Colon

Why do so many people justify unjust treatment with "business" or the "real world," claiming "that's just how the world works" as if those are valid justifications when they are but human constructs that can be changed?

And why do those who disbelieve in free will behave as if it exists?

A common argument against free will claims causality underlies all "free" actions, choices, and even thoughts. Many anti-free will people argue that neurons fire in response to stimuli and claim that all events resulting in thoughts, choices, and actions have prior causes, extending all the way back to the Big Bang, akin to a massively long domino effect. But still, the free will debate continues.

How do free will supporters fit causality into the picture? In other words, how do they make sense of free will while being consistent with causality?

I'm using the following definition of selfishness: placing concern with oneself or one's own interests above the well-being of others.

Obviously, there are numerous instances in which selfishness is detrimental, such as cutting in line, fighting over the TV remote, fussing over the radio station, etc. But can't selfishness often be okay, or even good? When athletes place first in the Olympics, they do so at the expense of their competitors, so they are selfish in that sense. But aren't they also achieving glory and prestige for their home country?

When a family with two children only has enough money to send one child to his/her dream school, isn't it selfish for one of them to want to go to that school at the expense of his/her sibling? But is that really such a bad thing? Or is that a moral gray area?

What about when you're taking an exam, and the person next to you forgot his/her calculator, isn't it selfish not to share yours to avoid getting in trouble for suspected cheating? But what's wrong with that? Or what about refusing your kids from getting a pet cat due to having a cat allergy?

Would you take a bullet for a stranger? When broke, would you still donate to charity? But isn't it selfish to value your own well-being over that of others?

It seems a lot of people think being selfish is always horrible and unforgivable, but with so many countless instances of selfish acts/choices being in the grey area or even good, why do they continue to think so?

If "restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests" are one of the core traits of aspies, then doesn't it seem like practically everyone who isn't perfectly normal has Asperger's Syndrome? For instance, nerds who play only Magic the Gathering and refuse to play any other card games would fit this. They also might have impaired social interactions with everyone outside their circle. Moreover, according to this definition, all mathematicians are aspies because they all have narrow, intense interests in areas of math, such as topology and chaos theory, especially if they are doing their Ph.D. dissertation on their favorite research topic in math. They might spend 15-17 hours a day composing elegant math proofs. Heck, anyone who ever got obsessed with an indie band would fit this, and they might repetitively listen to the same songs millions of times.

How does one even begin to differentiate between the narrow interests that define an aspie as opposed to non-aspies?

Just to clarify, I don't personally believe that life has no purpose.

It really bothers me because I can't come up with a satisfactory explanation. After pondering this question for days, I feel like all my hopes, dreams, and ambitions are being sapped away by doubt--that maybe all the effort I've spent towards achieving my goals is pointless since death is inevitable, and once I die, everything I've learned will vanish, and none of my accomplishments will mean anything to me once I'm dead.

Why do many people, especially pessimists, insist on asking this question? (I hate having to ask this question myself, but I yearn for a reason to seize the day despite approaching closer to death with each passing day.)

What are some good reasons for trying to learn and accomplish something despite inevitable death?

Just to clarify, I don't personally believe that life has no purpose, but ever since I heard about someone asking this, I've been trying to answer it for myself. It really bothers me because I can't come up with a satisfactory explanation. After pondering this question for days, I feel like all my hopes, dreams, and ambitions are being sapped away by doubt--that maybe all the effort I've spent towards achieving my goals is pointless since death is inevitable, and once I die, everything I've learned will vanish, and none of my accomplishments will mean anything to me once I'm dead.

So why do many people, especially pessimists, insist on asking this question to death, when the very act of asking the question uses a tiny bit of effort, which contradicts the assumption that trying to do anything is pointless when death is inevitable?

What are some strong arguments for trying to learn and accomplish something despite inevitable death?

When I looked up The Old Man and the Sea, Brave New World, and The Catcher in the Rye on goodreads, they got ratings of 3.6, 3.9, and 3.8 respectively. Then, I looked up Twilight, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and Hunger games, which got ratings of 3.6, 4.6, and 4.4 respectively.

How is Twilight tied with The Old Man in the Sea, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1953 and was cited by the Nobel Committee as contributing to the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Literature to Hemingway?

I liked Deathly Hallows and Hunger games, but how are they rated as better than Brave New and the Catcher in the Rye, both of which are "great American classics?"

This pattern continues for most classics vs most popular fiction. Even if people are entitled to their opinions, does that really justify someone giving a 1-star review for The Old Man and the Sea, calling it the "worst book ever?" Shouldn't a review site give more objective reviews?

Before you call me racist--though it's probably already too late--allow me to clarify. I have nothing against interracial couples, as obviously, it's their choice. It's just that some individuals might be choosing interracial marriage precisely because the other person is of a different race and not at all out of love. These reasons can range anywhere from curiosity, to having a fetish for a particular race, to wanting to have a trophy wife. In my experience at least, it isn't uncommon to see a wealthy person seeking out someone from a different race to serve as an "exotic" trophy wife, as if she were some butterfly specimen or contest prize rather than a human being.

Is it really racist of me to disapprove of the above unwholesome motivations for choosing an interracial marriage? Why do people automatically assume a person is racist for disapproving of interracial marriages?

For example, let's say Nathan is told he has some sort of mental disorder, perhaps autism, because he doesn't care about the feelings of others and doesn't appear to notice when he's boring other people. He might deny having anything wrong with him, saying he just speaks his mind because he would rather them know the truth than be deceived. He knows he is boring but can't find anything else to say to keep the conversation going. Other people might say he's just in denial. It could be they are right, and he is just making excuses to deny his mental disorder. Or, it could be that Nathan is right, and he really doesn't have a mental disorder; he is just blunt due to his valuing truth as a higher virtue than kindness, and believes it is better to take the risk of being boring than give up saying anything.

How would he know for sure if he's in denial or not, assuming he refuses to see a psychologist because he doesn't want to waste his time & money to confirm what he already knew?

For example, let's say Nathan is told he has some sort of mental disorder, perhaps autism, because he doesn't care about the feelings of others and doesn't appear to notice when he's boring other people. He might deny having anything wrong with him, saying he just speaks his mind because he would rather them know the truth than be deceived. He knows he is boring but can't find anything else to say to keep the conversation going. Other people might say he's just in denial. It could be they are right, and he is just making excuses to deny his mental disorder. Or, it could be that Nathan is right, and he really doesn't have a mental disorder; he is just blunt due to his valuing truth as a higher virtue than kindness, and believes it is better to take the risk of being boring than give up saying anything.

How would he know for sure if he's in denial or not, assuming he refuses to see a psychologist because he doesn't want to waste his time & money to confirm what he already knew?

For example, let's say David mistreats his friend, Kevin, without realizing it by making offensive remarks that he finds amusing. His friend, Kevin, gets mad at him, and because he had done tactless things like this countless times already, Kevin decides that he had had enough of him. Kevin tells him he hates him and never saw him as a true friend. David starts sobbing, and Kevin leaves. Kevin could choose to feel sorry for David and apologize for being, in David's words, "incredibly rude and blunt." But instead of feeling bad, Kevin chooses to feel indifferent, telling himself that David only got what was coming to him. He breaks off all contact with David for the next 4 years. They later run into each other by chance, and Kevin apologizes, saying he didn't think it would hurt more than a pinprick. David tells Kevin he might be autistic, considering they had been best friends for 3 years.

If his indifference to David's feelings was intended, does that mean Kevin is autistic?

In 8th grade, I ended my friendship with someone I had been best friends with since 5th grade He had become a jerk and on top of that, ridiculously annoying, like a real life Steve Urkel, except unfunny, egotistical, and smug. He would do things like laugh in a high, fake pitch, pester people repeatedly for the foosball table while they were in the middle of a game, and have me sometimes watch him complete his game files in Dark Cloud 2 and Legend of Zelda instead of letting me play. One time, he did let me play Dark Cloud 2 against a boss, but he told me I wouldn't last more than a minute, and when I lost, he said something like, "See? What did I tell you." Throughout the year, I kept asking him to be less annoying, and of course, he said he would but never actually did.

I was getting extremely pissed off and frustrated with him, as he was distracting me during class and causing me to miss out on a lot of important material covered in class, causing me to drop from an A student to an F student. Of course, I knew I had to end the friendship at that point, but since he had made my life miserable, I decided he had to be taught a lesson, so to be as mean as possible without overdoing it, I told him, "I never liked you. I was only pretending to be your friend so I could play video games at your house."

Long story short: he cried nonstop for weeks after that and went into a depression for 2 years, costing his family thousands of dollars in medical expenses. I went to a different high school and haven't seen him until college.

He later told me what happened to him. I was shocked, so to reduce my guilt, I told him, "At the time, I thought it would only hurt like a pinprick." He said, "You definitely have something, maybe autism." He also said I wasn't able to read the social cue that he was bored. I did notice he was bored, but he was boring me, so I changed the subject to something I wanted to talk about.

Is there something wrong with me? Do I really have autism?

My friend, who got an A in algebra but failed differential equations, said that people who are good at algebra are bad at differential equations. At first, I was skeptical, but then, he said that he observed a large sample size of students follow this trend, and since he took statistics, and I haven't, this might be sufficient evidence. However, I personally know three people who are amazing at both algebra and diff eq.

This might seem like a pointless question, but I'm only asking it because my future classes require me to be good at diff eq, and since I'm good at algebra, I'm worried that I'll never be able to get good at diff eqs.

So is there any correlation between being good at algebra and bad at differential equations? Or is it just a coincidental observation that has led to a nonsense conclusion?

Don't get me wrong, I almost always tip--the only exception is when I forget.

"Tipping" is implied to be optional, yet if you don't tip, you're an ignorant, stingy, good-for-nothing loser. So it's not optional, socially speaking. And yet, the primary justification for tipping waiters is that they are paid below minimum wage and won't be able to get by financially if you don't tip. So basically, we tip because we pity waiters as these poor, unfortunate souls who chose such a miserable occupation due to lacking the skill or talent for any other jobs. I don't know about you, but I find that highly degrading, as well as illogical. If waiters are paid so poorly, then why not choose a different job? But many waiters make far more than the cooks and cashiers due to tips, so even with non-tippers, they are raking in the cash, which is why anyone would choose waiting over cooking or cashiering. (Even with no tip, the restaurant legally has to make up the difference.)

Wouldn't it be better if "tipping" was changed to a legally required "service charge?"

I know some people would say the quality of service would go downhill due to waiters' having no motivation to do a decent job, but assuming that most waiters in decent restaurants are decent people, the only issue is the bad waiters, who hopefully number below 50% of all waiters, in which case they'll get fired by their manager for causing valuable customers, especially the regulars, to stop coming.

So then, we have waiters treating customers with respect because it's their duty and not a petty incentive, and we get to bypass the stingy customers who refuse to tip. This is basically how it works in Japan, except tipping is an insult there because it implies the workers are not already doing their best. Why do the U.S. and other countries continue this ineffective custom? (Ineffective because there will always be people who won't tip, even when blackmailed with threats like spitting in their food, but that's another story

I used to think that a "good" anime was just a matter of opinion, but lately I'm not so sure. Sure, whether the art is good or not is purely up to taste, and it's the same deal with the music. If you don't like the genre, that's also subjective. However, what about the storyline? Is that really subjective as well? If it is, then that would mean that writing is also subjective, but that's definitely not true, as it's very easy to tell the difference between a well-written essay/novel and a horrible one. But then, does that mean that anime is both objective and subjective?

For example, I have a friend whose favorite anime is Clannad, yet I can't stand it. Mainly, I'm repelled by the art, but the characters and story also seem quite bland and boring. I'm tempted to say it's just not my cup of tea, but I'm starting to think it's a bad anime due to its being poorly written. So what do you think? Is a good vs. a bad anime purely a matter of opinion, or is there some objectivity to it?

For the past couple years, my friends have often referred to trivial nuisances, like a TV that's a bit too big to fit on a counter, as FWPs. But that got me thinking, are FWPs solely the ones that aren't really problems, or does it also refer to the ones that are ACTUALLY problems?

These are some FWPs that I was thinking of:

1. Having to take extremely difficult classes in college, like physical chemistry, quantum mechanics, or chaos theory and struggling just to pass.

2. Having parents who pressure you to get straight As, yet you get a C in a class despite trying your hardest.

2. Dementia

3. Depression

4. OCD

5. Suicide

6. Narcolepsy

7. Sleep Apnea

8. Drunk Driving

9. Underaged Teen Pregnancy

10. Identity Theft

Would these be considered FWPs, or is the term, FWP, not supposed to be taken literally?

I'm really confused about this slang word because there is no consistent definition for it on urban dictionary. The three major ones are: A. "One who lacks the mental capacity to know he is being used. A fool"

B. "Someone whose ego FAR exceeds his talent, intelligence, and likeability. But, of course, he is clueless regarding that fact. He erroneously thinks he is THE MAN!"

C. Someone who can't think for themselves, changes their mind based on what other people think.

My friend called me a tool when I agreed to do an ROTC morning exercise at 4:30 am with my suite mate, who was trying to get "recruit" volunteers. Apparently, whoever in his class got the most volunteers would win some reward/prize.

But I sincerely just wanted to exercise because I hadn't exercised in a while and was also curious to see what kind of exercises they did in ROTC. I had no intention of helping my suite mate, but at the same time, I wasn't against helping him.

So what exactly is a tool, if there are so many variations on its slang definition? Was I really being a tool?

Humans possess a miraculous ability to be aware of their thought process, surroundings, and they are even aware that they are aware. How does the brain create this illusion?