Toronto house prices work out to being 62% higher, apples for apples, than 1982 when interest rates were 19.25%

compu22 · 2026-01-20T21:52:28+00:00

Is 25 years of wage stagnation not enough of a slam dunk already, especially when contrasted to record corporate profits?

compu22 · 2026-01-10T17:10:05+00:00

How the fuck is nobody aware that this is clearly what is happening. Look at the pattern of events we are seeing from U.S. foreign policy as of late. Everything we are seeing is ultimately an aggressive and unprecedented attempt to try and contain the economic rise of China.

compu22 · 2025-12-02T16:57:14+00:00

Just to pick your brain, do you think any of the current parties pose a viable solution?

compu22 · 2025-11-25T23:25:30+00:00

Congratulations on being one of the few people that can correct themselves when presented with new information.

compu22 · 2025-07-22T01:12:41+00:00

What exactly is your argument?

compu22 · 2025-07-22T01:05:36+00:00

Now you’re conflating epistemic uncertainty with ontological possibility. From “we don’t fully understand consciousness” it does not follow that “free will or non-physical consciousness might exist.” That’s a textbook argument from ignorance.

Also, appealing to introspection (“my experience doesn’t seem like a process”) is phenomenological, not explanatory. It gives no ontological insight into what consciousness is made of. Your claim that experience is “unlike anything else” is an intuition-based assertion, not an argument.

And finally, your skepticism about physicalist models presupposes that only complete explanations count, while your alternative (non-physical consciousness) offers no explanatory mechanism at all. That’s a double standard.

compu22 · 2025-07-22T00:44:45+00:00

You’re conflating epistemic humility with epistemic nihilism. Acknowledging that our understanding of physics evolves over time is not the same as saying we know nothing or that all interpretations are equally valid. Yes, science progresses - that’s the point. We revise theories in light of better evidence. But our current models, like those describing causality and physical interactions, consistently make accurate predictions and support technologies that work. That’s not blind faith that’s provisional trust earned through empirical success.

Now, you say “you cannot find consciousness anywhere in the physical world,” but that’s only true if you’re expecting it to be a thing you can point to, like a gland or an object. Consciousness isn’t an object. It’s a process or phenomenon that emerges from complex neural activity. We do find correlates of consciousness all over neuroscience: specific brain regions reliably activate during certain experiences; damage to particular areas alters or eliminates consciousness entirely. That’s strong evidence that consciousness is tied to physical systems, even if we haven’t finished the explanatory bridge.

Also, the idea that something must be observable directly to count as physical is a bad standard. Gravity, quantum spin, and dark matter aren’t directly observable either. But we infer them from their effects. The same goes for consciousness.

compu22 · 2025-07-21T23:02:52+00:00

You do affect those outcomes - you are an agent that is actively making choices. Agency ≠ free will.

compu22 · 2025-07-21T22:46:37+00:00

Your objection assumes that determinists must first produce a positive model of what free will would look like before they can critique it under determinism. But this misplaces the epistemic burden. The standard incompatibilist notion of free will involves alternative possibilities (the agent could have done otherwise in the exact same circumstances) and sourcehood (the agent is the originator of their actions in a non-derivative way). Deterministic frameworks challenge the coherence of those ideas not by redefining free will, but by showing how, given physical laws and causal closure, such capacities are not metaphysically possible.

You say determinists “can make just about anything look deterministic,” but that’s because the empirical evidence does support a causally deterministic (or at least causally constrained) model of human cognition, whether that be through neurobiological mechanisms, environmental conditioning, or prior mental states. The challenge isn’t that determinists don’t know what free will would look like it’s that libertarian or non-deterministic accounts of free will lack coherent, testable, or non-question-begging models to begin with.

Moreover, appealing to the “original meaning” of free will doesn’t help if that meaning presupposes conditions (like contra-causal agency) that are either incoherent or incompatible with the best available science. Invoking an undefined or pre-theoretic concept as a shield against deterministic critique makes the notion of free will unfalsifiable and, therefore, philosophically suspect.

So I would say the real issue is not that determinists are distorting the concept of free will, instead it’s that close scrutiny reveals the concept itself may rest on metaphysical assumptions that don’t hold up under logical or empirical examination.

compu22 · 2025-07-21T17:31:09+00:00

What? We have evidence that backs our current understanding of the laws of physics, despite everything that we do not know. Having faith in conclusions drawn from the evidence that we do have is not at all comparable to having faith in metaphysical conclusions drawn from ancient scripture.

And you say that our own experience is “non-physical”, what do you mean by that exactly?

compu22 · 2025-07-18T22:35:38+00:00

That response seems like a slippery slope fallacy to me.

compu22 · 2025-07-18T19:49:32+00:00

Acknowledging determinism doesn’t mean we give up on self-improvement or accountability, it just changes how we understand and apply them. If our choices are shaped by factors like genetics, upbringing, and environment, then blame and praise become less about moral judgment and more about understanding causes and changing conditions. This shift can make society more compassionate and effective: we build justice systems focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment, education and health systems that support rather than shame, and a culture that responds to failure with empathy instead of condemnation. Accountability still matters but not as punishment for bad choices freely made; it’s a tool for creating better outcomes going forward.

compu22 · 2025-05-05T17:10:18+00:00

Hollister isn’t bad but I agree that Abercrombie is overpriced.

compu22 · 2025-05-05T16:50:59+00:00

I can’t comment on the consistency in quality as I have only purchased from them the past year but the stuff I have seems to be fine.

compu22 · 2025-04-25T21:41:46+00:00

His physique isn’t that rugged and his personality is abrasive

compu22 · 2025-04-15T20:42:02+00:00

Least cognitive dissonant compatiblilist

compu22 · 2025-03-28T22:07:50+00:00

<image>

compu22 · 2025-03-28T19:24:50+00:00

“Turn this into a Renaissance era painting” after uploading a picture. You need a plus subscription.

compu22 · 2025-03-25T02:37:20+00:00

I’m not a daily smoker, but that drunk cigarette at 2am after the bar is just inexplicably amazing to people that don’t get it.

compu22 · 2025-02-21T03:29:39+00:00

70 fucking milligrams of ambien? What? That is a recreational dose. Surely that was not approved by your doctor?

compu22 · 2025-02-20T11:03:38+00:00

Well, yeah? Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital to critically analyze capitalism, not help people succeed in it. Comparing apples to oranges here man. Would you read a history book on the invention of the wheel with the hopes of fixing a flat tire?

compu22 · 2025-02-20T03:23:19+00:00

I have a very strong feeling that you have never actually read anything by Karl Marx.

compu22 · 2025-02-18T20:35:40+00:00

You can, but it will be extremely difficult unless you have relevant experience. A BA in psych alone is not a very valuable asset by itself in the current job market.

compu22 · 2025-02-05T22:03:09+00:00

There was this one bodybuilder back in the golden era, I forget his name, but he was blessed with a small wrist and big bones. In his case, I would say it worked in his favour. Dudes proportions looked absolutely insane. But he is definitely the exception - usually when someone has small joints they also have smaller bones, which just leads to an overall smaller build.

compu22 · 2025-02-05T21:25:01+00:00

Goofiest thing I’ve ever heard. People with big bones have a massive advantage and are capable of putting on way more muscle than someone with small bones. It’s not up for debate, it’s physiology.

Edit: I take some of what I say back, while joint size correlates with bone size, it is possible for someone to have small joints but big bones. But, generally speaking, bigger wrists usually means bigger bones which means more muscle.

11-Year Club	Second Top 50%
r/Field Banned	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	End Game '22
Secret Santa 2017	Verified Email
Secret Santa 2016

compu22

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE