SatanLucy

I am marked as offensive too. I don't know why.

Good doesn't mean the best possible option just like positive doesn't mean the biggest possible number. Otherwise why even have the word great? Or the word best?

Again, "good" depends on comparison. Let's say your only options were getting punched in face or losing an arm. In this scenario, getting punched in face is "good".

Likewise, small positive isn't necessarily good. If I get 1$ raise in income, that's positive, but it's not good.

Because to determine what's good and what's not, you need two things: comparison of options, and standard used to compare them.

Now, I prefer to define good as best, because really, anything short of best is just insufficient.

If you knew there was one best possible path, choosing a different path cannot be logically justified.

This is not a good way to evaluate things. I could say "punching someone in the face is good because it could be worse."

All things are valued by available options. You can't value things by options which don't exist. So the goal is just to choose best option by comparison.

Well, I still need to play Vampyr for about a week before review. So far it's a good game.

Pre 21 was an essential learning curve for all sorts of reasons

I don't mind learning. However, relationships harm learning by reducing free time available to think.

But any find their true love partners by that age.

There is no reason they cant wait until 21. Having sex before that age is pointless. It is either abortion or higher risk of birth defect, if pregnancy happens, which it often does.

He got herpes from an older woman he posted that several times.

That happened when I was 4 or 5, and yeah I oppose to old ladies being allowed to kiss children. There is nothing cute about it, children hate it, and it does pose a risk of herpes which I learned the hard way.

I was stupid at age 18, and I was one of the smarter 18 year olds. So yeah, I can say for sure most of them are stupid.

I base my reasoning on arguments I collected over a long period of time. Most relationships end with break up and disappointment. Its not really something teen should bother with, because unlike other things, disappointment there is guaranteed, and there are no any real benefits of being in a relationship before age 21.

It is the goal of Christianity to help the poor and needy.

Not really. They just pretend. Most of Christian donations to "charity" go to church building.

I think its bad for 16 year olds to date 40 year olds, but the only way to prevent it is by raising age of consent.

I dont think even same age relationships are good. Its really just a way to pregnancy, and then few weeks later to abortion.

16 year olds are dumb, so I dont really see how could they manage in complex situations. I mean, even adults are bad at relationships. But younger person is gonna be way worse.

I prefer laptop. Its all in one, just gotta buy mouse.

Next game I am reviewing is Vampyr.

I did one debate, and my opponent was very stupid.

If this is a popular reason to leave site, then we are gonna lose a lot of members. I am sure everyone out there considers someone else stupid.

Again, I'm fine with banning child labor and even using the government to coerce companies for the greater good. There are cases where exploitation is bad. If we're both in favor of mixed economies, then I'm not sure we have a material disagreement, I'm just saying exploitation is not inherently bad.

Again, what is good or bad depends on comparison. Saying exploitation is better than nothing is not saying exploitation is good, when better systems can be made which reduce exploitation and improve life quality more. Mixed systems are so far the only functional systems, and debate is more about which is correct mix than choosing between exploitation or nothing.

Age of voting should be 21 as well. I dont really see any average 18 year old being fluent in politics.

After reading a bunch of heated exchanges on Tik Tok regarding the age of consent, I realized those arguing to raise age of consent are actually winning argument after argument.

And then I thought about it, why should age of consent be 18?

As far as I remember, at age 18 I was extremely stupid. The fact that other 18 year olds were impressed by my intelligence at the time, tells me that they were even dumber than me.

I don't think that an 18 year old can consent. If you compare knowledge of 25 year old to that of 18 year old, it's like whole world of difference.

But one more important thing. People at age 18 aren't ready to have kids, so letting them consent just increases risk of pregnancy which is going to be higher likely a defect or abortion.

Ideal age to give birth is 21 to 26, so there is no point in setting age of consent below 21.

Another thing, person shouldn't really be in relationships at age 18. First, because those relationships are virtually guaranteed to be a disappointment and failure. Second, because relationships take away free time and reduce time left for thinking. A person should first take plenty of time to think and develop before making any big decisions which at same time risk reducing reasoning ability.

I think relationship is a big decision, and comes with countless consequences average 18 year old is just not ready for to deal with, when they at same time have to focus on education.

Biggest issue about relationships which I realized is that being alone builds intelligence, while being in relationship takes away free time and leaves less time for thinking.

With all the technology out there, average person doesn't even have a need to be in a relationship. And I don't really see any benefits of 18 year old being in a relationship. It negatively affects education, reasoning, takes away free time and carries a significant risk of pregnancy.

But would you have similar problems with a society that gave the same amount to charity and just exploited less? Assuming the exploitation was consensual and improved people's circumstances on top of the charity?

I mean, it largely depends on what we consider to be exploitation. If we are talking of less exploitation in form of child labor and extreme working conditions, then I wouldn't have issue with society having less of those.

This is because banning certain forms of exploitation doesn't actually leave people without options. When child labor was banned, it didn't leave those children without options. This is because society adapts.

You can quite perfectly reduce work hours legally to 7 per day, 5 days a week, and employment won't drop.

This isn't "exploitation or no exploitation". This is just banning forms of exploitation which are severely harmful to society long term.

If your point is just charity is good then fine I agree. Maybe people are even obligated to give some amount. But above that I think exploitation is justified cause it is helping, just a limited amount. I don't think everyone is obligated to sell every organ they can and work long hours to maximally help.

My issue is more with society which maximizes exploitation. I don't have issues with society where there is exploitation, but also a lot of charity to improve lives of all, even the exploited ones who are at the bottom of society.

And I agree that person doesn't have obligation to donate organs or work maximally long hours, because that would make good person's life way worse. But I do think one should donate to charity a lot, and the rule about this is usually first secure yourself financially, then donate extra to charity.

I have read code of conduct again, and I don't see any issues in it. Seems fine. The only issue regarding AI posts which I saw is that it's a bit too strict, that's all.

Other than this, a perfect code of conduct.

As I said on discord, I am not sure the AI rule is good. I mean, being limited to use AI 3 times per week only?

That's not enough. Sometimes I need to use AI 3 times a day. I am sure there are other users who also use a lot of AI. I don't know, the number seems a bit too strict.

But if thats the median vote, fine.

If every American donated 20% of their income, the amount would be enormous.

Using the latest full-year figure available, U.S. personal income was about $26.1 trillion in 2025.

Calculation

$26.1 trillion × 20% = $5.22 trillion per year

So roughly:

💰 $5.2 trillion per year

💰 $435 billion per month

💰 $14.3 billion per day

🇺🇸 About $15,300 per U.S. resident per year, using the 2025 population of 341.8 million.

That's roughly one-fifth of all personal income in the United States being redirected to charitable causes every year.

For comparison, $5.2 trillion is more than 20% of U.S. GDP, so it would be an extraordinarily large redistribution of resources—not simply a modest increase in charitable giving.

If you want, I can also .estimate **what $5.2 trillion/year could accomplish globally** (poverty, hunger, housing, healthcare, education, etc.)

If the hypothetical $5.2 trillion per year were coordinated and spent effectively on global development, it could have an extraordinary impact. The key point is that $5.2T is so large that money alone would stop being the main constraint in many areas; infrastructure, governance, skilled workers, conflict, and logistics would become major constraints.

For scale, the ILO estimates that low- and middle-income countries need about $1.4 trillion additional spending per year to achieve universal social-protection floors and essential healthcare.

A plausible allocation of $5.2T/year

Area Annual funding Potential impact

🏥 Healthcare $1.2T Massive expansion of hospitals, clinics, medicines, vaccines and preventive care

🍚 Food & nutrition $700B Large-scale food security, nutrition programs and agricultural investment

🏠 Housing & basic infrastructure $800B Housing, electricity, clean water, sanitation and roads

🎓 Education $700B Universal basic education plus huge expansion of secondary/vocational education

💵 Poverty/social protection $800B Cash transfers, pensions, disability support and assistance to extremely poor families

🌱 Clean energy & climate $500B Renewable electricity, grids, storage and climate adaptation

🕊️ Humanitarian/refugee assistance $200B Enormous expansion of assistance during wars, disasters and displacement

🔬 Science/technology $200B Medicine, agriculture, energy and other technological development

Total $5.1T

That would leave roughly $100B for administration, emergency reserves and other priorities.

The humanitarian side alone would be transformed

For perspective, UNHCR's entire 2025 global appeal was about $10.25 billion.

So $5.2 trillion is roughly 500 times that amount.

The UN's humanitarian system has recently been operating with dramatically less funding; humanitarian funding fell from about $47.5B in 2022 to $33.3B in 2025.

So $5.2T could theoretically fund humanitarian operations on an entirely different scale.

Healthcare could be particularly powerful

The WHO/World Bank report says approximately 4.6 billion people lack access to essential health services, while 2.1 billion experience financial hardship from healthcare costs.

And the World Bank currently estimates that government and donor spending in low-income countries is less than one-third of the $60/person benchmark considered necessary for essential health services.

A sustained $1+ trillion annual investment could therefore dramatically expand:

Primary-care clinics

Maternal and infant healthcare

Vaccination

Malaria/TB/HIV prevention and treatment

Clean-water infrastructure

Medicines

Emergency medicine

Mental-health services

Medical training

Hospitals and laboratories

Poverty could potentially be reduced enormously

The ILO's estimate is especially striking: $1.4T/year is estimated to be enough to close the social-protection financing gap across low- and middle-income countries.

That includes support for:

Children

Older people

Disabled people

Unemployed people

Mothers

Essential healthcare

So even allocating $1.4T annually could theoretically address a huge portion of the basic social-protection deficit.

Over 10 years

If the money were sustained:

$5.2T × 10 = $52 trillion

That's enough to potentially finance a generational transformation of living standards in poorer countries.

It wouldn't mean simply handing everyone money. A more effective approach would be to build productive capacity: electricity, clean water, schools, hospitals, roads, agriculture, housing, internet access, businesses and education.

In other words, the most powerful effect might be moving billions of people from "helping them survive" → "giving them the infrastructure and human capital to become economically self-sufficient."

And importantly, $5.2T doesn't mean $5.2T of pure benefit automatically. Dumping that much money into the world economy could cause inflation, corruption, waste, asset-price increases and shortages if spending outpaced the ability to actually produce goods and services. The challenge would shift from finding money to deploying it effectively.

Also, the idea that a lot of money is needed is actually not true.

If each American donated just 10$, they would raise around 2 billion dollars, enough to solve all homelessness in USA.

I don't even need to say what they could do if each American donated 10$ each month.

Also, I am a big fan of cost-effective charity. I don't think all charity is equal. Homes for homeless and shelters for homeless are really two different things.

But as far as I know, average American donates less than 1% of their income to charity. To put things in perspective, if average American donated 20% of their income to charity, they would raise 12 trillions each year, and that's pretty much enough to solve any damn social issue in whole USA. Right now they only raise about 600 billion, but a lot of that goes to church building.

Except exploitation isn't harm since it's better than nothing.

I think it is harm, because the goal of eliminating poverty cannot be achieved by maximizing exploitation.

In fact, not exploiting would be helping less than you could be since you wouldn't have the money to help others.

If your goal is helping others, then surely money you make can be used to help the people you exploited first, so it stops being exploitation.

The problem in "maximizing profit to help others" lies in the fact that each extra money can be further used to make new investments and maximize profit. So maximizing profit actually never ends in cycle and money never reaches people.

At some point, person must stop re-investing money, and instead donate it.

However, opening a business and donating extra from business income is usually easier and doesn't necessarily require exploiting anyone.

Owning non-exploitative businesses and also helping others with extra income is the most optimal approach, because no one in that system lives in poverty.

You said until poverty is eliminated.

Yes, but it doesn't mean you give all your money to others. You still need part of money for your own food and house.

I was asking if individuals, without state backing, were obligated to give all their excess money to charity.

I think both individual and state have obligation to help others. If you wouldn't let a child in front of you drown, why would you let child somewhere else starve? Starvation is probably worse than drowning. I say if individual earns 100000$, but only needs 50000$ to cover basic expenses and secure long future, the idea of keeping 50000$ for personal use seems terribly selfish. One can donate to charity or invest in business to create jobs, or just help people he knows need the help. However, if someone is entirely self centered, then who will solve poverty?

I guess you think they are, so I guess from a hard utilitarianism view, exploitation is suboptimal.

Well, there are different forms of exploitation. Some is a lot worse than other.

But I still think the optimal utilitarian path might involve exploiting some people in order to use the profit to help others.

I don't believe in "harm one to help another" approach. Maybe some exploitation is necessary for economy to function, but such must be so minimal that it can be barely called exploitation.

Yes—donating money can improve the donor’s quality of life, although it depends on the person and how the donation is made.

Research generally finds several possible benefits:

Greater happiness: Giving to others can produce a “warm glow” and positive emotions.

More meaning and purpose: Donating to causes you care about can make life feel more meaningful.

Better social connection: Giving can strengthen relationships and a sense of belonging, especially when done through a community.

Less focus on oneself: Generosity can shift attention away from personal worries and toward helping others.

Life satisfaction: People who regularly give to others often report higher overall life satisfaction.

There is an important limit, though: donating money that you genuinely cannot afford can reduce quality of life because financial stress can outweigh the psychological benefits.

A useful principle is:

> Donate enough to meaningfully help others while keeping enough financial security for yourself.

Interestingly, the benefit doesn't necessarily require giving a huge amount. Even relatively small donations can provide psychological benefits when the donor feels that the money is genuinely making a difference.

Yes, donating can improve social relationships, particularly when the giving is connected to other people.

It can help by:

Building trust: Generosity can signal that you're cooperative and caring.

Strengthening friendships and family relationships: Giving to people you care about can reinforce bonds.

Creating social connections: Donating to a community, charity, or group can introduce you to people with similar values.

Increasing reciprocity: People may be more inclined to help and cooperate with someone they perceive as generous.

Improving your reputation: Generosity can make others view you more positively.

However, there is a distinction between healthy generosity and giving to gain approval. If someone repeatedly gives money mainly because they fear rejection or expect something in return, it can actually create unhealthy relationships.

So, in general: generosity tends to support social connection, but the quality of the relationship and the motivation for giving matter.

Pretty much anyone who tries that will go broke long before poverty is eliminated.

Not really. You don't have to give all your money, just extra. So you won't ever go broke. And the nation will not go broke. In fact, nations with more donations consistently rank better in life quality, because apparently helping others somehow rewards the person who helps too.

So everyone is obligated to give all their excess income to charity?

No, just give all extra until there are no more poor people. After you eliminate poverty, there is no one to give extra of income to, and nation enters golden age.

No one in this thread is denying that, the argument is that exploitation is better than inaction.

Exploitation includes inaction. Read The Little Match Girl I mentioned.

Yes — some of Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tales can reasonably be read as criticisms of capitalism, wealth inequality, and bourgeois society, although it would be anachronistic to call Andersen simply an “anti-capitalist” writer.

Andersen lived from 1805–1875, during the rise of industrial capitalism and modern urban society. His stories frequently focus on poverty, class hierarchy, wealth, exploitation, status, and the way wealthy or powerful people treat those beneath them. Scholars have specifically noted his criticism of social conditions and class inequality.

The clearest example: The Little Match Girl

This is probably the strongest Andersen story for a capitalist/inequality interpretation.

The girl is:

extremely poor,

forced to sell matches,

surrounded by people who have food, warmth and Christmas celebrations,

unable to participate in that prosperity,

and ultimately dies in the street.

The important contrast is between abundance and deprivation. She can see warm houses, food and wealthy people's Christmas decorations, but cannot access them.

The fact that she is literally selling a commodity to survive makes the story especially interesting from a capitalist perspective. Her economic value matters more than her wellbeing: she must sell matches or face punishment at home.

However, Andersen doesn't present this as a Marxist argument like “capitalism is the problem and socialism is the solution.” His response is primarily moral and humanitarian: society has become so indifferent to poverty that a child can freeze to death while surrounded by people enjoying prosperity.

The Emperor's New Clothes

This one is less directly about economics but strongly attacks status, hierarchy and social conformity.

The emperor has enormous wealth and power, yet he is essentially a fool. The people around him are afraid to tell him the truth because of his position.

Andersen is mocking a society where:

> wealth + status + authority = assumed superiority

That's a broader criticism of elite society rather than capitalism specifically.

The Swineherd

This is another strong example of Andersen mocking the aristocratic/bourgeois obsession with luxury, status and artificial sophistication. The royal court values expensive and fashionable objects while failing to appreciate genuine beauty and simplicity. Andersen's satire of the court has been interpreted as criticism of superficial upper-class culture.

The Ugly Duckling

This can also be interpreted economically/class-wise, although that's not necessarily its primary meaning.

The protagonist is rejected because he doesn't fit the standards of his society. His eventual transformation into a swan changes how everyone sees him.

That can be read as criticism of a society that judges people according to appearance, status and social value.

But there's an important complication

Andersen's stories aren't consistently anti-capitalist.

His own life is actually an interesting counterexample. He was born into relatively poor circumstances and eventually became wealthy and famous. One modern scholar specifically notes that his success coincided with the rise of capitalism in Denmark — and that his rise from poverty to wealth was itself enabled by the new capitalist society.

So I would characterize Andersen as:

Critical of:

extreme poverty

wealth inequality

exploitation of the powerless

social indifference

aristocratic/bourgeois arrogance

obsession with material status

treating people according to economic/social value

Not necessarily critical of:

private wealth itself

commerce

entrepreneurship

social mobility

capitalism as an economic system in the modern ideological sense

In other words, Andersen is much more clearly a critic of social inequality and human cruelty than a systematic critic of capitalism.

And that distinction matters. A modern reader can legitimately find anti-capitalist themes in The Little Match Girl, but saying “Andersen's fairy tales are anti-capitalist” would be too broad. His deeper recurring message is closer to “a society that possesses wealth but lacks compassion is morally corrupt.”

In any case, society where people help each other without seeking personal benefits each time is way better.

As far as I see, exploitative society necessarily produces exploitative parents, and then kids get worse living conditions and less opportunities.

Exploited is simply something all creatures despise to be. Such is the teaching of Taoism, which people will never understand, so their lives are cursed.

I don't really see point in AI regulation, because it is literally impossible to regulate. Even if you manage to regulate all of online AI in your country, local AI is simply impossible to regulate, and AI outside your country is impossible to regulate.

AI is simply technology which is immune to regulation. That is reality.