Dubstepforum.com

I think I've isolated the food that has been giving me bad gas this week

magma wrote:http://allhiphop.com/2013/08/01/hip-hop ... zimmerman/

Rick Ross going HAM on GZ might be the only thing that could shore up his raputation.

should probably finish some tunes soon

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849

Ayn Rand must be turning in her grave.

magma wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849

Ayn Rand must be turning in her grave.

Nah, this confirms a lot of what Ayn Rand's been saying. Rational egoism leads to the most co-operation that all involved parties benefit from. What she rejected was living at your own expense for the sake of others and using coercive means to control others to be forced into collective will. Like, co-operation for the sake of it that no one or only very few benefit from.

I'm for co-operation, but I'm against being forced to co-operate in something I wish not to take part in and I refuse to do things because the majority expects it from me. I.e. I wouldn't pick up a gun to fight an unjust war that the rest of the country supports. I would then be perceived as 'selfish' for not bowing to the collective will.

She was misguided on a lot of things, but she got that right.

Good link, though. It proves that we don't need a dangerous monopoly with atomic firepower to coerce people into being non-selfish, evolution took care of that billions of years ago. Coercive government creates the incentive and ability for people with the power and money to literally BUY the benefits of being selfish. It also says that with true voluntary association, it would be unprofitable to be selfish.

Genevieve wrote:

magma wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849

Ayn Rand must be turning in her grave.

Good link, though. It proves that we don't need a dangerous monopoly with atomic firepower to coerce people into being non-selfish, evolution took care of that billions of years ago

not that i support "a dangerous monopoly with atomic firepower to coerce people into being non-selfish", but no, not really. it just says that natural selection FAVORS altruism. it's like saying that because natural selection favors good eyesight, we dont need glasses, evolution already took care of that!

Phigure wrote: not that i support "a dangerous monopoly with atomic firepower to coerce people into being non-selfish", but no, not really. it just says that natural selection FAVORS altruism. it's like saying that because natural selection favors good eyesight, we dont need glasses, evolution already took care of that!

No it doesn't. It favors co-operation. You're making a huge logical leap by trying to equate altruism to co-operation (the article doesn't mention altruism either, though it does make a similar mistake by equating 'selfishness' to 'non co-operation').

Altruism is self-sacrifice; living at your own expense for the sake of others.

Co-operation is something people do so they all gain from it individually. I only share my pizza or money or hell, time, with people I know will have my back one way or another later. True altruism means sharing (or giving away) your pizza with everyone, every time. But there is no logical gain from doing it.

Lions co-operate too, they all, individually, gain by hunting together and sharing their meals. But they won't let a pack of hyenas have a kill because they're having a good day.

A system of government is a selfish system that only seeks to increase its own power and enables people to be selfish without any of the usual constraints or repurcusions you get from complete selfishness with no regard for others.

watermelon is the best hangover food

SCope13 wrote:

Genevieve wrote:Calling all hardcore electronic music with a distorted kickdrum 'gabber' is like calling all electronic music 'techno' >.>

honestly never listened to any gabber because i've always just assumed it was shit lol

Tymon and Waldhaus are fucking Gods.



THOSE KICKS MAKE ME SO WET.

But that's what I meant, that's not gabber, but industrial hardcore :p I don't really correct people when they're refering to all hardcore as 'gabber' either cuz I get what they mean (I sometimes go along with them by calling it gabber to not confuse them). I'm not a genre-izan is what I'm saying haha, so it's not the misnomer itself that bothers me. But the general attitude fans of electronic music fans have about calling all electronic music 'techno', but their callousness towards hardcore, as if hardcore isn't worthy of the same type of respect. Cuz gabber is a pretty specific style from mostly the mid 90s. Mostly 180 - 200 bpms, heavily distorted 909 kicks to the point where they're squares, etc. Whereas hardcore is the greater genre that includes breakcore, crossbreed, speedcore, gabber, industrial hardcore, mainstream, etc.

Ah well. It's more a random thought, nothing that keeps me up at night.

I just label it all as hardcore and call it a day.

Yeah, I'm not bothered with it. It was just something that struck me about how people talk about hardcore compared to other electronic music >.>

EliteLennon117 wrote:

SCope13 wrote:

Genevieve wrote:Calling all hardcore electronic music with a distorted kickdrum 'gabber' is like calling all electronic music 'techno' >.>

honestly never listened to any gabber because i've always just assumed it was shit lol

now that's a total fucking banger

Woah you been getting into hardcore :0

Genevieve wrote:Woah you been getting into hardcore :0

a bit, yeah. mostly via looking for new crossbreed stuff. checked out some of the bloody fist releases as well; pretty good shit. dunno why i never bothered with hardcore tbh

Genevieve wrote:

Phigure wrote: not that i support "a dangerous monopoly with atomic firepower to coerce people into being non-selfish", but no, not really. it just says that natural selection FAVORS altruism. it's like saying that because natural selection favors good eyesight, we dont need glasses, evolution already took care of that!

No it doesn't. It favors co-operation. You're making a huge logical leap by trying to equate altruism to co-operation (the article doesn't mention altruism either, though it does make a similar mistake by equating 'selfishness' to 'non co-operation').

Altruism is self-sacrifice; living at your own expense for the sake of others.

Co-operation is something people do so they all gain from it individually. I only share my pizza or money or hell, time, with people I know will have my back one way or another later. True altruism means sharing (or giving away) your pizza with everyone, every time. But there is no logical gain from doing it.

Lions co-operate too, they all, individually, gain by hunting together and sharing their meals. But they won't let a pack of hyenas have a kill because they're having a good day.

A system of government is a selfish system that only seeks to increase its own power and enables people to be selfish without any of the usual constraints or repurcusions you get from complete selfishness with no regard for others.

okay yeah altruism wasn't the perfect word choice, and that wasnt the point of my post anyways, but i guess that's because i dont really think the two are that different. co-operation isn't always done solely because you know you'll get something in return, sometimes you co-operate just because you WANT to, perhaps in addition to the possibility of personal gain. when a pack of lions shares a kill, i don't think it's done with the explicit guaranteed promise that food will always be shared, that they'll support one another, etc. with the lack of 100% certainty of some return on the investment, i think a certain degree of altruism does come into play.

and that's not even mentioning the fact that altruism HAS been often documented in animals. such behavior would be weeded out by natural selection fairly quickly if it were harmful, and it's systematic occurrence within many species again supports the idea that altruism is beneficial

Phigure wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

Phigure wrote: not that i support "a dangerous monopoly with atomic firepower to coerce people into being non-selfish", but no, not really. it just says that natural selection FAVORS altruism. it's like saying that because natural selection favors good eyesight, we dont need glasses, evolution already took care of that!

No it doesn't. It favors co-operation. You're making a huge logical leap by trying to equate altruism to co-operation (the article doesn't mention altruism either, though it does make a similar mistake by equating 'selfishness' to 'non co-operation').

Altruism is self-sacrifice; living at your own expense for the sake of others.

Co-operation is something people do so they all gain from it individually. I only share my pizza or money or hell, time, with people I know will have my back one way or another later. True altruism means sharing (or giving away) your pizza with everyone, every time. But there is no logical gain from doing it.

Lions co-operate too, they all, individually, gain by hunting together and sharing their meals. But they won't let a pack of hyenas have a kill because they're having a good day.

A system of government is a selfish system that only seeks to increase its own power and enables people to be selfish without any of the usual constraints or repurcusions you get from complete selfishness with no regard for others.

okay yeah altruism wasn't the perfect word choice, and that wasnt the point of my post anyways, but i guess that's because i dont really think the two are that different. co-operation isn't always done solely because you know you'll get something in return, sometimes you co-operate just because you WANT to, perhaps in addition to the possibility of personal gain. when a pack of lions shares a kill, i don't think it's done with the explicit guaranteed promise that food will always be shared, that they'll support one another, etc. with the lack of 100% certainty of some return on the investment, i think a certain degree of altruism does come into play.

and that's not even mentioning the fact that altruism HAS been often documented in animals. such behavior would be weeded out by natural selection fairly quickly if it were harmful, and it's systematic occurrence within many species again supports the idea that altruism is beneficial

No, I got your point. I was saying that a system of government is sewing eyepatches over people's eyes and calling it a cure for blindness. It's contrary to both altruism and co-operation. Well, no, personally subjecting yourself to the governmnet's will, voluntarily, would be altruism. Which may seem noble at first, but it can also be people who signed up to shoot muslim bad guys after 9/11.

Co-operation and altruism are still different. Unless you believe that partaking in voluntary, free trade, is altruism? Because then, they're co-operating in something all parties benefit from. I wouldn't understand calling that altruism though.

Nature favors those who can pass on as many of their own genes into the next generation as they can. A lion would do that by sharing its food with its pride, ensuring a strong, healthy pride capable of defending it when it's weak, and help it hunt for more food. In doing so, the lion isn't sacrificing its own wellbeing for the sake of others. Are you trying to make the claim that the lion consciously thinks for itself 'I'm going to sacrifice myself for the rest of my pride now' or do you think it just shares its food because after thousands of generations, those prides that shared their food bred more offspring?

Genevieve wrote:No, I got your point. I was saying that a system of government is sewing eyepatches over people's eyes and calling it a cure for blindness. It's contrary to both altruism and co-operation. Well, no, personally subjecting yourself to the governmnet's will, voluntarily, would be altruism. Which may seem noble at first, but it can also be people who signed up to shoot muslim bad guys after 9/11.

Co-operation and altruism are still different. Unless you believe that partaking in voluntary, free trade, is altruism? Because then, they're co-operating in something all parties benefit from. I wouldn't understand calling that altruism though.

Nature favors those who can pass on as many of their own genes into the next generation as they can. A lion would do that by sharing its food with its pride, ensuring a strong, healthy pride capable of defending it when it's weak, and help it hunt for more food. In doing so, the lion isn't sacrificing its own wellbeing for the sake of others. Are you trying to make the claim that the lion consciously thinks for itself 'I'm going to sacrifice myself for the rest of my pride now' or do you think it just shares its food because after thousands of generations, those prides that shared their food bred more offspring?

I know where you stand on government and we could probably debate it for days I just don't think it's inherently an evil institution and that it ultimately facilitates more benefits than harm.

Altruism and co-operation are different but I think they're intertwined. My point was just that IMO most acts of cooperation aren't really purely so as they seem, there's some (small) degree of altruism in it too

I'm not saying at all that the lion is saying "I'm going to sacrifice myself for the others". "self sacrifice" isn't a defining condition of altruism (although that's often involved). It's defined as "unselfish regard for the welfare of others". And the numerous recorded behaviors of animals do show that they exhibit some form of empathy-like concern for others and act on it, even if they don't stand anything to gain, or even might lose something from it.

But ultimately whether or not altruism is beneficial in the natural world is irrelevant to what is moral behavior anyways.

I Nov hufgh as s hi t

http://pitchfork.com/news/51748-death-g ... equipment/

I don't even. Either some kind of weird experiment or I don't even.