Randomness thread, part two.

[OngBonga]

Lately I feel an incredible urge to yell allahu akbar every time I'm in a crowded area.

Film it, post results.

Please.

[spoonitnow]

I never thought I'd say this, but I finally found an article about increasing gun control that makes sense, and I might actually just sell my guns and be done with it now.

Heheheheheh.

[oskar]

When you run on a waxed floor with socks and then stop and slide... I want shoes that can do that on any surface. I don't care about hoverboards. I want that.

[kingnat]

I have a friend who is donating a kidney through a reputable service but to someone that she does not know. I'm completely blown away by her generosity and humanity, but can't totally decide if I think it's a good idea or not.

[Renton]

I have a friend who is donating a kidney through a reputable service but to someone that she does not know. I'm completely blown away by her generosity and humanity, but can't totally decide if I think it's a good idea or not.

You can't decide if reducing your life quality/expectancy by an appreciable amount for no personal gain whatsoever would be a good idea?

I would sooner sacrifice my time to lobby for a free market for organs. It would help more than one person and it wouldn't require that I undergo major surgery.

[BooG690]

Donating organs is super irrational, you know, since we're arguing its "good ideaness."

[boost]

You can't decide if reducing your life quality/expectancy by an appreciable amount for no personal gain whatsoever would be a good idea?

I would sooner sacrifice my time to lobby for a free market for organs. It would help more than one person and it wouldn't require that I undergo major surgery.

I haven't put any thought into an organ free market, but the rest I completely agree with. Not only that, but I can't imagine how someone donating a kidney in this way can be considered mentally fit enough to engage in such a transaction. All virtues have a sweet spot-- overly charitable is equally as bad and results in equally bad consequences as being overly stingy.

[wufwugy]

Kidney market is probably the first thing that the largest number of economists agree should be a thing.

[Renton]

I'm frankly relieved to see some agreement on this. Kingnat's post stirred something really uncomfortable within me. I actually felt offended by the fact not only that someone with a valuable life would do this, but also the fact that someone I respect would be inspired by it. It's weird because I don't really get offended by anything I read, and why should I care what someone else does with their own body?

It does strike me as completely irrational to the point where I would question her mental health. But then kingnat seems to be actually considering doing it and it seems unlikely for both of them to be crazy. At the same time, I wouldn't find it crazy if someone volunteered their time to work in west Africa to help ebola patients, even though the risk would be similar if not greater. At least in that case you would be risking your life to help more than just one person.

FWIW, I looked up the risks. Something like 1/2000 chance of dying on the table, with a greater chance of dying from complications in the short term after that, and something like 0.2-0.5% chance of end stage renal failure for your remaining kidney within 5 years. I could find no data that looked farther than 5 years ahead, but it seems to me like you're certainly shaving off at least a couple of years expectancy. She also will need to significantly alter her diet and behavior for the rest of her life to mitigate other risk factors.

[BooG690]

It's not only the costs/risks that Renton describes in the bottom paragraph; it's the fact that the reward is close to null.

[Renton]

Well I think the whole point of doing it is to demonstrate that you value the net happiness/health of the world equally to your own. If you consider this from a game theory point of view, if everyone threw their names in the live kidney donor hat, then whenever someone needs a kidney they will have one, and there are fewer net deaths from kidney disease. The Nash equilibrium is for no one to give a kidney, but a forced cooperative strategy would ensure all are better off.

That is of course assuming there was no third superior option (organ free market).

[RichardsL]

Heeeeeeeeeeey there, pretty mamma!

[OngBonga]

It's not only the costs/risks that Renton describes in the bottom paragraph; it's the fact that the reward is close to null.

I would imagine such an act of generosity would look good in the eyes of God when He decides if you are worthy of Heaven.

So yeah, I agree with you.

[BooG690]

Hell'll be exponentially more fun.

[boost]

Well I think the whole point of doing it is to demonstrate that you value the net happiness/health of the world equally to your own. If you consider this from a game theory point of view, if everyone threw their names in the live kidney donor hat, then whenever someone needs a kidney they will have one, and there are fewer net deaths from kidney disease. The Nash equilibrium is for no one to give a kidney, but a forced cooperative strategy would ensure all are better off.

That is of course assuming there was no third superior option (organ free market).

Wait, so assuming we could meet the needs through a voluntary organ charity, you still think the organ free market would be superior?

[wufwugy]

Wait, so assuming we could meet the needs through a voluntary organ charity, you still think the organ free market would be superior?

I don't know if this is where he's going, but yes, a market would work better than any utopian charity ideal. The reason is markets have a mechanism by which resources are allocated based on perceived value. This means that those who trade a kidney do so because they benefit the most from it. In the charity ideal, value is not allocated to where it has most utility, but it does in trade. In charity, one party benefits. In trade, both benefit. The society that trades organs is more prosperous than the society that donates organs.

Economics is the science of resource manipulation. Prices are more productive than charity. Prices have also proven to drive abundance; whereas charity has not.

[boost]

While I think that lady is off her rocker, I think you're missing something when you assign no value to monetary incentive free cooperation. Could it not be that people are more productive being content in the knowledge that should they find themselves with no working kidneys, a fellow human will step up and offer one of theirs?

I'm always taking this side, whatever that means, but just to be clear, I'd prefer to split the bill than "get them back next time." I really don't like the "it all evens out" mentality, but I do think it's very likely that there is value (and not just having some subjective moral high ground, but actual increased societal prosperity) in having the knowledge that you only can fall so far.

[Renton]

Wait, so assuming we could meet the needs through a voluntary organ charity, you still think the organ free market would be superior?

The assumption is inherently wrong. If there was a pool of kidneys magically created for us to distribute for free to people in need, the needs of people would expand until they exceed that pool of kidneys. You would need a state of superabundance for this not to be the case. Not all needs for a kidney transplant are equal. For example, with the current state of extreme shortage of kidneys, only people who are about to die are even considered candidates for the operation. If there were more, the candidate criteria would expand and expand until a point where people with only a 10% chance to die from alternate treatment would improve their equity by switching to a kidney transplant. It becomes clear that the resource will be at great risk to be squandered by all.

With the organ free market, incentive would stimulate supply, and prices would promote conservation. Almost everyone would be an organ donor if they could sell their organs, as it would be like the most basic form of life insurance payout , no premiums necessary. Even the poor might be better off, since its often easier to raise a bit of money for a cause than it is to roll the dice and wait for a donor to die or for someone like kingnat's friend to come to your aid.

[eugmac]

Hell'll be exponentially more fun.

I do have a problem with the use of the word exponentially like this, unless you really do mean the level of fun is increasing at a compounding rate.

[OngBonga]

I'm fairly certain Hell is more fun today than it was yesterday.

I'll need a larger sample size before I can confirm exponential expansion.

[spoonitnow]

I don't know if this is where he's going, but yes, a market would work better than any utopian charity ideal. The reason is markets have a mechanism by which resources are allocated based on perceived value. This means that those who trade a kidney do so because they benefit the most from it. In the charity ideal, value is not allocated to where it has most utility, but it does in trade. In charity, one party benefits. In trade, both benefit. The society that trades organs is more prosperous than the society that donates organs.

Economics is the science of resource manipulation. Prices are more productive than charity. Prices have also proven to drive abundance; whereas charity has not.

Not related directly, but this conversation reminds me of how people get really up in arms about price gouging during things like natural disasters. The textbook example is something like a bottle of water costing $5. The knee jerk reaction is to think that people are getting screwed over because water is normally so much cheaper and to think that it's just the people selling the water taking advantage of the situation to exploit people. In reality, the price adjusts itself because of the decrease in supply, and this helps everyone because it forces a scarce resource to be distributed in a much more optimal way than allowing some jackass to swoop in and buy up a lot more than he needs for the short term, which would leave people in actual short term need up the creek without a paddle.

I think it really just comes down to the emotional "omg that's not fair for this hypothetical one person" reaction vs. the rational "hold on, that's actually really fair for everybody" conclusion that's achieved through logical thought.

[rong]

The only issue with that spoon is economists use willingness to pay as substitute for need which ignored ability to pay.

[spoonitnow]

The only issue with that spoon is economists use willingness to pay as substitute for need which ignored ability to pay.

Two things:

1. When people aren't forced to give away a substantial portion of their earnings, they donate more to causes that shore up the inability to pay for people who have a strong need without a means.

2. Demand is the willingness to pay some particular price, not the current price. This is why price adjusts according to supply in the context of demand and not as a result of demand independently.

[rong]

In general, I think a free market across the board is better for all. I think I bigger and more difficult question to answer is how you change from point a to point b. There's going to be a lot of misery for a lot of people along the way.

But to your points above. 1. It is undeniably true that if you remove taxes and therefore increase net income then people will have more and therefore be more inclined to help others less fortunate than them, but it doesn't for a second guarantee that those less fortunate would receive more. 2. Yes, true. But let's take the disaster scenario above, if there's 100 people and 700 bottles of water, and let's say each person needs 1 bottle per day to survive and no further supplies will arrive for a week. Under a free market, especially with a range of different abilities to pay, a bunch of people die. Where as a bunch of do gooders working for a charity could probably distribute the water in a way that ensures everybody survives. So if you're saying a free market is better than fixed price controls I'll agree with you, but it only makes it the optimal method of distribution if you use wealth generated as your metric ad opposed to survival rates of the population.

[Renton]

In general, I think a free market across the board is better for all. I think I bigger and more difficult question to answer is how you change from point a to point b. There's going to be a lot of misery for a lot of people along the way.

But to your points above. 1. It is undeniably true that if you remove taxes and therefore increase net income then people will have more and therefore be more inclined to help others less fortunate than them, but it doesn't for a second guarantee that those less fortunate would receive more. 2. Yes, true. But let's take the disaster scenario above, if there's 100 people and 700 bottles of water, and let's say each person needs 1 bottle per day to survive and no further supplies will arrive for a week. Under a free market, especially with a range of different abilities to pay, a bunch of people die. Where as a bunch of do gooders working for a charity could probably distribute the water in a way that ensures everybody survives. So if you're saying a free market is better than fixed price controls I'll agree with you, but it only makes it the optimal method of distribution if you use wealth generated as your metric ad opposed to survival rates of the population.

Only in price gouging prohibited places, would the supply of water be locked at 700 bottles. When prices are allowed to do their job, a huge profit signal cause new provisions to rush to the areas that have shortages. Without a doubt, a rationing system is best in an situation where a resource has completely run out, but there is a virtually unlimited supply of bottles of water in the world, its merely a question of how to motivate suppliers to put the water where it is needed.

[spoonitnow]

In general, I think a free market across the board is better for all. I think I bigger and more difficult question to answer is how you change from point a to point b. There's going to be a lot of misery for a lot of people along the way.

But to your points above. 1. It is undeniably true that if you remove taxes and therefore increase net income then people will have more and therefore be more inclined to help others less fortunate than them, but it doesn't for a second guarantee that those less fortunate would receive more. 2. Yes, true. But let's take the disaster scenario above, if there's 100 people and 700 bottles of water, and let's say each person needs 1 bottle per day to survive and no further supplies will arrive for a week. Under a free market, especially with a range of different abilities to pay, a bunch of people die. Where as a bunch of do gooders working for a charity could probably distribute the water in a way that ensures everybody survives. So if you're saying a free market is better than fixed price controls I'll agree with you, but it only makes it the optimal method of distribution if you use wealth generated as your metric ad opposed to survival rates of the population.

Again, two things:

1. Increased profits from the raising price of water increases incentives for businesses to get more water into the area faster.

2. Someone shouldn't be forced to give away their 700 bottles of water to charity instead of selling it.

[BooG690]

http://gothamist.com/2015/04/23/call_me.php

This objectification of men makes me sick.

Lol jk. Dude two from our right is dreamy as fuck.

But for cereal, the female Al Sharpton would be up in arms about this if switchy-poo'd.

[BooG690]

Also, yes, the Gothamist is a bullshit NYC site. But still.

[spoonitnow]

"Even the rape culture myth has been denounced by the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, the most prominent US organization fighting sexual violence. In a press release, they stated that: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime."

[aubreymcfate]

the Gothamist calls my friends "DIY hipsters" all the time >:O

omg those cops though. The way I talk about men is absolutely disgusting. Objectification is hawt.

The thing about "rape culture" is that it refers to a certain type of attitude that seeks to shame women for whatever behavior ostensibly led to them getting raped. It certainly exists in certain parts of the country (probably in the same places where there's still deep seated discomfort with female sexuality) but a) is not the reason, like the RAINN statement says, people rape, and b) is by no means indicative of the dominant culture in America. People think that advising your daughter not to get blackout drunk at a frat party is “rape culture” which is dumb as fuck.

[jackvance]

Actual rape cultures exist in places like India, not where most of the complaining about it happens.

[oskar]

In general, I think a free market across the board is better for all. I think I bigger and more difficult question to answer is how you change from point a to point b. There's going to be a lot of misery for a lot of people along the way.

But to your points above. 1. It is undeniably true that if you remove taxes and therefore increase net income then people will have more and therefore be more inclined to help others less fortunate than them, but it doesn't for a second guarantee that those less fortunate would receive more. 2. Yes, true. But let's take the disaster scenario above, if there's 100 people and 700 bottles of water, and let's say each person needs 1 bottle per day to survive and no further supplies will arrive for a week. Under a free market, especially with a range of different abilities to pay, a bunch of people die. Where as a bunch of do gooders working for a charity could probably distribute the water in a way that ensures everybody survives. So if you're saying a free market is better than fixed price controls I'll agree with you, but it only makes it the optimal method of distribution if you use wealth generated as your metric ad opposed to survival rates of the population.

Suggesting that the welfare state works as advertised.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/louistheroux/sta...40344051834880
that sounds like fun

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't know if this is where he's going, but yes, a market would work better than any utopian charity ideal. The reason is markets have a mechanism by which resources are allocated based on perceived value. This means that those who trade a kidney do so because they benefit the most from it. In the charity ideal, value is not allocated to where it has most utility, but it does in trade. In charity, one party benefits. In trade, both benefit. The society that trades organs is more prosperous than the society that donates organs.

Economics is the science of resource manipulation. Prices are more productive than charity. Prices have also proven to drive abundance; whereas charity has not.

Why do you have to say most? Some will do it because they simply benefit enough from it. Some will do it without fully appreciating the choice and may come to regard it as a mistake in hindsight.

[Renton]

Enough would be more accurate than most, I think. Still, there's no better way than commerce to ascribe value to something.

[a500lbgorilla]

While I'm thinking about Economics and my distaste for it's resistance to accept human behavior as not readily simplified into mathematical
choice theory, I read a pretty good parallel between my thoughts and those of engineers during the development of structural sciences.




It's funny because the study of elasticity and structures was bucked by many engineers because they thought the jump from fancy french theory to pragmatic practice in a complex world was too great. Of course, that study panned out pretty well, but I think Economics, with it's rational actors and price signals and best results is far off.

[a500lbgorilla]

Enough would be more accurate than most, I think. Still, there's no better way than commerce to ascribe value to something.

Yeah, I agree.

[a500lbgorilla]

Again, two things:

1. Increased profits from the raising price of water increases incentives for businesses to get more water into the area faster.

2. Someone shouldn't be forced to give away their 700 bottles of water to charity instead of selling it.

1. The real incentive would be to monopolize the water market by employing very uneconomical means. The price signal that tells other merchants of new opportunity will have to flow by the hand of man. Someone needs to carry the news, whether it be a company's network of spies or a news ticker. If there is an opportunity to silence the signal, the price gouging would not be delivering the greatest of all possible results.

The value of something isn't intrinsic to it. It's not what it is or what it can do, but rather what someone is willing to do to have it. You can covet something much more than me, but if I can have it and you can't, it's value is the one I place on it. In economics, this is described in price, if you want to bid 1000 but only have 100 and I bid 150, the thing is worth 150. However, there are other ways that you could get the thing than simply outbidding me.

There are places where biding with money in a market makes perfect sense. In large markets with well regulated industries and supply chains where everyone is forced to play by the same rules, sure, but the world at large won't be reduced to a price point.

[a500lbgorilla]

the Gothamist calls my friends "DIY hipsters" all the time >:O

omg those cops though. The way I talk about men is absolutely disgusting. Objectification is hawt.

The thing about "rape culture" is that it refers to a certain type of attitude that seeks to shame women for whatever behavior ostensibly led to them getting raped. It certainly exists in certain parts of the country (probably in the same places where there's still deep seated discomfort with female sexuality) but a) is not the reason, like the RAINN statement says, people rape, and b) is by no means indicative of the dominant culture in America. People think that advising your daughter not to get blackout drunk at a frat party is “rape culture” which is dumb as fuck.

Then why call it rape culture? Why not go back to slut shaming?

edit: I misread you

related:

[a500lbgorilla]

http://gothamist.com/2015/04/23/call_me.php

This objectification of men makes me sick.

Lol jk. Dude two from our right is dreamy as fuck.

But for cereal, the female Al Sharpton would be up in arms about this if switchy-poo'd.

Cute chin, pale blue eyes like a soft wading pool, and he's got a uniform and handcuffs back home... :thumb:

[aubreymcfate]

(nothing to do with current day rape culture, this was made in like '05, i just think it's funny as hell)


and ugh, while of course it's true that trauma might 'cause people to rationalize their rape, that person on Twitter most likely has no clue wtf they're talking about and needs to shut up. It's that mentality from authority figures on college campuses that confuses young girls who come to them with uncertainties about what they've experienced.

[spoonitnow]

And this is why men rightfully believe that they can be charged with rape purely from a woman experiencing regret of having sex with them. It's starting to be the case that men are required to prove consent was given (which is generally an impossible task), or they are guilty in court.

Don't believe me? The Telegraph - Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

This is the beginning of the complete destruction of the justice system, and it's yet another example of the very real war on men and boys that's out there in the real world waiting for you whether you believe it or not.

[a500lbgorilla]

And this is why men rightfully believe that they can be charged with rape purely from a woman experiencing regret of having sex with them. It's starting to be the case that men are required to prove consent was given (which is generally an impossible task), or they are guilty in court.

Don't believe me? The Telegraph - Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

This is the beginning of the complete destruction of the justice system, and it's yet another example of the very real war on men and boys that's out there in the real world waiting for you whether you believe it or not.

You think that's bad? Women don't like negotiating their salaries! (npr ran a story on this this morning, 23% wage gap, Ellen Pao and all. If anything, this is why I can't stand feminism. It takes good and pure things and turns them to crap.)

[a500lbgorilla]

Let's take a moment to give thanks to feminism.



It's a little bit responsible for this talented comedian.

[wufwugy]

While I think that lady is off her rocker, I think you're missing something when you assign no value to monetary incentive free cooperation. Could it not be that people are more productive being content in the knowledge that should they find themselves with no working kidneys, a fellow human will step up and offer one of theirs?

Your first sentence is a necessary factor in the total cost-benefit analysis. Your second sentence begs the question i.e., assumes that a market will always provide scarcely. My go-to analogy is food. Everybody needs it, everybody wants it, there is very little moral duty applied, yet it is as abundant as fuck. This is especially striking since we have historical contrast with some pretty powerful societies that tried to produce and distribute food based on mandates. Production was abysmal and starvation was epidemic.

Anyways, the rule of thumb is that as long as there are costs, prices are the only known viable technique to handle them. Even in the utopian charity ideal, there are lots of costs (like opportunity costs for surgeons, to name just one). It could be said that ignoring costs is what sunk Marxism.

[spoonitnow]

She fucked Dolph Ziggler for a while. She could be hot if she lost some weight, and she's funny for a girl considering almost all of her comedy is making fun of herself.

This is my favorite bit of hers:



I'm not a fan of Ellen. I just don't think she's funny the majority of the time.

[wufwugy]

Why do you have to say most? Some will do it because they simply benefit enough from it. Some will do it without fully appreciating the choice and may come to regard it as a mistake in hindsight.

If we're going down this route, even saying "enough" doesn't work as long as the argument that they're not actually benefiting can be made. Which it can.

Which brings us to the thing on which we seem to have argued too much: rationality in economics. Even a heroin addict who OD's was acting rationally because of the level of perceived value he gave that additional injection. After rationality is established, the economics profession spends most of its time trying to understand irrationality. Every profession does this sort of thing. I think your claim that economics is acting differently than other sciences is not true.

In the context that I used "most", I think it is appropriate because value is perceived and a price system necessarily means the demand is created by those who most perceive the value. Granted, this whole thing is a semantic mess, and "enough" works just fine too. "Enough" is probably easier to understand too.

[wufwugy]

I theorize that the concept of rape culture exists because of easy access to the internet and college for immature women. The internet gives them a voice. College does as well, but more importantly college delays maturity. So we have lots of 16-25 year old women who do not know anything about the world and are not provided much means to learn. They're told to be afraid and they're told men are dogs. They do not know better because they have not experienced life. Give women a good decade in the real world, and 90%+ will laugh at the lunacy of rape culture.

A simple example is the "you know you want it" line from Blurred Lines that has so many rape culturalists up in arms. Grown up women know the mating ritual that is that phrase, but many college enrolled child-adult girls do not. It used to be that they didn't have a voice and that they engaged in the real world earlier in life. Not so anymore.

[a500lbgorilla]

edit It's not worth choking this thread up. I will just once again suggest you read Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Worst thing that could happen is you waste 15 bucks and so many hours reading before bed.

[wufwugy]

posted in other thread.

[aubreymcfate]

A simple example is the "you know you want it" line from Blurred Lines that has so many rape culturalists up in arms. Grown up women know the mating ritual that is that phrase, but many college enrolled child-adult girls do not. It used to be that they didn't have a voice and that they engaged in the real world earlier in life. Not so anymore.

I feel like you're being too kind. People know, they fucking know, they just have convinced themselves on like, a molecular level, that if something is conceivably rapey, than it is rapey. It's a zero tolerance mentality.

You might be right about the younger girls though. SJW stuff is a way for angry youth to channel their hormonal fury. This is pure immaturity.

this is fucking funny:

[eugmac]

it's not totally my thing, but i'm japanese and kind of purist in a lot of ways but i'm ok with westernized sushi with majo, deep fried stuff and barbecue sauce. people eat it, and have fun so meh.

[a500lbgorilla]

She fucked Dolph Ziggler for a while. She could be hot if she lost some weight, and she's funny for a girl considering almost all of her comedy is making fun of herself.

This is my favorite bit of hers:





I'm not a fan of Ellen. I just don't think she's funny the majority of the time.

LOL

I'm not a fan of anyone on TV. Stephen Colbert was the one true prophet but now that he's gonna drop the super american act, I suspect he's just going to become a second Jimmy Fallon. It's like when the Rock became Dwayne Johnson. You can't smell what DJ is cooking, you know?

Conan can win in certain spots.

[BooG690]

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/23...ack-widow-slut

We're so sensitive nowadays that we can't make fun of FICTIONAL CHARACTERS.

[BooG690]

Cute chin, pale blue eyes like a soft wading pool, and he's got a uniform and handcuffs back home... :thumb:

That meta thumb joke was absolutely beautiful. Nicely done.

[eugmac]

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/23...ack-widow-slut

We're so sensitive nowadays that we can't make fun of FICTIONAL CHARACTERS.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK

[OngBonga]

She could be hot if she lost some weight...

Whaaaaaat? Amy Schumer is too fat to be hot?

Jesus.

[aubreymcfate]

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/23...ack-widow-slut

We're so sensitive nowadays that we can't make fun of FICTIONAL CHARACTERS.

I disagree that people's comments on fictional characters are exempt from any critical lens. They can absolutely reflect real-world attitudes towards the demographic that character represents. (Not as a rule or anything, but you know, case-by-case basis.) However, I watched that video, and it was so clear to me that they were joking and not really shaming anyone that I couldn't even be offended by that if I tried.

Also, this is pure conjecture on my part because I know zero about the character or the movie: Is it possible that her character was written in a way that a male character wouldn't be? By which I mean, perhaps it's more common of a trope to have a female character who flirts and teases a lot of men, than a male character who flirts with and teases a lot of women (which is more reflective of real life, makes sense). The joke here seemed to be centered around her leading everyone on.



Julia Louie-Dreyfuss & Amy Poehler -- today's queens of comedy.

[OngBonga]

Yeah I mean if I said I want to fuck Lisa Simpson up the arse while she's doing her homework, that could still be offensive, even though it obviously means nothing other than I'm a twat.

[BooG690]

I see where you're coming from and I agree that it reflects on their real-world views, maybe. I guess the point was that we're getting to a place where we can't joke about jack shit without one group or other getting offended and it offends me as a lover of offensive humor.

[aubreymcfate]

I see where you're coming from and I agree that it reflects on their real-world views, maybe. I guess the point was that we're getting to a place where we can't joke about jack shit without one group or other getting offended and it offends me as a lover of offensive humor.

yeah I'm 110% with you on that. Our vulgar sensibilities are being totally oppressed.

[Renton]

Whaaaaaat? Amy Schumer is too fat to be hot?

Jesus.

Some people just can't carry a few extra pounds very well. I think she's probably one of them. I'd probably fuck her with relative glee, but she would be much prettier if she lost weight.

Since the randomness thread is bashing the SJWs lately, I figured I'd post this gem for you guys and gals.

[a500lbgorilla]

yeah I'm 110% with you on that. Our vulgar sensibilities are being totally oppressed.

Yeah, let's not see any thought policing now

[aubreymcfate]

Do you feel that I thought police people?

[a500lbgorilla]

No, I can't imagine you in a uniform.

But those gals that are demanding an apology about a joke on a fictional character are getting close.

[aubreymcfate]

Oh ok, your comment was ambiguous, wasn't sure what you were getting at. I was rolling up the digital sleeves (as I'm always prone to doing prematurely). Your instinct is correct -- closest thing to uniform I've ever gotten was high school marching band.

[a500lbgorilla]

Tuba?

[aubreymcfate]

Percussion, sort of. I played percussion in band/orchestra, and marched with the snare during Memorial Day parade. But during our annual marching band performance at Hofstra, as well as football games, I was the badass motherfucker off to the side playing bass lines on the electric keyboard. Our football team's theme was "Iron Man." All me baby, all me.

Tuba would have been cool, but I can't really blow and walk at the same time.

[boost]

How about while kneeling?

[spoonitnow]

Subtle, boost.

[spoonitnow]

This got some love in /r/writing, so I figured I would post it here:

Five Tools I Personally Use to Write Better

[boost]

Subtle, boost.

If the OP had been a guy, would your comment have changed or even been made?

[spoonitnow]

If the OP had been a guy, would your comment have changed or even been made?

I don't see color. Shit I mean gender.

[spoonitnow]

Two really, really good articles (lots of data) on the war against boys in public school:

1. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...t-boys/304659/
2. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...oline-kitchens

[kingnat]

You can't decide if reducing your life quality/expectancy by an appreciable amount for no personal gain whatsoever would be a good idea?

I would sooner sacrifice my time to lobby for a free market for organs. It would help more than one person and it wouldn't require that I undergo major surgery.

I don't think my friend views this as not providing her with any kind of personal gain.

Donating organs is super irrational, you know, since we're arguing its "good ideaness."

If your sole goal is to extend your life as much as possible then I agree that it is 100% stupid. Not all people live there life that way, and it is not their only goal.

I haven't put any thought into an organ free market, but the rest I completely agree with. Not only that, but I can't imagine how someone donating a kidney in this way can be considered mentally fit enough to engage in such a transaction. All virtues have a sweet spot-- overly charitable is equally as bad and results in equally bad consequences as being overly stingy.

For myself, I do think that this is likely irrational, but I'm not 100% certain. I am incredibly giving of my time and my money to support and stand up for the well-being of others. Her action has kind of rocked me a lot because I can't decide if it's crazy or if it's admirable. I'm very conflicted and that doesn't happen very often anymore. It used to a lot because I didn't know how to think critically, and I do appreciate the critical application of logic and economics here, but you have a very real chance of giving some one their life back. My mind is blown when I consider the possibility that this can be a thing (outside of war, e.g., jumping on a grenade, etc. but even that is a shock to me system to conceptualize).

I'm frankly relieved to see some agreement on this. Kingnat's post stirred something really uncomfortable within me. I actually felt offended by the fact not only that someone with a valuable life would do this, but also the fact that someone I respect would be inspired by it. It's weird because I don't really get offended by anything I read, and why should I care what someone else does with their own body?

It does strike me as completely irrational to the point where I would question her mental health. But then kingnat seems to be actually considering doing it and it seems unlikely for both of them to be crazy. At the same time, I wouldn't find it crazy if someone volunteered their time to work in west Africa to help ebola patients, even though the risk would be similar if not greater. At least in that case you would be risking your life to help more than just one person.

FWIW, I looked up the risks. Something like 1/2000 chance of dying on the table, with a greater chance of dying from complications in the short term after that, and something like 0.2-0.5% chance of end stage renal failure for your remaining kidney within 5 years. I could find no data that looked farther than 5 years ahead, but it seems to me like you're certainly shaving off at least a couple of years expectancy. She also will need to significantly alter her diet and behavior for the rest of her life to mitigate other risk factors.

It makes me very pleased to know that I have your respect renton, and I hope I don't provide you with a list of reasons here for identifying me as irritation and/or foolish. In the event that it does, I hope that doesn't lessen your impression of others things I've posted about and stand up for. This is really a new thing for me, and I'm struggling with multiple lines of thinking.

1. This is fucking stupid and I should do everything I can to stop my friend. (essentially agreeing with everyone else here)

2. People can do whatever they want with their lives. I may not agree with it, but my general stance is, "If you aren't hurting anyone else, you should feel free to do whatever you'd like." If I totally buy into this, and I think most people here again seem to agree with this statement, it covers all manner of things. If people want to hate black people or the gays, or they want to masturbate to beastiality porn, good on 'em, pray to jesus, or allah or whatever, free basing crack is good to if that's what you want. As long as they aren't hurting others, good on 'em. I would think a lot of those things are a waste of time and destructive, but she is actually helping to save someone's life. Is that possibly the most irrational thing a person can do that offers no personal satisfaction to the donor? I'm skeptical.

3. The most fucked thing about this, is something renton eluded to... I have actually considered the ramifications of my doing this. It mostly comes in the form of... if this isn't a bad thing, and it's a good thing, then why shouldn't I do it too. It's made me feel incredibly guilty. Not because I think I should do it and I just don't want to, but the idea that maybe I should? Why am I so scared? Isn't this what real sacrifice looks like?

It's not only the costs/risks that Renton describes in the bottom paragraph; it's the fact that the reward is close to null.

Again, I'm skeptical that there is a reward of zero. Most people say they value all sorts of shit, but don't ever do anything about it. My friend is not religious. She isn't doing this for rewards in the after life. I'm one of the least religious people you'll ever meet. Yet, I devote a lot of time and energy for groups of people that I will never be a part of.

What personal gain do I achieve from helping stand up for LGBT rights and women's reproductive rights? Maybe if I get some one pregnant I can still gain by her getting an abortion, but that's not why I escort women past protestors at my local abortion clinic. Is the personal gain measurably better in my case? Is it acceptable because while I receive no personal gain, I don't put myself at risk?

I think standing up for people's rights in a visible way (especially for abortion in a very red state) could put me in serious financial risk as there is a non-zero chance that word could get out to the wrong people and find a way to not continue my employment at my job.

I would imagine such an act of generosity would look good in the eyes of God when He decides if you are worthy of Heaven.

So yeah, I agree with you.

I know this is in jest, but just to re-iterate, I don't do good things for pretend rewards from entities that don't exist and i'm pretty sure my friend doesn't either.

I have to wrap this up and I'm sure I wasn't as coherent as I would've liked to be. I don't necessarily disagree with the things that've been said here, and I admit I may be responding a bit defensively because I dearly love my friend and I'm very worried about her, so that may be dredging up some irrationality, or a deep-seeded desire to find rational behavior in what she's doing. I'm just surprised at the 100% assured confidence of everyone that there is no personal benefit to the donor.

I don't know. I need to just stop, I probably did a shitty job of attempting to make my point, but I felt I needed to respond in some way, I just need to get back to other shit and stop worrying about this. Be well all.