Ice Storm @ night

Vastet's picture
Ice Storm @ night

I put that chair outside just a couple hours ago. It hasn't been snowing at all, that's pure ice.

Vastet's picture

I'm going to try and get

I'm going to try and get some good pics when the sun is up tomorrow. Hopefully I'll have power, so I can.

Beyond Saving's picture

I love walking through the

I love walking through the woods when you get a sunny day following a big ice storm, one of the most beautiful moments in nature imo. Didn't get any ice down here though, it is 60 degrees.

iwbiek's picture

i've lived through some bad


i've lived through some bad ones out in the country. i don't care for them.

i've watched my dad go out with my uncles at four o'clock in the morning with chainsaws to clear the road of trees so people can get to work. and that wasn't state road work, and they never got a damn thing in return--that was nothing but pure altruism, and a great lesson for a kid.

digitalbeachbum's picture

I was in upstate new york in

I was in upstate new york in 1977. We drove all day from long island to get to a farm of one of my relatives. We got there just after sunset and it was snowing pretty heavy. Our family told us that it was a good thing we got there because of the storm coming.

The next morning, the snow was so high that it went all the way up to the third floor. I wanted to jump out the window in to the snow but my cousins stopped me. When I asked why they said "those are snow drifts, if you jump in to them you'll land on the ground and shatter your legs.

We ended up making a tunnel out to the cars out front and we couldn't get the doors open. They were sealed shut and we ended up using a blow torch to get them open.

I can't recall more snow at any other time in my life. The roads were closed for four days, but we weren't allowed to travel for seven days.

My relatives, obviously use to this sort of thing, had stock piled venison, bacon, chickens and other supplies in the basement.

I later found out that it was called the "Blizzard of '77" and it was one of the worst recorded blizzards in American history.

 

 

EXC's picture

iwbiek wrote:they never got

iwbiek wrote:
they never got a damn thing in return--that was nothing but pure altruism, and a great lesson for a kid.

No reward except praise and admiration for 'pure' altruism.

iwbiek's picture

EXC wrote:iwbiek wrote:they

EXC wrote:
iwbiek wrote:
they never got a damn thing in return--that was nothing but pure altruism, and a great lesson for a kid.

No reward except praise and admiration for 'pure' altruism.




pretty much. nobody would have blamed them for staying in their warm beds for another hour or two, but i suppose you blame them for getting up?

Vastet's picture

I don't think EXC believes

I don't think EXC believes you. I grilled him over the coals in a topic once until it had been demonstrated that he had absolutely no sense of altruism or empathy. He believes everyone serves only themselves. There's something wrong in his head. He really should be seeing a psychiatrist.

iwbiek's picture

yeah, that's the problem


yeah, that's the problem with most of the assholes around here: an all-or-nothing approach. exc seems to think that because people can often be self-serving, people are self-serving all the time.

my point has always been that people, and all of what we typically call "existence," for that matter, change from instant to instant. while i often discuss this in a philosophical way, it really seems like common sense to me. people can be selfish pricks one minute and selfless humanitarians the next. that doesn't have to mean they're sincere one minute then insincere the next. often it can, sure, but just as often it doesn't. religion can be an oppressive, toxic clusterfuck one minute then a saver of lives and sanity the next. relativity applies to all things equally.

Vastet's picture

Yeah I used to think

Yeah I used to think relativity was simply a scientific formula that was incredibly complex, but as I learned and experienced more things it became clear that EVERYTHING is relative. Absolutely everything.

EXC's picture

Vastet wrote:I don't think

Vastet wrote:
I don't think EXC believes you. I grilled him over the coals in a topic once until it had been demonstrated that he had absolutely no sense of altruism or empathy. He believes everyone serves only themselves. There's something wrong in his head. He really should be seeing a psychiatrist.

Yes, I'm just a cockroach that needs to be squashed since I don't serve any interest of yours Mr. Empathy. Just send everyone that lacks 'empathy' to the guillotine, that'll fix everything. I need a shrink to help program me this way.

EXC's picture

iwbiek wrote: yeah, that's

iwbiek wrote:


yeah, that's the problem with most of the assholes around here: an all-or-nothing approach. exc seems to think that because people can often be self-serving, people are self-serving all the time

Do you believe people always understand the true motives behind their actions? Is it possible someone could be deluded to thinking their motives were totally selfless, but they were selfish. Do you think it is possible your relatives could have gotten a rush of oxytocin from clearing the road?

Empathy toward strangers triggers oxytocin release and subsequent generosity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580564

EXC's picture

DP

DP

iwbiek's picture

EXC wrote:iwbiek

EXC wrote:
iwbiek wrote:


yeah, that's the problem with most of the assholes around here: an all-or-nothing approach. exc seems to think that because people can often be self-serving, people are self-serving all the time

Do you believe people always understand the true motives behind their actions? Is it possible someone could be deluded to thinking their motives were totally selfless, but they were selfish. Do you think it is possible your relatives could have gotten a rush of oxytocin from clearing the road?

Empathy toward strangers triggers oxytocin release and subsequent generosity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580564

all of it is possible, none of it is inevitable. that is my point. now fuck off.

Vastet's picture

EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:I

EXC wrote:
Vastet wrote:
I don't think EXC believes you. I grilled him over the coals in a topic once until it had been demonstrated that he had absolutely no sense of altruism or empathy. He believes everyone serves only themselves. There's something wrong in his head. He really should be seeing a psychiatrist.

Yes, I'm just a cockroach that needs to be squashed since I don't serve any interest of yours Mr. Empathy. Just send everyone that lacks 'empathy' to the guillotine, that'll fix everything. I need a shrink to help program me this way.

A guillotine isn't necessary unless you're in power, which fortunately you aren't. And "shrinks" don't program people.

Fact is you lack a sense that most people have. If they didn't have it civilisation could never have existed. You're just proof that evolution happens and sometimes a douche is born. But natural selection also happens so your douche genes will be weeded out, much to my delight.

EXC's picture

Vastet wrote: If they didn't

Vastet wrote:
If they didn't have it civilisation could never have existed.

How has civilization been doing? Plenty of wars, crime, poverty, etc... Maybe playing the empathy game just leads to more suffering.

Seems to me that after you lead an army of people waiting for their next unemployment check to take over the world, maybe you should try forced oxytocin injections instead of genocide to make people like me have 'true empathy'. Or you have no sympathy for those that that don't naturally produce enough oxytocin due to inferior genes?

EXC's picture

iwbiek wrote: all of it is

iwbiek wrote:

all of it is possible, none of it is inevitable. that is my point. now fuck off.

'True empathy' is convenient. Got it.

iwbiek's picture

EXC wrote:iwbiek wrote: all

EXC wrote:
iwbiek wrote:

all of it is possible, none of it is inevitable. that is my point. now fuck off.

'True empathy' is convenient. Got it.


good. then why are you still fucking talking to me?

Vastet's picture

EXC wrote:How has

EXC wrote:
How has civilization been doing?

Not too badly. It's still here.

EXC wrote:
Plenty of wars, crime, poverty, etc

War is the natural state of the universe, so war isn't indicative of anything.
Crime and poverty tend to go hand in hand in a never ending cycle. When it gets to a certain point the rich are killed and their hoards are divied up. And the cycle begins again. Civilisation has thus far survived multiple cycles, so again, it's doing ok.

EXC wrote:
Seems to me that after you lead an army of people waiting for their next unemployment check to take over the world

Rofl.

EXC wrote:
maybe you should try forced oxytocin injections instead of genocide to make people like me have 'true empathy'.

Neither forced medication nor mass murder is necessary. Your genes aren't beneficial and thus will be selected out through evolution.
And no, I have no sympathy for psychopathic people. It wouldn't be beneficial to, so maybe it was weeded out of my ancestry before I came around.

EXC's picture

Vastet wrote:War is the

Vastet wrote:

War is the natural state of the universe.

Small pox, polio and other diseases were the natural state of mankind. Yet through science and reason, humanity was able to overcome them. There is no kind of god that writes the laws.

If war is inevitable, spend all one's resources on preparing to wage war and survive war, not on charity. Why should the rich now be willing to give money for welfare if it just goes to the people that want to kill them?

Vastet wrote:

Crime and poverty tend to go hand in hand in a never ending cycle. When it gets to a certain point the rich are killed and their hoards are divied up. And the cycle begins again. Civilisation has thus far survived multiple cycles, so again, it's doing ok.

Which contradicts leftist propaganda that if only people were less greedy and willing to pay higher taxes, suffering would end. If massive suffering inevitable, what is the point of empathy, charity or public welfare?

Vastet wrote:
Neither forced medication nor mass murder is necessary. Your genes aren't beneficial and thus will be selected out through evolution.

You must have inferior genes that keep you from having any long term memory. You've been the one saying people like me need the guillotine to show people what happens if they don't have true empathy.

If you can take medication to improve your long term memory and increase your survival. Why can't I just take oxytocin and increase my survival by then having 'true altruism'?

Vastet wrote:
And no, I have no sympathy for psychopathic people. It wouldn't be beneficial to, so maybe it was weeded out of my ancestry before I came around.

Yes of course, evolutions main goal is to weed out the selfish not survival. I must have slipped through the cracks.

Vastet's picture

EXC wrote:Small pox, polio

EXC wrote:
Small pox, polio and other diseases were the natural state of mankind.

Disease is life warring with life.

EXC wrote:
Yet through science and reason, humanity was able to overcome them.

We have not overcome disease, and we never will. We adapt, then disease adapts. It never ends.

EXC wrote:
If war is inevitable, spend all one's resources on preparing to wage war and survive war, not on charity.

Charity increases your sides capabilities and numbers, and helps bond your side together. Spending resources on charity is spending resources to wage and survive war.

EXC wrote:
Which contradicts leftist propaganda that if only people were less greedy and willing to pay higher taxes, suffering would end.

I'm not a leftist.

EXC wrote:
If massive suffering inevitable, what is the point of empathy, charity or public welfare?

Death is inevitable. Why haven't you killed yourself and gotten it over with?

EXC wrote:
You must have inferior genes that keep you from having any long term memory. You've been the one saying people like me need the guillotine to show people what happens if they don't have true empathy.

Clearly you are the one with inferior genes, because after many years you're still making shit up and simultaneously failing to understand what I say. Your lack of empathy is irrelevant to a minority hoarding resources until it forces a revolution. Many of those, probably most, who refuse to invest to create jobs and better lives for the majority do not share your deficiency. Beyond Saving, for example, is an unapologetic capitalist who certainly has a sense of empathy. They simply have different ideas on how things do and/or should work.

EXC wrote:
Yes of course, evolutions main goal is to weed out the selfish not survival. I must have slipped through the cracks.

The 'goal' of evolution is survival. And if our species were not a social species I have little doubt your attitudes would be of great benefit to you and your descendants. Pity for you that we ARE a social species, and your attitudes are detrimental instead of beneficial.

EXC's picture

Vastet wrote:We have not

DP

EXC's picture

Vastet wrote: We have not

Vastet wrote:

We have not overcome disease, and we never will. We adapt, then disease adapts. It never ends.

[Sarcasm On}Of course there must be some kind of god that makes the rules. Man can never fly. Man can never build dams to keep rivers from flooding. We can never use science and reason to solve problems we're all just victims of nature's will.[Sarcasm off]

Vastet wrote:

Charity increases your sides capabilities and numbers, and helps bond your side together. Spending resources on charity is spending resources to wage and survive war.

Oh so that is 'true altruism'. Help those that will help you later. Sorry but doesn't sound very selfless.

Vastet wrote:

I'm not a leftist.

Your political views boil down to government exists solely to give you free stuff at other peoples expense. I'll just call you a free-luncher then.

Vastet wrote:
Death is inevitable. Why haven't you killed yourself and gotten it over with.

Your memory problems again? We had a whole thread about me arguing that death was not inevitable, and you saying it was inevitable because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Vastet wrote:
Your lack of empathy is irrelevant to a minority hoarding resources until it forces a revolution.

I think I've clearly shown how phony your so called empathy really is. I'm the one advocating for rational solutions(like mandatory birth control) to reduce suffer due to disease, poverty and war. Whereas you say go ahead have all the babies you want no matter how much suffering results.

The fact is you don't really want to reduce or end suffering. You get so much free stuff and sympathy from others by playing the victim card that you can't even imaging an alternate world where science and reason eliminates suffering.

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving, for example, is an unapologetic capitalist who certainly has a sense of empathy. They simply have different ideas on how things do and/or should work.

Ya, Ya. Empathy when it's convenient and beneficial. Yawn. All the world's a stage and BS puts on the act as well.

Vastet wrote:
The 'goal' of evolution is survival. And if our species were not a social species I have little doubt your attitudes would be of great benefit to you and your descendants. Pity for you that we ARE a social species, and your attitudes are detrimental instead of beneficial.

Obviously you don't understand sarcasm. Another of your genetic deficiencies?

Vastet's picture

EXC wrote:[Sarcasm On}Of

EXC wrote:
[Sarcasm On}Of course there must be some kind of god that makes the rules. Man can never fly. Man can never build dams to keep rivers from flooding. We can never use science and reason to solve problems we're all just victims of nature's will.[Sarcasm off]

Idiot. Not only have we NOT wiped out disease, but diseases we thought we'd taken care of are now resurging. Your foolish blather has nothing to do with reality.

EXC wrote:
Oh so that is 'true altruism'. Help those that will help you later. Sorry but doesn't sound very selfless.

Funny I never once said anything about selflessness. I was talking about empathy. You must be making shit up. Again.

EXC wrote:
Your political views boil down to government exists solely to give you free stuff at other peoples expense. I'll just call you a free-luncher then.

As I have told you a dozen times in a dozen topics, that isn't even remotely close to my political beliefs. I'm glad you're so predictably stupid.

EXC wrote:
Your memory problems again? We had a whole thread about me arguing that death was not inevitable, and you saying it was inevitable because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Memory problems again? I kicked your ass in that topic. Like I have in every other topic.

EXC wrote:
I think I've clearly shown how phony your so called empathy really is.

You think a lot of things that are simply false.

EXC wrote:
I'm the one advocating for rational solutions(like mandatory birth control) to reduce suffer due to disease, poverty and war.

Birth control won't stop disease, war, or poverty. Therefore you are not advocating for rational solutions.

EXC wrote:
Whereas you say go ahead have all the babies you want no matter how much suffering results.

Yet another lie. I never said that.

EXC wrote:
The fact is you don't really want to reduce or end suffering.

More lies. I'm all for reducing suffering.
Ending it isn't possible, so there's no point discussing it.

EXC wrote:
Ya, Ya. Empathy when it's convenient and beneficial. Yawn. All the world's a stage and BS puts on the act as well.

Perfect example of your psychological flaws right there.

EXC wrote:
Obviously you don't understand sarcasm. Another of your genetic deficiencies?

Everything you say is stupid. Whether you are being sarcastic or not is impossible to determine under such circumstances, and I don't care to try and weed through your stupidly serious comments to figure out which ones are stupidly sarcastic.

Kapkao's picture

(No subject)

EXC's picture

Vastet wrote:Idiot. Not

Vastet wrote:

Idiot. Not only have we NOT wiped out disease, but diseases we thought we'd taken care of are now resurging. Your foolish blather has nothing to do with reality

The diseases I've mentioned have been eradicated through vaccination. They only exist in poverty stricken places and places where vaccination is against people's religious beliefs:

http://www.irinnews.org/report/48667/nigeria-muslim-suspicion-of-polio-vaccine-lingers-on

Vastet wrote:

As I have told you a dozen times in a dozen topics, that isn't even remotely close to my political beliefs.

I don't think you are capable of having any coherent political positions. You're just an angry victim that doesn't want to face reality. So you lash out at me for criticizing your solution of making the so-called hoarders give you free stuff. You're clearly jealous of anyone with more wealth and success than you, so this rage drives your posts, not rationality.

You don't want to define what exactly a hoarder or hoarding is. You don't want to clearly define when should government or should not deadly force. So no you've never stated your political views, just your anger.

Vastet wrote:

Birth control won't stop disease, war, or poverty. Therefore you are not advocating for rational solutions.

[Sarcasm On]Right nothing will.[Sarcasm Off]

What I don't get is why you even visit a place called Rational Responders? To you, there is no benefit at all to rationality since rational thought and behavior can't improve or eliminate these problems. No matter what humanity does, we're all just victims of nature and death is inevitable. The best one can do is through 'true altruism' make allies for the upcoming war and genocide against the 'hoarders'.

So why not just post on doomsday communist revolution sites?

Vastet wrote:

EXC wrote:
Whereas you say go ahead have all the babies you want no matter how much suffering results.

Yet another lie. I never said that.

So when does the government use deadly force to prevent people from having more children? I've asked you point blank before, you say never.

Again arguing with you is just like arguing with a theist. When they tell me they are 'pro-life', I ask them what should the punishment be for women that have abortions, so they be arrested and jailed? They either avoid answering the question or they say no punishment. So I tell them there political views are the same as pro-lifers. So what the hell exactly do you all want the men with the guns to do?

Vastet's picture

EXC wrote:The diseases I've

EXC wrote:
The diseases I've mentioned have been eradicated through vaccination.

Eradicated my ass. Just because we have appeared to have eradicated smallpox doesn't mean it's gone forever. And polio is still found throughout Africa and the middle east, so it hasn't gone anywhere. As it is a virus, one mutation is all it needs to render vaccines as useless, starting another outbreak.
Furthermore, there are thousands of diseases we've done nothing to stop.
You are, as always, wrong.

EXC wrote:
I don't think you are capable of having any coherent political positions.

Since you qre incapable of understanding my positions, which I explained to you in exhaustive detail on more than one occasion, what you think is irrelevant. You're just a mentally handicapped individual who spouts nonsense and will never understand why it is nonsense.

EXC wrote:
You don't want to define what exactly a hoarder or hoarding is.

It's in the dictionary. Look it up.

EXC wrote:
[Sarcasm On]Right nothing will.[Sarcasm Off]

What I don't get is why you even visit a place called Rational Responders? To you, there is no benefit at all to rationality since rational thought and behavior can't improve or eliminate these problems. No matter what humanity does, we're all just victims of nature and death is inevitable. The best one can do is through 'true altruism' make allies for the upcoming war and genocide against the 'hoarders'.
So why not just post on doomsday communist revolution sites?

Still making shit up. I JUST said I'm all for reducing problems. You're incredibly stupid.

You're the irrational one, so why do you post here? Why not go to a doomsday libertarian site to be amongst fellow morons?

EXC wrote:
o when does the government use deadly force to prevent people from having more children? I've asked you point blank before, you say never.

There's no need to forcibly prevent breeding, so your entire position is ridiculous. Reducing poverty and increasing quality of life for all has been shown time and again to reduce breeding. Why are you so set on killing people and so against spreading around wealth? Your ethics leave much to be desired. Kill the thief, but let the murderer's walk free. lol

You ARE a theist. And your god is pure unrestricted capitalism. Which is why every discussion with you ends with you losing and proving how retarded you are.

EXC's picture

Vastet wrote: Since you qre

Vastet wrote:

Since you qre incapable of understanding my positions, which I explained to you in exhaustive detail on more than one occasion, what you think is irrelevant. You're just a mentally handicapped individual who spouts nonsense and will never understand why it is nonsense.

You haven't explained shit. There is there cabal group of greedy hoarders, so therefore people like me should continually pay higher taxes. The only time deadly force is applied to take away what I've worked for. No deadly force to force you into job training programs or to take a job when your unemployed, none to force irresponsible people to stop having more babies.

Vastet wrote:

It's in the dictionary. Look it up

So the rich are doing what exactly? Burying $100 bills in the ground? You bitch that their not investing in new jobs, but then if they did that would mean more wealth for themselves. So their damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Vastet wrote:

Still making shit up. I JUST said I'm all for reducing problems.

Not at all. When you're unemployed, you don't demand the government train you for a job. Instead, the 'hoarders' must be forced to pay your unemployment checks and health insurance, but you can't be forced empty bedpans or wash invalids even though your country has a health care crisis. Those jobs are beneath you, so you just make up the lie that no one will hire you because they're hoarding.

You're all for getting free stuff. Fuck you and your so called empathy.

Kapkao's picture

EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:

EXC wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Since you qre incapable of understanding my positions, which I explained to you in exhaustive detail on more than one occasion, what you think is irrelevant. You're just a mentally handicapped individual who spouts nonsense and will never understand why it is nonsense.
You haven't explained shit. There is there cabal group of greedy hoarders, so therefore people like me should continually pay higher taxes. The only time deadly force is applied to take away what I've worked for. No deadly force to force you into job training programs or to take a job when your unemployed, none to force irresponsible people to stop having more babies.
Vastet wrote:
It's in the dictionary. Look it up
So the rich are doing what exactly? Burying $100 bills in the ground? You bitch that their not investing in new jobs, but then if they did that would mean more wealth for themselves. So their damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Vastet wrote:
Still making shit up. I JUST said I'm all for reducing problems.
Not at all. When you're unemployed, you don't demand the government train you for a job. Instead, the 'hoarders' must be forced to pay your unemployment checks and health insurance, but you can't be forced empty bedpans or wash invalids even though your country has a health care crisis. Those jobs are beneath you, so you just make up the lie that no one will hire you because they're hoarding. You're all for getting free stuff. Fuck you and your so called empathy.

Vastet's picture

EXC wrote:You haven't

EXC wrote:
You haven't explained shit.

I've explained EVERYTHING. Denial befits you, but it doesn't change reality.

EXC wrote:
There is there cabal group of greedy hoarders, so therefore people like me should continually pay higher taxes.

No. Go back and read our previous discussions. Since you weren't paying attention I'm not going to dig them up for you.

EXC wrote:
So the rich are doing what exactly? Burying $100 bills in the ground?

Effectively, yes.

EXC wrote:
You bitch that their not investing in new jobs, but then if they did that would mean more wealth for themselves.

So why aren't they investing in new jobs instead of cutting costs (reducing efficiency, loyalty, safety, quality, etc.) in the jobs that already exist? I don't have a problem with people making money, I have a problem with people making money on the backs of other peoples work, and creating an ever growing pay gap. But history shows that a pay gap will only go so far before the rich are killed off and/or lose everything. So if that's the way you want to go quit bitching about your inevitable death at the hands of a pissed off mob.

EXC wrote:
Not at all.

You're delusional. It is in fact exactly what I said.

EXC wrote:
When you're unemployed, you don't demand the government train you for a job.

Why not? My government does that. So yes, I do demand it.

EXC wrote:
Instead, the 'hoarders' must be forced to pay your unemployment checks and health insurance

Bullshit. I paid for my unemployment cheques. If you work in Canada you pay a portion of your wages into employment insurance, and if you lose your job you get to collect. And we don't pay for health. There is no health insurance. For the 500th time.

EXC wrote:
but you can't be forced empty bedpans or wash invalids even though your country has a health care crisis.

We don't have a healthcare crises. And for the 500th time, I fully support making people work for the resources allocated to them.

All you can ever do is make shit up. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Fuck you and your lies.