danielcarver

Oh fuck. I’m totally wrong. I take back what I said. My bad. Thanks for the link. Altman is a boss

UBI needs to be furloughed. UBI aka just a scheme to keep the money flowing from the prole’s wallet into altman’s pocket. Universal basic EQUITY is a different thing. But he’s not offering that.

> In fact, it could be argued that the athletic departments themselves are already serving ss genetically gated dating services for elite genes. Stanford crew girl has a thing for Stanford wide receiver is a lot easier method of getting good gene sets together than testing millions of people and trying to make matches by computer that you hope the people will like. (And I'd wager that if we were to put together a dating service that tried to match good genes, the crew girl and the wide out would create superior offspring in any case. [I don't like using the word "superior", but you get what I mean.])

Super duper insightful man.

But both problems you’re discussing have already been solved:

>how to get eights to go with threes?

Prostitution.

>how to get nines and tens to use your service at all?

Build a walled garden, I.e. the Raya app.

I don’t understand this at all. The dude you’re responding to is clearly criticizing sexism rather than reinforcing it. There is absolutely nothing in his comment to suggest that “only women can be cheats.”

This makes absolutely zero sense. Not only is a figure of 40% male reproduction compatible with polygyny, it is solely compatible with polygyny.

If humans were monogamous as you suggest, the figure of male reproduction would be far closer to 100%. But we’re not. We’re polygynous — a harem-based species. And the 40% figure you just cited proves that: Less than half of the men mate with all of the women. That’s not called monogamy dude. That is called polygyny.

You’re incorrect, neither founder of AA was an atheist, they were both hardcore Christians.

AA absolutely is about Christianity, it is an offshoot of Christianity and a Christian organization.

The emphasis on public self-flagellation and self-humiliation via drunkalogs and self labeling as “alcoholics” aka sinners, the insistence on the nonsensical idea of “personal powerlessness,” the dogmatic suggesting of a book (the AA big book) written by Christian religious freaks as if it’s the Bible...

AA quite literally IS Christianity. It’s just that they use the generic label “God” rather than the more specific label of “Jesus Christ.”

It’s not like they allow polytheism, lol. They are specifically a monotheistic group religion, based on the idea of a singular MALE “higher power.” AA is Christianity. Saying otherwise reveals you either don’t know much about AA, or you don’t know much about Christianity. They are functionally the same.

So true. I find it hilarious that the same people who want open borders want techies out of the Bay Area. They’re literally arguing for immigration in the form of open borders while simultaneously arguing against it by demanding techies (aka immigrants) leave their city.

We can solve the peer validation issue by ceasing to create it in the first place.

In the model of human development I and my peers were taught in public school in America, humans start out life as “parent-oriented” people. Then when we go to school we become “peer-oriented.” I was taught that the transition from “parent orientation” to “peer orientation” is natural, inevitable, and healthy — but it’s none of those things. In fact, transitioning to a peer orientation has ill effects on many people, including this dude Daniel.

Being peer-oriented rather than parent-oriented is obviously unhealthy: just look at Daniel’s plight for proof of this obvious fact. But we teach that peer orientation is THE ONE AND ONLY healthy path to adulthood. We need to change what we teach. Daniel clearly yearned to connect with surrogate parent figures like this dude Joel, but the system was set up to keep him oriented towards his peers rather than parents or surrogate parent figures.

No wonder Daniel suffered the consequences of peer-orientation when the entire school system is set up to make him oriented towards his peers.

Daniel is a casualty of the system. His “faults” were created and managed by the system itself. Daniel is the victim here and blaming the victim is not a good look.

You are incorrect. There are plenty of people who get their lives together after long periods of “fucking up.”

Save yourself a lot of headache by abandoning your delusion that “a fuck-up will always be a fuck-up.”