Me so lazy I got tired looking for the release date of the expansion. I just want to make sure I have money when it comes out.
Thanks
Me so lazy I got tired looking for the release date of the expansion. I just want to make sure I have money when it comes out.
Thanks
June 19th North America
June 22nd International
All you have to do is Google "Gods and Kings release date". Is that really too hard for you?
Do you have that gene that just makes you an ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺? Or is it a choice?Originally Posted by stethnorun
I have lots of genes. I guess I don't have ones that make me super-lazy, nor ones that drive me to childishly call others names. Go figure. And at least I actually answered his question. You just posted to be the exact thing you accuse me of being. Ironic.
I don't believe I had to answer the question a second time. And I'd hardly call it childish, it's just the simplest term I could use to define you. You constantly belittle people, always making sarcastic or asinine remarks. You don't need to do that to answer a question, just answer it or ignore it.
I repeat, my post contained information. Your post was nothing but social nannying. Next time, just don't bother. I certainly don't care what you think of me, in fact, I'm more likely to be outspoken now simply because you tried to "shame" me into being someone else. So good job with that.
Don't forget, Steth doesn't actually believe that any of us exist, and he sees participation in forums as an opportunity to practice... something...
So, it's okay to insult people, as long as you do it while answering questions?
I wasn't insulting anyone. I implied laziness on the part of the original poster (which is objectively accurate, he was acting extremely lazy, even he admitted that) while simultaneously answering his question. I was then called what I assume was an a-hole for it. Which one of us was insulting again?
I never said that none of you exist. I said that for the purposes of "hurt feelings" and the like, I don't care in the slightest. There are a precious few people in my life that I care if I upset, and forum posters sure aren't included on that list. I also don't get anything out of posting OTHER than mental stimulation. No one does. Well maybe some people get emotional release in the form of raging and venting, but that ain't me.
"is that really too hard for you" comes across as snide. And yeah, the guy swearing at you did something wrong as well, I just found it absurd that you suggested that providing the requested information made the insult better somehow.
It is possible to care too much about "hurt feelings", and I agree that the law shouldn't give much value to them, but that doesn't mean that we, as individuals, shouldn't. Your dismissive attitude towards other people's emotions is very troubling to me, but it's your call. I care about the feelings of people I've never met, never will meet. If everyone felt similarly, it would be a more pleasant world. The only way more people will act that way is if some of us do. The fact that many people don't behave in a responsible way towards other people's emotional well-being is no reason for me not to.
The reason not to is because it's entirely subjective, and thus, it will never end. If you are spending even part of your time worrying about someone else's emotions, you are sacrificing yourself because someone else can't do the very thing that you learned to do yourself. What's the old adage? Give a man a fish/teach a man to fish? In this case, not coddling someone IS teaching them that they need to figure emotional stuff out for themselves. If they are chemically imbalanced or otherwise unable to fix the problem, then it becomes medical and they should seek a professional for help. But editing, censoring, or otherwise changing yourself because someone else might take offense or get upset is not only altruistic (which is morally evil in my book, for so many reasons), it's also practically impossible.
I think our starting points are too far apart for meaningful debate, when you consider altruism to be evil.
Alright good stuff. Moving on.
Altruism isn't evil. Unnatural, perhaps.
I would argue the opposite. It is natural, in the sense that it's a misfiring of an evolutionary instinct. We are programmed to care and provide for our family and friends, which kept us alive longer. The problem is that society (through religion and socialism) has turned that once-useful evolutionary trait into a societal vitue. Now, we aren't just expected to sacrifice on behalf of our children, we must sacrifice on behalf of god, our neighbor's children, starving people half a world away, etc. Anything that requires you to sacrifice your own well being on behalf of another is evil. Have to do so involuntarily (through redistributive taxation, etc) is monstrous.
Please, yes.
The OP's question was answered. No need to hijack the thread further.
Well there you are absolutely wrong, redistribution of income through taxation is something that can keep a society glued together..your statement implies that if one entity dominates the whole economy just by sheer force or coincidence then that should be allowed to happen. If you need some early history examples read about the Solon reforms in ancient Athens but try to stick to academic sources rather than wiki.
ps taxation can also fund essential services that no private firm would be willing to offer (read some public good economics)
Can you name a service that a private company wouldn't touch? Because I sure can't. It's sort of the nature of capitalism that if there's a market for something, it gets filled and FAST.
I'll give you a simple example from the theory of public goods of why taxes are sometimes necessary, I should say here that taxes should be low and personally I think a flat rate rather than progressive rates should suffice.
For example, I would be willing to pay towards the building of a road or a park. But if it does get built, you will enjoy it too at no cost. You have an incentive to say that you do not value it enough to pay more than a little (or nothing) towards it. As a result there will be under-provision of public goods by the private market. This is why they are usually supplied by the government and financed through taxes (this can explain the reason why US interstate highways were subsidised by the federal government see Federal Aid Highway Act).
Ok I'll bite...
What you didn't include was the proviso that a private company will fill a gap if and only if there is a profit to be made. There are many, many services funded out of the public purse that will never generate a profit but are required and expected in a modern society. Even for libertarians its not unreasonable to say that perhaps government should not be involved when the private sector can provide certain services at a society responsible cost but there are times when government and tax dollars do need to step in.
Question was asked and answered.
Don't derail threads, and if you're going to answer someone's question, you might at least consider trying to be courteous.
Thread closed.
Posting Permissions
