sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
No bio...
User ID: 2725
Allies are entities that your interests temporarily happen to align with, that's what it means. Hence the various state leaders reinforcing the idea that allies are not permanent.
What is great? I find that you spend a lot of words hedging who gets to judge what great is, but so far I don't recall any specific examples of virtues you envision a great man should have, as well as some guidelines on how those virtues be measured.
I'll try to construct an image of a great man as per dailydogma, based on my total impressions of what you value, and you tell me where I'm wrong. A great man deals in ideas rather than actions; aesthetic rather than practical; refined rather than pedestrian; symbols rather than images; recognized by elites rather than masses; gains success in the spiritual rather than the material; has innate worth rather than gained worth; is rather than does.
"Impressive" is an adjective that implies someone is impressed. If no one is impressed, it's not impressive. If you are the only one who is impressed, it's fairly cheap as impressions go.
I'm in the cohort who are quick to say (or at least think) that Musk is cringe, a salesman, and doesn't deserve the money in any cosmic sense. Unfortunately for those who grasp at the label of greatness, greatness is not about just deserts.
Shouldn't we have an internal concept of great which the masses might or might not miss? If your fundamental property of great man is recognized by the masses, how is he great? Isn't he just the masses?
My fundamental property of a great man is that he is never someone unknown by the masses, not necessarily someone universally venerated. He impacts the masses whether they like it or not. He does not pass by without much consequence by definition.
But how perverted does it become?
Any distorted vision is greater than an unexpressed one.
but what if the great man fails? Is there not chance in the world? Are great men always lucky?
A prince who fails the coup does not become king.
I believe philosophy should be embodied.
Em-bodied, not enworded.
The way I see it, it should be impossible to miss a great man any more than you can miss a great mountain in your way. If his wisdom is too complicated, it will be translated and simplified for the masses. At any rate it will be implemented, because no great man will be content with simply writing shit down and counting on oughts to eventually bring it to fruition. It will not remain simply a book.
Ironically communists love reading things. There's no one who loves lording "being able to read and understand theory" over the rabble more than a self-proclaimed communist. Meanwhile other ideologies, even the libertarians, actually implement theory and see tangible results.
Surely it takes less genius to convince the world you're a genius con artist than actually perform the feats described in the movie, thus necessitating a hierarchy of genius con artists.
Suppose a GCA_0 is a con artist who performed genius cons that did not have to do with convincing people you performed those cons. Then a GCA_n is a genius con artist who convinced the world he's a GCA_n-1, and so on. It probably goes asymptotic at some point where the difficulty of convincing the world of anything in particular approaches a constant value.
Why must those opposed to HBD, anti-welfare, anti-DEI etc. arguments to the point of believing they are pure evil tolerate them, yet as soon as a woman kills her own kids (not even someone else's) a defense of such is taboo? This forum positions itself as a neutral ground.
A vote is just representation of leverage that a citizen has. The actual leverage is mostly the useful work a citizen can provide to society (An average citizen, given that the franchise does not differentiate). Maybe the guns, for the few Americans who can actually muster an organized militia.
Without any of that leverage, how much weight do you think the vote will have?
When you and those who agree with you say things like relieving people of the need to labor, what it sounds like is that people will be "relieved" of one of two ways of getting vital resources from people who control those resources through precedent or force. The other way is more force, and it doesn't look good, not when the enemy has drones and superhuman security AIs.
(There is a third way, claiming resources that no one got to yet, but we'll need mass cheap far space travel to make that viable again).
I do have the idea that at the very least, a mod's personal opinion expression at the moment of acting as a mod should not itself verge on breaking the rules.
You have a particular tendency for snide quips that I notice.
I don't think you have to believe you're on the side of good, just that enough of your enemies are sufficiently unscrupulous that they would always evoke maximally harsh rulesets against you if they won (so don't let them win at any cost).
There is a difference between being fearless and brave: one is a deficiency of fear, the other is persevering despite fear. There is similarly a difference between being retarded and being stubborn.
'I have told this to few people, gentlemen, and I suspect never will again, but one day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I'm sure you will agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged on to a half-submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, gentlemen: mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that's when I first learned about evil. It is built in to the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.’
Which is to say that nature's idea of optimal human life is "nasty, brutish and short" and I do not care much about how hubristic it is for individuals to interfere unless they do worse on at least two out of three.
Usually the religious argument I encounter is that grandma's body failing is God's will and expending copious effort to keep her alive through all the heart attacks, bedriddenness and dementia is going against it.
Again, is it just the active act of killing that irks you? Would leaving grandma in the hospital bed without the ventilator and IVs (other than painkiller) be fine?
I'm assuming being a superhero movie character had more to do with not wearing a helmet than having an Afro (it's hair, it can fit into a helmet if you want one), and that casting a stunt double had more to do with her ethnicity than hairstyle.
What does an action movie character not wearing a helmet (quite common) have to do with their haircut?
I have a feeling you meant to say "the stunt double was a DEI hire" but then the Afro remark doesn't seem to fit.
No, I don't draw any meaningful difference between the patient throwing the switch and the doctor doing so. Whoever's will is being done is the one doing the killing.
"Doctors killing people" is as far as I can tell a rhetorical trick by pro-lifers to paint a picture of uncaring monsters who strap you into a chair and jab you with the death syringe as soon as you admit any shred of bad quality of life. Plus maybe the useful autists carrying water for them.
It's a weird vision of dignity that suggests prioritizing what Nietzscheans will think is "going out on your own terms" while hiring a professional isn't. Suppose I value not having my family clean up my headless corpse more than I value the opinions of tough guys.
"You ask a grown-up for permission" - as if you don't do that every time you exchange money for goods and services.
everyone who qualifies through some bureaucratic checklist will get killed by their doctors because the checklist absolves everyone of moral responsibility
I am yet to see anyone* being "killed by their doctors" whose lives weren't already contingent on continued medical care, unless very esoteric definitions of killing are applied (such as "offered euthanasia and had it accepted"). I call that "abandoned by their doctors", and in the end someone is always getting abandoned as long as we have scarcity and conditions that can't be cured.
*Organ harvester Georg who commits murder and covers it up obviously does not count.
The defense is "I am not giving more than an inch because I prefer it that way". It doesn't have to be based on principles. In fact principled arguments are the brittle ones as we can see here in the first place - they hold until they don't, and then suddenly the conservative, lacking a branch to grab on and having no practice in digging his heels in in any arbitrary spot, "has no defense".
Instead of staking everything on being or not being a whore, perhaps some people should learn to haggle.
As others mentioned, the vast majority of those partaking in euthanasia are the elderly and (I presume) infirm, rather than depressed young women. The negatives are far smaller and more narrow than the positives.
We will most of us be old and infirm one day, barring miracle medical advances. Yet only a small fraction of us will be the exact fraction of depressed that having euthanasia makes a difference between pushing through it or getting MAID.
Yes, that's what those advocating that some particular change is a slippery slope say.
I thought the post was talking about people stuck in comas on indefinite life support, or simply put "vegetables". Everything I'd heard on this forum before would suggest that people were mostly against spending doctor-hours and money on such hopeless and fruitless cases.
If the option of euthanizing Mom for killer migraines wasn't available, would actual migraine treatment be more available?
Personally I'm in favor of actually fighting against encroachment on the cases which you think are too far, rather than relying on outraged Christian pro-life gesticulating and "slippery slope" blanket denial then acting like Surprised Pikachu when that wasn't enough.
I'm yet to see anyone try to reconcile "it is ghoulish to euthanise grandma" and "it is ghoulish to keep grandma on abysmal QALY life support that costs $100,000s for 2 more decades". Perhaps we should reintroduce death by exposure. If it's hunger and the elements killing grandma, then no one is staining their hands with sin, right?
- Prev
- Next

I do think a significant proportion of those men are virgin-fetishists first and ephebo- or lower -philes only as a conclusion of 1. wants a virgin 2. society allows teen girls to have sex, therefore 3. have to go increasingly lower in age for the prospective wife to be likely to be a virgin.
But I gotta agree that a normie probably doesn't care about the hymen.
More options
Context Copy link