants to see in order to invade you. This is why anti-American rhetoric is being pushed to you, and why anti-Canadian rhetoric is being pushed to us.

We've only been allies until now, and the majority of Americans want Canada to be safe from what just happened to us.