National Thus Far - Page 41

fixed_truth · 18th February 2010, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocos

LOL whut?

You don't need to be pleasant to be happy. Indeed some people derive enjoyment from architecting other people's misery.

Temporal 'enjoyment' is a limp definition of happiness. Psychologically speaking, human actions are an external expression of an inner state. If you are content there is no unsatisfied causal state compelling you to act this way.

The next time you deliberately hurt someone, have a look what motivated this action, I'd say it came from some negative state and any resulting 'enjoyment' is short-lived. Unless you have a personality disorder

David · 18th February 2010, 16:08

You're an idiot and I'm going to tell you why.

Believe it or not, psychological textbooks cannot tell you anything about why people in the same upbringing and environment respond and react differently to things.

What do you view happy as? Your own personal world where everyone is nice, hugs trees, saves whales? Is that why so many of these people are manic depressives with anxiety disorders trying to please everyone around them because they feel completely unbalanced if someone shouldn't like them?

It's fucking retarded to assume happiness comes in a generic shape and form that all people can have. It's even more retarded to believe that assholes can't be happy, most assholes I've met tend to be pretty happy and don't require constant confirmation from others to remain so.

Why are most assholes happy? Because they're selfish, they identify the things in life that they enjoy and they work towards those things, often to the detriment of others.

Thomas Meatball · 18th February 2010, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Oh yes, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the bulk of this conversation is around wealth. God no.

Hmmm, and who always makes the conversation about himself? Yep, classic Haydos. You're so self-absorbed you don't even realise when you're talking about yourself. I guess you must think that people naturally love to talk about you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

CCS being a prime example. Too bad he's as much of an architect as is George Costanza.

When am I architecting misery?

David · 18th February 2010, 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

Hmmm, and who always makes the conversation about himself? Yep, classic Haydos. You're so self-absorbed you don't even realise when you're talking about yourself. I guess you must think that people naturally love to talk about you.

I love how you say "You're so self absorbed" like it's a revelation. I talk about myself ALL the time because I find myself more interesting than I find you.

You believe I don't realise most of the statements I make have a "I'm better than you" heir to them? That's clever.

crocos · 18th February 2010, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

When am I architecting misery?

YOUR EXISTENCE IS MY PAIN! /emo

gentle · 18th February 2010, 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by david

You believe I don't realise most of the statements I make have a "I'm better than you" heir to them?

I believe that's supposed to be 'air' not heir.

Quote:

Originally Posted by david

That's clever

lol.

David · 18th February 2010, 16:18

Cool.

Trigga*happY · 18th February 2010, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I love how you say "You're so self absorbed" like it's a revelation. I talk about myself ALL the time because I find myself more interesting than I find you.

You believe I don't realise most of the statements I make have a "I'm better than you" **heir** to them? That's clever.

air my grammar is better than yours.

edit: dang timelined in 5 minutes... gotta refresh more.

Thomas Meatball · 18th February 2010, 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I love how you say "You're so self absorbed" like it's a revelation. I talk about myself ALL the time because I find myself more interesting than I find you.

No, I don't say it like it's a revelation at all. I just like to remind you.

Quote:

You believe I don't realise most of the statements I make have a "I'm better than you" heir to them? That's clever.

Again, not intended to be clever. It's an observation. Why do you keep fabricating my intentions? Narcissistic need to steer the conversation?

Anyways, you came back to nzgames trying to act all nice and friendly so that people wouldn't hate you again but I knew it would be just a matter of time before you reverted to type. Probably you'll end up on everybody's ignore list again.

Trigga*happY · 18th February 2010, 16:25

Typically people who are happy will not belittle those who are not as well off. They are happy in what they have, and therefore feel no need for self aggrandizing - those that do find happiness in such actions are often referred to as sociopaths.

Do you also enjoy pulling wings off flies, and perhaps putting firecrackers in small animals mouths?

David · 18th February 2010, 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

No, I don't say it like it's a revelation at all. I just like to remind you.

Again, not intended to be clever. It's an observation. Why do you keep fabricating my intentions? Narcissistic need to steer the conversation?

Anyways, you came back to nzgames trying to act all nice and friendly so that people wouldn't hate you again but I knew it would be just a matter of time before you reverted to type. Probably you'll end up on everybody's ignore list again.

I was being all nice and friendly? lols.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trigga*happY

Typically people who are happy will not belittle those who are not as well off. They are happy in what they have, and therefore feel no need for self aggrandizing - those that do find happiness in such actions are often referred to as sociopaths.

Do you also enjoy pulling wings off flies, and perhaps putting firecrackers in small animals mouths?

People will not belittle those who are not as well off? Shit, you obviously don't pay much attention to discussions regarding taxation then do you?

crocos · 18th February 2010, 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I was being all nice and friendly? lols.

Friendly? Not so much. Rather "A bit less of a prat".

Thomas Meatball · 18th February 2010, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I was being all nice and friendly? lols.

By your standards, yes. It was pretty clear you were exercising a lot of restraint not to be your usual obnoxious self.

David · 18th February 2010, 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Meatball

By your standards, yes. It was pretty clear you were exercising a lot of restraint not to be your usual obnoxious self.

Or, the amount of your posting had decreased meaning I was less irritated by your core competency - stupidity - meaning I seemed more jovial.

Thomas Meatball · 18th February 2010, 17:22

Nah, not at all likely.

chubby · 18th February 2010, 18:43

meatball.. thankyou for pointing out that david = mr received knowledge.
it puts his ignorant, angry bullshit in context.

david- still love munter pop (metallica)?, you anti-elitist you.

JP · 18th February 2010, 19:22

Humans like any other organism, simply respond to stimulis. Our understanding of the stimuli is generally higher than that of other organisms, and our ability to react generally more complex. But free will is almost impossible to prove.

David, psychology can teach you a hell of a lot about why anyone does anything. Even simply observing people (a huge part of psychology), will give you a better understanding of why people harm others. It doesn't give you the right to claim that you now 'know' why people do anything. But it gives you a better understanding does it not?

I do not believe good people 'choose' to be good, I believe they will feel internally pressured into actions that are 'good'. Only a fool would believe bad people 'choose' to be bad, when it's extraordinarily rare anyone identifies themselves as bad. They either do not feel anything for the other person, which makes them no more 'evil' than a cat that toys with a mouse, or they believe they are justified in their action (entirely natural). All that matters is that actions take place which we do not want to take place, and that we can influence the chance of those actions taking place, and their repercussions.

This is why observation and science are infinitely more helpful to providing a solution to whatever issue you have with humanity than subjective moral judgements.

fixed_truth · 18th February 2010, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Believe it or not, psychological textbooks cannot tell you anything about why people in the same upbringing and environment respond and react differently to things.

Ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as the same upbringing and environment, how does this change the fact that human behaviour has an emotional cause?

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

What do you view happy as? Your own personal world where everyone is nice, hugs trees, saves whales?

Happiness arises from the conditioning of your cognitive processing and is not relative to your external circumstances. Modern consumerism has conditioned us to believe otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

It's fucking retarded to assume happiness comes in a generic shape and form that all people can have.

Is it? I think it's more retarded to claim happiness is something fleeting that's subject to the comparative worth of your possessions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Why are most assholes happy? Because they're selfish, they identify the things in life that they enjoy and they work towards those things, often to the detriment of others.

Yep, whenever I see someone fucking over someone else I think - 'Man . . . that guy must be really happy'

fixed_truth · 18th February 2010, 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trigga*happY

Typically people who are happy will not belittle those who are not as well off. They are happy in what they have, and therefore feel no need for self aggrandizing - those that do find happiness in such actions are often referred to as sociopaths.

qft

Lightspeed · 19th February 2010, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Defining the term 'right' to mean something logically impossible i.e. something that can't exist, and then claiming that you can't have something because it doesn't exist; is just a tautology.

A more accurate statement would be that what's right is relative to whatever premise you start with.

Hahah:

chubby · 22nd February 2010, 06:45

another rational guy coming to his senses.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-t...govt-missed-it

gentle · 22nd February 2010, 11:15

lol - good luck to the National government, or should I say mining companies that try to start mining again in the coromandel.

I remember last time they did that and for some mysterious reason, once they'd managed to jump through all the legal hoops, their gear wouldn't work...

All an all, this time around, even if they manage to ease environmental rules, they still have to be able to start their trucks in the morning to get the gold out.

xor · 22nd February 2010, 11:17

It's going to cost them a lot in donations

gentle · 22nd February 2010, 11:20

Yeah ok?

xor · 22nd February 2010, 11:23

Yeah man, the National party said they were going to charge them shitloads in terms of donations.

GL

gentle · 22nd February 2010, 11:31

ok man sweet.

xor · 22nd February 2010, 13:27

One could say donations and costs are the same

gentle · 22nd February 2010, 13:28

that is awesome bru.

Cynos · 22nd February 2010, 18:26

ECan should be canned, recommended Wyatt Creech, a former National Cabinet minister, former Blue Chip Finance director, and current chairman of a dairying company. Kate Wilkinson, the current Minister of Conservation, who is, at the behest of Federated Farmers, reviewing DOC's advocacy role, will take part in the decision making process on this one, as well as the Minister of Trade, and the Minister of Economic Development.

I really loved the bit where Creech castigated their "science-led, not science-informed" approach to decision making on water allocations. Because basing your opinion on ecology primarily on science is for fucking Commies.

Looks like Central Plains Water is going to get the go ahead. And the dam on the Hurunui.

Oh, and I'm really glad to see that Kate Wilkinson also wants to get rid of all those vexatious worker's rights.

Cynos · 22nd February 2010, 18:31

Shitload of links on ECan:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...-faces-the-axe
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...tough-decision
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...ated-by-review
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...says-ECan-head

chubby · 22nd February 2010, 18:35

Quote:

GUYON Well let’s talk about that change in the tax system. You’ve indicated pretty clearly that the top tax rate will come down to 33 cents, that was largely the signal that you gave this week. I mean do you really expect that to create economic growth, because that’s where the top tax rate was in the 1990s and we were hardly an economic nirvana then were we?

BILL Well the tax system doesn’t guarantee anything about the economy, what it does do is help people, it changes the incentives for people’s choices at the margins, so we want to create the opportunity for them to decide – that it’s easier for them to decide, to save more, to invest more, to create jobs.

Quote:

GUYON Were things that much better though with respect in the 1990s when the top tax rate was 33 cents in the dollar?

BILL Well in some respects they were, I mean in the tax system what’s happened since then is we’ve had a loss of integrity where there’s different rates for different entities, people quite naturally try and reduce their tax rate, and the experts are telling us in the long run that’s going to erode a tax base we depend on, which is income tax, so we want to improve the integrity of the system, improve the fairness, so everyone is paying the right rate, but most importantly to adjust the incentives of the economy so that people have stronger signals about getting ahead rather than borrowing more because they’re spending more than they earn.

[Malks] Pixie · 22nd February 2010, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynos

I really loved the bit where Creech castigated their "science-led, not science-informed" approach to decision making on water allocations. Because basing your opinion on ecology primarily on science is for fucking Commies.

Whereas when I left ERMA the new minister had called for less consultation with the public surrounding hazardous substances and the greater use of scientific information. Only thing is he doesn't want them to do the science themselves (to expensive) to check if things are safe (or what the degree of hazard is) but just use the information put out by the company who manufacturers them. Basically a whole bundle of really smart people sitting round ticking off paper work instead of actually doing the scientific investigation that they were hired to do...

Pixie

Cynos · 22nd February 2010, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

Only thing is he doesn't want them to do the science themselves (to expensive) to check if things are safe (or what the degree of hazard is) but just use the information put out by the company who manufacturers them.

Ab · 23rd February 2010, 14:14

should I be scared?

Warrick · 23rd February 2010, 14:30

send him a tweet, bro

Thomas Meatball · 23rd February 2010, 14:36

Send him a tweet telling him he's a cuntrag. See if he still follows you.

ZoSo · 23rd February 2010, 15:39

Start following Shane Jones Ab, heh.

fixed_truth · 23rd February 2010, 19:22

He probably trawls Kiwiblog for posts that don't contain the words 'communisim' 'nanny state' or 'führer'.

Ab · 23rd February 2010, 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZoSo

Start following Shane Jones Ab, heh.

@simongarlick so I was having a barbecue with my good friend Helen Clark...

Lightspeed · 23rd February 2010, 20:13

Man, I love BBQ. Wait, what? Helen Clark?

18th February 2010, 16:08	#1602
David	You're an idiot and I'm going to tell you why. Believe it or not, psychological textbooks cannot tell you anything about why people in the same upbringing and environment respond and react differently to things. What do you view happy as? Your own personal world where everyone is nice, hugs trees, saves whales? Is that why so many of these people are manic depressives with anxiety disorders trying to please everyone around them because they feel completely unbalanced if someone shouldn't like them? It's fucking retarded to assume happiness comes in a generic shape and form that all people can have. It's even more retarded to believe that assholes can't be happy, most assholes I've met tend to be pretty happy and don't require constant confirmation from others to remain so. Why are most assholes happy? Because they're selfish, they identify the things in life that they enjoy and they work towards those things, often to the detriment of others. Last edited by David : 18th February 2010 at 16:09.

18th February 2010, 16:25	#1610
Trigga*happY	Typically people who are happy will not belittle those who are not as well off. They are happy in what they have, and therefore feel no need for self aggrandizing - those that do find happiness in such actions are often referred to as sociopaths. Do you also enjoy pulling wings off flies, and perhaps putting firecrackers in small animals mouths?

18th February 2010, 17:22	#1615
Thomas Meatball	Nah, not at all likely.

18th February 2010, 18:43	#1616
chubby	meatball.. thankyou for pointing out that david = mr received knowledge. it puts his ignorant, angry bullshit in context. david- still love munter pop (metallica)?, you anti-elitist you. __________________ "Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way."

18th February 2010, 19:22	#1617
JP	Humans like any other organism, simply respond to stimulis. Our understanding of the stimuli is generally higher than that of other organisms, and our ability to react generally more complex. But free will is almost impossible to prove. David, psychology can teach you a hell of a lot about why anyone does anything. Even simply observing people (a huge part of psychology), will give you a better understanding of why people harm others. It doesn't give you the right to claim that you now 'know' why people do anything. But it gives you a better understanding does it not? I do not believe good people 'choose' to be good, I believe they will feel internally pressured into actions that are 'good'. Only a fool would believe bad people 'choose' to be bad, when it's extraordinarily rare anyone identifies themselves as bad. They either do not feel anything for the other person, which makes them no more 'evil' than a cat that toys with a mouse, or they believe they are justified in their action (entirely natural). All that matters is that actions take place which we do not want to take place, and that we can influence the chance of those actions taking place, and their repercussions. This is why observation and science are infinitely more helpful to providing a solution to whatever issue you have with humanity than subjective moral judgements.

22nd February 2010, 06:45	#1621
chubby	another rational guy coming to his senses. http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-t...govt-missed-it __________________ "Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way."

22nd February 2010, 11:15	#1622
gentle	lol - good luck to the National government, or should I say mining companies that try to start mining again in the coromandel. I remember last time they did that and for some mysterious reason, once they'd managed to jump through all the legal hoops, their gear wouldn't work... All an all, this time around, even if they manage to ease environmental rules, they still have to be able to start their trucks in the morning to get the gold out.

22nd February 2010, 11:17	#1623
xor	It's going to cost them a lot in donations

22nd February 2010, 11:23	#1625
xor	Yeah man, the National party said they were going to charge them shitloads in terms of donations. GL

22nd February 2010, 13:27	#1627
xor	One could say donations and costs are the same

22nd February 2010, 13:28	#1628
gentle	that is awesome bru.

22nd February 2010, 18:26	#1629
Cynos	ECan should be canned, recommended Wyatt Creech, a former National Cabinet minister, former Blue Chip Finance director, and current chairman of a dairying company. Kate Wilkinson, the current Minister of Conservation, who is, at the behest of Federated Farmers, reviewing DOC's advocacy role, will take part in the decision making process on this one, as well as the Minister of Trade, and the Minister of Economic Development. I really loved the bit where Creech castigated their "science-led, not science-informed" approach to decision making on water allocations. Because basing your opinion on ecology primarily on science is for fucking Commies. Looks like Central Plains Water is going to get the go ahead. And the dam on the Hurunui. Oh, and I'm really glad to see that Kate Wilkinson also wants to get rid of all those vexatious worker's rights. __________________ So the perkbuster Hide abusing perks, crimbuster Garrett actually a crim - what's next? Roger Douglas is secretly poor? --Saladin Last edited by Cynos : 22nd February 2010 at 18:29.

22nd February 2010, 18:31	#1630
Cynos	Shitload of links on ECan: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...-faces-the-axe http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...tough-decision http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...ated-by-review http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...says-ECan-head __________________ So the perkbuster Hide abusing perks, crimbuster Garrett actually a crim - what's next? Roger Douglas is secretly poor? --Saladin

23rd February 2010, 14:14	#1634
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	should I be scared?

23rd February 2010, 14:30	#1635
Warrick Awesome Ring Master	send him a tweet, bro

23rd February 2010, 14:36	#1636
Thomas Meatball	Send him a tweet telling him he's a cuntrag. See if he still follows you.

23rd February 2010, 15:39	#1637
ZoSo	Start following Shane Jones Ab, heh.

23rd February 2010, 19:22	#1638
fixed_truth	He probably trawls Kiwiblog for posts that don't contain the words 'communisim' 'nanny state' or 'führer'. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

23rd February 2010, 20:13	#1640
Lightspeed	Man, I love BBQ. Wait, what? Helen Clark? __________________ Stay shook. No sook.