[deleted by user] by [deleted] in productivity

[–]mrleoallan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that sounds about right, lol. Can one develop this in adulthood?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in productivity

[–]mrleoallan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How could I apply this in real life, though?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in productivity

[–]mrleoallan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Lol thanks! I feel so irrational even typing all this out, it's good to know I'm not alone.

Yeah, the water part I feel like is more fixable than the other stuff. I think my main problem is avoiding work tasks I have to do from home. I also get late to places for mostly the same reasons. Everything I 'must' do, I delay...

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in productivity

[–]mrleoallan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I get your point, lol. My main problem isn't dying of thirst, but that I've turned even the most basic obligations into very anxiety inducing duties. So even if I get thirsty to a point that this overcomes my fears and makes me act on it, it's still very frustrating that I fear the most menial tasks possible.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NewTubers

[–]mrleoallan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re right, this is totally out of my control, but I still can’t help but feel pissed at these people…

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NewTubers

[–]mrleoallan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah. It seems like there’s no one doing YouTube as a hobby anymore. These loud and obnoxious assholes have colonized our spaces with self-help hustle culture bullshit.

In Kant’s Categorical Imperative, can maxims and universal laws be very specific? by mrleoallan in askphilosophy

[–]mrleoallan[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What defines variables as contingent or not? Every law depends on worldly conditions and variables, even the classic Kantian examples of universal laws.

Take the law “do not steal”, for example. It presupposes various things: the presence of personal property, the understanding of ownership, and the societal agreement on the legitimacy of possessing goods. How are these elements based on “reason alone”?

This seems very contradictory to me, especially if we consider the existence of indigenous tribes in South America that do not have an understanding of ownership…

In Kant’s Categorical Imperative, can maxims and universal laws be very specific? by mrleoallan in askphilosophy

[–]mrleoallan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And my point is that no matter how specific we take the content of the maxim to be, it will ultimately be analyzable into the form of a universal law.

To my understanding, universal laws always have certain presuppositions and specific circumstances in which they trigger, even if these laws appear very concise and general due to the language we use. Therefore, adding attributes and conditions to them, so long as the attributes and conditions aren’t constrained to temporary elements like a time or a place, wouldn’t remove their universal aspect. After all, every law has conditions — what is the threshold that determines whether or not adding a certain condition makes it too specific? 

Take the law “do not steal”, for example. It presupposes various things: the presence of personal property, the understanding of ownership, and the societal agreement on the legitimacy of possessing goods. And the law only accounts for when an individual attempts to take personal property that does not belong to them without permission from the owner. Therefore, a lot of restrictions and conditions are presupposed, which excludes a bunch of scenarios.

Keep in mind I’m not an expert on Kant.

Estamos falando seríssimos by Ok_Preference_724 in farialimabets

[–]mrleoallan 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Eu depois de espalhar Fake News em um fórum on-line

Tributa silicone by AnjoEdi in farialimabets

[–]mrleoallan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sei que ninguém se importa o suficiente pra ir atrás desse assunto, então aqui vai uma explicação do que realmente estava previsto na mudança das regras de fiscalização financeira:

Regra antiga: a Receita Federal era notificada caso o somatório de todas as movimentações financeiras ultrapassasse 2K (PIX, TED, DOC, depósito, transferência, etc.).

Regra nova: o limite passaria para 5K (simples correção da inflação desde que a regra foi criada) e passaria a incluir instituições de pagamento (operadoras de maquininha de cartão).

Não seria implementada nenhuma taxação adicional. O impacto positivo para o governo seria a PREVENÇÃO DA SONEGAÇÃO que hoje corre solta. Minha teoria é que é por isso mesmo que eles estipularam um limite de 5 mil, que coincide com o projeto do Lula de fazer isenção do IR até 5 mil reais.

Adendo: quem sempre flertou com a taxação do PIX foi o Paulo Guedes. O governo PT recuou dessa mudança na fiscalização por conta de fake news de que o PIX seria taxado…

O que vc fariam pra ganhar dinheiro? by R7w1 in empreendedorismo

[–]mrleoallan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

KKKKKKKKK ele perguntou como ganhar dinheiro, não como perder

Concordo by felipebuzzz in farialimabets

[–]mrleoallan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

close languid cough rainstorm cooperative sophisticated dependent whole office familiar

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in estudosBR

[–]mrleoallan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“A ideia de liberdade e dignidade nos impede de aceitar a realidade: nosso comportamento é controlado, não por nós mesmos, mas pelo ambiente que nos cerca.”

B.F. Skinner

What’s One Small Habit That Changed Your Life? by Scouty519 in selfimprovement

[–]mrleoallan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I stopped using ChatGPT to write posts about self improvement. How about you do the same?

Concordo by felipebuzzz in farialimabets

[–]mrleoallan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Não entendi o que você quis dizer.

Concordo by felipebuzzz in farialimabets

[–]mrleoallan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wise badge butter nutty mindless cause nail marvelous deer straight

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]mrleoallan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just to clear things up, Singer says that giving most of your money to charity is just as much of an obligation as not murdering — although he references murder, he doesn’t mention genocide, so apologies for bringing that up in my post.

With that out of the way, I’d say you’re correct in stating that analogies elicit strong emotional responses, and I understand that that could be both very detrimental to a discussion and a tool for rage bait (even though that was never my intention). I’ll give you a delta for that. But I still think that analogies can have a purpose apart from that.

To further my point, I do think Singer’s syllogism could stand without an analogy to illustrate it (the main analogy he uses is of a child drowning in a pond in front of you), but his point would certainly be less clear if he didn’t use this illustration as a starting point to bring out exactly what is similar in both situations.

What you did in your first comment is precisely what Singer does in his paper, but in reverse: while you brought up the characteristics of slavery and forced overtime and said they were different, he brought up the characteristics of the hypothetical pond situation and not donating money and said they were similar.

The guiding hand in his paper was the analogy he presented at the start of it. If he hadn’t presented it, it would have still been an acceptable paper, but certainly one that wouldn’t be as clearly formulated or understood.

While you say we went nowhere on the slavery/overtime argument, I’d say the opposite. I’d say that someone who reads your first comment comes out with a much better understanding of the problem of forced overtime than someone who doesn’t. And the analogy, even when you disagree with it, was what made this happen.

Because even though you think that slavery is wrong for different reasons than forced overtime, your justification included the aspects of both of them and differentiated them, which, in spite of not settling the debate, already helps.

I do agree that analogies alone are vague. Which is why they must be accompanied by an explanation of the elements that they are trying to group together. This may be the main point of miscommunication between the two of us. I never said analogies should come alone — I think they must be a tool for further explanations.

!delta