>Shit 4chan SaysWell 4chan...I'd like to hear what you have to say.
Say "Thank you Sir" when Uncle Sam gives you the calories in his cum and go die for israel with some pride, soldier boy.Something like that maybe
im gay
>>12004387I'm gay I'm a pedophile and I love pokemon
yosho must travel back in time to 1999 to stop the spikeman
>>12004400I have NO idea what to say to that. Thank you, anon.>>12004462And that's okay.>>12004466That's slightly less okay.>>12004492I sure do hope he can stop him to save the timeline, mister Sakai.
I'm mentally and ill gay
>>12004466cute
>>12004387I'm a femcel and slightly less gay
>>120043874chan here! In 1995, economist Yew Kwang-Ng wrote a very influential paper called "Towards Welfare Biology" which included an argument that suffering was more common in the natural world than pleasure. His argument was that the majority of individual animals lived "failed lives", meaning they died before reaching maturity and/or passing on their genes. In fact, because many species practice R-selection, failed animals outnumber successful animals a thousand to one. He called this claim "the buddhist premise".In 2018, he and Zach Groff wrote a new paper, challenging the idea and calling for a "buddhist premise", which stated that it was ambiguous and as-of-yet unknown whether suffering or pleasure was more common in nature, because affective states have "costs", so they argue that animals more likely to fail may experience less intense suffering. This is because higher amounts of suffering come with higher costs, and a higher chance of failure also means diminishing evolutionary benefits to suffering. A constant negative reinforcement signal is not as useful to a baby tadpole as a more neutral signal subject to fluctuations, even though a baby tadpole is almost certain to die quite soon after birth. I'm skeptical of this conclusion though, because I don't think the costs of suffering are very high. In terms of energy use, it's probably basically free, and in terms of behavioral costs (like learned helplessness), I don't think they'd be much more expensive in failed animals than successful animals. The signals that help starving cows find food probably also help starving newborn tadpoles find food more than they hinder their evolutionary fitness. So I'm quite confident that suffering does in fact predominate in nature, which btw is proof that god is not real.
>>12004387>>12004504Go back to Nobody General
>>12004582You're still alright with me. Hang in there, anon.>>12004597Nothing wrong with those things. I hope you find a nice man one day if that's what you want. Or woman. Whoever life sets you off with.>>12004673I uh, thank you. I won't be reading all of that, but I appreciate the effort.
>>12004704>Dumb internet nobody calls me a nobodyI will NEVER recover form this.
>>12004387I like dick and vagine
>>12004387heh..
