Topic: The Chit-Chat Thread

@Ninfan New 3ds has been out for years now, however most have switched (switch noise) over to the Switch as their portable gaming device (myself included). My friends list shows hardly anyone has been online within the last 10 days on their 3ds.

@Heavyarms55 Indeed! The green light would never stop glowing back when I went to the NYCC which was swell for 3ds games I hardly got hits for, however when I passed by the convention years later with my 3ds on me, didn't get a single hit or anything. I'd imagine now the amount of streetpasses would be way smaller compared to back then, but at least I got all the puzzle pieces I needed for those panels (which were lost when my 3ds broke).

@NEStalgia Oh don't misunderstand, I absolutely love Japan and wouldn't trade it for the rest of the world.

And it's not the "It's only wrong if I get caught" mentality, it's cost vs benefit or consequence vs reward. Looking at my situation is doing A going to be more beneficial than harmful and I consider that statement in general, not just to me because my actions affect more than myself, but I understand that because I was taught it. It was made clear to me that rules exist for a reason, that doing certain things has a negative impact on myself or those around me. That's the purpose of punishments and rewards or cost/benefit.

If there is no negative impact for doing something bad or reward for doing something good, how is one to judge something? A rule with no consequences for violating it or rewards for following it is nothing more than an empty suggestion.

If a student in school is allowed to misbehave and is not punished for it, what reason does said student have for changing their behavior? A teacher can hope that the misbehavior will annoy other students sufficiently that they will pressure the trouble maker into behaving but in my experience that just demonstrates to students that they too are free to break that rule. On the other hand, a lack of reward for good behavior strips motivation to excel.

You talk about "should" but how are kids expected to learn what is acceptable in the absence of punishment or reward? The way I understand "should" is entirely based on cost benefit both to myself and those around me. Rules serve as a guideline in that process. Punishment is just one factor.

Let me give you an example: I wake up for work in the morning. I'm tired, grumpy and don't feel like going in. But I understand that I should still do it, despite the temptation to lie and call in sick. I understand that breaking those rules about lying and skipping work would inconvenience my coworkers, set a bad example for my students, jeopardize my employment and generally be a bad idea. On the other hand I know that being a good worker helps others and myself, it's beneficial to me not to lie and skip work more than it would be to do so.

I do not understand how people can learn "should" without that benchmark.

@Heavyarms55
You are japanese ?
Or living there for work? Study? Love?

@DenDen I live and work here. From the US originally.

I have a pretty good internet connection, @Tyranexx .... But it's effectively only the XBox games that have that side I could do While I haven't played much of games which really have that, yet, so want to do more offline, so I have an idea what I'm doing
Was that auto-correct that changed it to start @ThanosReXXX ?

@Tyranexx Well, I'll go one step further and say that the vegan/vegetarian army has also infiltrated Google, much as it has already invaded Apple, thanks to literal nutcase and fruitarian Steve Jobs. Brilliant man, yes, but also brilliantly insane at the same time.

I'm only half-serious, though. But it IS strange that the fruit and vegetable emojis, especially those like the eggplant, were available before there was ever an emoji of a hotdog or a sausage, which retro-thinking me would think to be far more appropriate.

Totally agreed on variation in diet, although I actually do try to have more meat-less days. Sometimes
I semi-cheat by replacing meat with fish, and sometimes by simply having less meat ingredients like ground beef/minced meat or chicken morsels in my stir fry dishes, so that it's more like a vegetable stir-fry with some meat, instead of the other way around or equal parts meat and vegetables. And on some days, I skip meat altogether.

In these ways, I've already reduced my overall meat intake by around 30 percent, which is more than good enough, far as I'm concerned.

I already eat more than enough fresh foods and vegetables, and I'm mindful of the environment as well, separating my waste/garbage into paper, plastics and organic waste, and at some point, mindfulness turns into a rigid diet, which I don't want to have or do. We also actually have to enjoy live, it's already short enough as it is, without putting all kinds of restrictions on ourselves.

And where it concerns things that are considered bad or less healthy for you, I always apply moderation, which also works perfectly. I don't eat pizza or burgers and fries every week, but probably only once or twice a month, and I generally only drink alcohol in the weekend, mostly on Saturday, unless there's a party or a birthday somewhere, in which case it might be two days, but never more than that.

So, unless I'm going to be suffering from some kind of meat allergy in the (near) future, I will never turn full vegetarian, let alone vegan. WAY too rigid, and not at all an enjoyable way of living. If I remember correctly,
I would probably be what some label as a "flexitarian".

@BruceCM No, just an overlooked typo. I don't post comments on NLife with my smart phone, only from my PC.
I find the mobile site user-unfriendly in regards to scrolling through comments and replying to multiple people at once. And I prefer an actual keyboard.

Oh, right, @ThanosReXXX .... My only access to the internet for years was my Android phone, so I'm used to that It's a lot easier than Edge on XBox, with only the controller!
My parents have tablets & Dad insisted on getting a Bluetooth keyboard for his, which he likes for emails but otherwise touch-screen works well

@Heavyarms55 I think these two paragraphs convey fundamentally different ideas:
"If there is no negative impact for doing something bad or reward for doing something good, how is one to judge something? A rule with no consequences for violating it or rewards for following it is nothing more than an empty suggestion."

"If a student in school is allowed to misbehave and is not punished for it, what reason does said student have for changing their behavior? A teacher can hope that the misbehavior will annoy other students sufficiently that they will pressure the trouble maker into behaving but in my experience that just demonstrates to students that they too are free to break that rule. On the other hand, a lack of reward for good behavior strips motivation to excel."

The first reminds me of a conversation I once had with a philosophy & sociology professor many eons ago. She posited that relying on reward/punishment as a means of determining behavior was effectively the limits of the simple minded masses, and the result of a lack of a high level of intellectual reasoning. It's a basic level of reasoning on the level of animals and small children. She was as dismayed as I that that seems to be the limits of most people's reasoning in the world. I always consider that topic with clenched fists. I understand that is how most people operate, and thus requires reward/punishment in place to stay in line. And yet I lament that reality and am continuously infuriated by it.

That applies to properly raised adults, however. The second paragraph, though, is a little different. When speaking specifically of children, they do need to be trained with such a system, as they certainly have not yet developed a high level of reason. For children and dogs, I support the idea that you need punishments in place to train them. For adults, I would hope their level of reason should move beyond that childhood training.

Or put broader: I'd agree that a rule needs to be enforced to be effective, however, a civilization that relies on the enforcement of said rules to keep the population in line, as opposed to a society that simply chooses to adhere to those rules regardless of enforcement isn't really a civilization at all.

So, ideally, @NEStalgia ... No laws or police, etc? I don't think society will ever get to that point! Although most people, generally, are law-abiding, it's hard to say how much the consequences make them so If there weren't laws, police, etc, would they still carry on the same way?

@BruceCM That would be the unrealistic ideal. Not no police, as there will always be the criminally insane, the desperate, and so forth. But rather that they would be scarcely needed as the overwhelming majority would choose to adhere to the rules regardless of the presence of said police.

While that's an unrealistic ideal at large, it would seem we're heading farther and farther away from that idea rather than closer to it, as a movement away from religion that previously bound the population to "choose" good behavior as a result of their deity always watching and waiting to punish them. The belief they were being watched and could be judged later kept them choosing good behavior without human intervention far more than with modern society. They were still responding to thread of punishment of course. Just a less immediate and corporeal punishment.

In the modern system, you expect people to violate any rule if they're not being watched by one who can punish them, and that applies to the majority of the population. It's a population of children and savages, not reasoning adults.

Well, a proper adult understanding of, say, Christianity is rather more complicated, @NEStalgia .... It'd be more along the lines of your choices eventually leading to the end result, really
But either way, it did seem to have some effect on people's behaviour!

@BruceCM Tremendously so. In reality it's no different than the same simple low level reasoning of "punishment/reward", the only difference the widespread belief that they are indeed being watched, judged, and eventually punished for their actions at all times by a completely non-corruptible, infinitely just, all powerful ruler.

The problem is that was the glue that bound the ethics of society. By and large in modern Western society religion has been mostly expunged, and that glue that bound the ethics no longer exists to the bulk of the population (with some geographic exceptions.) In place of that has been the expanding need for surveilance, privacy intrusion etc by corporations and governments to replace "God" as the ever watching eye. Except as institutions become the new "gods" they are corruptible, possess ulterior motives, infinitely unjust, and equally all-powerful. And that leaves only three societies. One that develops widespread high level reasoning beyond reward/punishment and runs its own just society, one that somehow forces religion into dominance again to create an all seeing incorruptible eye that everyone is aware of and obedient to, or to accept that warring factions of men will be vying to become living gods and knowing they will always use that position for self gain at the expense of others, but without them society degenerates into disarray.

The first would be the ideal but is least likely, the second would require a New Holy Roman Empire, basically, seems unlikely but maybe preferable, and the third is the one we are developing into and is effectively the gospel according to the Stasi, which likely degenerates into the dark ages, then returns to the second option after all.

Well, yeah, @NEStalgia .... The 2nd option would never last, since the religions they use actually rebel against being controlled that way I certainly don't see society heading towards the 1st option anytime soon, sadly

@BruceCM The sad remaining alternative then, is an enhanced form of totalitarianism and/or return to ancient Egypt with a land of living "god emperors" is humanity's only future...only this time with the actual powers of gods in terms of being able to control aspects of the earth itself, and seeing and knowing all things at once thanks to technology.

Let's hope a large meteor hits first.

Or we wipe ourselves out with nuclear war, @NEStalgia .... That's still all too likely!

I'm just here waiting to use all these Molerat recipes.

@BruceCM Nukes are so 1955. They're big, clunky, and expensive. Great deterrents. Not effective. The modern world would use man-made viruses, poisons, and chemical attacks. Much cleaner, and you can use the land of your target much more quickly. Cheaper, more clandestine to dispense, easier to mass produce, and much faster.

I'd rather deal with the nukes, really .

@HobbitGamer Don't forget your iguana-on-a-stick!

Well, everyone has nukes now, @NEStalgia .... But, yeah, if not them, biological & chemical warfare achieves the same end result & is also quite likely

@BruceCM China doesn't have nukes..............bwahahahaha! I can't believe I just said that with a straight face.....