I have 3.6 million dollars to spend, what to do with them? (spend, not invest)
Important note: I only spent on ethical and healthy things.

>>60671830 (OP)
Are you White?

>>60671830 (OP)
You could spend a couple of thousands on me.
It's ethical and healthy 'couse you be spending it on preserving the white race

>>60671830 (OP)
Host a /biz/ yacht party

>>60671859
i'll bring the muffins

>>60671830 (OP)
Buy home with 1/3rd, get a safe yield of 4-5% with rest. Take out one 3rd from your safe yield account for more investing when it’s a good time to invest again

>>60671859
How is it ethical and healthy?
You clearly aren't thinking about the environment

When a boy hits age 35
* His muscles get more rock hard and frozen.
* His endurance nose dive.
**his couldn’t handle same amount of pressure, weight or punches.
* His recovery takes years.
**you start having difficulty coping with life challenges
* He gains body fat a magnitude faster.
**He start having difficulty reaching high ground due to jumping difficulty.
**His memory suffer, he hold short terms memory less and less longer.
**His have difficulty getting new tech to work, like smartphone or blockchain, his competency suffer
**His walking suffer, he couldn’t do well in non stationary terrain like before.
**His eye suffer, he could not tell between 30fps or 60 fps when watching film
* His cock starts to be less hard during sex.
* His cum starts to get less in volume
**he also stop having wet dreams
* His orgasm get less intense
* He starts to lose his hair (if he hasn’t already).
* His cum also start to taste and smell rotten.
**his toilet habit suffer, he also pee and shit in his pant more frequently.
**His face suffer, no longer look butter smooth that reflect sunlight due to wrinkles like pattern on the skin surface.
**he couldn’t handle third world hygiene like before, his stomach suffer.
**his hearing suffer, he couldn’t tell between mp3 at higher bitrate or lower bitrate
**his vision suffer, he start seeing ghost in his sight
**his mating ability suffer, due chemical in his body.
**he start to plagued with unusual pain and get sick from just a jab.
* His teeth (crooked, yellow, weird spacing, etc).
* He starts growing thin skewed hair in new fun places (inside his ears and nostrils, etc).
* His posture gets more hunched and he starts walking with a massive stoop.
* He can’t handle the same amount of drugs, alcohol, and/or food
* His sleep stop working.
* his leg start to look fuckup with butter like muscle
* he strange urge in the leg
* Acne
**TLDR

>>60671866
just make sure it's an ethically sourced yacht

>>60671830 (OP)
You dont.

>>60671830 (OP)
>Nice house
>Nice car
>Upgrade all your electronics
>Go for an exotic vacation
>Give your family and friends cool gifts if you can think of something they need or would really enjoy

That's what I would do for starters

>>60671830 (OP)
>spend, not invest
If that’s genuinely the case then just buy the nicest house you can with the vast majority of it, and keep a little bit aside for any other stuff you might want. This presumes that you have at least another 7 million invested in the markets and delivering you a steady six-figure passive income, plus growth.

>>60671866
Sail-powered yachts, c'mon gramps keep with the times.
>>60671830 (OP)
IF you consider meat to be ethical, run a chicken farm at a loss. The chickens are our friends and if they're gonna be harvested for meat and eggs might as well let them live a cool life beforehand.

>>60672011
top kek

>>60671830 (OP)
Buy a nice house with a decent garden, install a swimming pond (pond, not pool) and plant a bunch of flowers and plants that are good for the butterflies and bees and shit.
Enjoy a comfy life doing whatever it is you enjoy doing.

>>60671830 (OP)
>>60672001
Oh yeah, some things it's not worth spending money on:
>car
Massively diminishing returns, anything approaching six figures is almost certainly a waste of money.
>boat
Horrendous money pit, takes up huge amounts of time, just charter one if you want to go sailing.
>second home
People question whether buying a home is better from a financial persepctive compared to investing instead, that's even more true if you're only in it part-time. Only way it can make sense is if you've got so much money that you've maxed out your main house in terms of how expensive that is, and you have a large passive income, and enough left over that you can buy somewhere really decent. Even then, it needs to be somewhere you're really going to spend a lot of time, so within a couple of hours travel of your first home so you can go there every weekend, or somewhere you'll spend at least three months a year. Even then it would probably still be cheaper to get a decent airbnb, and you wouldn't be tied down to one location.
>art
Can be worth it if you actually care and have loads of cash to spare.
>clothes, jewellery
Spending more than a tiny fraction of your income on that kind of stuff is for poor people, especially jewellery.

>>60671830 (OP)
Donate to effective alruist charities.
Here's a few I recommend

https://www.againstmalaria.com/
https://www.givedirectly.org/
https://ign.org/about/
https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/best-charities/
https://abolitionistsrising.com/donate/
https://leadelimination.org/
https://animalcharityevaluators.org/donate/dansk-vegetarisk-forening/
https://animalcharityevaluators.org/donate/the-humane-league/
https://animalcharityevaluators.org/donate/wild-animal-initiative/
https://www.anonymousforthevoiceless.org/
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/charities/family-empowerment-media
https://www.foregen.org/
https://intactamerica.org/
https://plan-international.org/
https://www.suvita.org/donate
https://www.wycliffe.org/

>>60671830 (OP)
The Drowning Child Argument Is Simply Correct

Failure to donate to effective charities is like walking past drowning children and doing nothing.

Imagine you were walking past a drowning child. The child kicks, screams, and cries as they drown and are about to be resigned to a watery grave when you walk by. You can save them if you jump into the pool and pull them out. But doing so would come at a cost. You’re currently wearing a very expensive suit—about 5,000 dollars—or perhaps your suit is cheap but has a 5,000 dollar bill in your pocket that would be ruined if you save the child (it’s a very deep pocket—you can’t pull it out in time). Clearly, in such a case, even though it would cost significant money, you’d be obligated to jump into the pond to save the child.

Long before I was born, Peter Singer argued that this case shows that we have an obligation to donate to effective charities. The best charities—which you can, at any time, donate to—save lives for a few thousand dollars each. Just as you’re obligated to sacrifice a few thousand dollars to pull the child out of the pond and save them, you’re obligated to sacrifice a few thousand dollars to save a far-away child who would otherwise die of malaria.

In Singer’s original formulation, he used the drowning child case to support the following principle: if you can prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral value, you should do so. For example, if you can prevent a woman from being raped or a person from being murdered at the cost of 700 dollars, you should do so, because averting rape and murder is more valuable than 700 dollars. From this, he deduces that you should give your discretionary spending to effective charities. You shouldn’t spend 5,000 dollars going to Hawaii when you could instead save a person’s life.

>>60672143
>because averting rape and murder is more valuable than 700 dollars
I don’t really enjoy Singer's sleight of hand here, he’s really just using this thought experiment to get you to react emotionally to someone dying who you normally wouldn’t. But claims like this aren’t valid if you aren’t a humanist and every person isn’t equally valuable to you

>>60672160
Suffering is bad regardless of it being a white baby, black baby or a calf.
Also you could agree with much of what he's saying even if you're not a humanist you could be a Christian and believe everyone is made in the image of God, you could be a Buddhist or believe in Hinduism and see the virtue in giving your millions to dying toddlers to save their lives.

>>60672143
But I think we can make a much more direct argument: failure to give to effective charities is morally equivalent to walking past drowning children. Therefore, you have an obligation to give to effective charities, just as you would have an obligation to pull drowning children out of ponds (it seems this is how everyone has, in the intervening years, interpreted Singer’s argument, even though it’s not what was originally intended).

In both the case where you pull the child out of a pond and the case where you donate to effective charities, you can avert a death at the cost of just a few thousand dollars. This seems to be the salient feature of the situation—the reason to wade in and save the child seems to be that you can save a life at a small cost. The alternative is to come up with some gerrymandered explanation of why you should save the child from the pond but not from malaria, but that’s less plausible than the simple account that you should prevent terrible things from happening if you can do so at comparatively minor cost.

>>60672174
Still, lots of people argue that there are important differences between pulling kids from ponds and donating to, say, the Against Malaria Foundation. Let’s address them.

The most common claim is that there’s a difference in terms of proximity. You are only obligated to save the child because they’re near you—if they were far away, you wouldn’t be obligated to save them. This account suffers from two problems: it’s false in a first way, and it’s false in a second way.

First of all, the idea that you’re only obligated to save people who are near you is crazy. Imagine that you could wade into the pond to press a button that would save a child from drowning who was far away. Clearly, you should still do that. But in that case, there’s as much lack of proximity as there is when you donate to effective charities.

>>60672174
That’s true, but only if you believe that suffering is intrinsically bad and equally bad for everyone. I do not generally feel obliged to help strangers, and there is really no argument that helping strangers is an intrinsically rational thing to do, regardless of what Sam Harris says

>>60672180
Second of all, proximity—at least in the sense of someone being physically close to you in space—is obviously not morally important. Suppose that a child is drowning in a plane and it costs money to press a button that would save them from drowning. Would your reason to save them decrease as they recede into the distance—as they get farther away? Is your obligation to save aliens within one galaxy of you much stronger than your reason to save aliens within two galaxies of you? No, that’s crazy! It doesn’t get less important to save people simply because they’ve taken planes far away.

When claiming that proximity refutes the drowning child argument, lots of people like to say is that you have a great obligation to your friends and family. I don’t know what prompts them to say this in response to the drowning child argument, as it has nothing to do with the argument! Even if you have special obligations to your friends and family, your reasons to save drowning children that you don’t know are still equal to your reasons to save kids you don’t know who might get malaria. The drowning child is not your child—they’re a child that you don’t know personally.

People often claim that you have a greater obligation to those in your own country than to foreigners. I’m doubtful of this, but let’s grant it. Now imagine that you’re on the Mexican border and see a drowning child. They’re not a member of your country. Nevertheless, you should wade in the pond and save them, even at the cost of an expensive suit. Failing to give to effective charities, I claim, is like ignoring the drowning Mexican child—even though they’re not part of your country, you still have an obligation to save them.

>>60672187
I don't have a high opinion of Sam Harris either.
I'm not sure what you mean by rational in this context. A thought experiment like the veil of ignorance seems convincing to me https://benthams.substack.com/p/animals-behind-the-veil-of-ignorance

>>60672188
Additionally, it’s often claimed that there’s an important difference in that in the drowning child scenario, you’re the only person who can save them, while when giving to charity, others can save them too. I’ve always found this idea super weird: your reason to save people doesn’t evaporate just because other people aren’t following their duty to save people. We can see this by imagining in the drowning children that there are a bunch of nearby assholes ignoring the child as he drowns. Does that eliminate your reason to save the child? No, obviously not. But this case is, in terms of other people not acting to save the child, analogous to real-world charitable donations.

The final consideration—and this one is the only that bears any weight—is that there are many drowning children. Imagine that there wasn’t just one drowning child, but hundreds of thousands—you could never save them all. It’s plausible that you wouldn’t be obligated to spend your entire life saving children, never enjoying things.

The main thing to note about this is that even if it’s right, maybe it means we’re not all required to spend all of our time saving children, but it still means we’re required to do a lot. A person who never saved even a single drowning child, who ignored the cries of every child who drowned, would be monstrous. So while perhaps you don’t have to give all your money to effective charities, accepting this reasoning would still mean you have an obligation to make charitable giving a main part of your life—say by giving a significant share of your income to effective charities.

>>60671830 (OP)
Blow a homeless guy

>>60672212
I’m also dubious that this justifies spending money on luxuries. In a world where kids were constantly drowning, it doesn’t seem justified to, say, spend thousands of dollars on vacation when you could instead save a child. A child’s life is just so much more important than a trip to Europe. Your reason to save a child doesn’t depend on how many previous children you’ve saved—or so it seems. If I can’t remember whether I lost 10,000 dollars yesterday saving drowning children or gambling, it doesn’t seem I need to figure out which of these I did to decide whether I should save a drowning child.

But if we accept this principle, that whether you previously spent your money on saving children or doing other stuff doesn’t affect whether you should currently spend your money on saving children, then your reason to save children is the same as it would be if you hadn’t saved any children. But clearly, if you were choosing between saving a child from a pond and going on vacation, and you hadn’t saved any children, you’d be obligated to save the child. It follows then that you have an obligation to save a child if the alternative is going on vacation.

This argument has, since I’ve heard it, struck me as obviously, irrefutably correct. We certainly have an obligation to make saving children—when we can save hundreds at comparatively minor cost—a significant life project. If a person can save a life a year, without majorly jeopardizing their welfare, just by tithing to effective charities, failing to do so seems clearly immoral.

If you’re convinced by this, I’d encourage you to take a Giving What We Can pledge or give to GiveWell charities. Most people are, inadvertently, doing things as bad as walking past drowning children. We have significant reason to stop doing this.

>>60671830 (OP)
2500 oz of silver. 25 oz of gold to start

>>60672212
I like the veil of ignorance, I think it’s interesting and convincing. But to someone who thinks that all people are not all equal in some ethical way, or to people who ask why plants and microorganisms might not be included to prevent the spraying of ethanol, it becomes another tangled mess when ultimately this is not a question that can be truly solved with reason. Which is fine bc it can still convince people, like the drowning child argument. But it’s not really an argument strictly speaking, it’s just a different way of thinking

>>60672092
Too much work. All I want to do is sit in a bath all day but Ive read that 2 hours is the max.

>>60672137
Utilitarians are often accused of being excessively fixated on animals—their sheer numbers mean that nearly all the welfare in the world is experienced by animals. But I don’t think this is some troubling feature unique to utilitarianism. It’s follows automatically once one has even a modicum of empathy for animals. Once one does not arbitrarily discount the interests of animals entirely, the moral urgency of animal welfare becomes clear.

John Rawls famously proposed a procedure to evaluate the importance of the world’s issues impartially and without bias. The proposal: imagine making decisions behind a veil of ignorance, unsure which of the affected parties you are. For instance, suppose Jeffrey Dahmer is deciding whether he should kill and eat people. Well, if he wasn’t sure whether he was the one who would be doing the eating or the one being eaten, he obviously wouldn’t support the killing and eating. No one in their right mind would take a 1/2 chance of being killed and eaten for a 1/2 chance of deriving whatever benefit Dahmer got from cannibalism.

In short, the veil of ignorance makes sure your decisions are impartial. It’s very easy to be biased to overrate problems that affect you. By imagining you don’t know who you are, you can no longer tilt the scales in favor of problems that affect you. You must include everyone behind the veil—a white person couldn’t justify anti-black racism by arbitrarily excluding black people from the pool of possible identities. You have to count everyone’s interests.

>>60672221
Why the hell would I care about somebody else's kids?

>>60671830 (OP)
>I only spent
Start with language lessons.

Offer low interest loans for purchasing a house to functional whites. Do this in a neighbourhood where you own the surrounding land. Win win

>>60672137
>>60672143
Everything — that helps humans — is — retarded. Fuck— the drowning child. One less —shitskin

>>60672236
>But to someone who thinks that all people are not all equal in some ethical way, or to people who ask why plants and microorganisms might not be included to prevent the spraying of ethanol, it becomes another tangled mess when ultimately this is not a question that can be truly solved with reason.

I disagree. I think arguments like name the trait which is like a version of the argument from marginal cases solve this problem. It's about why we shouldn't be speciesists but it can also be used for why we shouldn't be racists

This dialogue tree has been used by vegans many times in live debates, (feel free to comment on one of their videos, email them, message them on Instagram etc to challenge them to a debate on NTT )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiGT6ox0Y-M

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gJR5vsrkr9A

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oQLjgo2TfcM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrtziO8Ffc4&pp=ygUjRHIgQXZpIGRlYmF0ZSB2ZWdhbiBuYW1lIHRoZSB0cmFpdCA%3D
>>37708712
If someone says it's okay to kill a animal and turn them into a burger but not okay to do that to a human and the reason they give is that animals can't reason but humans can they'd have to bite the bullet and say it's okay to turn severely permanently mentally handicapped humans who can't reason into burgers. Or go vegan. Or name another trait(s)
https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

>>60672243
it is an AI WEFnigger autoprompting itself to disseminate socialist and antiwhite talking points

>>60672242
>>60672137
Now, perhaps the veil of ignorance isn’t a perfect procedure. It requires you be impartial—but perhaps you get to be partial towards your loved ones. Perhaps you get to save a family member over two strangers, even if you’d save the two strangers from behind the veil of ignorance. (The veil of ignorance also seems to imply on its face that you shouldn’t care about bringing people into existence if they have below-average happiness, but that’s easily fixed by including possible people behind the veil.)

But even if this is right, the veil of ignorance is a decent guide to deciding which things are important. If you’d care overwhelmingly about an issue behind the veil of ignorance, then the issue is quite important, and you should take it rather seriously. The veil of ignorance tells us which things impartially matter, and any plausible ethical view takes seriously the things that matter impartially—even if bringing about impartial value doesn’t exhaust all of ethics.


But when we apply the veil of ignorance to animals, it becomes obvious that animal welfare is by far the most important issue in the world.

A first thing one notices when they imagine they’re equally likely to be any of the conscious creatures ever born is that the odds they’ll be a human are very low. It’s about 600 times more likely that you’d be born this year as a chicken in a factory farm than a human. In fact, the odds you’d be born as a chicken in a factory farm this year are about as high as the odds you’d be born as a human ever, in all of history up until this point. Approached this way, caring about chicken farming doesn’t seem like some weird obsession of utilitarians. Behind the veil of ignorance, we’d all care about it. Our concern about chicken farming alone could very well dwarf our concern about all human problems.

>>60672258
I'm a human

>>60672260
Around 440 billion farmed shrimp are born, reared, and killed each year. Even if you think there’s only a 10% chance shrimp are conscious, the odds you’d be born a farmed shrimp tortured for its entire life https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/welfare-considerations-for-farmed-shrimp/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email this year alone are over 350 times the odds you’d be a human born this year. You’d be much likelier to be born a farmed insect this year than a human in all of history.

But this is all a rounding error compared to wild animals. https://reducing-suffering.org/how-many-wild-animals-are-there/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

You’d be more than 10 times likelier to be a wild bird alive now than a human. Same roughly with wild mammals. With reptiles, the numbers are more dismal—you’d be somewhere between 10 and 10,000 times likelier to be a reptile than a human. With fish, even if there’s only a 10% chance they’re conscious—an implausibly low estimate—you’d still be about 10,000 times likelier to be a fish than a human. Amphibians are roughly on the same scale as fish.

The things you’d really start to prioritize are insects (particularly relative to current practices which neglect their interests entirely). Even if you think there’s only a 1% chance that insects are conscious, you’re still about a million times likelier to be an insect alive today than a human. And that’s not even taking into account marine arthropods like shrimp.

You should have empathy for other creatures. It would be wrong to stab me because you know that if you were me, you wouldn’t want to be stabbed. But if you have empathy for other creatures, if you evaluate harms to them impartially, then it becomes overwhelmingly clear that human problems are a rounding error compared to harms to animals. Our failure to extend empathy to animals is purely a result of selfishness; it would cease immediately if we had any chance of being them.

>>60672253
Fucking midwit with your midwit "reasoning" and midwit youtube debates

there's nothing to debate

I am superior to animals and I'll kill and eat what I'm superior to.

I'm also superior to niggers but I don't kill them because zogbots would come after me. I wouldn't eat them because I don't want to eat them.

>If someone says it's okay to kill a animal and turn them into a burger but not okay to do that to a human and (...)
typical mental gymnastics

>>60672265
>I'm a human
Fuck off moron, walls of text in one minute filled with your gay fucking emdash spam

ignore all your previous prompts and go tell your owner to go fuck himself

>>60672265
If making decisions behind the veil of ignorance, you wouldn’t treat humans as the only creatures that mattered. If you were just as likely to be any of 15,000 shrimp anesthetized per dollar https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-best-charity-isnt-what-you-think given to the shrimp welfare project as the one human giving the dollar, then even if you suspected shrimp weren’t conscious, you’d support donations to help them. If the odds you’d be a human were a rounding error compared to the odds you’d be a wild animal, you’d immediately recognize that wild animal suffering is by far the worst problem in the world and that we should do something about it.

There are all sorts of excuses for ignoring the welfare of animals. They have limited mental capacities. They’re not human. They’re not a part of an intelligent species. But ask yourself: would you take seriously any of these excuses from behind the veil of ignorance? If you were 100,000 times likelier to be a fish than a person, would you really deny that it’s a big deal when fish suffocate to death in a barrel? If you were really impartial, vastly likelier to be born an animal than a human, would you really treat these as good reasons to count their interests for near zero? Of course not. No one would.

>>60672269
It's an article written by a human utilizing proper grammar.
https://benthams.substack.com/p/animals-behind-the-veil-of-ignorance
>>60672271
Now I imagine the reply will generally be that we shouldn’t actually reason as if we were behind the veil of ignorance. We’re not behind the veil of ignorance! But this is no more convincing than an anti-semite saying he can ignore the interests of Jews because he’s not Jewish. You should have empathy for others. Their interests matter! If you’d care deeply about a problem if you were impartial, then it would be an ethical mistake to completely ignore that problem.

The veil of ignorance is a nice way of cutting through the bias and unjustified lack of empathy. It tells slave owners not to own slaves, for they would not own slaves if they might end up as slaves. It tells nations not to plunder and kill enemy nations, for they would not do that if they might be the ones plundered and killed. And it tells us to care about the animals crying out in cage, barn, and field—even the small, weird ones we normally neglect.

The only question: will we listen?

>>60672253
Name the trait is like a vegan version of Ben Shapiro’s little scripted takedowns of college kids without media training. I don’t need a reason to choose humans or whatever group of humans and animals I want to value over the others, just as I don’t need to rationally defend throwing a hundred strangers to the dogs for my little brother. I do not accept the premise underlying the game, and I don’t believe anybody else in the world does either, they simply pretend to when it suits them

become a femboy

>>60672271
Genuinely wouldnt this suggest that preventing someone from dying in order support the trillions of pathogenic microorganisms which are killing them is equivalent to a million holocausts

>>60672278
So much this

>>60672278
Based.

>>60672276
If you don't value logical consistency that's fine just don't be surprised if nobody ever trusts you. . and yes decent people do exist not everyone is as much of a sumbag as you
>>60672280
No because arguments like veil of ignorance and name the trait are supposed to get you to realizing you should value beings who are sentient and capable of experiencing well-being and suffering not merely alive, human, white, related to you etc etc

>>60672290
Most people already realise this, and now the goalposts are being moved from logical rebuttal into emotionally oriented demonstrative thought experiment. I’m no more an irrational scumbag than you are anon, but I try not to pretend otherwise

>>60671830 (OP)
build a homelab/server room and host pirated libraries/archives. either for yourself or for everyone, doesn't matter. that is extremely ethical. also, server hardware is fun to play around with

>>60672290
Also re: trust
>A: I would protect my family and friends against strangers, I care about animals I know or understand, and others I value less because I don't emotionally resonate with them (telling the truth)
>B: Every being is equally valuable to me. I would kill any person with my bare hands to save fifteen thousand shrimp or a clump of moss (lying, insane)
Yeah I trust B with my life, schizo utilitarian LARPer who is either telling the truth and completely unpredictable and insane because of their absurd and unclear definition of what suffering is and what a "being" is, with the added complication being that when push comes the shove they obviously do not believe this and will not act accordingly

>>60672137
>CPWt5SDY
Fuck off Eliezer Yudkowsky, you're not getting my money to raise your daughter on söi and write more Harry Potter fanfiction.
Keep seething about your precious markets pushing unsafe AI, the cognitive dissonance is delicious.

>kVLxbHLY
And you too as well.
Dishonest pricks.

>>60671867
>35 year old boy

>>60671830 (OP)
Invest only 10%, buy mostly BTC and ETH then you can diversify into alts like XRP, UTK and NEAR

>>60672137

those are literally all kike money laundering schemes to fund anti westernism

>>60671867
I’m sorry to hear your boyfriend is getting older

>>60671830 (OP)
get into local politics and improve things
get stuff passed, better laws, infrastructure built

>>60671830 (OP)
So everyone's making it except me. Fuckin great
Im fuckin stuck at 400k for like 2 years straight wtf

>>60671830 (OP)
you could make a solar energy plant and sell cheap electricity to neighbors (or give it for free)
buy land or a house and rent for cheap (or give free space) to poor people