Profile overview for lowonwhisky.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

4 submissions to JustifyItObjectively

2 submissions to AskVoat

2 submissions to Philosophy

1 submissions to ScenarioMeThis

1 submissions to smalltalk

This user has so far shared a total of 8 links, started a total of 18 discussions and submitted a total of 123 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 69 and downvoted 1 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 104 and downvoted 1 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

Lowonwhisky: the perennial struggle, submitted: 7/16/2015 7:46:34 AM, 8 points (+8|-0)

Who do we want to be?, submitted: 7/24/2015 1:43:23 PM, 7 points (+8|-1)

Who are you?, submitted: 7/20/2015 5:21:54 AM, 6 points (+6|-0)

If you give a testicle, you will be accepted into harvard, submitted: 7/27/2015 1:42:05 PM, 6 points (+6|-0)

[Meta] perhaps this can be useful for something?, submitted: 7/20/2015 8:02:32 PM, 5 points (+5|-0)

5 lowest rated submissions:

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

How would you react if Trump won the presidency? submitted by doceezy to AskVoat

lowonwhisky 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago

No, no, no. You don't seem to get it. Do you know how much power a president actually has? You only see the digested versions of these politicians' decisions after it's been opposed by some party, and you probably are like me and have lost sensation to media bullshit. You don't see the cosmic shifts that cause things like the Iraq war, the ACA, the rise of ISIS, post bailout reforms, etc. and what could have happened otherwise. If the president flinches at the wrong moment, it can affect millions of people.

If people start to understand just how much entropy exists at the top, then they'd consider taking these things like this more seriously. This opinion that everything is always the same, kind of shitty but always stable is good for government. It gives them legitimacy. It causes you not to question what the fuck they're actually doing.

"Fuck politicians, I just want to be able to have a job and raise a family". That's fine, but the problem is that you live in a democracy. What you think, let alone how you vote influences the people around you and when you add it all together: that is what politicians are catering to. Once you stop asking questions, they only have to answer to themselves.

Is anybody else disappointed with the direction Fallout 4 seems to be heading in? submitted by charrokharraro to gaming

lowonwhisky 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago

I would be cautious in solidifying conclusions until the game actually comes out. They're keeping us in the dark for a reason. They deliberately have given us the smallest tip of an iceberg they could possibly get away with.

Not that there aren't things we may be disappointed with. Many people think Fo3 kind of shat on the lore and that dialogue would leave you wanting at times.

The overall theme of the presentation seemed to be the desire to create immersion. Something that looked and felt natural/intuitive, and would suck you in to the point where you have no outside life for several months. This is just a connection I made based on the Fallout 3 documentary though. Howard said something like "we want this to be the game that makes you stay up all night until the sun rises and you realize you have work in an hour"

Frankly though, it'd be better for me if it sucked because I know I won't be able pay for it.

deleted by user submitted by deleted to JustifyItObjectively

lowonwhisky 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago

As it stands, Plan B costs about 45 dollars at a pharmacy. It works by simulating pregnancy so that the uterine lining can not accept the egg that has already been fertilized. The moral question that stems from this is, does that fertilized egg have a right to life?

The utilitarian would say that in the end it makes sense to distribute contraceptives. You allow women to have a family that's planned, bringing a great amount of stability to your society. These women and girls can go to school, have successful careers, and begin families if/when they're ready. In the end, it's a net gain. Right?

This all depends on whether or not we are to treat this fertilized egg like a person. Of course, roughly half of fertilized eggs abort without any interference, however this doesn't answer the fundamental question. Does an egg the size of the period before the beginning of this sentence deserve life?

Let's assume the egg always grows to be a person. When did this lump of matter become its own entity? Well, it'd be the moment the egg became an egg, right? The moment of fertilization.

Now let's imagine the female body is like a house. If it becomes infested with animals, you expel them. If the girl/woman gets sick, she takes medication. If you have someone that lives in your house, you choose whether or not they can stay. Using this argument, it is the female's choice whether or not to keep the baby in her body.

If I had a horrible disease that made me financially dependent on my mother, it's her decision whether or not to pay for my treatment. Plan B allows a girl/woman to make a similar choice. In my experience, for the person making the choice both scenarios are rough. For any woman/girl however, it needs to remain their choice. Access to Plan B offers choice.

3 lowest rated comments:

What does everyone have against sociopaths? submitted by Wargasm to AskVoat

lowonwhisky 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago

Wow, fuck you all. Imagine if you took "sociopath" and replaced it with "black" with half of these comments.

Asked the black

My problem with blacks is they often seem to end up in positions of power.

I don't know if this is news to you or not, but a lot of blacks are kind of assholes.

Do you even know any sociopaths? Would you even know if you met one? You people are fucking cancer.

What does everyone have against sociopaths? submitted by Wargasm to AskVoat

lowonwhisky 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

Is there something irrational about disfavoring prejudice? Let's actually replace sociopath with violent sadist. What have you accomplished? Are the behaviors of "sociopaths" conducive to violence? What has anyone here heard about them besides anecdotes? From what I understand, being rational means that you base understandings on facts and reason. What are the facts with this group of people?

Here is a more contemporary definition:

he describes psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person.

Trying to be rational, the clear question to ask is does a poor sense of right and wrong necessitate violent/assholish behavior? It may happen in many cases, perhaps even more than the average person. You cannot logically conclude from the given definition however, that a sociopath will be violent. If this is the case, then there is no logic in stereotyping the behaviors of an entire group based on what you've heard anecdotally. In the end, the only thing you can say about sociopaths as a group is what you know from the definition of the word.

I submitted my comment because I wanted this platform to be a place where anyone could speak their mind and maybe we could all learn something. This behavior will discourage others with distasteful personality traits from speaking up. It will discourage any minority that has negative stereotypes from speaking up. This blow to discourse because of a desire to judge others will hurt our understanding of people as a whole, and of reality. So I stand by my original statement.

You all are fucking cancer.

Voat, how do you think Obama will be remembered as a president in years to come? submitted by EyezOne to AskVoat

lowonwhisky 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

Yeah, I guess you're right. The government meddling in the lives of the people really goes against our core principles this nation was founded on. Over and over again we are continually let down from the New Deal, to the Great Society to today's mess.

We should definitely get rid of social security and medicare. these horrible socialist programs are a sham and take money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans. Who is the government to tell us how to spend our money? they're having problems financially right now anyway. and they should just go away because we know we can't have anyone fix them.

We should also get rid of SNAP and welfare. These programs are meant for the moocher class and they need to stop being pacified and get a job like the rest of us. Stupid programs like reduced school lunches for children are just more and more handouts that discourage poor people from working harder to get a raise.

We also should get rid of unemployment benefits. People should save money on their own and be prepared for when they lose their job. That's what my uncle did. Why can't everybody else just do what he did?

I saw a person give money to a panhandler at a fast food place recently and got so pissed off. You think you deserve to mooch off of people just because you can only get places with a walker? How did he get there in the first place? These people are sick.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help" what has government ever done for anybody, ever? You're right, I think it's a hilarious joke. China has the right idea. Just let the market decide. Survival of the fittest. We can't afford to support the lame, old, or sick. Government isn't the answer. We need to let our churches and private charities handle everything. They get the job done. If they don't it's the poor's fault anyway for smoking dope, joining gangs, getting knocked up so young, not getting an education, and not working like the rest of us. We didn't get where we are with any help; we did it all by ourselves. If they can't it's either because they're lazy, or deserve it.