Beliefs and feelings you used to have, but now don't.

[Necron_warrior]

I used to be a happy, athletic, social, and Intelligent person.

Now I'm a cynical, lazy, antisocial, Intelligent person.

And I'm much better for it

 

[Stukov Wolfwood]

not to be a jerk or captain obvious. But this ain't gamming disscusion. May be a nice disscussion but is not about games. So move it to the adecuate place or close it.

 

[Saulkar]

Hmmmmm. I guess the best way to put it would be that I was a theist and am now a deist. Did I say that right?

 

[Saulkar]

I used to be a happy, athletic, social, and Intelligent person.

Now I'm a cynical, lazy, antisocial, Intelligent person.

And I'm much better for it

You are a cynical?! I know how to cheer you up and get rid of that cynical!!!

 

[Tony2077]

i was and still am a jerk just less people know about it since i try to hide that fact when I'm in public

 

[Destude]

That all men are created equal.

That's just not true. Rather, it's the idea that people should be treated equally.

As said, I give to two charities, but cannot accept that I must live under the emotional burdon of the suffering millions (or billions) feel every day.

You don't have to do shit. The world's fucked and it's been fucked since time immemorial. Really, the guy you're quoting makes more emotional sense than you. He doesn't give a shit about his life and still wants to do good in the world.

You know what that is?

That's fuckin' Batman right there.

I'm gonna drop a hint right here.

That's what I love about the Escapist; there's always someone trying to passively assert their "intelligence" (read: opinion) rather than just say what the fuck they mean and not be a douche in the process.

You can argue your little semantic bullshit all you like, but when you actually put it into practice, altruism DOES exist. Yeah, it wouldn't be done if people didn't believe something good comes of it, but the important part is the self-destructive nature inherent in helping others as a primary motivator. To state your point, you've completely disregarded the quantitative value of an action. If you give a kidney to a dying child, you've saved the kid, but handicapped yourself. From a personal perspective, there is a significant physical net loss that has a greater lasting impact than the warm fuzzies you got from letting someone else live.

Or hell, what about Batman? He gives of his own of life to make the world a better place for other people. He could be living out his life as a billionaire playboy, but he doesn't. The man is a miser with little tolerance for anything that isn't crime related.

This guy doesn't care about his life but still wants to do good? So does everyone else in the world.

You should meet this Canadian I know. He doesn't give a flying fuck about you or a starving kid in Africa or Donald Trump and his money.

It's true. I really don't give a flying fuck about any of them.

 

[1080bitgamer]

When I was younger, I often vehemently disagreed with anyone that had different religious beliefs than me, sometimes even directly disrespecting their thoughts or ideas.

I never want to even THINK like that again, even for a second.

 

[lacktheknack]

Well, I used to be a very cocky and cheerful guy. These days I'm apathetic and a coward.

This, reversed.

More specifically, I thought I was just a major loner, and hated interacting with people. I kept it up for years... until I actually tried. I still like a small ring of friends, but I want them there anyways.

I also used to be moderately religious, but am now VERY religious. Deal with it, internet.

 

[Reggie Rock]

That's what I love about the Escapist; there's always someone trying to passively assert their "intelligence" (read: opinion) rather than just say what the fuck they mean and not be a douche in the process.

You can argue your little semantic bullshit all you like, but when you actually put it into practice, altruism DOES exist. Yeah, it wouldn't be done if people didn't believe something good comes of it, but the important part is the self-destructive nature inherent in helping others as a primary motivator. To state your point, you've completely disregarded the quantitative value of an action. If you give a kidney to a dying child, you've saved the kid, but handicapped yourself. From a personal perspective, there is a significant physical net loss that has a greater lasting impact than the warm fuzzies you got from letting someone else live.

Or hell, what about Batman? He gives of his own of life to make the world a better place for other people. He could be living out his life as a billionaire playboy, but he doesn't. The man is a miser with little tolerance for anything that isn't crime related.

Altruism does not exist. You never, NEVER do anything that you don't think sufficiently benefits yourself. I donate to charities myself, but i'm willing to admit that i do it more for the feeling i get for doing it than to help those who the charity goes towards. People assign different values to different actions.

Batman does what he does because he wants to stop criminals, since criminals killed his parents. Batman does do it to help others, but he does it to feel good about himself as well.

Also about the Canadian, why should he care about any of those things? Perhaps he believes that the money that could help others could also help himself, which is absolutely reasonable. I don't give money to starving children in Africa, because i don't see myself gaining anything from that.

The point is that in everything you do, your benefit is the deciding factor.

 

[Pharsalus]

I used to be an atheist. I was raised to view religion in general as a bunch of poppycock and when I actually went to a church for the first time ( I was staying with friends) the sermon seemed like so much BS. Then I picked up Sun Tzu's Art of War and over a couple of years began to embrace Taoism as my my religion/philosophy. As a Taoist I certainly don't scorn people for their beliefs as I once did, though I do think that a person should learn, understand and embrace a faith for it to matter, being forced into something like that as a child isn't fair and it isn't real faith in my eyes.
One of my friends is a very militant atheist and it pains me to hear him rail on against American Christians (though he is a big troll and most of what he says pains me).
I still have a very dim view of organized religion, I think individual faith is more important than church buildings, rally's, and profit.
I will say that Army Chaplains have never failed to impress me with their regard for differing faiths. During my last stretch of training the chaplain (a southern baptist) provided me with a copy of the Tao Te Ching on request, he also provided a text for a Methodist in our company.

 

[Indecipherable]

That all men are created equal.

That's just not true. Rather, it's the idea that people should be treated equally.

As said, I give to two charities, but cannot accept that I must live under the emotional burdon of the suffering millions (or billions) feel every day.

You don't have to do shit. The world's fucked and it's been fucked since time immemorial. Really, the guy you're quoting makes more emotional sense than you. He doesn't give a shit about his life and still wants to do good in the world.

You know what that is?

That's fuckin' Batman right there.

And, to be fair, the world is in the best situation it has ever been in. Average life expectancy is the highest it's been in human history, number of wars compared to the population are at an all-time low, a relatively tiny percentage of the population is in poverty, need I go on?

1.4 billion people is a relatively 'tiny' percentage?

Life expectancies in some countries is as low as 47...

Where do you get your numbers from?

PS:

http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2010$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL%5Fn5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=295;dataMax=79210$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=19;dataMax=86$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=;example=75

FANTASTIC site for all things Economics. Above link is per capita GDP vs Life Expectancy.

This shows the life expectancy of each country in the world. The average is about 67:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Now, if we look at medieval Britain, it's about 31.3 years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/241864.stm

In ancient Greece/Rome, it was about 28:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/393100/mortality

And is this PDF by the World health organisation, it shows that the global life expectancy at the beginning of the 20th century was just 31. it also shows a few other figures that you may find interesting:
http://www.who.int/global_health_histories/seminars/presentation07.pdf



Now, as for the percentage of the population in poverty, this first link shows that 75% of the world population lived on less than the equivalent of a dollar a day in 1820, while about 20% do now:
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vas-0109.html

Now, for this one, look at the headcount title. It shows the percentage of the population in each area living under the poverty line:
http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1
And the poverty line is in PPP, so it's already been accounted for in terms of inflation.


Don't ask for evidence unless you've really researched this. I'm good when it comes to this.

The difference is that you think a rise alone is acceptable, whereas I have posted that 1.4 billion is not. Yours is relative, mine is absolute. You'll notice the link I gave you provides all the same data, and if you click play it will show the rising life expectancy over time, plotted to the country and size of which. Other than that, you're arguing apples with oranges and I agree with your statistics (the site I provided does all of what you said, and more) but not your conclusion that seems to be things are peachy keen.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I used to believe that Science was an all-purpose catch-all, that it could replace religion. Now, I know that not to be true. That while various religions offer meaning as well, Science offers only explanation, and leaves the entirety of meaning up to interpretation of data. Now, I see the value of philosophies and theologies, especially those that eschew explanation, leaving that to someone/something else, and express the idea that explanation isn't nearly as important as meaning, but still holds value in that a better explanation can support meaning, but a bad explanation cannot detract from meaning, once meaning is found.

 

[Nikolaz72]

I used to think the Danish Military was sad and that the US Military was awesome. I pretty much swapped them out with eachother around the same time I started becomming more logical and started to get more empathy.

I used to have Socialist leanings but I moved to the right as I learned a bit more about how economy works and that such dreams would be impossible. And landed on Social-Liberalism. Something I actually have proof of works and lands the closest I will ever get to my old beliefs.

Used to be Christian and 'even' prayed to god outside church. Something quite rare in this country, and being in a choir I mastered most of their songs. Buuut, I became an atheist. Still go to church sometimes for the stories. Its rare though.

I used to think war was a neccesary tool of diplomacy, I abandoned that. It might be a tool of diplomacy but its the worst one out there.

I used to think prisoners should be imprisoned to keep them away from soceity. Now I believe they should be put in prison to learn how to function in soceity, then kept away from us if they cant change.

I used to love America, then George Bush came along, and screwed with my world. Now I dislike America. I like a lot of Americans though.

I used to dislike the opposition to my political beliefs, being a moderate I dont have a lot of that anymore. Now I merely dislike extremists on both ends, mostly the extremist right though. . . A lot of them being American. They have a lot more (negative)influence on my everyday life than left-leaning extremists. I think thats because there are more of them, and have an actual chance of getting power somewhere.

To state an example of a left-wing extremist group I dislike. Chineese Communist Party. Not even the republicans of the US has hurt progress for as many people as they have. And nobody can really do anything to stop them.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I used to believe that there might one day be peace in the Middle-East, in particular to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. The level of hatred against Jews and Israel, while not widespread is intense like nothing I've seen before. The level of hatred between Sunni and Shi'ah Muslims also beggars belief.

I like to consider myself reasonably open-minded, by which I mean I will listen and consider alternative points of view and the voice of reason. But I'm naïve and thought that all other people around the world must share the ability to listen and use sense, but it isn't true and realising that was a clarion call. People hate with such passion that there is unlikely to ever be an alternative to the conflict. I can't comprehend the why of it; being British I was lucky to grow up in one of the best and most accepting nations in the world. Very lucky.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

I was raised Catholic. Church on Sunday, praying to random saints for guidance, daily rosaries, nuns and priests for teachers in school, Ash Wednesday, Lent, Easter...the whole Super-Catholic shebang.

Then some point around age 13 I had something of a crisis of faith and decided that it just wasn't for me and let the whole thing drop.

For a few years, well into my 20's I adopted a philosophy that said. I'm okay with other folks having faith if it makes them feel better. I appreciate the charity that religious communities do and I understand the feeling of security that it gives to people.

My general opinion was, as Jefferson said.

"...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

However, over the past 5-10 years I've noticed that these folks whom I was more than accepting and tolerant of and on more than one occasion defended had taken advantage of the complacency of myself and others like myself. They had begun to undermine our place in society and had indeed begun to pick my pocket and break my leg.

I did unto them as I would have them do unto me and they spit in my face for it.

So yeah I've become a lot less tolerant of it in recent years.
I'll never fight or campaign to have someone's religious freedom taken away, but I'm much less inclined to be as tolerant of it in my day to day life.


(That being said. If you are in disagreement with me please know that I will gladly have a conversation with you and will even gladly have a rational and civil debate with you.

I will not argue with you. You are not likely to change my mind nor am I likely to change yours.)

 

[Da Orky Man]

That all men are created equal.

That's just not true. Rather, it's the idea that people should be treated equally.

As said, I give to two charities, but cannot accept that I must live under the emotional burdon of the suffering millions (or billions) feel every day.

You don't have to do shit. The world's fucked and it's been fucked since time immemorial. Really, the guy you're quoting makes more emotional sense than you. He doesn't give a shit about his life and still wants to do good in the world.

You know what that is?

That's fuckin' Batman right there.

And, to be fair, the world is in the best situation it has ever been in. Average life expectancy is the highest it's been in human history, number of wars compared to the population are at an all-time low, a relatively tiny percentage of the population is in poverty, need I go on?

1.4 billion people is a relatively 'tiny' percentage?

Life expectancies in some countries is as low as 47...

Where do you get your numbers from?

PS:

http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2010$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL%5Fn5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=295;dataMax=79210$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=19;dataMax=86$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=;example=75

FANTASTIC site for all things Economics. Above link is per capita GDP vs Life Expectancy.

This shows the life expectancy of each country in the world. The average is about 67:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Now, if we look at medieval Britain, it's about 31.3 years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/241864.stm

In ancient Greece/Rome, it was about 28:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/393100/mortality

And is this PDF by the World health organisation, it shows that the global life expectancy at the beginning of the 20th century was just 31. it also shows a few other figures that you may find interesting:
http://www.who.int/global_health_histories/seminars/presentation07.pdf



Now, as for the percentage of the population in poverty, this first link shows that 75% of the world population lived on less than the equivalent of a dollar a day in 1820, while about 20% do now:
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vas-0109.html

Now, for this one, look at the headcount title. It shows the percentage of the population in each area living under the poverty line:
http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1
And the poverty line is in PPP, so it's already been accounted for in terms of inflation.


Don't ask for evidence unless you've really researched this. I'm good when it comes to this.

The difference is that you think a rise alone is acceptable, whereas I have posted that 1.4 billion is not. Yours is relative, mine is absolute. You'll notice the link I gave you provides all the same data, and if you click play it will show the rising life expectancy over time, plotted to the country and size of which. Other than that, you're arguing apples with oranges and I agree with your statistics (the site I provided does all of what you said, and more) but not your conclusion that seems to be things are peachy keen.

The site's scripts don't agree with my computer, so I've been unable to actually go on it, and so I won't argue that point.
however, of course it's relative. During the Neolithic era, there were a maximum of about 15 million people on the planet, with every one of them experiencing starvation and droughts on an almost regular basis. However, since a maximum of 15 million suffered unlike the hundreds of millions today, then looking at it absolutely would say that the Neolithic era was the best time to be alive.
So we look at it in a relative way. To put it simply, although the world is indeed a fairly messed up place, it's the least messed up it ever has been. And since it seems to be rapidly improving, I'm not complaining.
And you just said that you agree with the figures in the links I posted. However, in your previous posting, you asked me where I got my figures from, indicating that you did not agree with them. Eh?

 

[Kevlar Eater]

I used to believe that if I worked hard enough and applied myself in education, that I'd get someplace in life. I also used to have an optimistic view on life. Then reality shot an arrow in my knee, and my beliefs are: Bite the bullet or eat one. Either way, us peons matter not.