@Blood
Center-Right Libertarianism (?)
My position is that people should have control of what is in their reach, and no further--which can & should be enforced by boundaries resorting to physical force, when necessary. So, I have no issue with Socialism, Communism, or (essentially) any experimental design people create, as long as those who participate are there of their own accord and have the option to opt out, in some way.
The matter of where I, personally, would want to live, is generally a different matter.
Now, the problem with many (self-proclaimed) S & C is the inclination for greater amounts of control over non-willing/disinclined participants--which, interestingly enough, was Stalin's perversion of the original doctrine as a means to gain power--that is, "World Revolution, Now!" Note, interesting, as there is a tremendous amount of double-think/double-talk present in many modern (self-proclaimed) S & C, as they denounce & distance from Soviet Style while also pushing for a similar program unwittingly, wittingly, or otherwise.
And I think you had disagreements about time travel as well.
Nom claimed that modern Physics declares we know for a fact that time travel to the past, inside the context of the same time-line, is possible and further, happens all the time. I countered that no such conclusion has been made, not by a long-shot. The matter is still very much up in the air, and unknown/unresolved.
@Blood
compile a list, then commence with the intellectual combat
If this were a contest of (hard) Mathematics, hard Physics, Engineering, hard Chemistry, Logic, athletic contest of strength, etc. etc., then that could work. Outside of such areas, one is not able to prove anything on that level.
@Blood
That would be sensible, if the matter of dispute were one of merit.
However, Nom feels betrayed that I am not a "Yes Man" for him, and dared to challenge his views in various areas. That is, it is a matter of ego, pride, differing views of what true alliance looks like, etc.
The RW has plenty its share of Snowflakes, however it more comes in the standard "Conservative (quasi)Nationalist"-type who do not question current governmental authority in areas such as the Police, Military action, and abuse of our own government against the people/in general ("conspiracy theories", and such) e.g. MK Ultra.
@Blood
Global Capitalism is a disaster, particularly when the Government helps prop up certain businesses to the detriment of others.
Social Democracy can only be thought of as (potentially) good if one believes in the 'benevolent dictator' philosophy.
@jamesbody
Wtf does this even mean?
Lingering shame shackles a person to a mentally catatonic state.
You could apply that exact same reasoning to all negative emotions, you banal twerp. There's nothing special about shame.
Shame is a 'negative emotion'. However, the argument you seem to have attempted to voice--that all states of mind could equally be described in a similar fashion--is (also) incorrect. For instance, honor, self-respect, self-esteem, are positive constants, and liberating states of mind.
You should be ashamed.
Shame is a slave emotion.
It is only good in a short, restricted, yet powerful burst that functions as a catalyst toward producing the opposite outcome--not wallowing in aimlessly, nor indefinitely.
A prime example of proper shame, used correctly is the character Boromir from Lord of the Rings. After he attempted to thieve the Ring from Frodo, he was ashamed of his actions, caving into vice and all he swore an oath to protect. From this, he tripled down on his oath in the affirmative by fighting valiantly to protect Merry & Pippin from the hordes of Isengard. Thus, reclaiming his honor before the end.
@jamesbody
Did you not create a thread, under the alias Nomeclature (or, possibly Quantumhead), title "You Have it Backward, There Should Be No Freedom Of Speech"? Which, would seem, to contradict the sentiment of your statement here.
No?
@jamesbody
You are a failure because you permitted other people to define your own interpretation of success...not everybody views "success" as a situation where their own fucking kids hate them?
Good point. Agreed.
I made a thread topic about this recently titled "The Nature of True Wealth".
@Mingiwuwu
Midwits are overwhelmingly attracted to soft/fake science, tend to be manipulative as they are smart enough to read, write, speak, and know they are significantly more intelligent than the average person, while simultaneously oblivious to how feeble minded they are relative to the truly highly intelligent, and generally refuse to engage in any activity that will objectively show them where they, in fact, rank--be it Mathematics, Physics, Basketball, Fighting, Building/Construction with ones own hands, (real) Art, Classical Music, etc. etc. etc.
Everything Peterson talks about is extremely simple material, and, further, he is often only partially correct--with the foundational premise being off. He carelessly runs with poorly researched, and even "fake news" not understanding that more intelligent people will follow through and look at the sources cited in order to check the validity or lack thereof. Of course, this fact goes clear over other midwits heads, along with quarterwits and below.
Chomsky does significant independent research projects that check out--including primary sources from independently selected/located internal gov. documents from the de-classified archives, has notable contributions in Natural Philosophy to the field of Linguistics, and demonstrates the capacity for novel, independent, creative thought.
