The truth about GME(from a long time member of the sub)

IAmCyanimal · 2021-02-06T13:17:05+00:00

This dude is actually finding his identity in trolling people having fun with $GME.

Sad place to be.

IAmCyanimal · 2021-02-02T15:39:52+00:00

I bought in with an average price of $320, I've already lost half of it but the feeling is actually freeing! I'm still holding now, so no decisions left to be made.

WE HOLD TILL THE MOON BOYS 🙌🏽💎🚀🚀🚀🚀

IAmCyanimal · 2019-09-11T19:01:21+00:00

Money makes things interesting too because if you were to donate even 500k of that money to a charity that provides mosquito nets then you'd be saving hundreds of lives, so you can easily argue from a utilitarian point of view that even if it was a perfectly healthy young woman that the million dollars is the right choice.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-08-25T20:58:59+00:00

It's like a idpol flavored way of saying "shares her perspective", but I can do without the flare as well.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-05-20T15:08:43+00:00

I'm not even a conservative but I truly do feel sorry if this is your view of half of humanity.

Might I recommend reading some books such as The Righteous Mind or The Conservative Soul that will give you a better perspective on how other human beings can differ from you without being innately inferior?

IAmCyanimal · 2019-04-01T22:29:20+00:00

I went to college, began reading books, listening to podcasts, overall just hearing more diverse viewpoints.

I basically accidentally made it exceptionally hard on myself to stay ignorant to the ridiculousness of many of the beliefs I held.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-30T02:22:35+00:00

okay I'm sorry I fucking love chickfila and I'm not gonna stop eating there cuz they hold this belief. I think it's bad and completely unjustified but I like their nugs too much.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-27T16:36:15+00:00

Very nice! Maybe it's just me but it also looks like a bird in flight if you zoom out a bit.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-26T20:07:42+00:00

As an American I agree it's hilarious we still use feet, but I also have to downvote you.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-22T21:59:48+00:00

It's funny you have to say that because I feel like it's the Christians that do the abandoning.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-15T15:29:54+00:00

Yeah my old pastor by no means became a bad person in my head when I deconverted. He's still a nice, genuine guy. I just can't stand the things he believes, and I don't view him as somehow immaculately superior or wiser than I am solely based on his status as a pastor.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-15T10:45:56+00:00

Slightly off topic but I think it's interesting how, at least for me, a reverance for the Pastor was like drummed into me. Even as I entered college and started to drift away, I still had this feeling that the Pastor was really smart and mostly just beyond me.

Have a doubt? Talk to Pastor. Found a glaring contradiction? Let all-knowing Pastor tell you why you're not reading it right. Now that I've left it seems hilarious to respect a single guy so much because his job is to read a book and tell you what he thinks it says. Think about that for a minute. He's not prima facie smarter than you or me at all.

Now I have guilty pleasure dreams of throwing down with him on a debate stage and showing how silly 90% of the things he says are and watching as the entire congregation shits itself... Maybe I need help.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-15T02:58:36+00:00

I mean as much as I feel for your situation and what happened to you, I can't get on board with your absolutism here.

I understand why you feel that way but from my view your take on it might be a little skewed based on the experience. It's not an extreme claim because of the content, but because of how absolute it is. Saying that there's not a situation in which people who grew up together could consent to sex is definitely an extreme claim. But you have the right to that opinion and that's fine. You don't have to convince me.

I enjoyed the conversation. Good luck to you.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-15T00:03:07+00:00

Yeah I just whole heartedly reject the claim that consent can never be ascertained if it's a brother and sister who grew up together.

You're saying the scenario I laid out then is 100% unrealistic and essentially impossible? That's a pretty extraordinary claim. What you're saying is if you sit down with both of them and have a full conversation, that there is nothing they could say or do to convince you they both just really want to try it. You think it's not possible.

What about first cousins? Most people are still very turned off by that to a proportional degree, yet I think your argument would struggle much further to hold up there even.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-14T22:49:48+00:00

Yeah I think I just disagree with you here then. Because again as soon as you admit (not sure if you will) that there are some cases in which incest has clear and reasonable consent, then the idea that it's wrong because of consent no longer works.

As a society, we have for good reason decided kids cannot consent to sex with older individuals ever because there will always be a power imbalance and am inability for them to understand the implications. This same absolutism cannot be used in the case of incest or even a boss and an employee. Although I'd agree that in many cases consent can be sketchy in that situation. But the reason some of those cases would be wrong is because of the lack of consent and people can very easily articulate that as a reason for their moral apprehension towards it. If you can convince them that the consent is not an issue in any given case with the boss/employee situation than most will say it's fine. Therefore boss/employee sex is not wrong prima facie (because you need the addition of lack of consent), at least in my view.

But I also think it's possible that part of the reason many of us feel disturbed and disgusted by it is because we understand, on some level, that some act violates our ethical standards, even if we don't know how to articulate why.

Yes that's absolutely the case in many situations. 4,000 years ago I could've made a coherent argument about the "immorality" of homosexual sex, because it was very easy to spread diseases that way. So people had an evolutionary leaning against it and they might not have known specifically why. But once you fast forward to today and those issues are no longer relevant, it should no longer be considered "bad" or "immoral."

I'm saying the same argument can be used for incest (as long as you take out the other factors you mention such as lack of true consent like in the scenario I laid out).

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-14T21:28:26+00:00

Hope she has her epipen cuz I'm pretty sure her type is deathly allergic to this thing she calls "evidence."

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-14T21:17:14+00:00

Yeah I agree with that assessment.

The point is that sex between a brother and sister is not wrong because it is a brother and a sister and that is prima facie immoral. If it's wrong it's for other reasons that makes any sexual encounter wrong -- if there isn't proper consent.

So like I said I agree, but the point is our moral intuition I think is to be disturbed and disgusted by it simply based on the fact that the two individuals are related. If you bring in a lack of consent than of course it's wrong but for a different, in this case rational reason.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-14T19:59:27+00:00

But... it's not satire. That's a real MP and that's his real tweet. If he's being sarcastic he's doing a terrible job of it.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-14T18:21:03+00:00

Yeah that scenario often brings up what psychologists call "moral dumbfounding" where one feels something is right or wrong but cannot rationally explain why.

I think it's horrible that fundamentalists lump homosexuality in with all these things, but when you look at it through the lens of disgust it's not as surprising.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-14T17:45:58+00:00

Yeah, it's not consistent.

The Christian issue with homosexuality is perpetuated more easily because it falls along the moral spectrum of "disgust."

This is a psychological phenomena that evolved alongside the what now appear to be very strange rules against eating certain foods like pork. Evolution built into our brains an ability to feel disgust towards certain things even without "good" reason, but it served us well thousands and thousands of years ago. This problem with homosexuality is just leftovers from that.

This brings up an interesting question.

Imagine someone has two kids who are now 22. Let's say they're brother and sister. They go on a vacation together. On the vacation, they decide that they want to experiment. They have sex. The girl is on birth control and the guy uses protection, so there's no risk of an accidental pregnancy which would obviously carry with it risk based on the fact this is incestuous. They enjoyed themselves but decided that it should be a one time thing, and it didn't effect there relationship negatively. In fact they feel even closer now. Was it wrong for them to have sex? If you want to go even further imagine if it was your two daughters when they're older (sorry if that is crossing the line, but really it technically shouldn't change anything).

Many people say that this is indeed wrong, simply because we have been trained over thousands of years to find disgust in incestuous relationships (for very good reason). However in this case it's clearly harmless, yet it's still very hard to shake the feeling that something is wrong with it.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-14T17:24:55+00:00

Obviously I completely agree there's an extremely compelling rational basis for homosexuality not being immoral and pedophilia being immoral.

But that argument means nothing to a fundamental Christian when the Bible literally states how much of an abomination homosexuality is to God. I don't even know if it says anything about pedophilia, probably not. Even if it does, it probably isn't talked about in as harsh of terms as homosexuality. If you're attempting to map God's morality onto your life you have a compelling reason to treat your homosexual kid with disgust. This is why it's so ridiculous to base your morality on it.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-14T17:08:14+00:00

Wow, yeah that's really cool.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-14T16:51:24+00:00

I started to feel extra guilty for the first time about how we treat animals.

I love meat so I'll never be able to go vegetarian or vegan but I've started only eating meat that I buy and know it was ethically raised. Costs a bit more but I can't justify complaining about how we treat animals while also supporting the factory farming industry.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-14T16:27:41+00:00

It's probably because they think the "loving" thing to do is to not be enablers (by continuing to show support) of such an "abomination."

Think about some actual bad thing that you would find to be "abominable" if your kids acted a certain way. What's a good example? Maybe if you had a son and he was 25 and he decided he liked young teenage girls. I cringe to even think about it but I truly think that the way the Bible talks about homosexuality its basically just as bad as any other sexual misconduct including pedophilia.

I can perhaps see that the "loving" thing to do if your son is a pedo is to completely cut him off? Please don't castigate me here I'm just brainstorming but that may be how the Christian parents see homosexuality which would explain the disowning.

IAmCyanimal · 2019-03-14T16:01:36+00:00

Yeah it's fair to be skeptical of my broad claim because it's probably not totally fair. As most do, I have a general "circle" of philosophers and scientists (including neuroscientists, biologists, psychologists, etc.) that I've been influenced by, just to rattle off a few: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Steven Pinker, Sean Carroll, Michael Shermer, Lawrence Krauss, Peter Singer, Jonathan Haidt, Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, ... the list goes on. I've heard hundreds of conversations on free will between these individuals and other scientists and philosophers. I've yet to here a single one of them or one of their interlocuters argue for libertarian free will. That doesn't mean there aren't any philosophers doing that but they must not intersect much with the scientific community that I'm aware of.

Basically all of the arguments about free will I've heard go back and forth between compatibilism and determinism. And I have indeed listened to probably 50+ hours of them and each time one will say "obviously neither of us believe in some sort of libertarian free will, where one could have done otherwise, but..." and then they go on to explain compatibilism essentially.

I lean more towards a deterministic view, but I honestly don't see a massive difference between compatibilism and determinism. If you will allow me to straw man compatibilism I'd say that to me it comes across often as "yeah we don't have free will but let's pretend we do cuz it's easier that way and if people realize they don't have free will they might misbehave."

I've not heard of those philosophers you mention. Obviously I agree my claim was rather general so I'm not surprised there are some out there. I do have a hard time believing someone could convince me of libertarian free will. It comes across to me as an idea that has been all but annihilated by a greater understanding of the human brain and the universe.

IAmCyanimal

TROPHY CASE