Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Neko-koku]

Check your tele please.

Just did and responded.

Objecting to happiness as an indicator of success or a good life on those grounds makes sense if happiness is the only objective in life someone is proposing, but most people, whether they know it or not, are Objective List Theorists in terms of how they would describe a good life, so happiness would be one indicator alongside physical and mental health, companionship, financial well-being, etc.

I don't want companionship at all lol. That does not make my life objectively shitty.

[Old Tyrannia]

There is no inherent, objective value in being materially wealthy either.

Sure but it affects health and status. So it is pretty useful.

You can't demonstrate that either health or status have any objective value either.

[Neko-koku]

Sure but it affects health and status. So it is pretty useful.

You can't demonstrate that either health or status have any objective value either.

Sure because nothing has. Assuming non-theism then value is man-made and subjective.

[Neko-koku]

Sure but it affects health and status. So it is pretty useful.

So does happiness.

I will give you that.

[Old Tyrannia]

You can't demonstrate that either health or status have any objective value either.

Sure because nothing has. Assuming non-theism then value is man-made and subjective.

So your entire point of view is just as subjective and meaningless as that of someone who prioritises happiness in their life. Well done, you've deconstructed your own position.

[Neko-koku]

Sure because nothing has. Assuming non-theism then value is man-made and subjective.

So your entire point of view is just as subjective and meaningless as that of someone who prioritises happiness in their life. Well done, you've deconstructed your own position.

Assuming non-theism then objective, human-independent meaning can not exist so everybody IS equally subjective on meaning.

[Neanderthaland]

You can't demonstrate that either health or status have any objective value either.

Sure because nothing has. Assuming non-theism then value is man-made and subjective.

Non sequitur. The existence of a god does not axiomatically make value objective, and the absence of a god does not axiomatically make value subjective.

There are a lot of people who try to push this idea, mostly because they're trying to shoehorn others into saying theism - if not true - is at least essential to morality. Do not help them succeed.

[Old Tyrannia]

So your entire point of view is just as subjective and meaningless as that of someone who prioritises happiness in their life. Well done, you've deconstructed your own position.

Assuming non-theism then objective, human-independent meaning can not exist so everybody IS equally subjective on meaning.

Yes, so it was irrational for you to describe prioritising happiness over financial well-being as "absurd" since by your own admission neither have any inherent, objective value within your own atheistic, amoralistic cosmology.

[Fahran]

Sure but it affects health and status. So it is pretty useful.

A correlative relationship exists between marriage and health in men, though this relationship may not necessarily be exclusively causal. Married men live longer, healthier lives than divorced men, and remarriage tends to result in better health outcomes for men who get remarried. Even if we presume that there is no direct causation between marriage and health, marriage is predictive of better health.

Source. Source.

Married people tend to be wealthier as well because four hands are better than two.

Source.

The most successful men in are society tend to be married, tend to have educated wives, and tend to have wives who stay at home. These men see better health outcomes, more financial success, and self-report higher levels of happiness. The argument that men are worse off when married, even granting that men are at a disadvantage in divorce proceedings and alimony proceedings, is fallacious.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Neko, don't take this the wrong way, because I mean this as a genuinely helpful comment and not as a way to rag on it, but you need to try to broaden your horizons. You said before that you're on the Autism Spectrum, and I think this causes you to view symbolic interaction in a very disjointed way that is so far removed from how most people value interaction that you seem to have trouble attributing the same positive values to relationships (both platonic and romantic) that most people ascribe to them. That is to say, your experience with emotion is very different from ours and indeed most people's. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but what I do have a problem with is how you interpret this information, which is that you view those who value their emotional perception of relationships as "delusional." That is to say, you view your perception of the situation as superior, when it is just your subjective interpretation of the information. You're different, but you're not better than everyone else.

[Bienenhalde]

It must be pretty difficult dating when you're a man principally attracted to men but hold fairly traditional views on relationships, sex and marriage.

I personally wouldn't have an issue dating an atheist or someone with left-wing beliefs, though, provided they were not militant or extreme in their position and equally comfortable dating someone of my religious and political outlook. The main issue for me is that I would want to bring up any children I had in the Church of England.

I see. Well, while I am certainly looking for a long term relationship, I honestly feel like I would be more hurt by attacks on my religious and political values than by my partner having relations with other men. I mean, I know he would be sinning but Jesus also asked us to forgive and turn the other cheek. Although, admittedly, some actions are easier to forgive than others.

[Fahran]

Conservative pick-up line.

"Hey, are you Edmund Burke? Because I love your aesthetic."

And this is why Conservatives are losing the woman vote.

I'm not exactly trying to cultivate the woman vote with that one to be fair.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Neko, don't take this the wrong way, because I mean this as a genuinely helpful comment and not as a way to rag on it, but you need to try to broaden your horizons. You said before that you're on the Autism Spectrum, and I think this causes you to view symbolic interaction in a very disjointed way that is so far removed from how most people value interaction that you seem to have trouble attributing the same positive values to relationships (both platonic and romantic) that most people ascribe to them. That is to say, your experience with emotion is very different from ours and indeed most people's. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but what I do have a problem with is how you interpret this information, which is that you view those who value their emotional perception of relationships as "delusional." That is to say, you view your perception of the situation as superior, when it is just your subjective interpretation of the information. You're different, but you're not better than everyone else.

Y’know, Neko reminds me of myself when I was younger; for those unaware, I’m also on the Spectrum, and Neko’s views on emotion and relationships are similar to mine circa middle school. I’ve since received plenty of counseling and psychiatric help in this regard, however.

Perhaps it’d be prudent of Neko to seek professional help?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

And this is why Conservatives are losing the woman vote.

I'm not exactly trying to cultivate the woman vote with that one to be fair.

> Imagine letting the rabble vote

This post brought to you by autocracy gang.

[The New California Republic]

It must be pretty difficult dating when you're a man principally attracted to men but hold fairly traditional views on relationships, sex and marriage.

I personally wouldn't have an issue dating an atheist or someone with left-wing beliefs, though, provided they were not militant or extreme in their position and equally comfortable dating someone of my religious and political outlook. The main issue for me is that I would want to bring up any children I had in the Church of England.

I see. Well, while I am certainly looking for a long term relationship, I honestly feel like I would be more hurt by attacks on my religious and political values than by my partner having relations with other men. I mean, I know he would be sinning but Jesus also asked us to forgive and turn the other cheek. Although, admittedly, some actions are easier to forgive than others.

People in romantic relationships can show a surprising tolerance for their partner's differing political and religious views. For example, my BF is a die hard Brexiteer and I am a Remainer, and he is further over to the right in general, yet it really isn't an issue. I think you are overstating things by assuming that your partner would be constantly attacking your views.

[Crysuko]

I see. Well, while I am certainly looking for a long term relationship, I honestly feel like I would be more hurt by attacks on my religious and political values than by my partner having relations with other men. I mean, I know he would be sinning but Jesus also asked us to forgive and turn the other cheek. Although, admittedly, some actions are easier to forgive than others.

People in romantic relationships can show a surprising tolerance for their partner's differing political and religious views. For example, my BF is a die hard Brexiteer and I am a Remainer, and he is further over to the right in general, yet it really isn't an issue. I think you are overstating things by assuming that your partner would be constantly attacking your views.

I guess it depends on how hardline they are about it, how much of an influence on their personality it is.

[Novus America]

Just bang coworkers and the sisters of your friends. What's the worst that could happen in the #MeToo era?

We already know. But even without feminism men always lose when they get coupled.

This is not all true. Besides being financially wrong (the man does not always make more money plus sharing expenses and labor can help a lot regardless) there is more to life than simply accumulating money.

Why spend money on anything then that is not strictly necessary?

[Novus America]

Excessive gate keeping in dating is a bad idea:
What you think is your “ideal” woman very well might not be.

You cannot possibly know your actual type until you have already tried dating.

You can start dating someone who meets all your requirements and then fine out that while it sounded nice in theory, in reality that is not what you wanted at all.

There is no harm going out on a date with someone quite different than you, worst case scenario you just never go out with them again, and maybe you will find what you thought you wanted was not actually what you really wanted.

And someone too similar too you probably will not work either. It is better to have someone that complements you, that has strengths where you have weaknesses.

[Salus Maior]

Excessive gate keeping in dating is a bad idea:
What you think is your “ideal” woman very well might not be.

You cannot possibly know your actual type until you have already tried dating.

You can start dating someone who meets all your requirements and then fine out that while it sounded nice in theory, in reality that is not what you wanted at all.

There is no harm going out on a date with someone quite different than you, worst case scenario you just never go out with them again, and maybe you will find what you thought you wanted was not actually what you really wanted.

And someone too similar too you probably will not work either. It is better to have someone that complements you, that has strengths where you have weaknesses.

Yeah, I'm past that point of an "ideal" woman (nobody's perfect, after all). But I still have my standards.

[Novus America]

Excessive gate keeping in dating is a bad idea:
What you think is your “ideal” woman very well might not be.

You cannot possibly know your actual type until you have already tried dating.

You can start dating someone who meets all your requirements and then fine out that while it sounded nice in theory, in reality that is not what you wanted at all.

There is no harm going out on a date with someone quite different than you, worst case scenario you just never go out with them again, and maybe you will find what you thought you wanted was not actually what you really wanted.

And someone too similar too you probably will not work either. It is better to have someone that complements you, that has strengths where you have weaknesses.

Yeah, I'm past that point of an "ideal" woman (nobody's perfect, after all). But I still have my standards.

You can still go out on a date with someone who does not meet all your standards. You might find you were initially wrong about some of them. Standards can evolve and change as you learn more about who you are and what you really want (which again might be quite different than what you think you wanted).

Sure I get not wanting to date a literal Nazi or something extreme, but there is no harm in going out on a date with a decent person not to your standards.

[Fahran]

Yeah, I'm past that point of an "ideal" woman (nobody's perfect, after all). But I still have my standards.

Sometimes, I think I might have already found and dated my ideal partner, and that, in the aftermath of that relationship, I will struggle to adjust my expectations to be more realistic and less demanding. I used to peer over at him sitting on the couch or glance at a bouquet of flowers placed on a window seal, and ask how I could have gotten so lucky when I'm just me. I always felt like I had to put in more and more effort just to keep pace and remain deserving of all the affection, consideration, and devotion - even when he assured me repeatedly that I was enough as I was and that he'd get fat if I kept going all out on my cooking. But I think I'm taking us a bit off-topic since this discussion isn't really explicitly political or conservative. I guess my thought is it's hard not to gate-keep sometimes, even if it's a bad habit.

[Salus Maior]

You can still go out on a date with someone who does not meet all your standards. You might find you were initially wrong about some of them. Standards can evolve and change as you learn more about who you are and what you really want (which again might be quite different than what you think you wanted).

Sure I get not wanting to date a literal Nazi or something extreme, but there is no harm in going out on a date with a decent person not to your standards.

If someone clearly believed something you hold as extremely morally wrong, would you feel like going out with them?

[Old Tyrannia]

Yeah, I'm past that point of an "ideal" woman (nobody's perfect, after all). But I still have my standards.

You can still go out on a date with someone who does not meet all your standards. You might find you were initially wrong about some of them. Standards can evolve and change as you learn more about who you are and what you really want (which again might be quite different than what you think you wanted).

Sure I get not wanting to date a literal Nazi or something extreme, but there is no harm in going out on a date with a decent person not to your standards.

I understand where you're coming from but where there are significant differences in things like religious belief, that can raise insurmountable practical issues.

Yeah, I'm past that point of an "ideal" woman (nobody's perfect, after all). But I still have my standards.

Sometimes, I think I might have already found and dated my ideal partner, and that, in the aftermath of that relationship, I will struggle to adjust my expectations to be more realistic and less demanding. I used to peer over at him sitting on the couch or glance at a bouquet of flowers placed on a window seal, and ask how I could have gotten so lucky when I'm just me. I always felt like I had to put in more and more effort just to keep pace and remain deserving of all the affection, consideration, and devotion - even when he assured me repeatedly that I was enough as I was and that he'd get fat if I kept going all out on my cooking. But I think I'm taking us a bit off-topic since this discussion isn't really explicitly political or conservative. I guess my thought is it's hard not to gate-keep sometimes, even if it's a bad habit.

He sounds like a catch. I'm sorry that it didn't work out.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Well in other news, I'm saltier than Carthage after taking my first Latin quiz of the semester. Y'all may press F, if you wish to do so.

[Fahran]

Well in other news, I'm saltier than Carthage after taking my first Latin quiz of the semester. Y'all may press F, if you wish to do so.

You've got plenty of time left to pull a grade up. Better luck next time. And just keep your chin up.

What made you want to study Latin though? It'll be an invaluable asset here no doubt.