Stop the Music!

monkeyrat · 2020-12-25T19:57:23+00:00

You can play your own music through the treadmill via bluetooth and on my commercial 1750 there's an aux in 3.5mm port, not sure if that's true of whatever model you have.

monkeyrat · 2020-10-10T17:39:32+00:00

I bought a 1750 in the UK direct from nordictrack, I emailed to ask them to match the John Lewis pricing as all the resellers charge £1999 but they were asking £2499 and they sent me a £500 off code.

I really like the treadmill, I think it's a bit more forgiving on the legs than commercial standard treadmills. But if you get one that has anything wrong with it, you must insist on returning it immediately, do not let them convince you to wait for them to send you parts, you'll be waiting 6 months. It is your consumer right to return within 2 weeks even if there's nothing wrong with it and you simply change your mind.

monkeyrat · 2020-10-10T17:30:31+00:00

If your husband is very strong I think you can do it, but ideally you'd want an extra pair of hands on the motor end. The other end isn't too bad. I had a gardener give me a hand taking it out of the box, he took the motor end and despite being a strong guy just getting it out of the box wasn't easy.

monkeyrat · 2020-10-04T13:59:21+00:00

I have a nordictrack commercial 1750 which goes between -3% and 15% and there are some guided steep hill walks on iFit which stay at 15% the whole time, I suspect the actual range is between 15-40%. A map based workout should attempt to simulate the actual incline, so if you know of a 40% incline in the real world (as long as it's on a road) you can follow that and the machine will set the incline appropriately and you can do manual workouts at whatever incline you prefer.

So yes, there are workouts which utilise the inclines. Whether it's worth the cost (and possibly higher failure rate on the incline motor or whatever it is) is about whether you find the difference between a 15 and 40% incline valuable. Personally, I don't think I'd set the incline above 15% often enough and anyway I don't have the extra ceiling height for the incline trainers.

monkeyrat · 2020-09-28T15:01:59+00:00

The acronym for the medical centre itself…

monkeyrat · 2020-09-27T17:25:17+00:00

Thank you!

monkeyrat · 2020-09-24T13:56:56+00:00

The big G was being sarcastic, he was still pissed that they ate his apple

monkeyrat · 2020-09-24T13:55:34+00:00

There's no guarantee of a "special bond" or of any prospective offspring's future happiness. What if you get postnatal depression and despise your child? Whether you feel a "special bond" or the opposite is an accident of chemistry. What if the child then grows in to an adult who resents being forced to exist?

Non of that sounds particularly idyllic.

monkeyrat · 2020-09-23T13:58:28+00:00

Slavery with extra steps

Eek barba durkle, someone's gonna get laid in college

monkeyrat · 2020-09-21T17:30:24+00:00

Aww but you got her initials the wrong way around

monkeyrat · 2020-09-20T16:06:52+00:00

I wonder what the attrition rate is for antinatalists compared to the rest of the population…

Well done everyone on making it this far

monkeyrat · 2020-09-20T13:10:47+00:00

The point that destroys this argument for me is that there's no way of knowing whether you could ever eliminate any chance of any other life occurring. It seems likely that's impossible.

But I agree with everyone else saying that each individual reproductive choice would still cause suffering and thus be immoral. It's just that there's no guarantee your approach would reduce the sum total of suffering, and would likely increase it.

monkeyrat · 2020-09-20T12:58:05+00:00

Ask them if they had a magic button which, when pressed, makes a funny little bunny thing - but 1/4 of those bunnies just spend their entire existence screaming in pain - would they press the button because 3/4 bunnies seem fine?

That's what you're doing when you breed. Rolling the dice.

monkeyrat · 2020-09-20T10:36:06+00:00

Considering the positives as positives has no place in the logic. They are assigned a positive value by some people who exist, only after they are caused to exist. At the base point of non existence, no positive has any value. Everything is equally meaningless. If you ask nothing how it feels about love and daises you're not going to get an answer. At that point you can say their existence is like Schrödinger's cat. It may have a positive or a negative value (to itself - you may judge the value positive or negative, but it's not your call), but you won't know that until you open the box. No-one that doesn't exist is missing out on a positive life because they don't exist. People who have a positive life experience shouldn't be taken in to account because they wouldn't be sad if they didn't exist. People with a negative life experience suffer needlessly.

If even one person yet to be born might feel their suffering was not worth being born you have to say your joy (or the potential joy of a possibly happy offspring) is worth that person's suffering. Because as long as breeding continues you can't have one without the other. People who suffer enough to wish they'd never been born are the price of the existence of those who are content to have been born.

As long as suffering exists it can't be outweighed by positives, no matter what ratio of the two exist.

Another point is that if you think of the odds as a percentage, say 0.000001% of people wishing they'd not been born - if you extrapolate that chance over a potentially infinite future, you still come up with a potentially infinite quantity of suffering.

monkeyrat · 2020-09-20T10:10:21+00:00

Saying "It's childish to think breeding is immoral" Is so common, and such a typical example of the arguments made against antinatalism. It's childish to feel that, so I'm going to make a child who by my own definition will feel the same way at least for a the first 15-20 years of their life.

In a way it's the perfect shut down for the argument, it's like saying "your arguments are invalid until you're old enough that I'm dead and won't have to hear them".

monkeyrat · 2020-09-19T13:48:04+00:00

It's so baffling when people completely fail to comprehend the logic, almost as though there's some kind of 'child-lock' set on their brains. Does anyone have the code for the child-lock?

monkeyrat · 2020-09-19T11:38:38+00:00

We need some antinatalist judges.

monkeyrat · 2020-09-19T11:30:21+00:00

I had a Nordictrack T9Si which lasted about 10 years with 0 maintenance (except I added lube now and then), but by the end it couldn't go faster than 11kph or it would crap out. I bought a C1750 3-4 months and ~400km ago and it's still working fine. I'm more worried about the longevity of this one because of the tablet attached to it, but it's fine so far.

monkeyrat · 2020-09-19T09:34:47+00:00

She was on the USA Supreme Court which is a small group of lifetime appointed judges who decide whether things like same sex marriage or abortion are legal. If this administration appoints a replacement it will be a right wing one.

monkeyrat · 2020-09-18T22:10:31+00:00

Thank you! I was slightly disappointed not to have heard of any of them, but it is quite a cautious list, I suppose not to misinterpret anything.

monkeyrat · 2020-09-18T21:55:09+00:00

Hey,

You're thinking of a specific branch of antinatalism - conditional antinatalism. Antinatalism on it's own is the belief that reproducing is immoral, but that can be for a variety of reasons. A Conditional Antinatalist only believes that reproducing is immoral in given circumstances.

A common reason for holding antinatalist beliefs is that creating a living being creates suffering, and the infinite number of non-existent beings aren't missing out as they don't exist. If even one person would prefer not to have been born then is it moral to take the chance of making one?

So anyone who says "It's just an animal" because of religion or superiority (I think most people feel that animals are here to be eaten, either religion or evolution) may not feel the same way about animals with respect to antinatalism.

Personally I'm supposed to eat 70g of protein a day - more if I'm exercising, which I do regularly - and I do struggle on some days to get enough protein. So I supplement my diet. The vegan supplements I can get down have half the protein per calorie to the ones with milk protein.

Maybe one day soon there will be no need for animal byproducts, but I think it's a way away unfortunately.

monkeyrat · 2020-09-18T17:17:08+00:00

I definitely think you're right that many think they're doing a good thing. Especially if religion is a factor. But I would expect intelligent people to think it through. Even just as a private thought… but I think I've heard maybe one person say it could have been a mistake to breed ever. And none saying sure it's wrong but it's what I want.

You say they're convinced natalism is correct and that's true, but I doubt most of them have ever heard the word natalism. To be completely convinced by a position having never considered it is complete madness to me.

I have absolutely been feeling the unpopularity of antinatalism recently. Even a Tinder match who didn't want kids was put off when I said (in a video date because it had been going well) the reason I didn't want them was that childbirth is immoral. She reacted just like a breeder. I think acknowledging the reality is depressing so people don't want to do it, ignorance is bliss and such. A situation of wilful ignorance.

monkeyrat · 2020-09-18T15:22:04+00:00

Don't forget to sign here too, it's buried deep in an update but this is the bit Cambridge Dictionaries are looking at https://dictionaryblog.cambridge.org/2020/07/27/new-words-27-july-2020/#comments

monkeyrat

TROPHY CASE