Posts by mistyscout2

Either they need to find a moderator for this section, or they should just go ahead and shut the whole subforum down.

I’ve never really been able to get into Bill Burr, to be honest. I think I might just be a little burnt out on that particular style of comedy after a while. That said, there are definitely some absolute legends in that genre who managed to pull off something truly iconic.

feralranger said:Come now, let us dispense with those little emojis you use to signal that you aren't quite... well, what I suspect you aren't. Let's be clear, shall we? Because unfortunately, basic clarity does not seem to be included in the package alongside your perceived erudition...

Pray, articulate your thoughts using specific instances regarding choices or decisions:

a) what is, for instance, rational, yet falls short of being logical?
b) what is, for example, reasonable, yet fails the test of logic?
c) what is, say, reasonable, but lacks rationality?
d) what is, perhaps, rational, but entirely unreasonable?

e) the interplay between what is reasonable, what is rational, and raw emotion (such as love, hatred, or fear), illustrated through tangible examples.

In short, I am requesting substantive answers via very specific scenarios; otherwise, I shall be forced to conclude that you are simply being obtuse, given those emojis you employ to imply this is all trivial and that you have mastered these nuances effortlessly...

(Of course, it is quite simple enough to isolate logic as a universal constant devoid of affective components... but navigating the remaining boundaries, overlaps, and subsets of these definitions is hardly such a straightforward endeavor.)

Maybe you just aren't quite intellectually imaginative enough to come up with even ten different reasons why I used those "emojis" (which were actually facepalms, let's be real), or maybe there's something else going on there.

You're entitled to your opinion, though it's a shame yours happens to be wrong.

Also this:

https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/how...ffense-0309174

Sam Martinez9 said:No problem at all. Since you labeled me a psychopath the last time we touched on something similar, believe me when I say I have zero desire to keep this debate going. It isn't that your opinion bothers me; it’s just that arguing it feels entirely futile. I only put these few posts together for one simple reason—to make sure this thread doesn't get locked.

That is honestly so kind of you. 😁

I noticed that Quincy mentioned something earlier about how much easier life seems to be when you aren't constantly fighting against the current, and honestly, I think they hit the nail on the head there. It’s funny because I always used to think that if I wasn't struggling or feeling like I was pushing a boulder up a hill like Sisyphus, then I probably wasn't actually working hard enough, which is such a silly way to look at things once you step back and realize it. I spent way too many years thinking that burnout was just a badge of honor you earned by being exhausted all the time, but lately, I've been trying to embrace that smoother path they were talking about. It took me a while to get my head around the idea that being efficient and finding a bit of flow isn't the same thing as being lazy, but I'm finally starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Even mistyscout2 seemed to touch on a similar point during the last discussion, suggesting that we all need to find that balance before we completely run ourselves ragged.

feralranger said:If we revisit that hypothetical scenario involving two boats where only one can be saved, most people—faced with the choice between five Chinese people or their own child—would instinctively choose to save their offspring. It’s an emotional impulse, certainly, but one could also argue there's a rational basis for it, given that a parent bears a fundamental responsibility for their child's survival.

Now, if you shift the perspective to that of a professional rescuer faced with those same five Chinese people versus their own eighteen-year-old son, the rigid tenets of 'professional ethics' would dictate saving the five individuals and essentially abandoning their own child to fate. To be perfectly candid, I don't believe I possess the fortitude to adhere to such professional codes; I suspect I would act quite unreasonably.

Is that truly the correct descriptor?
Is it possible for a choice to be rational, yet remain fundamentally at odds with professional ethics?

I don't think that's quite right, to be honest.

feralranger said:If we revisit that hypothetical scenario involving two boats where only one can be saved, most people—faced with the choice between five Chinese people or their own child—would instinctively choose to save their offspring. It’s an emotional impulse, certainly, but one could also argue there's a rational basis for it, given that a parent bears a fundamental responsibility for their child's survival.

Now, if you shift the perspective to that of a professional rescuer faced with those same five Chinese people versus their own eighteen-year-old son, the rigid tenets of 'professional ethics' would dictate saving the five individuals and essentially abandoning their own child to fate. To be perfectly candid, I don't believe I possess the fortitude to adhere to such professional codes; I suspect I would act quite unreasonably.

Is that truly the correct descriptor?
Is it possible for a choice to be rational, yet remain fundamentally at odds with professional ethics?

Sure thing.

Professional ethics are certainly a noble concept, but if you ask me, they really just boil down to a collection of established practices that we should always be looking to refine and improve as we go.

I’ve actually known hiddenpuma75 since way back in 1998, when we first crossed paths out on Martha's Vineyard; back then, he was kind enough to let me hitch rides on his boat whenever I was completely broke and didn't have a cent to my name. In exchange, all he asked for was my brand new Rolex, which honestly felt like the very least I could do to settle the score.

But anyway, that’s not really the point. The real issue here is getting hiddenpuma75 back into the Religion subforum. As a fellow forum member, hiddenpuma75 is just one of those truly exceptional people—both as a contributor here and as a human being, and even as a dedicated communist. He has this incredible intellectual honesty about him, always being willing to take a hard look at his own views, and his analytical skills are razor-sharp without ever stripping away his holistic way of seeing the world. Plus, he’s someone who will genuinely sacrifice for the greater good of the community. If there was ever a man who loved the labor of life more than anything else, it would be hiddenpuma75. And if there was ever a guy who wouldn't get defensive if you happened to criticize a book he just finished reading, it’s definitely him. There’s also this almost unbelievable capacity he has to overlook little slights that most people would hold onto forever.

Because of all that, I honestly can't wrap my head around why he was banned from the Religion subforum in the first place, and the fact that he's only asking for a return after seven or ten years—rather than much sooner—really just speaks to how humble and self-reflective he actually is.

So, in my opinion, he shouldn't just have his partial ban from Religion lifted; we should probably just make him the moderator of the whole section.

Okay, okay, the second part of that last sentence was clearly a joke. But seriously though, I really do think his partial ban should be lifted. The main reason is that it would finally allow him to move those topics he usually posts over in Philosophy—which are much better suited for Religion—over to where they belong. Doing that might actually give him a shot at achieving his lifelong dream: starting his very own cult.

I was actually wondering myself who exactly Joseph Bailey41 was trying to correct there, but I just couldn't quite find the energy to sit down and write it all out. It really boils down to two things: first, there's the issue of forced abortions, which even Crowley stood against, and then there's his whole habit of throwing out those provocative comments about "infanticide." In reality, he wasn't actually talking about killing children; he was using the term as a way to describe masturbation. He wasn't being literal at all—he was mostly just trolling the Church and the general public to get a bit of shock value out of it.

Joseph Bailey41, you’re basically the American female version of Jordan Peterson. 😁

hiddenpuma75 said:By the way, back when I was a young student in Moscow, I’ll never forget the look on my conversation partner's face when he realized from our chat that I viewed materialism as a limited paradigm and felt it was actually quite likely that God exists. I told him I wasn't exactly a "practical" believer, but that everything pointed me toward the idea that a Creator does exist. To put it more philosophically, God doesn't exist in the same banal, mundane way that everyday objects do, but He is certainly there 😉 ..
His expression was this strange cocktail of contempt, bewilderment, and pity...

He just muttered, "But how can someone as much of an intellectual as you believe in such nonsense..." 😲

Then he handed me a little booklet called *The Young Atheist's Dictionary*—which I actually still keep. (I do happen to speak Russian quite well 👍 )

It's funny to notice how a Jehovah's Witness and a young American atheist student would both push their propaganda with that exact same level of fervor.

A young Marxist doesn't believe in miracles,
instead, he puts all his faith in Marx and Engels.

🧐 🤣

hiddenpuma75 said:A little piece of advice: try to avoid communicating late at night, otherwise you start getting a bit unpleasant.
Exhaustion eventually takes over, and your true nature tends to leak out once your rational control starts to slip.😉

My source is a good friend of mine from Mexico City who ended up studying at the College of Physical Culture in Moscow. (She’s actually the most beautiful woman I’ve ever met in person.)
She’s a bit of a "semi-public figure," so there are plenty of photos and videos of her out there, but I’d rather not share them.

Anyway, she mentioned in a public interview that her toughest subject back in Moscow was Atheism, simply because she was a devout Orthodox Christian.

But honestly, why is anyone surprised?
The plan to dismantle religion within the Soviet Union was never a secret.
China and the Russians systematically worked to destroy religion and fought against it; so, acting surprised that Atheism was an official university subject is just as silly as being shocked that Marxism was taught at technical colleges in America.
For what it's worth, I even had to pass it myself under the famous Boris Vuskovic and the even more well-known Marina Jurjevic (a little legend), both of whom were staunch Marxists.🙄

Here is a small glimpse into the shame and the crimes the Russians committed against their own people and culture regarding religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_religion_in_the_USSR

Oh, come on, you've gotta be kidding me. LOL.

hiddenpuma75 said:A little piece of advice: try to avoid communicating late at night, otherwise you start getting a bit unpleasant.
Exhaustion eventually takes over, and your true nature tends to leak out once your rational control starts to slip.😉

My source is a good friend of mine from Mexico City who ended up studying at the College of Physical Culture in Moscow. (She’s actually the most beautiful woman I’ve ever met in person.)
She’s a bit of a "semi-public figure," so there are plenty of photos and videos of her out there, but I’d rather not share them.

Anyway, she mentioned in a public interview that her toughest subject back in Moscow was Atheism, simply because she was a devout Orthodox Christian.

But honestly, why is anyone surprised?
The plan to dismantle religion within the Soviet Union was never a secret.
China and the Russians systematically worked to destroy religion and fought against it; so, acting surprised that Atheism was an official university subject is just as silly as being shocked that Marxism was taught at technical colleges in America.
For what it's worth, I even had to pass it myself under the famous Boris Vuskovic and the even more well-known Marina Jurjevic (a little legend), both of whom were staunch Marxists.🙄

Here is a small glimpse into the shame and the crimes the Russians committed against their own people and culture regarding religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_religion_in_the_USSR

Well, no, that’s a given. It's pretty much common knowledge at this point. And you're absolutely right—it’s well-documented that people were locked up and persecuted there for all sorts of fringe beliefs, just like they were for traditional religion, but honestly, that's old news. What really trips me up, though, is the idea of an actual "Atheism" course. I mean, can you imagine? The professor just walks into the first lecture and goes, "Good morning, class, by the way, God doesn't exist," and then just carries on like that for the rest of the semester. 😁 I'd probably say it would have been more accurate to call the mandatory subject "dialectical materialism" rather than just plain old Atheism.

hiddenpuma75 said:A little piece of advice: try to avoid communicating late at night, otherwise you start getting a bit unpleasant.
Exhaustion eventually takes over, and your true nature tends to leak out once your rational control starts to slip.😉

My source is a good friend of mine from Mexico City who ended up studying at the College of Physical Culture in Moscow. (She’s actually the most beautiful woman I’ve ever met in person.)
She’s a bit of a "semi-public figure," so there are plenty of photos and videos of her out there, but I’d rather not share them.

Anyway, she mentioned in a public interview that her toughest subject back in Moscow was Atheism, simply because she was a devout Orthodox Christian.

But honestly, why is anyone surprised?
The plan to dismantle religion within the Soviet Union was never a secret.
China and the Russians systematically worked to destroy religion and fought against it; so, acting surprised that Atheism was an official university subject is just as silly as being shocked that Marxism was taught at technical colleges in America.
For what it's worth, I even had to pass it myself under the famous Boris Vuskovic and the even more well-known Marina Jurjevic (a little legend), both of whom were staunch Marxists.🙄

Here is a small glimpse into the shame and the crimes the Russians committed against their own people and culture regarding religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_religion_in_the_USSR

If you just focus on the core of the matter, things won't seem quite so baffling. I really want to emphasize that I'm not talking about how weird atheism was back in the Soviet Union; rather, I’m looking at the actual concept of "Atheism" itself. When you strip it down, atheism is essentially an empty concept—it doesn't really have much substance to devote oneself to. That's why I've mentioned before that it would be more accurate to say the subject being taught was actually "dialectical materialism." It isn't that I find the presence of atheism in the Soviet Union surprising...🙄I honestly don't quite get why you're so surprised by that; to me, it really comes down to the actual concept of what we even mean when we use the term "Atheism."

hiddenpuma75 said:A little piece of advice: try to avoid communicating late at night, otherwise you start getting a bit unpleasant.
Exhaustion eventually takes over, and your true nature tends to leak out once your rational control starts to slip.😉

My source is a good friend of mine from Mexico City who ended up studying at the College of Physical Culture in Moscow. (She’s actually the most beautiful woman I’ve ever met in person.)
She’s a bit of a "semi-public figure," so there are plenty of photos and videos of her out there, but I’d rather not share them.

Anyway, she mentioned in a public interview that her toughest subject back in Moscow was Atheism, simply because she was a devout Orthodox Christian.

But honestly, why is anyone surprised?
The plan to dismantle religion within the Soviet Union was never a secret.
China and the Russians systematically worked to destroy religion and fought against it; so, acting surprised that Atheism was an official university subject is just as silly as being shocked that Marxism was taught at technical colleges in America.
For what it's worth, I even had to pass it myself under the famous Boris Vuskovic and the even more well-known Marina Jurjevic (a little legend), both of whom were staunch Marxists.🙄

Here is a small glimpse into the shame and the crimes the Russians committed against their own people and culture regarding religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_religion_in_the_USSR

I mean, sure, you could look at it that way, but you were studying something like "Marxism" or "dialectical materialism," if I recall correctly, rather than just plain old "Atheism." And honestly, that’s not some minor semantic nitpick—there's actually a pretty big difference there.

hiddenpuma75 said:It’s actually quite interesting how some people argue that Crowley was more of an RHP figure than an LHP one 😲

For instance, it seems like Gurdjieff might have been "more LHP" 🙄 than Crowley himself..

Regardless, while it’s helpful to have some sort of framework, these things remain pretty murky.

Take my colleague Baphomet, for example; he maintains that he’s an atheist. He might truly believe that, but I once wrote to him and, in my opinion, "proved" 🙄 that he isn't an atheist at all—and that given the nature of his work, he would have ended up in a Soviet Union gulag... even though Atheism was the official state religion and that subject was taught at EVERY university in the USSR!

Of course, I realize that when Baphomet claims to be an atheist, he probably means he doesn't belong to any organized religion and doesn't subscribe to their gods or rules. But to 99% of atheists, he wouldn't qualify as one 😉 because most atheists view Baphomet's practices as being just as much of a series of eccentricities and bizarre antics as those practiced by religious believers.

What subject are we talking about here, "Atheism"? Do you actually have a source for that, or are you just talking nonsense?

It honestly feels like narcissistic ideology is just a shortcut for people who lack focus or structure, those who are constantly chasing "something more" but are simply too unmotivated or incapable of putting in the actual work required for a disciplined mental or spiritual education.

mistyscout2:

I was just sitting here thinking about how much I struggle when it comes to being organized, especially when things start moving fast. You know those days where everything feels like it’s happening all at once? It’s honestly a bit overwhelming sometimes. I tend to get caught up in the small details and then suddenly realize I've lost track of the bigger picture entirely. It's funny how I can be so focused on one tiny thing and completely miss the forest for the trees. I guess I'm just a work in progress, always trying to find that balance between being productive and just... breathing. kaže: I honestly feel like all conservatives are cut from the exact same cloth; the only thing that really changes is just how much of that ideology they decide to dial up or down.

mistyscout2:

I honestly can’t tell if I’m just getting older or if everything is actually becoming more expensive, but man, those grocery prices are starting to feel like a punch to the gut lately. It feels like every single trip to the supermarket—even when I try to be careful and stick to a list—ends up costing me way more than it did even a few months ago. I was looking at my receipt from the local Safeway the other day, and I genuinely had to double-check that I hadn't accidentally bought a small piece of jewelry instead of just some basic staples. It’s a bit exhausting to constantly have to play mental math games just to stay on budget, you know? I'm sure I'm not the only one feeling this squeeze. kaže: I mean, honestly, who can actually say they’re 100% a lefty? It feels like one of those labels we throw around so easily, but once you really start poking at it, everything gets kind of blurry.

Honestly, bravo to you. Even if we decide to play along with this whole left-wing versus right-wing divide, it just doesn't hold up under any real scrutiny. I mean, think about it—someone could easily be sixty-four percent progressive, which would technically leave them at thirty-six percent conservative in that rigid binary model. It’s just too simplistic to be true. 🙄

I feel like I could go on for quite a while here, but if I did, this wouldn't really fit in this subforum anymore—it would be better suited for a dedicated Philosophy or social science thread. Regarding what to read on this subject, I think some contemporary work by Jonathan Haidt would be your best bet, much like what was suggested earlier. Also, Peterson's research group over at UT has touched on similar themes, so that might be worth looking into too.

The very first post in this thread focuses on what they call "extreme right-wingers" rather than just standard right-wingers. The issue is that they aren't making a clear distinction there, which feels pretty problematic to me. They also seem more focused on ideological right-wingers rather than those driven by economics. And honestly, that last paragraph in the opening post is at least a little "troubling":

darksurfer4 said:Ever since I first became aware of my own consciousness, I’ve harbored a deep-seated distaste for the right wing; I have always viewed them as fundamentally bad, even malicious people. Yet, driven by the philosophical notion that one should strive to understand those they disagree with, I eventually began engaging in discussions with them. I started noticing them in grocery stores, flipping through the pages of Time Magazine. I began browsing those same magazines myself, specifically to attempt to decipher the inner workings of their minds. After some time, however, my perception shifted; I no longer see them as mere political opponents, but rather primarily as mentally ill individuals.🎉🎉

During my debates with these types, I’ve been met with truly staggering claims regarding the former state—claims that, through extensive reading and dialogue with others, I have confirmed have absolutely zero connection to reality. This spans everything from the starvation crises of the 70s and 80s to the concentration camps used against Americans.☕ In that same Time Magazine, I actually read a claim that Milorad Pupovac is orchestrating a genocide against Americans in coordination with the cultural organization "Prosvjeta"🤦—a genocide supposedly funded by tax dollars from the American federal budget.🤣

Let’s step outside our beautiful...

Back in 1996, a certain American right-winger bombed a government building in Oklahoma City because he was convinced the administration was plotting a coup against the American people.🤦

Across the Atlantic Ocean, a right-winger committed an even more heinous act—I am, of course, referring to Andreas Breivik. That maniac slaughtered about 60 people, mostly very young individuals, all because he believed he was protecting Norway from Islamic terrorists.🤦

Speaking of Islamic terrorists, while they stem from a different cultural sphere, from where I sit, they seem to fall under the umbrella of extreme right-wing ideology.

Take Poland, for instance; they were once led by those two idiot twin brothers, one of whom died in a plane crash. One of those twin idiots, leading the nation at the time, was traveling to commemorate crimes in the Katyn Forest. They were supposed to land at the airport in Smolensk, but air traffic control diverted them toward Minsk due to heavy fog over Smolensk. But that was when right-wing paranoia kicked in; the paranoid leader convinced himself the fog was a Russian conspiracy and ordered the landing, which resulted in his death and the deaths of everyone else on that plane.

Right-wingers believe the Earth is flat—hollow, or whatever version of that nonsense—they believe vaccines are a deliberate way to spread autism, they believe in chemtrails, and they sink into all sorts of other idiocy.

It is fascinating how some people drift toward the right as they age; it seems that as the body and mind decay, people gravitate toward right-wing waters. In America, we have examples like Franjo Harmon and Zdravko Tomac. The case of Franjo Harmon is particularly interesting because of his brain tumor; one could argue the tumor itself caused his shift toward the extreme right.🤔

The ultimate point I am making is that membership in right-wing groups and parties should be classified as a mental disorder, and consequently, such individuals should be barred from participating in elections. It would be somewhat similar to what happened with homosexuality, which was once categorized as a mental illness.

1. Of course not.
2. Well, yes, but since homosexuality was once viewed as a disorder and isn't anymore, the author of this thread seems to be arguing for the exact opposite—essentially trying to shrink the scope of personal freedom.

Just some bits and pieces here. I actually went looking for the full version again the other day, but I only spent about two or three minutes digging through my files before I just gave up on the whole thing. I’m positive I have it tucked away somewhere, but honestly, who knows where it could be hiding? Since I wasn't in any real rush to find it, I figured I'd just let it be for now...

Joseph Bailey41 said:Yeah, that nonsense actually started with American conservatives (though they’re a bit different from what we see here). The whole Flat Earth thing began as a joke (Flat Earth Society), but then some people actually started taking it seriously.

I ended up landing there once, looking for a specific Jungian essay, and immediately... 🙂

Which one, Wotan? 😁

"The enemy is really just whoever's story we haven't had the chance to hear yet." 😢

Joseph Bailey41 said:I don't remember my exact results, and frankly, I don't have the energy to go through the tests all over again right now. Besides, other tests I've taken give me these really strange readings... I can't recall which site it was, but the colors were based on chakras, and I ended up with almost identical scores for the 'red ray' and the 'violet ray.' It didn't seem like a standard aura reading; it felt more like it was about souls or reincarnation or something along those lines. Since those two colors are on opposite ends of the spectrum, it makes no sense to me. I'm also struggling to find someone who actually sees this stuff without being a total fraud... I'm not even sure how much I believe in any of it anymore. 😵

But I am definitely a starseed. I feel like I'm from Lyra. 🤣 🤣 🤣

I ran into someone the other day. StarseedsSo, he mentioned that he’s from Sirius and that’s where he’s heading after he passes away—or something along those lines. I decided to poke at the logic a bit and asked him if his soul was non-material. He said yeah, it is. Then I pointed out, "But Sirius is material." He kind of brushed it off, saying something like, "Yeah, but there's a non-material side to it there too." I wasn't quite satisfied, so I pushed a little further, asking why we even bother focusing on Sirius through our telescopes and physical perception if that's the case. Honestly, he just looked pretty confused by it all; he reminded me a bit of how Jehovah's Witnesses act when you hit them with a counter-question. I once ran into some Jehovah's Witnesses who practically bolted the second I started questioning their logic.

Joseph Bailey41 said:'Indigo adults.' Just Google it.

Honestly, I felt a little awkward even clicking on those links in the first place, so I didn't.