zurew

The chat and Destiny thought that its just another regular redpill content.

It has multiple definitions, I guess you are in the "or low interest or desire for sexual activity" camp. So you never had any strong desire or urge to have sex?

@aurum dont waste your time with this guy, he is a lost cause.

Because its easy for women to have sex , and its hard for men to acquire sex. But that doesn't indicates that women don't like having sex, its just means they don't want to get slut shamed. Maybe, but there are a lot of reasons for breakups and for divorce. I think most people would be okay with monogamous realtionships if the quality of sex would stay good.

Everyone likes to fuck, women would fuck around a lot more, if they wouldn't be shamed for it. That being said, being in a serious relationship is a different question. There are a very few people who can actually manage a serious poly realtionship (regardless if we are talking about men or women).

This statement suggest to me, that you are not asexual, because you are not saying that you never want to masturbate and you are not saying either, that you never get aroused by anything. Considering all the text from your post I assume you are not asexual, you just have a very low sexdrive. One question: Were you more horny in your teenage years, or not?

Lol this was fast.

This crying about chatgpt not praising right wing people enough has to stop. All of these examples are cherrypicked and all of you who are spreading these pictures about chatgpt being biased, have either never tried to ask chatgpt these questions or have tried it once and then decided to come to the conclusion that it must be biased. All of you claim you want the truth and that you think critically, but in all of these examples you just demonstrate that you take information for granted from sources that are reinforcing your biases.

yep, there is a big misconception about microsoft edge, because it was shit in the beginning and then a lot of people stopped using it, but since then it has improved a lot.

Interesting study, however I don't necessarily agree with their definition of an 'AHA' moment. The whole magic trick domain revolves around being deceptive, manipulative and leading your attention to certain things. I don't think thats a fair way to test AHA moments, or to even put an = between AHA moments and moments like mentioned in the paper. When it comes to AHA moments, I think of moments when your mind finds new, deeper connections between certain concepts and ideas. To frame it a different way - an AHA moment is when you find a different or a new pattern between certain concepts and ideas. It could also be framed like this: an AHA moment is when you look at a problem/task from a different than ususal lense and you immediately see the solution or the synthesis of ideas.

I have high expectations for this - I really hope it will be good.

There is no argument that could be given, because you haven't even made any argument yourself. The only thing you have is a descriptive statement and your conclusion. Your conclusion alone is too vague without a specific example or argument - I don't think anyone would necessarily disagree by principle with asserting your will on the world even if you would need to break some laws or morals - Its always about a value trade and there are justifications for those trades, but to talk about justifications we have to have a specific example at hand, you need to give some context to this, because for the most of us it will depend on the context. Right now there is literally nothing to attack there, only your definition, which is indeed shallow, because its way too broad and according to your definition a rapist, a murderer, a sex trafficker would be all exceptional people. No one uses the word "exceptional" this way.

Obviously if you are willing to break the rules, you will have a massive advantage over people who are emphatetic enough to not break certain rules. But breaking the rules and procaliming yourself as exceptional won't make you exceptional at all, unless your bar is super low, but if your bar is that low, then the word exceptional automatically lose its meaning. You don't get to posture yourself as being braive by having certain morals and at the same time shitting on people who disagree with your morals and labeling them as peasants and sheep and get surprised when your feet is hold to the fire.

"I am so brave, I am willing to break the law and I am willing to proclaim myself as an exceptional man" - said by every lunatic criminal. This is a copout, so you don't need to deal with the negative consequences of you ethical system. Obviously you are arguing in favour of your idea of morals and you would prefer if it would be applied all across the world. If you are just here to virtue signal how brave you are, and you don't want to change the current ethics to your preffered ethics, and you are not willing to actually defend your system, then you are just wasting everyones time here.

Deal with the conclusions that your system would create and bite the bullets that you need to bite and don't dance around.

Maybe in some but not in all cases, unless you are actually willing to break many currently exisiting laws. The point is that you would preferably have a system where you are allowed to do whatever you want to do and exercise your power freely without any backlash or without the potential of getting arrested. Bottom line is, that you can't assert your will freely forever, if that entails breaking laws. Tate got caught because he potentially broke some laws. - this demonstrates again that if you have an already existing system that doesn't agree with your belief (that "exceptional" people should exercise their power and will fully and freely), then eventually it will stop them from doing so. Nope, thats not true. The idea that self identification is alone enough to be exceptional and exceptional people should be allowed to do whatever they want, automatically leads to the conclusion that a lot of psychopaths and lunatic people will be governing the world.

What I mean is that when you say, that you want exceptional men to exert their will and power, I assume you mean that they should be allowed to do whatever they want, because if they are not, they can't express themselves fully. - that can't happen unless you have a system for it that agrees with your premise that (exceptional men can do whatever they want or at the very least allowed to do more things than a normal person).

A lot of psychopaths and a lot of crazy people have the will to proclaim themselves as an exceptional man. Under your system we would have a lot of lunatic people "governing" the world, unless you give more qualifications to your system.

Yeah thats very dumb, when thats actually the case. Imagine telling a white dude who is addicted to crack "Ohh you had it easy" - when he could have grew up in exactly as bad circumstances as some black people. Fighting racism with more racism won't work. Quality engagment with the topic at hand.

A lot of narcissists and psychopaths would want that kind of freedom and power - but that would be a disaster. Whats your definition of an exceptional men, other than self-id?

No. We will do what you do - think that we are exceptional and then try to force our will on the world and we will see what comes out of that.

Because you live in a society - if everyone could do whatever the fuck they wanted to do, you wouldn't be able to do half the things you can do right now. You would constantly have to worry about getting killed,shot, stabbed, robbed etc.