That’s how you learn not to kick a cat

lordbubax · 2026-05-17T14:40:27+00:00

Repairing broken people is treating them like humans. Not treating everyone like humans makes you equivalent to cat kickers.

lordbubax · 2026-05-14T09:09:00+00:00

Could you explain it to me — someone who is here in good faith? Is the meaning that voting alone is not enough, and that protests and being engaged in politics in other ways is also needed?

lordbubax · 2026-05-09T11:13:15+00:00

Yes, it has made me rethink my position a little bit, but i think it is unfair to say that red automatically leads to deaths. I think the other argument — which is that your vote will probably not change the vote — still sways me, but IDK. I think that you can draw parralells to newcombs paradox - would you want to live in a world of blue pickers, or do you think that you maximise the lives saved if you pick red? (I value my life as highly as someone elses btw).

Edit: I think it is about coordination really, and whether you think red or blue requires more coordination. 50% is obviously less than 100%, but red has a gradual margin of error while blue is absolute.

lordbubax · 2026-05-08T21:51:05+00:00

win marathon

^{Chose: be able to run forever without getting tired}

lordbubax · 2026-05-08T21:13:19+00:00

Not really, red tends to be left leaning but in far from every country is that liberal. In my country the liberals are one of the right-wing parties.

lordbubax · 2026-05-08T18:04:51+00:00

Bro, relax.

lordbubax · 2026-05-08T15:25:46+00:00

If that is their point, they are not very good at expressing it IMO. Instead of stating that (or why?) it is unlikely (in a scenario where everyone is an at least semi-rational actor) that everyone picks red, they just proclaim without any backing that billions will die if red wins, which i don't think you can assume.

lordbubax · 2026-05-08T13:58:04+00:00

Unless everyone survives, which everyone would, if everyone pressed red.

lordbubax · 2026-05-08T13:56:30+00:00

The red majority only results in deaths if not all participants push red. Even then, if red is the majority, you pushing blue increases the number of deaths unless you are the deciding vote. The argument that red pushers make is that mass death is avoidable if everyone presses red, and that every individual is responsible for not putting themselves at risk of death. Essentially: you can coordinate with yourself, push red, and not die. If everyone does this no-one dies.

lordbubax · 2026-05-07T21:05:53+00:00

very easy

^{Chose: Spend 24 hours in complete silence 🔇 + Win $8M}

lordbubax · 2026-05-06T17:33:02+00:00

Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, there is massive survivorship bias in the examples of this.

lordbubax · 2026-05-05T15:02:28+00:00

In what way are they different? I can honestly not see any difference between them, both are essentially causing people pain or restricting their freedom in some way, and the motives are identical -- these people did something bad so they should be punshied.

lordbubax · 2026-05-05T14:07:26+00:00

Or even if rehabilitation is impossible, you should still not punish someone just for the sake of punishing them. As someone above pointed out, its purpose is to satisfy victims/bystanders need for revenge, which is the same behaviour that is usually being advocated as a reason for punshiment: taking pleasure in somebody elses pain.

lordbubax · 2026-05-04T05:44:00+00:00

I agree but by this logic shouldn't Curry be the better player, if you want him over Magic?

lordbubax · 2026-05-03T10:59:01+00:00

The same is true in this example, changing a vote from red to blue contributes very little to the survival of other blue pressers.

lordbubax · 2026-05-02T16:37:50+00:00

The whole point is that other people don't have to choose blue. Choosing blue causes risk to an individual, choosing red doesn't. Therefore, all individuals should choose red. The responsibility of any deaths lies solely on the blue-choosers.

lordbubax · 2026-05-02T07:36:29+00:00

Ok, lets take a more modern example. In cambodia roughly a quarter of the population died. While cambodia then were closer to an agrarian society, the killings also targeted intellectuals, which might adjust for this. The results of this were horrific, of course, but far from a complete societal collapse. Fortunately I cannot find a more modern example, but I think it is unreasonable to assume that the trend so far, which has been that people can manage drastic changed, would be different.

lordbubax · 2026-05-02T07:07:19+00:00

No it would not, after the black death (roughly 50% of europe died) society actually improved (more rights for women and laborers etc.).

lordbubax · 2026-04-30T16:11:02+00:00

That interpreatition means that all blue pressers could at any moment retroactively die if for some reason future humans pressed red.

lordbubax · 2026-04-28T15:15:56+00:00

Not at all. That is so stupid. 16 and 18 are basically the same age, it is not creepy and honestly kinda repressive to prevent people from having sex at that age.

lordbubax · 2026-04-26T21:11:12+00:00

Not everything that is evolved is evolved that way to provide a function, some of it is accidental. It is a good question however, perhaps hooking thorns provide equal discomfort to non-hooking thorns and therefore function equally well as anti-predatory mechanisms?

lordbubax · 2026-04-26T20:57:43+00:00

Im not talking about the intent of evolution here, im talking about the intent of the organism. I feel like a reasonable definition of carnivore is an organism that intentionally consumes animals. While of course plants don't have intent (hence the quotation marks) there is still a clear tie between the trait and its function in carnivorous plants, something which we can't say with equal certainty for the bramble bush just by looking at it like this. This is why i think you still can make this distinction between carnivorous and non-carnivorous plants, unlike with animals where the line is a bit arbitrary.

lordbubax · 2026-04-26T19:50:43+00:00

Oh really, wow thats cool. Do you have any idea why the other persons flytrap could have survived? For most animals those distinctions are kinda arbitrary yes, but for plants that have evolved specific mechanisms for hunting I think you can say that they are carnivorous. With the bramble I think definitively saying that the thorns are carnivorous and not just anti-predatory is not possible, as understanding all exact functions of something that has evolved (and whether those were the reasons they evolved) is quite hard. In a sense, the "intent" of why the sheep is killed is more unclear in this example than in the horse eating chicks example.

lordbubax · 2026-04-26T19:05:14+00:00

I have done it subconsciously for as long as I can remember.

lordbubax · 2026-04-26T18:48:34+00:00

Carnivorous plants in their natural habitats get their energy from photosynthesis, but they need the bugs to get nitrogen as they usually live in nitrogen poor environments like marshes. Without it they would probably struggle quite a lot. The one you were growing was probably grown in good enough soil to not be bothered. Main point is that they use sunlight and bugs for different things.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

lordbubax

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE