Danioover9000

Psychopaths have it easy these days.

This sounds promising for me, because at some points I still struggle to contemplate. I mostly contemplate using Leo's way, but I sometimes ask my close friend and use the responses as some fuel for generating more questions and answers.

@Hello from Russia Firstly, there's no such thing as a brain reacting, reacting is what people do, because brains only have 'frequencies' and 'neural activity' and are stuck inside heads. Brains are fleshy information collecting things. However, brains are not people, so to quote random ancient artist 'learn to see with your eyes because your brain will make you go blind.'. Secondly, if sex is done properly, gfs and wives would be satisfied deeply. Maybe go fishing next time relaxed, not so tensely.

Nothing could quite compare to real sex, but one night I had a one night stand with a woman that had the right looks and personality particular to me. We chit chatted a bit before, and the whole thing lasted for roughly an hour. The strange thing about this event was the walls, bookshelves and carpet seemed too wavy, and the general lighting a bit wobbly and bright, and suddenly it hit me - I'm dreaming.

@Consept Yes I agree that's not good on his part and I do see the hypocrisy, but I went off topic at Leo's contraction of boiling down Donald Trump's evil as one singular action, which can be an issue when we falsely generalize to another person. If I saw you push away a child, with this contracted mentality I could call you an evil person for harming a child. However, I learn more later that you pushed the child away from an oncoming motorcycle, and intentionally sent him to a grassy area than one with concrete. Do I still come away from that situation maintaining my label of you, from one single action? I don't need to defend Trump here because to me silence is golden, and Trump publicly calling dead soldiers losers is a bit too far instead of keeping his mouth shut. I also think Trump's mistakes is his to defend alone and unfortunately supporters are backed into the corner even more. It's just the false conflation that draft dodging is every evil person characteristic is not cool. Mohammad Ally draft dodged and stood his ground at the face of authority, and indirectly inspired others, for better or worse, to uphold themselves. Nikola Tesla contributed to the world as an amazing engineer, yet before he came to America, he had to draft dodge because of his health, and with the help of his father he went to the hills and rejuvenated some of his body that way. And I agree that this is my problem as I'm the one triggered because I love history, geniuses and hate lazy conflation making, so my observation hopefully will inspire other users to carefully type.

@Roy It's just not honestly an accurate way of showing a person's full character. Mohammad Ally refused to draft, so am I to assume he's a 'bad' character? So did Nickola Tesla draft dodged, yet he's a brilliant engineer.

@Leo Gura Hang on there, Nikola Tesla draft dodged as well. From this, I assume this tells me exactly who Nikola Tesla is? Of course not. We need enough information collected to come to some conclusion about a person. If all the information I need is from one singular action taken by an individual, that's epistemically problematic, and very easy to distort away. Donald Trump's actions on camera/what I'm observing, and testimonials from people who worked before with him, family members, social circle, and multiple views, not just from his side or the democrat's side. This isn't a good use of Occam's razor theory.

@GroovyGuru This is also another strategy to doing dating. It's like sailing a ship with several damaged areas, thinking the locations could be covered in one day without being aware that each damaged area slows down travel. By focusing on fixing up your career, job, financial situation, social circle, health, fitness, environment, new hobbies, spirituality and psychology, then you're in a more powerful position to do dating. With first focusing on resolving major distractions and underlying shadow selves, it's easier to do more dating than to do dating while your life is breaking apart here and there that your focus is further divided and potential partners get intuitively turned off from your outer/inner problems.

@Etherial Cat I'm surprised he's letting loose comments that could be used against him.

And these statements are relative and partial too.

@Consept Yes that's right, especially facts involving human behaviors and each society. I think when most people think objective facts they think of like with rocks. It's objectively true that rocks are subject to nature, so they can be solid or semi solid or more liquid and sometimes gaseous like dust clouds And it's taken as belief and not questioned further and take this view onto other people. Also because time flows at certain ranges, not mentioning objective time but subjective time, that some things appear as static and unchangeable and this can last for generations, until something big happens that alters that assumption.

@Psychic crocodile Time is independent from language, otherwise I'd say "I want some sunshine, okay be noon right now!" and bam it's noon instantly. Flat earth was a fact at that time, until enough data was gathered and a consensus was reached that the sun doesn't circle around the earth, but earth circles around it, and enough data was gathered and we reached a consensus that the earth is round, not flat. Thoughts are also objective in that they occur, yes they are subjective because you can't cross that information to another mind directly as is and reach a consensus there, but it's also objective despite being difficult to measure or quantify or design a modal to teach other people about thoughts in a scientific manner. The best so far is poking at people's brains to stimulate memories, but memories are not thoughts and it's done under materialistic conditions instead of immaterialist conditions like telepathy or Tulpamancy.

@Consept So, if new evidence showed that most rapists were falsely accused, and most victims were lying under oath when testifying against the rape being bad when in the contrary they were enjoying the behavior of the rapist, and a consensus is reached by different groups of people that due to new evidence gathered from both additional sources and review of past history of every crime relevant to rape, that a new law will be passed for softer punishment and eligibility for the accused and harsher laws for the victimized. Just because objectivity is consistent doesn't mean permanence, it's also objective that change can occur at an objective fact or situation, like I've stated above about the whole perpetrator/victim cycle, because this cycle is part of human history, part of a bigger set of actions taken at each other human being, that throughout time is experienced as direct experience, then passed on to outsiders and surviving human beings involved or not involved as second hand knowledge, which is then recorded and taught through some education program or public service facility to educate those that lack direct experience of such traumatic actions that some actions must be kept, some must be thrown away. This we call ethical codes of conduct. I don't really see where we disagree at, because I do agree that facts do change over time, and some facts are treated in an objective manner for sack of usefulness. If you mind telling me where we are disagreeing then I'm better able to understand your take.

@Consept Yes, some facts can change throughout time.

@Consept A consensus is an agreement made by different groups in a society, like social contract found in the justice system, religious texts and other types of ethical codes of conduct. Objectivity is a fact or data that is extremely consistent, measurable, quantifiable, has undergone layers of proofs, like the fact that there's a sun, or rain is water, or the snow is white. Where consensus and objectivity meets is in the gathering of continuous data of human interactions between each other that surviving humans find benefit in keeping and discarding some human behaviors, which triggers designing ethical codes of conduct throughout history in order to continue this filtering process. I'm sorry, the world or people? Because the world's too big, beyond human concerns and is impartial. You're also speaking for a speculative consensus for groups in deciding whether or not that killing jews is acceptable, and whether or not slavery and torture are acceptable. To really know what is or isn't acceptable, means that prior to deciding right from wrong is needed a history of human interactions that involved actions (killing, slavery and torture) done in direct experience by the doer and receivers, and witnessed by other people, recorded as second hand knowledge, and taught in some way by the survivors of the doers/receivers/people that lacked direct experience of such events. In this way, we decrease selfishness over time, or another way is selfishness can evolve away from less cruder forms of actions, and objectivity, whether social or the universe like gravity, is enforced by consistent occurrences. In this way, both of us benefit.

@Carl-Richard @Consept They call it objective because there's a usefulness in gathering consensus among people under objectivity. Yet it's also true that objectivity is relative and dependent on things with consciousness and thinking to exist. Also, the sufferings and harms done to each other in history up to now is a learning process and necessary for a basis of compassion and love, because without strong contrasts it's not that easy to develop morality. When I say morality I mean a 'moral compass', an intuitive right and wrong, not ethicality, the lists of rules by culture themselves.

@Consept I think it's called bio energetics.

@Recursoinominado I do agree that masculine shadows does create distractions from authority, but when it comes to considering good or bad role models, depends on the individual seeing those role models and what weaknesses the individual has. I could see potential for a door mat or people pleasing person to become better by modeling from Trump, but some other personality types and people with degrees of higher consciousness, modeling Trump isn't useful, or in this case 'bad'.

@louhad I guess America will learn the hard way.

I think it's a bit of both luck and skill development. It's a balancing act.

I'm getting harassed on this forum for no other reason, and I've pm the user to leave me alone. This has been going on for a week and I'm getting fed up. The user has vanished from the site, so I don't know what to do now because the user keeps coming at me then disappears.

@Jacob Morres You mean the OP?

Speak for yourself.

@Roy It's absurd because we're trying to play God and trying to understand multiple perspectives whilst being imprisoned in this body we're in. How is it possible to go from knowing another's perspective without destroying your own? The more you try to know another, the more you destroy yourself, because there's only 1 perspective with every life experience lived and remembered, and other perspectives are imaginations no matter how closely otherness interconnects to your perspective, so the cost of more understanding of otherness is you lose yourself more. So we must at some point become God as that thing , but the viscous catch 22 is we can't be fully God whilst we're still imprisoned here.

@Consept Objectivity might exist from both utilitarian purposes between people and for society to function from consensuses agreed upon.