Would you give your kids to Trump?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, that's true. You need money for housing, heating, lighting, food, clothing, and some nice things...

A little spending, especially a good deal, can be pleasant

But once you reach the level where you have a comfortable existance, research shows that people enjoy the things they buy for shorter lengths of time and might not enjoy the simple pleasures of life at all.

It's all about the optimum point. Perfect amount of money for comfortable living, and still getting enjoyment out of it.

As I recall, the specific figure for this limit in the US is $70k a year.

I would say the sweet spot is more like 120,000 a year. 70,000 seems awfully trite for the current economic situation.

[Grenartia]

As I recall, the specific figure for this limit in the US is $70k a year.

I would say the sweet spot is more like 120,000 a year. 70,000 seems awfully trite for the current economic situation.

70k is what I recall seeing a year or two ago, and I know prices haven't shot up enough to justify an extra 50k since then.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I would say the sweet spot is more like 120,000 a year. 70,000 seems awfully trite for the current economic situation.

70k is what I recall seeing a year or two ago, and I know prices haven't shot up enough to justify an extra 50k since then.

I suppose, but then I might be biased.

Because most of my money while single (assuming I earned that much money, because I am single) would go to going to bars/clubs and meeting women and traveling throughout Mexico and El Salvador and do that down there as well, and that can get hella expensive.

[The Free Joy State]

As I recall, the specific figure for this limit in the US is $70k a year.

I would say the sweet spot is more like 120,000 a year. 70,000 seems awfully trite for the current economic situation.

I found the link which gave £50,000 GBP/$75,000 USD as the optimum figure. But it was eight years ago.

This current (Feb this year) figure gives the number as $90-100,000 USD.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I would say the sweet spot is more like 120,000 a year. 70,000 seems awfully trite for the current economic situation.

I found the link which gave £50,000 GBP/$75,000 USD as the optimum figure. But it was eight years ago.

This current figure gives the number as $90-100,000 USD.

So I wasn't too far off

Thank you

[Irish Laren]

I don't actually want children, but if i had them, hmm, i mean, he is already 70, so in my opinion he's way too old to have children

[The Frozen Forest]

Perhaps, but welfare isn't optional for those paying it. Giving my kids to a "Sugar Daddy" who wants them isn't the same thing as leeching off the hardworking middle and lower class Americans. But then we are getting into the welfare argument which isn't what the topic is about. Even if Trump were to fall ill and die, because he's legally the father of the child he's also legally entitled to the inheritance, which is still a step up considering the amount of wealth accumulated by Trump.

[Genivaria]

So as per usual IM proposes a ridiculous hypothetical and proceeds to get pissy when people don't say what he wants them to say.

[Genivaria]

Checked my post history and I fucking found this. Oh my fucking god.

I'm still waiting for that bloke to show me where I said these people should be allowed to stay here illegally. Really.

Just don’t use “The Children” as a pro-illegal immigration card.

I dislike these types of arguments.

[Salandriagado]

Luxury does not really provide more joy than a comfortable but frugal middle-class life iirc, and I would be able to provide that for my hypothetical children. And fake friendships are probably less fulfilling than real ones, but I've never been rich enough to be in that situation, so I can't be sure.
I also feel that I would be able to provide a more caring, supportive home for my hypothetical children than Donald Trump would, and his age makes it so they would have to deal with the sadness of their father dying at a younger age than most children do.

You are joking, right? Of course wealth provides more joy than anything else. It's simple logic.

- You don't have to work for a living and can thus devote 100% of your time and energy to joy.
We common people spend our entire lives struggling to ensure we have enough wealth to get through the day and hopefully a future where we can keep up struggling with no less difficulty but at least some semblance of morbid consistency. Thus our pleasure time is severely restricted and our energy remaining to spend in that time limited and drained. Rich people don't have those concerns. They have all the time and energy in the world to devote to nothing but them self. Ergo where as our lives are mostly work and little play theirs can be all play. Ergo they can have a net total of more joy per lifetime than we can.

- You are not restricted in the resources you can spend on joy.
Again, same thing. You don't have to be the sort of person that enjoys crashing million dollars worth of car into lampposts or drinking bottles of vine more costly than you or I'll make in a year. You can be. Who are we to judge? But you don't have to. The sheer fact that you do not have to worry about money means that any demand you have no matter how extravagant or mundane can be yours at no perceivable cost. You don't have to make a choice between buying two video games or between sending your kids to school and buying your self a new car. You just do both. At once. Or at any pace you like because you can.
This is something we common people can simply never approach because we are limited and thus for us every single choice is a painful morbid tradeoff where we give up many glorious options in favor of just one whose satisfaction can newer reach that which could have been attained had we had them all.

- You don't have to think about the consequences of your action and can thus enjoy all pleasures even those ordinarily forbidden to you.
Again, does this need explaining? Do I need to tell you how and why every age has its own stupid rules that only serve to keep us down? Don't do this, don't eat that, don't have sex that way etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. And no matter what people just won't shut up about these. And they will gleefully use them as a club with which to drive you into the ground in a struggle for limited resources.
If you are rich however you get to simply ignore these people because you are not a part of that struggle. You don't have to care what others think about you because a) you can buy people off and b) those you can't buy off can't touch you. See the romantic poets for an example. Look at how they lived and took pleasure in life in ways that would, if not for their wealth and stature have gotten them shunned.


So of course wealth breeds pleasure. It enables pleasure. It is what you and I and all others desperately need to propel us to the true state of freedom. That is why every utopian futurist out there keeps talking about a post scarcity world. That's just another way of saying a world where everyone is rich and we can thus have fun.


PS. Frugality is frankly one of the saddest aspects of the human condition. It is a tool, and an useful one at that for rationing the meager time and resources we have. But it's very existence is a morbid reminder of just how strapped we are for said resources.

This is absolutely not true. Above ~$75k/year income (or wealth sufficient to maintain such a lifestyle), happiness doesn't increase with wealth/income. Hedonic baselines are real.

[Khataiy]

Yeah maybe to baby sit for an hour or something

[Danceria]

In the hypothetical case I were to somehow have kids, I wouldn't mind them hanging out with the Trumps. Barron seems like a good kid, a bit quiet, but overall nice. I would be the other over-protective dude who menacingly stands over those who attempt to start stuff with hypothetical child and Barron because no man should be judged by their father's actions.

Kids'll be kids, and I'll let kids be kids.

[Thermodolia]

No he doesn't deserve a chance to be exceptionally rich and powerful.

He deserves a fair shot a life. That's all he is entitled to. Anything above that is not particularly my problem as his parent.

This is my position but I guess it sort of defeats itself if he immediately inherits all your money after you die. If you're going to pass on your wealth to people who didn't earn it anyway, you may as well see them enjoy it.

The majority of my wealth will be going to organizations I support like the world wildlife fund.

[Shaggtopia]

Luxury does not really provide more joy than a comfortable but frugal middle-class life iirc, and I would be able to provide that for my hypothetical children. And fake friendships are probably less fulfilling than real ones, but I've never been rich enough to be in that situation, so I can't be sure.
I also feel that I would be able to provide a more caring, supportive home for my hypothetical children than Donald Trump would, and his age makes it so they would have to deal with the sadness of their father dying at a younger age than most children do.

You are joking, right? Of course wealth provides more joy than anything else. It's simple logic.

- You don't have to work for a living and can thus devote 100% of your time and energy to joy.
We common people spend our entire lives struggling to ensure we have enough wealth to get through the day and hopefully a future where we can keep up struggling with no less difficulty but at least some semblance of morbid consistency. Thus our pleasure time is severely restricted and our energy remaining to spend in that time limited and drained. Rich people don't have those concerns. They have all the time and energy in the world to devote to nothing but them self. Ergo where as our lives are mostly work and little play theirs can be all play. Ergo they can have a net total of more joy per lifetime than we can.

- You are not restricted in the resources you can spend on joy.
Again, same thing. You don't have to be the sort of person that enjoys crashing million dollars worth of car into lampposts or drinking bottles of vine more costly than you or I'll make in a year. You can be. Who are we to judge? But you don't have to. The sheer fact that you do not have to worry about money means that any demand you have no matter how extravagant or mundane can be yours at no perceivable cost. You don't have to make a choice between buying two video games or between sending your kids to school and buying your self a new car. You just do both. At once. Or at any pace you like because you can.
This is something we common people can simply never approach because we are limited and thus for us every single choice is a painful morbid tradeoff where we give up many glorious options in favor of just one whose satisfaction can newer reach that which could have been attained had we had them all.

- You don't have to think about the consequences of your action and can thus enjoy all pleasures even those ordinarily forbidden to you.
Again, does this need explaining? Do I need to tell you how and why every age has its own stupid rules that only serve to keep us down? Don't do this, don't eat that, don't have sex that way etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. And no matter what people just won't shut up about these. And they will gleefully use them as a club with which to drive you into the ground in a struggle for limited resources.
If you are rich however you get to simply ignore these people because you are not a part of that struggle. You don't have to care what others think about you because a) you can buy people off and b) those you can't buy off can't touch you. See the romantic poets for an example. Look at how they lived and took pleasure in life in ways that would, if not for their wealth and stature have gotten them shunned.


So of course wealth breeds pleasure. It enables pleasure. It is what you and I and all others desperately need to propel us to the true state of freedom. That is why every utopian futurist out there keeps talking about a post scarcity world. That's just another way of saying a world where everyone is rich and we can thus have fun.


PS. Frugality is frankly one of the saddest aspects of the human condition. It is a tool, and an useful one at that for rationing the meager time and resources we have. But it's very existence is a morbid reminder of just how strapped we are for said resources.

this has gotta be IC, right? I mean greed as a Virtue? When has that ever been sustainable? How did opulence work for Rome? I get the post scarcity bit but that only works if we don't have a cabal sitting on a dragon hoard of resources to make Smaug's look like pocket change and holding it for ransom against what scraps remain. Happiness at the expense others is ultimately harmful to the self, the French aristocracy figured that out the hard way. So what's truly better a few generations of delicious cake followed by bloody revolution or generations taught from birth to find joy in the simple, strength to improve not only the self but the conditions of those around you, modesty when triumphant and humility in failure. I can't speak for anyone else but I'd wager most of you would rather have a neighbor who's core beliefs are built upon empathy compassion and altruism than a neighbor that'll raid your fridge at two in the morning, pawns your bike to pay for a new flat screen TV and yells at you to get off their lawn while you're sitting on your porch.

[Hatterleigh]

Erm, no, nothing against Trump’s parenting skills, but I want to actually raise my own child.

Same

[Purpelia]

this has gotta be IC, right?

Nope. I mean it.

Let me make this clear and simple. Who ever tells you that being rich won't make you happier might as well be telling you that the earth is flat.

I mean greed as a Virtue?

Morality has no place in this conversation any more than it would in one about the shape of the earth or the speed of light. Which is why I newer even bothered to address it. This discussion is about objective reality which exists beyond our control whether we like it or not. And it is objectively true that the amount of wealth you own has a direct measurable effect on your ability to enjoy life for the reasons I explained. How we feel about that fact, which incidentally is all morality is, is utterly irrelevant for it can neither change nor erase it any more than it can bend the earth flat.

When has that ever been sustainable?

And again, what does this have to do with anything? When exactly did I mention sustainability? When have I in fact mentioned anything other than the objective fact that wealth makes happiness more reachable and my personal dislike of my lacking of it?

How did opulence work for Rome? I get the post scarcity bit but that only works if we don't have a cabal sitting on a dragon hoard of resources to make Smaug's look like pocket change and holding it for ransom against what scraps remain.

Which is why I explicitly called the people speaking of that sort of thing "utopian" which, if you look the word up refers to a society that is both idealized as perfect and impossible to attain. Had you taken the time to understand my writing you would have realized that in mentioning these people I was holding them up as an example of individuals who understand my argument even if their conclusions sadly lead to dreams which are impossible to attain. In fact, the very fact it drives them to have such dreams is proof of just how much this fact is real. But I digress.

Happiness at the expense others is ultimately harmful to the self, the French aristocracy figured that out the hard way. So what's truly better a few generations of delicious cake followed by bloody revolution or generations taught from birth to find joy in the simple, strength to improve not only the self but the conditions of those around you, modesty when triumphant and humility in failure. I can't speak for anyone else but I'd wager most of you would rather have a neighbor who's core beliefs are built upon empathy compassion and altruism than a neighbor that'll raid your fridge at two in the morning, pawns your bike to pay for a new flat screen TV and yells at you to get off their lawn while you're sitting on your porch.

And again, what possible relevance does any of this have with the objective fact that at any given moment in time the amount of wealth you have has a direct and measurable positive effect on your odds of being happy?

You seem to be either very confused or hell bent on dragging me into an argument that I newer made. And honestly I can not see a reason for this other than perhaps your desperate desire to deny the fact we both are losers in the game of life who newer shall have the objective benefits of wealth. And let me just cut you off in that effort by saying that no matter how hard you argue reality ain't going away.

[The South Falls]

In the hypothetical case I were to somehow have kids, I wouldn't mind them hanging out with the Trumps. Barron seems like a good kid, a bit quiet, but overall nice. I would be the other over-protective dude who menacingly stands over those who attempt to start stuff with hypothetical child and Barron because no man should be judged by their father's actions.

Kids'll be kids, and I'll let kids be kids.

But in what world does Trump have the skills to actually raise a child adequately for life? I don't mean just showering them in cash, really teaching them.

[Petrasylvania]

Checked my post history and I fucking found this. Oh my fucking god.

Just don’t use “The Children” as a pro-illegal immigration card.

I dislike these types of arguments.

It's Mushroom. Inane and vapid OPs are his specialty.

[Genivaria]

Are you fucking high?

Have you seen most of the stuff he posts?

...good point.
IM are you fucking sober?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Have you seen most of the stuff he posts?

...good point.
IM are you fucking sober?

Let me point out this is an insult to drunks, and I am drunk right now.

[The South Falls]

...good point.
IM are you fucking sober?

Let me point out this is an insult to drunks, and I am drunk right now.

SSC, always the roastmaster.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I wouldn't lift a finger to help Trump if his life were at risk, I'm not going to give him a child of mine. The thought alone makes me want to hurl.

If Donald Trump was drowning, and only you could save him, what kind of sandwich would you make?

A veggie one, with avocado.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

He is 70 years old and doesn't appear to be in great health.

He seems to lack moral values.

I don't know if he spent time with his own children but I suspect they were raised by their mothers/servents.

Anyone connected to trump will have to put up with a lot of hate and death threats.

A father would take a bullet for his child. Trump would take a selfie at most.

I can feed, cloth, house, protect, and educate my child well enough. Nobody requires a golden toilet and lunch imported from Lichtenstein.

Finally I'm pretty sure trump would refuse to raise someone else's child. Especially if they are not white.

[KingFerdinand1]

Id Give Everything To Trump.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Id Give Everything To Trump.

what about your butt