erwgv3g34
My Quality Contributions:
User ID: 240
Why do you think some people are able to lose weight, then?
Malfunctioning set point regulator? Not sure. But as far as I know, the overwhelming majority of people fail to lose weight in the long-term.
Eating a lot is a habit. It is probably closer to an addiction. Eating less is very unpleasant and your body will fight you unless you satisfy it. Just like your body will fight you when you try to stop smoking.
The food addiction hypothesis fails to explain why skinny people find it just as hard to gain weight as fat people find it to lose weight. The set point model explains both.
erwgv3g34
1mo ago
What would you do if you were an adherent of a religious tradition that called for fasting? The restriction isn't for the benefit of your own health, but rather divinely commanded, and mandates not less food permenantely, but no food for a day here and there, or when the sun is shining one month per year.
Eat as much as possible before the fasting period starts to tide me over. If that failed, I would just have to sneak food in while no one was watching and hope that G-d/Allah/Heavenly Father is merciful, much the same way I watched porn while I was still a Catholic and then prayed for forgiveness and the strength not to do it again (funny how that never worked).
erwgv3g34
1mo ago
Of course I eat too much; looking at the people around me, I eat approximately 2-3 times what a non-fat person does. Even though almost everything I eat is healthy home-cooked food, I am obviously going to be fat at that rate.
But what can I do? If I don't eat that amount, I just go around feeling hungry all day, unable to enjoy anything or focus on any kind of productive work, until my willpower finally snaps and I scarf down whatever is at hand.
Which is exactly what set point theory predicts. Set point theory doesn't posit some kind of supernatural physical or biological mechanism; it merely argues that your brain will defend a given weight by making you hungry, cold, and lethargic (or, alternatively, full, sweaty, and hyperactive) until you reach that weight.
erwgv3g34
1mo ago
Now, more generally I agree that fat people (even "normal" fat people) have a strong tendency to be in denial about how much they eat and how little exercise they do, or about the health effects of obesity.
I'm not in denial about anything; I'm just not willing to spend the rest of my life fighting against my set point by suffering from starvation neurosis and working a part-time job at the gym in order to maintain a healthy weight.
erwgv3g34
2mo ago
Third, there’s a lot more effort put into keeping the marketplace of ideas free from promoting bad memes. Up until the 1990s, TV and movies were much more reluctant to make positive role models of people doing stupid things. You wouldn’t find heroines who had sex with random men. You wouldn’t see heroes doing drugs.
This was true during the Hays Code era. Not sure it was really true in the 90s. You already had things like heroines cheating on their fiances with random bums (Titanic), heroes marrying single mom strippers (Independence Day), heroes marrying girls who friendzoned them for decades until they were rich and famous (Forrest Gump), etc. Those are all pretty stupid decisions.
erwgv3g34
2mo ago
(Hayes, BTW, is reportedly not Jewish)
Then why was he out there protesting? Young white men have already figured out that there is no point in dying for Israel; hence the army's recruitment crisis. It is time for boomers to learn the same.
erwgv3g34
2mo ago
Men are fine; their level of horniness is correct for dealing with female passivity and resistance. Problems arise when men redirect their reproductive impulses from their natural complement towards a union that can never bear fruit.
Women who do the same are not much better; moving-in together with a near-stranger, suffering from a dead bedroom because neither can take the sexual initiative, truly staggering levels of domestic violence, and doing it all over again immediately after a breakup because women are serially monogamous... lesbian dysfunction is different from gay dysfunction, because women are different from men, but it is still a dysfunction.
The only way to avoid dysfunction is to fulfill our proper telos by seeking partners of the opposite sex, as Gnon intended.
Do you think that a majority of non-hetero people are more sexually promiscuous than hetero people?
Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, while men are the gatekeepers of commitment. So, naturally, gay men have tons of commitment-free sex, while lesbian women move-in with each other at the drop of a hat and promptly suffer from lesbian bed death. Hence the following joke:
Question: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?
Answer: A U-Haul.
Question: What does a gay man bring on a second date?
Answer: What second date?
Gay men are ridiculously promiscuous and have a culture based largely around casual sex. Patient zero for the AIDS epidemic, Gaetan Dugas, famously had over 2,500 sexual partners. Gay "marriage" looks like two gays cruising together for pickups, as wingmen (what Dan Savage calls "monogamish"), rather than anything a straight couple would recognize as a marriage.
Think about how much sex the average man would have if every woman he met was as eager to fuck as he was; that's what it's like to be a gay man. It's disgusting.
erwgv3g34
2mo ago
Hispanics, like Jews, are Schrodinger's whites depending on whether or not it serves The Narrative. See also: George Zimmerman.
erwgv3g34
2mo ago
A decent manager would probably be able to find something productive to do with the functionally illiterate office worker Scott mentions in your link.
Sure. If there isn't a welfare state to tempt him away from working in the first place. And if there isn't a minimum wage law to prevent him from working at his natural wage. And if the overseer is allowed to give him a stiff beating when he catches him stealing on the job. And if...
I'm not so sure the manager can actually find something useful for the illiterate worker to do within the constrains of 21st century America.
erwgv3g34
2mo ago
erwgv3g34
2mo ago
From "The Pragmatics of Patriotism" by Robert A. Heinlein:
Since survival is the sine qua non, I now define "moral behavior" as "behavior that tends toward survival." I won't argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word "moral" to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define "behavior that tends toward extinction" as being "moral" without stretching the word "moral" all out of shape.
You claim that extinction is the morally correct choice. But that's absurd because morality is a property of consciousness and an extinct breed has no morals, correct or otherwise.
The only morality is civilization.
There's a great comment on the communism thread about how an arbitrary but efficient procedure is better than a fair procedure that eats up arbitrary amounts of resources to calculate:
The first is a simple question about your morning commute. You come up to an intersection, and other cars come up to the same intersection at about the same time. Who should get to go first? Well, right now, you might think that it's just whatever the stoplight says or some local custom about how to deal with stop signs, but is that fair?! You're going to work, which you need to do to feed your family. Surely, you deserve to be able to pass through before some high school senior who's off on summer break and just picking up some coffee and donuts before spending his day just hanging out in the park, maybe playing some volleyball with his friends or something. At the same time, someone else may have more of a need. Their somewhat-senile elderly mother just called them, and they're worried that she's going to accidentally cause harm to herself with what she's up to. So, how do we figure out the fair way to make sure everyone in the intersection gets proper priority? We could have everyone get out of their car and have a little discussion about where they're going and why and then implement some group decision-making procedure in order to allocate priority fairly. Then repeat at the next intersection, and the next intersection, and the next intersection, all the way to work. Even normies can realize that this would be ridiculous. Really press them to make sure that they agree that they are willing to be "not fair", to make the guy going to his mother wait for the high school kid at the light, because the light system is vastly more efficient at moving everyone to their destinations, even if it's "not fair".
(A bonus here is if you can find a suitably shortened clip of a guy asking a commie prof if he can have a playstation in the prof's commie world. Commie prof was all like, "Well, we'd have to have a societal conversation..." and just point out that this is for everything. Stop and have a societal conversation when you want a playstation, when you want to buy a new game, when you want some DLC, when you stop at a traffic intersection, hell, even if you want to pick up some more charcoal for your grill, you're gonna need to stop and "have a societal conversation" about whether "society" is willing to let you have any of those things.)
Making everybody spend seventeen fucking years in the school system so that we can determine who most deserves the high paying, high status jobs is the meritocratic equivalent of having a societal conversation every time two cars arrive at an intersection instead of using traffic lights and stop signs. Literally reserving those positions for a hereditary aristocratic caste would be better than what we have now, because then people could know where they stand and get on with their damn lives instead of grinding themselves to the bone trying to compete with everyone else in the all-consuming zero-sum red queen's race.
And yet you don't see ghetto black women fighting over the passable black male with a fulltime job at McDonald's, you see them fighting over the edgy drug dealers and sexy fuckboys that eventually become their baby daddies.
erwgv3g34
2mo ago
Would you, personally, prefer to take the status of the woman in this arrangement? Would you marry a woman if, under no uncertain terms, she told you she wanted to have a lot of kids but you would have to give up your career to stay home with them?
I literally fantasize about this.
I think we really need to grapple with the fact that the revealed preference of nearly every intelligent and high-quality woman is for having few if any children. And rather than bending over backwards and tying itself into knots to figure out how to psyop them out of this perfectly understandable risk-benefit calculation, perhaps a healthy 21st-century society just needs to put all of its eggs into the basket of figuring out how to have a successful low-TFR civilization. Whether that’s robots, or AI, or artificial wombs, I don’t know, but honestly I just don’t see a viable path forward for forcing a critical mass of women to do something that’s manifestly going to wreck the lives of so many of them.
Or, you know, we can just admit that this whole feminism thing is not working out and go back to what worked for the past 5,000 years.
All empirical evidence is that letting women control their own reproductive choices is literally suicidal on a civilizational level.
Eliezer Yudkowsky's ex-wife wrote a cute story about that, "Attunements".
But being afraid of one's values and personality being altered by parenthood seems like a boy being afraid of having his values and personality altered by puberty; it's a fundamentally natural part of our lifecycle, and the alternative is to remain stunted forever.
Kant opposed lying under any circumstances.
erwgv3g34
2mo ago
Normies in Latin America keep voting for communists. Venezuelans elected Hugo Chavez. Nicaraguans elected Daniel Ortega. Peruvians elected Pedro Castillo.
Sasuke stomps. Harry doesn't actually have many good combat feats throughout the series; he mostly dodges behind objects and throws out weaksauce spells like Expelliarmus. He wins the final battle of each book due to a dues ex machina power or artifact or a powerful ally (power of love, sword of Gryffindor + Fawkes, Time-Turner, Prior Incantato, Dumbledore, Elder Wand + wand loyalty). The Elder Wand changes little; in canon, it's just a more powerful wand than normal, not some kind of superweapon. Harry's most powerful offensive spell is Sectumsempra, which he wouldn't use unless bloodlusted (the only time he cast it he did not know what it did, and immediately regretted it), and that's basically just a long-ranged sword. His most powerful defensive spell is Protego (not counting the Patronus charm, which is useless against humans). Harry doesn't have the speed or reflexes to use these effectively against Sasuke.
Now, if it was Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres versus Sasuke, that would be more interesting. HJPEV can't lose as long as he is fighting with the Elder Wand, and that gives him a ton of options, even without prep time. Most obvious is to use his Time-Turner to go back in time and plant high explosives where Sasuke is going to be, but Sasuke has survived an attack like that before. HJPEV's best bet might be to talk to Sasuke to find out his motivations and then tell him that in the glorious transhumanist future he can make reconstructive uploads of his clan if he agrees to surrender.
(Actually, it's kind of weird that nobody in Naruto realizes that Impure World Reincarnation + White Zetsu Clones = Free Immortality For Everyone. I guess that's muggle plots for you).
Same. I would only ever use Tor to e.g. read The Great Replacement while I was in New Zealand, where I could leave it loading while I grabbed a sandwich. It's completely non-viable for something like Twitter or 4chan.
erwgv3g34
3mo ago
Perfectly true, but media aimed at women such Eat, Pray, Love continues to sell them the fantasy that they will do better after a divorce, lots of women believe it, and destroy their husband's lives, their children's lives, and their own lives chasing Chad, not realizing that if Chad didn't want to settle down with them when they were young and childness, he definitely is not going to want to settle down with them now that they are old single mothers.
erwgv3g34
3mo ago
No, actually, I think I that's correct? In my experience, people who are addicted to alcohol or smoking or porn almost never stop, and the best defense is to avoid become addicted in the first place by not even trying the addictive habit in the first place (trivial for heroin and tobacco, harder for alcohol and porn, impossible for food).
Like, if you expect an alcoholic or drug addict or a masturbator to give up their vices, you are going to have a bad time; very few do. You are much better off deciding if you are willing to accept that person addiction and all or if you would rather cut them off from your life. Same for expecting a fat person to lose weight. Ignoring morality/desert, it requires a nearly superhuman level of willpower that the vast majority of people empirically do not have.
More options
Context Copy link