Getting your shit together starter pack - Page 10

From hating people that eat ecologic eggs to the "fake vegan - some animals are ok to eat" in a few weeks. I think it was way more fun before. You gave me and vdm many laughs Loco.

We are a bit worried about your "posts per day" ratio falling down lately

On December 28 2017 04:56 Loco wrote: I didn't "talk you out" of buying plant-based foods. You just had a knee-jerk reaction and you have decided to arbitrarily no longer buy certain foods that I think might be better than the usual foods you consume. Except you're also being inconsistent about that because you still eat plenty of things that I eat if you still eat vegetables. It's just so laughably pathetic that you think you're somehow "winning" by doing this... If you at least want to be consistent then go watch this guy's videos and do what he says. He is an anti-vegan like you, but he walks the talk and he eats the exact opposite of what vegans eat. By the way, at around 24:30 Sam Harris talks about making a taxonomy of animals that are ok to eat and he talks about bivalveganism, which is what I actually do (as I've stated multiple times). Joe Rogan replies "Oh, I could get into that". So, Joe Rogan approves of my diet. Thanks for letting us know!

Just general stubborness against loud, unpleasant little fuckers with their moral finger...

Religious people in Norway "You are a bad person that needs to be saved" = Fuck all religions
Moral police in Norway "dont play poker its not ethnical to win!" = I grind fucking 10+ hours per day !
"dont eat eggs, dont eat meat !" = I eat meat and eggs...

Its not very hard and easily predictable human behaviour. But im glad you liked the podcast! I guess not "everyone on Joe Rogan are complete idiots" after all ?

aight

I don't think anyone likes to be told what to do man. But only a teenager defines everything about himself by being a contrarian

who said "everything" ? The teenage scenario and "not liking to be told what to do" would assume there is a parenting figure here with authority over someone. Obviously not... Luckily no fanatics or extremists will ever play that role in my life.

It was just a few examples. Obviously my whole motivation for getting into poker was not some moralist telling me its bad. The main motivation is owning people. But the moralist with his finger gives an extra hour of motivation It usually just hurt their case is my main point. And its predictable human behaviour to take distance from fanatics (that we did not already agree with or fall for)

I don't know which is worse:

"As much as I like Trump" or "The main motivation is owning people"

Leave the douchebaggery at the tables breh breh

On December 28 2017 18:39 PetterPLO wrote: From hating people that eat ecologic eggs to the "fake vegan - some animals are ok to eat" in a few weeks. I think it was way more fun before. You gave me and vdm many laughs Loco. We are a bit worried about your "posts per day" ratio falling down lately

I think I laughed considerably more. Vandermayde became seriously unhinged at some points. He spammed my inbox with some dick-swinging nonsense and edited his posts to remove everything he said multiple times. That is hardly the sign of a stable person who has valuable things to say. The sheer amount of lunacy and logical fallacies that he threw around was astounding. You are also doing the same here, this is a "no true Scottsman" fallacy. You don't get to decide what "real" veganism is. Bivalveganism is a legitimate form of veganism. It's a nuanced position that tends to demonstrate that its adherents are critical thinkers. You haven't presented a single argument against it and yet think you are justified in dismissing it by fiat. It's no surprise that you're buddy-buddy with the most unreasonable person in this thread.

I haven't "hated" on anyone who eats "ecologic" eggs. I linked to an article that demonstrates that what passes for "humane" eggs are anything but. If sharing information is a hateful act in your world, then it's no wonder you're not interested in learning anything.

On December 28 2017 19:17 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2017 04:56 Loco wrote: I didn't "talk you out" of buying plant-based foods. You just had a knee-jerk reaction and you have decided to arbitrarily no longer buy certain foods that I think might be better than the usual foods you consume. Except you're also being inconsistent about that because you still eat plenty of things that I eat if you still eat vegetables. It's just so laughably pathetic that you think you're somehow "winning" by doing this... If you at least want to be consistent then go watch this guy's videos and do what he says. He is an anti-vegan like you, but he walks the talk and he eats the exact opposite of what vegans eat. By the way, at around 24:30 Sam Harris talks about making a taxonomy of animals that are ok to eat and he talks about bivalveganism, which is what I actually do (as I've stated multiple times). Joe Rogan replies "Oh, I could get into that". So, Joe Rogan approves of my diet. Thanks for letting us know! Just general stubborness against loud, unpleasant little fuckers with their moral finger... Religious people in Norway "You are a bad person that needs to be saved" = Fuck all religions Moral police in Norway "dont play poker its not ethnical to win!" = I grind fucking 10+ hours per day ! "dont eat eggs, dont eat meat !" = I eat meat and eggs..

You're reframing the discussion around morality, but we were discussing the health effects of your diet when you were already being a pissy contrarian. We called out your unsustainable diet and the fact that you follow the advice of unqualified nutritionists and you weren't having any of it, you just kept bragging about your own fairly meaningless short-term weight loss. In contrast, a critical thinker would have said "wow, this guy is a scientologist? I didn't know, thanks for letting me know, I'll be skeptical of everything he says in the future". You instead doubled down on your position that the person is unambiguously knowledgeable and worth listening to.

Now you took it to the next level, bragging about not purchasing some food that you like because "vegans might like it too" as if that somehow affected me. Nevermind the fact that I basically never eat falafels, lmao. It just goes to show that you lack emotional maturity to a great degree and you're willing to hurt yourself and embarrass yourself in order to protect your ego.

I guess not "everyone on Joe Rogan are complete idiots" after all

I've never claimed that everyone who is invited on that podcast is an idiot. I think what I said is that the only knowledgeable person he has on his podcast when it comes to nutrition is Rhonda Patrick, the rest are seriously misinformed. I don't think Sam Harris is an idiot. He is most definitely not a great intellectual by any stretch of the word and he has a lot to learn about nutrition, but his ethical motivations are respectable. Not that this has anything to do with the fact that it was Joe Rogan who said that he approved of my way of eating, while you thought that he was strongly opposed to it, lol.

By the way, the downside of playing a game for 10+ hours a day is that you don't have the time to become good at anything else. Which is all the more reason to be humble in the face of other people's expertise instead of highly critical of it. It takes a minimal amount of intelligence to realize that if you have become good at something by putting a lot of time into it, then other people are able to do the same in other areas in which they know a lot more than you do. A person who is not misled by their ego would easily admit that. And the follow up to that is knowing that disliking someone is not a reason to dismiss their knowledge about something. It's like if you went to the doctor and the guy was an asshole like House (from the TV show) and you decided that his diagnosis was wrong and you knew better. This is basic emotional intelligence, being able to separate those feelings from what is rationally the correct thing to do. If you still can't do that when you're 30+ yo, then it would be a very wise investment to hire a therapist to help you out.

I know several vegans, but none of them are anywhere close as fanatical about it as you. They are really nice people that dont judge anyone except those acctually threating animals cruely. You admitted in another thread that you have almost no friends. If you want to change that I think you have to calm down a bit. At least here nobody likes a fanatic.

I know several poker players, but none of them molest children like you do. See how that works? I can also make accusations without evidence to impugn your character. Difference is that it bothers me to stoop to your level.

Your little buddy comes in this thread where there is no discussion of veganism going on and he derails it with his irrational hatred of some imagined "fanatical vegans" and you think I am the who is being fanatical. Get real. No one actually gives a shit about your anti-vegan crusade here, and it's not the first time that he derails a thread because of it. Bring it elsewhere.

On December 28 2017 23:06 RiKD wrote: I don't know which is worse: "As much as I like Trump" or "The main motivation is owning people" Leave the douchebaggery at the tables breh breh

This just made the news. Also this. Nothing new of course but still, one could be forgiven for wanting to punch anyone who utters the former statement while reading this.

We have no crusade against vegans. I dont give a fuck what anyone eats at all. Its just fun to provoce people that take themself way too seriously like yourself. You are like some parody. If you dont want to "derail a thread" you should probably consider to stop replying every 2 minute in full panic. So ridicolous to blame other people when you are the one spamming 70% of the last pages urself. And no, I will obviously not respect your "knowledge" in any area until you proven it with some type of formal education paper / graph (poker graph f.example). Only documentation is good enough when it comes to. At least I will approve a nice formal education from you if you can show me that, not sure about all your opinions. So the answer to your appeal to "respect your opinion because you read a lot on the internet and post 20.000 posts 7 different forums" is also "no".

Full panic is mass deletion of hasty typed rage replies and spamming private inboxes of ppl.

I wonder if Trump is there just to see how far he can go before his stupidity reaches levels high enough for people to think "We've had enough fun, lets impeach this ape" ... as long as democrats dont run Clinton again the next time, it would be a pretty easy win... Pretty sure an actual monkey would be picked over the both of them at this point.

On December 29 2017 16:51 VanDerMeyde wrote: We have no crusade against vegans. I dont give a fuck what anyone eats at all. Its just fun to provoce people that take themself way too seriously like yourself. You are like some parody. If you dont want to "derail a thread" you should probably consider to stop replying every 2 minute in full panic. So ridicolous to blame other people when you are the one spamming 70% of the last pages urself. And no, I will obviously not respect your "knowledge" in any area until you proven it with some type of formal education paper / graph (poker graph f.example). Only documentation is good enough when it comes to. At least I will approve a nice formal education from you if you can show me that, not sure about all your opinions. So the answer to your appeal to "respect your opinion because you read a lot on the internet and post 20.000 posts 7 different forums" is also "no".

I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about expert opinions which I have shared with you and which you have repeatedly ignored in favor of pseudo-experts who tell you good things about your bad habits. I have studied nutrition at a university level and read several books by people who are leading experts in the field, but I'm not an expert myself.

And yes, you're right, I should have just ignored your immature post. It's one of my biggest flaws to indulge the impulse to call out bullshit where I see it and to try to instill an appreciation for critical thinking into people's heads, even though I know how futile it is in an environment such as this one. We all have our own weaknesses.

On December 28 2017 04:15 Loco wrote: To have great insights, it follows that you have to have a great mind. A great mind doesn't say terribly stupid things on one topic and incredibly insightful things on other topics. The definition of a great mind is one which has cultivated pertinent knowledge. Pertinent knowledge is the ability to contextualize one's knowledge. To think globally, multidimensionally. It's actually enough to know if someone has a great mind (capable of great insights) based on a single important topic of discussion, because one topic is enough to illuminate their approach to knowledge and whether they have acquired pertinent knowledge or not.

this attitude is such a handicap

On December 27 2017 17:37 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On December 27 2017 13:11 Santafairy wrote: jerry seinfeld? garry kasparov? they think they're better than you, and it's not because they're assholes at heart, it's because they really are better than you and their interface with the world has to filter what's valuable to them accordingly Good last two posts but Seinfeld is like the most overrated comedian ever (good sitcom, boring stand-up). Rik might actually be a better comedian if he tried stand-up.

I was thinking the exact opposite, we probably all have good memories of the show but if you go back and try to rewatch it I find it's just shit

but yeah with art it's difficult because it's subjective, with something like chess we can identify a great person simply by results because it's a competition

kasparov and trump have a quirky similarity which is they're both balding patriarchs with children from 3 wives, kasparov isn't up to 5 children yet or president of russia yet but he's much younger than trump and still has time I guess

On December 28 2017 00:21 RiKD wrote: How do you know Jerry Seinfeld and Garry Kasparov think they are better than me? They have certainly climbed their respective competency hierarchies quite well. Our their souls better than mine? Their bodies? I didn't help write one of the most successful sitcoms of all time or become a world chess champion but what am I going to do about that? Fester and ooze resentments? I am doing my own thing. Let me vibe with it. Let me continue to wander.

just trust my research please, they do

no resentment

On December 28 2017 00:21 RiKD wrote: When I think of Trump and Bush I definitely don't think about intelligence although I certainly don't think they are dummies. The first thing I think about Trump and Bush is that they are both trust fund kids. Trump has a lot of skills. He has a sharpness to him. These skills and abilities are in someways natural to him and I am sure he cultivated those and others with years and years of experience in high stakes real estate. He was great in The Apprentice. I am sure he sells a bunch of his gaudy crap to gaudy bourgeois wannabe Trumps. I remember one time I saw a guy loved Trump but I was so desperate for a job I went to the interview. It turned out to be some multi-level marketing bullshit and he was trying to get me to read Trump books and that other hack. I can't remember his name but they were linked. When I think of the phrase "I want what they have" Trump doesn't register. My goal is not to be the President of the United States of America. I would love to get gifted a multimillion dollar real estate business and a Wharton business school education though.

it's all in the execution, that's the point

our sole trait that separates us from the retards is the ability to produce and communicate thoughts

like imagine how amazing each of us secretly thinks they are, and combine that with a real human being's effectiveness like Trump and imagine what the result would be

your life is like a measurement, a sample, of the human condition, the more you become something the more determined it is and the less potential is left, whereas at the start the potential is there for anything and that's more romantic and comforting, it's not that people are afraid of failing or afraid of success it's that they're afraid of decisions I think

it's great to play a long game and I think that's the discipline that creates successful (determined by their own criteria but still something objective and not I'm wandering) but life has no table selection, if you don't play eventually you get blinded out anyway

on the subject of Trump I find it to be a case for Newer Atheism to tackle. first New Atheism divested a generation of belief in the supernatural but all the credulous retards replaced that with a belief in the devil instead, the sitting POTUS, the psychology seems exactly the same

It's like in The Life of Brian, Brian says you've got to work it out for yourselves, they say yes, tell us more! Like whether you believe in God because someone told you and then disbelieve because someone told you, in one case you'll end up being right but with no idea why because the method that got you the conclusion was the same

Trump is doing pretty bad at president. This amazing effectiveness is going to waste. His real estate business is doing worse than if he would have put his gifted trust fund into the S&P 500. Why not get some more sleep and travel a bit more? Maybe find a wife that is actually a life partner and not a trophy. It is all ego with Trump. It is that strong of a pulling force for him that he will sleep 4 hours a night and brag about it all. He was gifted 100 mil in real estate and a Wharton business school education and he would have been better off if he put that money into the S&P 500. That is not a great success. 100 million is richer than God money anyways. Why not chill and live a great life rather than chasing around these real estate deals? Get involved in charities with this "great deal making ability." Trump is an orange abomination.

yeah the presidency is at the expense of his business, obviously when you are globally loathed your brand loses value

why not have no ambition at all? is that your question?

His brand is what is wrong with this world. Gaudy ties at Macy's bullying celebrities. He is not a self-made millionaire. He is a fake. His hair and skin complexion are an easy tip off. For his market becoming president is obviously huge. They want to be kings without the philosophy. They rather watch network television than read Plato or Marcus Aurelius. That's the thing about it. They all dream to be this boss of the boardroom but they don't realize these guys have serious privilege and it is not real. It's hyper real. I can respect Trump funding his own campaign and the work he did on the road but for what? Why not start his own charity and try and out ego Bill Gates?

"Why not have no ambition at all? is that your question?"

No, that is not my question. There are many worthwhile projects in the world... becoming president to help rich, white males does not seem like one of them.

My issue is in how we define "success" in the USA (and world). Not in ambition. Of course ambition is often times a positive trait.

Do you see what I am saying with Trump though? Similar to what you were talking about Trump gets gifted $100 mil and a Wharton school of business education. The potential is so vast. To go into real estate, get no sleep, and run that up in line with inflation just seems kind of masturbatory to me. I am certainly not going to label that some great success. Now, I am sure in doing that he got an even greater education in real estate, deal making, etc. With $100 million and all the potential in the world there are just more worthwhile projects than barely beating inflation and becoming president. President of the USA while much of bourgeois society may think that is the pinnacle of success or status my life would look a lot different if I had $100million. While I would be spending a fair amount of time on beaches that gets old and it is time to get into the thick of some things. Which the question could be asked if I am doing this currently, locally, scalable? Not as much as I should be or could be to be honest.

If Trump is your hero great. I am not going to discount everything you say but I am going to be skeptical and suspicious of everything you say. If that whole sort of ideologies that goes with loving Trump is working for you then great. Get 5 hours of sleep, GET RICH AND KICK ASS (I think that is one of Trump's books), and chase that success and status of that particular Trump'ish social sphere. Make sure to get that particular kind of haircut, that particular kind of self tan, and again TRUMP BRAND horseshit MADE IN CHINA can be purchased at Macy's. Go forth my docile brethren! My brethren that I would pray for if I prayed.

rikd what color is your skin? I didn't want to get into politics but getting sidetracked by staggering ignorance like this is my weakness

-bill gates has like $50 billion the foundation can do anything they want, $100 million wouldn't stack up at all, what are you talking about out-ego bill gates
-privilege is an excuse, of course if you tell someone something's impossible and they believe you they aren't going to fucking do it

just listen to these sour grapes yeah what kind of moron would want to be president of the united states, I just said define success with your own criteria but come up with something legitimate that's not lying to yourself like "yeah I'm wandering I'm kind of a little bit good at everything"


Poll: Would you take the job of president of your country if asked?
(Vote): Yes, in less than a second
(Vote): Yes, but in longer than a second
(Vote): No
(Vote): Don't know

Trump is not my hero but he's a useful example because he's so hated and it pisses people off to reintroduce them the actual perspective of someone they look down on so much is kicking their ass in many ways, which if they haven't given up should serve as a motivator

Feynman is probably my top favorite because of his unflinching commitment to deciding to use his brain all the time