Posts by mistyscout2

James Lee77 said:I don't think he's actually making any promises, I guess. Better.I feel like he’s really pushing that whole idea of being "beyond good and evil"—and I don't just mean in a moral sense, either. You can totally see it in that famous fragment from his leftover writings that closes everything out. The will to power.Yeah, totally. willpower. It's not really worth anything, I guess. Hey, what's up.It’s not even really about a specific thing, you know? It’s more like this intense craving for the sake of craving—just wanting more and more. And what exactly is "more"? Is it something better? I don't know, maybe not. It feels more like just an endless loop of wanting more will, pure and simple.

Or, you know, that famous whole "saying yes" thing. If having a will for some greater good—whatever that means—actually meant something "better," then wouldn't you have to be able to say "no" to things too? It shouldn't just be about constant affirmation. But Nietzsche, he’s all about this "saying yes" philosophy. amor fatiSure, you see this kind of thing where people just embrace fate—like, saying a big "yes" to whatever life throws at them—with saints and all those huge believers. But the thing is, they only say "yes" because they’re convinced there’s a good God behind it all. Even if His paths seem totally bizarre or weird, they believe that since destiny comes from God, it’ll eventually turn into something "better," or some kind of ultimate good. But Nietzsche? He doesn't think his god, Dionysus, is "good" in that way. He doesn't believe that saying "yes" to fate is about reaching some higher, better purpose. For him, saying "yes" to fate is just about pushing further—it's about moving toward even more of whatever is coming next.

So, getting back to Schelling—he also sees the future as this kind of unfolding process. But for him, free will actually means you get to choose between good and evil, so he’s kind of saying both exist. In his view, opening yourself up to the infinite looks something like this:

Even if he’s dead serious about that whole "leaving the last shore behind" thing, I guess he still holds onto this idea that by doing it, he can actually leave God behind too—like he'll somehow find God equals good in the process. But with Nietzsche, when he uses that same metaphor about abandoning the shore, there just isn't any faith like that.

I just wanted to jump in here because I happen to be reading Kymlicka right now. I'm not looking to correct anyone, just build on the thought—and honestly, I don't think there's a better place to do it than here:

Will Kymlicka said:A Nietzschean society might be aesthetically superior and more beautiful, but it wouldn't be morally superior. (In my view, even Nietzsche wouldn't reject such an analysis. His theory is precisely "beyond good and evil.")

And then there's this crucial footnote attached to that phrase "beyond good and evil":

Will Kymlicka said:In the first essay of On Moral Philosophy, Nietzsche compares the moral contrast of 'good-evil' with the immoral contrast of 'good-bad.' He concludes the essay by hoping it is clear enough that his 'dangerous slogan... beyond good and evil, does not mean 'beyond good and bad.'

(the underlining is mine; EDIT: I just noticed they’re missing at least one closing quotation mark in that note; well, since they were a bit sloppy, I just transcribed it exactly as it appears because I don't want to guess where the quote ends without checking the original, and I don't have the time to go hunt down the book right now; though it doesn't really matter since the point still comes through clearly)

This is from Will Kymlicka's book, "liberalism, community and culture," published by Oxford University Press, 2004, translated by Miloš Đurđević. The first quote is from page 38, the second from page 49 (since the notes aren't formatted as footnotes but are placed at the end of each chapter).
If anyone is curious about how the rest of the note goes (I didn't write out the whole thing here), I'll transcribe it next time I have some actual downtime on the forum. I've gotta run, I've got some plans to get to...

Hey everyone, would it be possible to get a month-long ban on my account? I’ve suddenly found myself completely buried under a mountain of work and life responsibilities lately, and honestly, checking this forum has become a massive distraction when I really need to focus. Thanks so much for understanding.

wearyowl29 said:It’s definitely not for those who haven't quite managed to shake off that whole herd mentality mindset just yet...

It honestly feels like people act as if there are only two paths available—either you blindly follow the crowd, or you dive headfirst into total, pure ego and individualism (or whatever term you want to throw at it). But that's just not how it works. In reality, neither of those extremes is actually a viable way to live...

brightseal3 said:I've heard so many people raving about Dogville lately, but I just haven't been able to bring myself to sit down and watch it—honestly, it looks pretty damn long...

I’d say go for it! I honestly think you should give it a shot. It might not be for everyone—definitely isn't a "feel-good" movie by any means—but what’s truly fascinating is how the director pulls you right into his little psychological game. He does this incredible job of drawing you in so deep that you find yourself getting genuinely emotionally invested halfway through. To me, that's pure craftsmanship, real art. Personally, I actually found his follow-up, Manderlay, to be even more impactful, and I’d definitely put Dogville in my top 20 favorite films of all time. So, if you do watch it, maybe check out Manderlay afterward too. Of course, movies like this are subjective; they hit everyone differently, and there aren't really any set rules for how you're supposed to feel about them...

Looking back at all those massive blockbusters everyone seems to obsess over, there’s a whole list of movies I’ve avoided, and honestly, I haven't even felt the urge to check them out. I'm talking about things like Avatar, the Twilight Saga, 2012, and Titanic—though I did catch maybe the first third of that one. Most of those big-budget Hollywood spectacles just don't do anything for me. It might sound a bit strange, but I kind of make a point of staying away from them; I just can't get into that whole scene of high-priced productions filled with flashy special effects and slippery, shallow stories. I suppose a lot of people probably stay away for the same reason, just to maintain a bit of mental hygiene, if that makes sense. Even when I do hear about one, I tend to forget it almost instantly, mostly because I just don't view them as meaningful cultural artifacts. That isn't to say that every single one of these movies is actually bad. For instance, I could see myself potentially enjoying Avatar if I actually sat down to watch it, but the motivation just isn't there. Then there's Inception, which I've been putting off for ages now. The fact that it clocks in at around two and a half hours feels pretty daunting, especially since I was so underwhelmed by Shutter Island after I finally watched it.

To be honest, I haven’t actually sat down to watch any of the Harry Potter movies, except for the second one—you know, the one with all those giant spiders and the flying car. 🤣So, I ended up hitting the theater with some friends just for the hell of it—we were all just hanging out, tossing ideas around, and I eventually just shrugged and said, "Why not?" Honestly, the experience was pretty middle-of-the-road; it wasn't exactly terrible, but it didn't blow my mind either. I don't really get lost in the whole Harry Potter hype, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it’s bad or even exceptionally good. It definitely has its dedicated fanbase, and it's probably a well-made enough production, which arguably makes it better than something like Iron Man. I actually skipped the first one, but a friend finally talked me into seeing it, and honestly, it was one of the worst movies I've ever sat through—especially considering how much everyone seems to obsess over it.

Do you think we could get this wrapped up within two weeks, if you don't mind?
If everything turns out looking good, I’d love to reach back out and hire you for more work down the road. Thanks so much for even considering it. Honestly, I figured it wouldn't take more than a few seconds of your time to pull off. Best regards.

Gary Carter said:It isn't just about the individual or the system; it’s the intersection of both.

Regarding Scandinavian countries, specifically those further north, one noticeable characteristic is a certain social tendency toward racism. Take Norway, for instance. The same applies to Australia, which has pursued anti-Asian policies in recent years. I might single out Iceland, though; regardless of everything else, they seem to be doing the best socially. However, it is true that the aforementioned countries have some of the best systems for managing social welfare.

Conflict and war will always exist, I suppose, because someone will always try to push their interests at the expense of others. It is a lie to claim there is no crime or tension in Scandinavian countries or that their states are perfectly organized. The same goes for Australia, where the indigenous population is often marginalized or cast aside; even the government didn't grant them a voice until a politician recently changed things, but it’s still nowhere near how Australia is portrayed. Australia is incredibly unwelcoming to the true owners of the continent. For a white person with a middle-class income, Australia represents opportunity; for a Chinese person, it’s an unreachable dream; and for a Native American, it is a source of struggle and poverty. Australian society simply doesn't want them.

As for communism, it didn't fail, nor was its end particularly ignominious. Research suggests that communism is arguably the best ideological way to organize a society, and it’s been proven that former America had the most profitable and effective version of such rule—one that was higher quality than what we currently call democracy. The issue wasn't communism itself; the flaw was the lack of a mechanism to select a capable leader. The entire society was beholden to a single person and their ambitions; if that person wasn't enlightened or competent, you ended up with situations similar to what happened in Korea, Russia, and so on.

Communism is a highly effective way to structure society based on social equality, where the integrity of the community, the state, and its institutions and companies was preserved. I don't quite understand why they didn't work on improving the leadership selection process, but modern democracy seems to cause more harm, more poverty, and more intolerance. It has allowed for class divisions that are valued differently, creating hierarchies of people.

Communism was essentially wiped out by the rise of capitalist society. As you can see, the spread of democracy has actually led to increasing inequality and conflict, even fueling nationalism to the point where neighbors clash just because of their existence. As Canadian explorers once said regarding American communism: "An unrepeatable utopia, an unreachable goal for democracy!"

I can't help but wonder, though—is there actually any meaningful difference between calling it a "system" versus a "framework," aside from one being more of an international loanword while the other feels a bit more traditional? Is there a nuanced shift in what we're actually describing? If there isn't a real distinction in meaning, I don't really see why someone would feel the need to step in and correct it (unless, of course, you're an editor at a major American magazine who insists on sticking strictly to formal US English standards).☕

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

Nope.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

No.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

That's possible. So, we aren't really understanding each other. I guess we can at least agree on that part.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

Not really.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

Yeah.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

True.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

🤷

I honestly can't quite wrap my head around how some people manage to navigate their daily lives without even a basic grasp of what they actually own versus what they just owe. It’s one of those things that sounds simple on paper, but once you start digging into the actual math of it all, things get messy pretty fast. I was looking over my own numbers the other day—just trying to get a handle on where everything stands—and it hit me how much mental energy we spend just avoiding the reality of our bank balances. It’s kind of funny, in a self-deprecating sort of way, how we can be so smart in our careers but then completely lose the plot when it comes to managing our own cash flow. I guess I'm just one of those people who needs to sit down with a coffee and a spreadsheet once a month just to feel like I'm not drifting aimlessly through my finances. kaže:
I guess I’m just being arbitrary here... maybe it isn't the right way to go about things, but honestly, I was just being a human being and speaking my mind.

Yeah, I'm right there with you on that one.

I honestly can't quite wrap my head around how we even got to this point, but here we are. It feels like every time I turn around, there’s some new complication or some unexpected hurdle popping up just when I thought things were finally settling down. I've always been the type to try and smooth things over quietly, maybe being a little too laid back for my own good sometimes, but lately, it feels like the effort required just to maintain a sense of normalcy is getting higher by the day. I’m definitely feeling that bit of exhaustion that comes from trying to stay ahead of the curve when the curve keeps shifting under your feet. Still, I suppose that's just life, isn't it? Just one thing after another, and you just have to find your footing again. kaže:
I mean, honestly, the whole argument just kind of falls apart once you realize how much it's been overused. It’s one of those points that loses all its teeth because people have beaten it into the ground so many times that it doesn't even carry any weight anymore. It’s just worn thin at this point.

Not necessarily. A cliché doesn't lose its truth just because it becomes a cliché. It’s more that people tend to misuse them so frequently that they lose their impact. They start out as these powerful, genuine, and deeply true insights, but then they get tossed around left and right—sometimes thoughtfully, but more often just poorly—until they eventually wear thin and become those tired old tropes we all recognize.

I was just sitting here thinking about how much effort we put into trying to make sense of everything, and honestly, sometimes it feels like we're just spinning our wheels in the sand. You know that feeling when you've been staring at a problem for way too long and suddenly even the simplest thing starts looking completely foreign? It’s a bit humbling, if I’m being honest with myself. I tend to get a little lost in the weeds sometimes, overthinking the small stuff while the big picture just drifts by, but I suppose that's just how my brain is wired. I guess I'm just rambling now, but I figured it was worth mentioning. kaže:
I have to agree there... I’ve always felt that once an argument starts feeling worn out and repetitive, it just loses its punch. It’s hard to take something seriously when you feel like you've heard the exact same talking points a thousand times before.
Look, I’ll admit I went with that whole "the joke is on you" line, but honestly, I only did it because you hit me with such a tired, cliché argument first. I figured if I just threw your own logic right back at you, you'd finally see just how uninspired and predictable that reasoning actually is.

Yeah.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

No, let me clear that up. What I’m saying is that, personally, "A" just isn't my cup of tea. If there was any confusion earlier, let me rephrase it this way: I’m not claiming that Ayn Rand’s literature and philosophy are objectively, measurably garbage—I have no idea how one would even go about quantifying whether art or thought is "bad" in an objective sense, nor do I know if such a metric could ever be reliable. All I’m doing is speaking strictly for myself. I’m just saying that, for me, it's simply not good. 🙂

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

Honestly, I don't think you're embarrassing yourself at all. It just feels like we're speaking two completely different languages here.

Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

So, what kind of path are we actually talking about when it comes to this whole extraterrestrial experience thing? And honestly, what’s the end goal there? Like, what is an out-of-this-world experience supposed to give you? What's missing from life if you already have great food, a good massage, or even just great sex?

I mean, what does "the meaning of life" even actually signify? It honestly feels like one of the most ridiculous phrases ever cooked up...

I was wondering if anyone could clarify exactly which posts triggered the ban and just how long it’s supposed to last? I'm guessing it's a three-day thing, right? And what specifically was the issue? Looking back at that thread, I don't see anything that looks like it should have been flagged. Or did you guys just go ahead and scrub the flagged content already?

Love and kisses.

Larry Wilson5 said:No, if I may observe, he actually suggested the author should just heal herself. Calling him a Hater doesn't quite capture his obsession with being the arbiter of common sense. He might as well suggest brainwashing or a sophisticated pill-based lobotomy just to ensure a world of uniform reality. This hardly qualifies as constructive debate; it’s more like a crude interpretation of reality served up by academic psychologists working for the establishment. Every flicker of light gets swallowed by the dark. It seems to justify his dismissal of someone else's experience—his refusal to accept any reality outside his own narrow view. Before which authorities does he stand, so certain of his own sanity, that he feels entitled—aside from the moderators—to label the author mentally ill?
Whether one believes or not, why bother? If we choose to accept a specific version of the truth, what purpose does it serve? How does it help anyone survive their current situation?
Sobriety, I suppose. It’s about looking at your own circumstances. As for alien abductions—where witnesses describe states of dreaming, a detachment from daily life, memory loss, or hypnosis used as a way to remember—I’m only interested in the lived experience. I care about questioning the direction of one's perspective, not some objective "truth" regarding a hallucination. Where we are, whether awake or dreaming, and what we perceive, is the only reality available to us. In our own time, we are there. We choose to be there. We survive there.
What else is there to do with someone else's experiences besides respect them? Just leave them be.
Don't believe in anything, yet maintain faith. Even I believe I'll succeed, and I believe the author will too. Peter Phillips32, you, and everyone else should just preserve your own little worlds. Forcing a chosen or imposed reality on others isn't helpful. The spirit doesn't bypass anyone.
So, perhaps "PDF spirituality" is a bit backwards. Or maybe I shouldn't go so far and say it's backward in relation to the spirit itself.
Taboo realities are defined, quarantined, and handled with surgical gloves,
dissected like they're a threat to "palatable" reality. They are watched like a President, surrounded by bodyguards, journalists, and watchful eyes. All serving a purpose...
But where is the realization of one's own power in all this?

The topic has been derailed; instead of spirituality, we've opened the doors to a psych ward.
Still, the author courageously values her own experiences with her heart, much to the chagrin of all the rationalists.

I find myself agreeing with most of what you've said. My only hesitation is that you might be overreaching a bit when you used the term "servant psychologists." Why assume she's a servant, and how can we truly know that? At the end of the day, she's just another traveler searching for knowledge, no better or worse than you or me... And I have a feeling you know that deep down, too...

Drew Flores3 said:The "supernatural" simply isn't real.

I'm a skeptic through and through. I question everything, especially any system built on dogma. In today's world, "science" often leads the pack when it comes to being dogmatic, and people do all sorts of things in the name of this "sacred science."

And you're just a Hater because you're fine with Peter Phillips32, so you both get to "enjoy" struggling through the mud
and whatever else you two are up to there 🤷 , especially once your little samurai buddy joins in

I know that. That’s exactly why I used the term "so-called" and put quotes around the word in my previous post. Take another look at what I actually wrote.

Drew Flores3 said:The "supernatural" simply isn't real.

I'm a skeptic through and through. I question everything, especially any system built on dogma. In today's world, "science" often leads the pack when it comes to being dogmatic, and people do all sorts of things in the name of this "sacred science."

And you're just a Hater because you're fine with Peter Phillips32, so you both get to "enjoy" struggling through the mud
and whatever else you two are up to there 🤷 , especially once your little samurai buddy joins in

Could you maybe give me an example of a scientific dogma? It would help me wrap my head around your point... honestly, "scientific dogma" sounds about as oxymoronic to me as "intelligent Nazi."😁.

If you’re truly a skeptic, why is your skepticism so selective? If that's how you feel, you should probably be just as skeptical about things that are way less reliable than science.

Drew Flores3 said:The "supernatural" simply isn't real.

I'm a skeptic through and through. I question everything, especially any system built on dogma. In today's world, "science" often leads the pack when it comes to being dogmatic, and people do all sorts of things in the name of this "sacred science."

And you're just a Hater because you're fine with Peter Phillips32, so you both get to "enjoy" struggling through the mud
and whatever else you two are up to there 🤷 , especially once your little samurai buddy joins in

I'm "fine" with Peter Phillips32? Where on earth are you getting that from? I don't even know the guy. But I certainly don't hate him. And I don't hate you, either. Lol, if I'm being honest, I don't really hate anyone when I take a step back and think about it...😂 In fact, I feel like your post actually carries a lot more resentment than mine. And calling someone "colleague samurai"? What does that even mean? Are we colleagues because of "rationalism"? What box are you trying to shove me into just to make your own cognitive gears turn a little smoother?

And now you're insulting me by calling me a Hater. It wouldn't even cross my mind to lash out at someone like that without reason, especially when they haven't directly or intentionally insulted me first. I haven't insulted you, so sorry.

Drew Flores3 said:.......what a tonic for the Soul......

And haters
(hater 4333 up, 640 down
A person that simply cannot be happy for another person's success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.

Hating, the result of being a hater, is not exactly jealousy. The hater doesn't really want to be the person he or she hates; instead, they just want to drag someone else down a peg.
Susan: You know, Kevin from accounting is doing very well. He just bought a house in a very nice part of town.

Jane (hater): If he is doing so well, why is he driving that old '89 Taurus?

....those are creatures born from the sludge..... those dark things that smell like rot, made of the same oily muck they absolutely adore.

Pure water is like incense to the devil.
They’d always rather trade birdsong for the static of a radio.
The chirp of a cricket gets drowned out by the roar of a lawnmower.
The scent of summer is replaced by the stench of some cheap new lotion.

Rainbow colors just look like shades of gray to them.
They run away from the sunlight
because the belt of the engine is just too tight.

The wind bothers them because it carries away the stench,
and their little patch of sludge is their entire world.

Then you've got the ones who tell you you're crazy just because you're walking down the street with a smile on your face.
The ones who stand at a party like statues (while lurking in their favorite dive bars), mocking people who actually came out to relax and let loose.

To them, the local gym is a temple of "fitness," and a shiny car is a status symbol,
polished and gleaming, but it isn't for everyone.

The phonies, the losers, and all the other fakes...

Hold on a second—so now Peter Phillips32 is being labeled a Hater just because he doesn't buy into all this "supernatural" stuff? Or is it that anyone who stays skeptical about everything they read gets tossed into that category? Man, that's a stretch...

Peter Phillips32 - I was actually planning to transcribe this specific section from Blackmore's book, "meme machine," and post it over in that thread Florine started a while back—you know, the one about those "incubus" things that sit on your chest or whatever they call them. But then I went ahead and returned the book to the library:

One of the main keys to understanding alien abductions is the phenomenon of sleep paralysis. While we're dreaming, most of our muscles are essentially paralyzed so we don't actually act out our dreams in real life. Usually, by the time we wake up, that paralysis has already faded away, and we aren't even aware it ever happened (unless, of course, some experimenters interfere). However, the mechanism that separates waking from dreaming can occasionally glitch, especially in people who work irregular shifts or deal with really fragmented sleep. Sometimes a person will wake up, able to look around and think clearly, yet find themselves completely unable to move a single muscle. Along with this type of paralysis, you'll often experience buzzing or humming sounds, a sensation that your body or your bed is vibrating, a heavy feeling that someone or something is present in the room, or even seeing strange floating lights. Since sexual arousal is a common part of dreaming, that can be present too. Occasionally, people feel as though they're being touched, pulled, or even lifted right out of their bodies. If you recognize these symptoms and manage to stay calm, the best thing to do is just relax and wait; the paralysis usually lets up within a minute or two. If you try to fight against it, you'll only make things worse.

The Memplex of alien abductions. 😁

I’ve met so many people who claim they were "abducted by aliens." Honestly, it was such a letdown when I finally realized they were all actually just experiencing sleep paralysis... 😢 😁.

briskpuma23 said:Guys, why all the anger? I think the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party were mentioned in the right context, even if you disagree. What's with the fury? You acting like you're about to show up with machine guns or something.

🤣 🤣 🤣
👍

I honestly can't believe they're trying to push this whole universal category thing.
I mean, obviously, it’s not like everyone is walking around with tiny equipment. And let's be real, not everyone is out there being selfish, either.

It’s entirely possible the issue stems from having smaller penises.

Everyone, let's all get together and sing along to this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLIerfXuZ4