Fuck no. Is this a real question? You think you could come up with away of living that would meet a 99% approval rating? We can’t even get a 99% approval rating on thoughts like “education is good” and “killing people is bad”.

I’m really glad to hear my words reached someone, regardless of whether they resonated with OP. Right now especially, we have to remember that life is what we choose to make it. Thanks for letting me know, as well. Makes it feel worth typing out, sometimes.

My life is almost a total failure. I am in my 20s

Your life has barely started. It can’t be a failure when it’s barely begun. You spend 18 years with no real control over yourself or your trajectory, then you finally begin to make a few relevant decisions for yourself. Even if you’re 29, you really only start your life when you’re 19-20. That’s 10 years out of 50+, assuming you live to be at least 70. You have only lived a small fraction of your life.

I won’t pretend to know the unique challenges you’re facing, the difficulities of finding work in your region/with your degree, or the social/economic struggles you’re facing because I am so far divorced from your life that any direct discussion is so meaningless. I would never have the relevant information and context, so I can’t suggest what you should do in a tangible way. What I can say, is this: find what you want to measure your life in, and work towards that. If you value your life through work and wealth, I can understand why you’d feel the way you do, but there far more ways to be prosperous, and things you can focus on.

A healthy dose of positive nihilism would do you wonders: each and every one of us is so tiny, so insignificant, that the difference between a “successful” and “unsuccessful” life in the terms you’ve defined literally do not matter. You and Elon Musk will both die and decompose, and regardless of either of your impact on the world, this rock we’re riding around the sun will continue to support life for a time, and one day everything humanity has ever conceived will be dust, and our sun will explode, and the universe won’t care if you lived with your parents or owned a mansion. The only things that matter are the things we, individually, give meaning to. If you choose to find meaning and value in creating art then your work has meaning and value. If you choose to find meaning and value in helping others find joy and happiness, then dedicate yourself to your friends, your family and your community, because that has meaning and value. If you want to experience the world through literature and media, then engaging with that material has meaning and value. No one else can define what matters to you in this world, because they’re not you.

I’m sorry that what you’ve spent time and energy on isn’t panning out for you. I really, truly am. But step back, and think about if those things matter to you because they matter to you, or because everyone else has told you it’s what a successful, prosperous life looks like. Then consider what your version of a good and meaningful is, and chase that. Many people waste 10, 15, 20+ years on things that they ultimately realize don’t bring them joy. In a way, you’re lucky to have found out sometime in your 20s that what you’ve been working on isn’t leading you where you want to be. It took me until 33.

My friend, I hate to tell you, but that’s just not true. We are incredibly at the whims of everyone else to even get too and from work or school each day. We only have running water, electricity, food in the fridge, etc., because we all depend on each other.

Don’t mistake being independant with being self-sufficent. Don’t mistake requiring the support of others for requiring the support of any one, specific person. Every single one of us is dependant on many of us, but none of us should plan on being dependant on any one specific person for our entire life. And that’s okay. This is how society functions, and life is a lot better for it.

Though I am sorry for whatever happened today to leave you feeling that jaded. Some individuals really just aren’t worth it. It sucks when we think they are, and find out the hard way.

I’ve just haven’t had universally good, or even clear majority good, experiences with cats. I don’t “dislike” them, but I don’t choose to like a given cat by default, because I never know what I am getting into. The cuddliest cat can and has suddenly decided it is clawing the shit out of me without warning, and without fail the owner acts like that’s just their cats personality, or just a “cat” thing.

I’ve never had a dog react in such a way unprovoked. Sure, I’ve met asshole dogs, and they warn me not to go near them immediately. But I’ve never had a dog wander up to me, insist on pets, and then all of a sudden bite me.

I like animals that try to tell me how they’re feeling, rather than flip with no warning, and I feel the same way about people.

I can see the logic behind the mistaken correlation between narcissts and cat haters. Cats are known to be independant animals, unlike many other pets that praise you unconditionally just because you provide the food. They don’t feed a stereotypical narcissists desire. But it’s a gross oversimplification of both human-animal relationships and diagnosible narcissism to suggest that there’s any real correlation between the two based on that.

Well, if the goal is to be something terrifying, you’ve got the spirit for sure.

Why the hate?

Gosh people… Shutdown your brain

You can’t seriously be shocked that people are downvoting you when your only defense is “stop using that silly little brain to think”.

Human life expectancy has doubled in those couple hundred years. Believing that something is good just because it is old is absurd.

Alright, I’ll bite: what exactly is a “stonefruit” in this context? Google just says “fruits with large seeds that are basically rocks in the middle”, which I suspect is not the pseudo-intellectual flex your boss is going for?

It might be boring and obvious, but the speeds.

I used to have to plan ahead, set overnight downloads, very consciously and actively manage data rates and in general never plan around getting something. Today, I can get basically ANYTHING in less than an hour on FiOp. Most things, 5-10 minutes. Transfer rate has outscaled data size, and it’s fantastic.

Came here to post this as well.

Just watch the first episode or two, and if it doesn’t have you hooked, it’s not your jam anyway.

But it will have you hooked, because it’s the best piece of American television in recent history.

I like this. You’re good people.

Not sure how you can talk about “the big three” of condiments and leave out mayo. Is it just non-existant outside of North America or something?

This.

Nothing says “I have fulfilled my social obligation, but I don’t give a shit about you” more than a low value giftcard for somewhere generic.

Alternatively, give him a halfway decent gift and feel better about yourself for not continuing the cycle of neglect, even when he won’t appreciate it. We can make the world better, even for those of us that don’t deserve it, and considering how to make it a better place as opposed to how to get back at the people who make it a worse one is just a better use of our time and energy.

Besides, at the end of the day, truly awful people already live with the worst punishment so could imagine: having to wake up every morning and continue being themselves.

I take “nice” to mean something very different than “good” or “kind”. No, I am not a nice person. I am inclined to be an honest asshole over a nice liar. I try my best to be good, kind, understanding, etc., but “nice” is, in my books, more about manners than good acts or genuine understanding. And I generally feel that time and effort spent on attempting to be “nice” is much better spent on genuinely empathizing with and supporting people, even when that support isn’t kind or well-mannered at a glance.

I think I just take issue with the word “nice”.

Infinite growth is referred to as cancer. Your friend is obviously right that we cannot sustain infinite growth, but it’s misguided to think that the only way out species can possibly survive to any length is by having more children and increasing our population year over year.

With improving technologies and automations, far less labour is required to achieve the same results. There is no reason we need an infinitely increasing population on our decidedly finite earth just to keep our species afloat. This would take a major restructuring of our social and economic systems to do correctly, otherwise we run the risk of centralized wealth mucking it all up, but the point remains that there’s no necessity to continue reproducing at the rate we have been. This supposed “need” for labour is just capitalist propaganda perpetuating the idea that work is inherently good, all designed to fuel an inherently exploitative economy. Line must go up, otherwise how can the privledged few assure that their net worth continues to grow exponentially?

Either “eating meat is fine because animal life is less valuable than people’s dietary needs/preferences,” or “vegetarianism is the only moral option, as all life is equally valuable,” but it seems to me like any answer in the middle is hypocrisy, no?

I dug into this more deeply in another response, but no. Life can be equally valuable and we can accept that evolution and history has led us to a place where we end life without feeling a sense of superiority over that life.

Imagine a poker game. You have been dealt a winning hand. You are incredibly confident of this and are correct to feel so. Are you a better person for winning that hand? Is this a signal that you’re not only expected to take the money of the others at the table, but permitted to do so because you are a better person?

We are the species that was dealt a better hand. This puts us in a position of power. This does not make us “better”, nor does it negate the value of those other lives, despite the position we find ourselves in. Yet we do, ultimately, get to collect as a result of that hand.

Yes and no. For one, many vegetarians and vegans would agree, so on some level, sure, that’s a very defensible opinion. Secondly, North American sensibilities would call it a moral tragedy to sell cat or dog parts, so at some point we have to accept that what is and isn’t okay to kill and consume is a question of cultural bias as opposed to moral truth.

Lastly, you can accept the state of the food chain without holding the belief that those at the top of it are “better” or “worth more”. I don’t eat beef because I am, in some universal truth way, worth more than a cow. I eat beef because I accept that in the chaos of existence, this is where the chips fell. I do not feel a sense of superiority for being able to do so. If you’re going to get really strict about it, I’d define “murder” as the act of killing for the sake of killing, and say that killing for consumption and in some cases survival is different. But even then, I recognize that this is bias. If you want to call murder the act of taking a life, I’ve murdered a lot in my life, and I don’t intend on stopping any time soon. Mosquitos won’t squish themselves.

The question of intellect and understanding and the weight of these qualities in the value of a life is a dangerous road to wander down, so I like to keep in perspective that we’re all meaningless specks in the grand scheme of the universe. Otherwise, the questions get even more challenging: to say a truly reprehensible thing, what happens when we replace the human or the animal in question with an exceptionally low functioning human being? Do we now say their life has little value because they can’t contribute to society, they can’t understand the state of their own existence, and in many cases they’re not even capable of verbal communication? Does it become okay to choose to let them die, as in the original question? Are they suddenly fit for consumption as cattle? Or does the responsibility fall on the more capable to protect them?

Appraising and tiering life is an incredibly dangerous road to go down. You can choose any example of historical racism to see just how dangerous it gets. Life is life, and the strange differences between what’s “okay” and what’s not is luck more than anything else. Even as I consume a steak while my dog begs for the scraps, I believe it’s important to keep an understanding of how we got here, else hubris allows us to justify basically any atrocity.

I dislike the belief that human life is worth more than any other animal.

Even if we’re going to argue that, because of intellect or the ability to grasp out own existence or whatever arbitrary philosophical reason we’fe going to come up it, a human life is in general more valuable than that of a cats life, my “worst enemy” would have to be someone so morally corrupt that removing them from the world would make it a better place. This makes is a very pointless question.

A stranger is more of a real discussion. The stranger is enough of an unknown factor that I think I could assume that allowing them to die is likely to have a worse impact on the world, so it makes sense to save them. I certainly wouldn’t be able to say so with enough certainty to fault anyone for disagreeing with me, though.

The Monty Hall problem is not a paradox, and I’m hesitant to call it a conundrum. It has a very simple solution. The “point” of it is that people inherently don’t like that solution because it challenges their instinct to stick with their first choice.