Leo you misunderstand Hitler completely

[Yimpa]

The fact that there even is a rematch between Trump and Biden should clearly show how immature the USA is. 

Anyway, either option is certainly better than Hitler.

[Danioover9000]

@Yimpa

Just now, Yimpa said:

The fact that there even is a rematch between Trump and Biden should clearly show how immature the USA is. 

Anyway, either option is certainly better than Hitler.

   But this is a false dilemma fallacy is it not? That you're assuming USA and Americans can only vote for Donald Trump or Joe Biden. What if Americans have the option to not vote? What if they choose to vote another political group, like green party, or Libertarianism? Or have an election to veto certain votes?

[Yimpa]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

What if Americans have the option to not vote?

Exactly why US is IMMATURE!

[aurum]

51 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

I agree that we need more, education, more personal development, and more consciousness. What about more human decency laws?

Human decency laws are derived from what I just listed.

[Danioover9000]

@Yimpa

Just now, Yimpa said:

Exactly why US is IMMATURE!

   How does the right to not vote, or the right to vote an alternative political group other than the nominees or the democrats/Republicans parties, exactly shows why the USA is immature? Isn't those legal rights for voters from the constitution, democracy, and individualism? Isn't that also from the right to freedom of speech?

[Danioover9000]

@aurum

Just now, aurum said:

Human decency laws are derived from what I just listed.

   If true that human decency laws are derived from what you just listed, then why are we seeing more nakedness and vulgarity in Gen Z and Millennials using social media sites, and behaving in more immoral ways in reality?  Also aren't human decency laws more derived from Judeo-Christian values?

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

 If true that human decency laws are derived from what you just listed, then why are we seeing more nakedness and vulgarity in Gen Z and Millennials using social media sites, and behaving in more immoral ways in reality? Also aren't human decency laws more derived from Judeo-Christian values?

Gen Z and Millennials are not inherently more immoral. They are just less uptight about certain things previous generations cared more about. This has pros and cons.

Obviously many of them are still young and immature in a lot of ways. 

To me, Human Decency Laws look something like this:

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

^These values are secular and universal, not Judeo-Christian

Edited March 31 by aurum

[Yimpa]

27 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

How does the right to not vote, or the right to vote an alternative political group other than the nominees or the democrats/Republicans parties, exactly shows why the USA is immature?

I would argue that it’s not just about the right to not vote, but also about the majority of the citizens being uninformed and uneducated about politics, thus they feel that they don’t have a voice to begin with.

And some additional insight from Claude 3 Opus:

Quote

The test of a mature democracy is not just the existence of rights on paper, but how well it fosters a culture of informed, empowered and engaged citizens in practice. By that measure, the USA still has important work to do, even as we recognize the hard-won progress that has been made. What's needed is a sustained commitment to democratic revitalization.

 

Edited March 31 by Yimpa

[Danioover9000]

@aurum

12 minutes ago, aurum said:

Gen Z and Millennials are not inherently more immoral. They are just less uptight about certain things previous generations cared more about. This has pros and cons.

Obviously many of them are still young and immature in a lot of ways. 

To me, Human Decency Laws look something like this:

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

^These values are secular and universal, not Judeo-Christian

Gen Z and Millennials are not inherently more immoral.

Most Gen Z and some Millennials behave in vulgar ways and are more naked online.

Therefore Gen Z and Millennials are not inherently immoral? What if it becomes more indecent?

What are some of the pros and cons of most Gen Z and Millennials being more or less human decency?

 

So according to that org and you, human decency laws are secular and universal? Are you not acknowledging the historical origins of human decency laws? 

 

 

[aurum]

15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Just give the solution already.

What is the green solution? Green is not the solution to the problems of the last stage.

Rather, the last stage runs to completion and as a consequence, you move to the next stage. You cannot solve orange problem by pushing for green. 

That's not how that works. 

You would know why Green is the solution if you stopped denying it all as virtue signaling.

15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I am not being cynical of green. I am against exploiting people and whitewashing it all as progressive green stuff. 

I am not criticizing you for being against corrupt greenwashing. I am also against that.

I am criticizing you for throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Go to the Spiral Dynamics Green Mega Thread. Actually take the time to study and understand Green. Ask yourself: What is Green actually? Why does it exist? Why did it develop in the spiral? What is its function in the evolution of consciousness? What value does it bring? 

Contemplate. Take your time, do not rush this or jump to easy answers.

Also, feel free to take it in as objectively as possible, the good and the bad. You will get to keep some of your critiques. But this will help balance your perspective if you actually do this.

[Twentyfirst]

Ya I did plenty of truth stuff in my life journey and after all that I still like Trump. The economy was way better with him than Biden and I think thats the most important change that a president can make that will actually translate to my real life 

[aurum]

46 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Gen Z and Millennials are not inherently more immoral.

Most Gen Z and some Millennials behave in vulgar ways and are more naked online.

Therefore Gen Z and Millennials are not inherently immoral? What if it becomes more indecent?

People have always been vulgar and naked. The younger generations are just more open and less repressed about it compared to boomers.

I consider it a necessary correction from a big picture POV.

46 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

What are some of the pros and cons of most Gen Z and Millennials being more or less human decency?

Pros: less repression, unconsciousness and shame around sexuality. A starting place for integrating a much more healthy, mature relationship to sexuality

Cons: crudeness, promotion of meaningless hookup culture, loss of seeing sex as an intimate act to be taken seriously

46 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

So according to that org and you, human decency laws are secular and universal? Are you not acknowledging the historical origins of human decency laws? 

1) They are universal and secular in the sense that no religion or ideology gets a monopoly on them. Certainly not Judeo-Christian.

2) I am acknowledging the origins of these laws. The true origins go beyond any particular religion. That's my point. 

[Adrian colby]

On 29/03/2024 at 0:23 AM, Danioover9000 said:

@Adrian colby

   Now you're introducing metaphysics, philosophy and epistemology of language. Also a fallacy of the false dilemma and whataboutisms, but an assumption that changing the context does not change the fact or behavior within that context.

   Language creates your reality, and language also creates orders and distances of realities. For example, would you rather have erotica, pictures of porn scenes, be in the porn film filming, or be the porn actor/actress experiencing it directly? Therefore in some case language is mostly useful to describe some experiences that some would rather not have, such as language describing Nazi Germany and Nazism versus actually experiencing Nazi Germany or dealing with Nazis yourself, see?

   Oh, and also here's a great re-contextualization right now: You are hallucinating images and experiences as you're reading these words. Does that not contradict your point then?

Yes I know all of that but I’m picking a ground from which to perceive in order to have a conversation ( stepping back into the objective world so to speak) That being one of the first realisations I had when I started having awakenings was that of noticing two political oppositions would never find resolution in debate because the behavior towards one another was identical( fighting with a mirror but not being able to see it) The content of the argument was superficial as the underlying behaviour and approach was the same. Opposition is there to act as a devils advocate and point out what may have been missed in oversight and is actually a complimentary force not an oppositional one.holding multiple perspective in one’s self without conflict creates a synthesis for higher perspective. if they realised that, they stop perceiving criticism as attack and start using that info to improve collectively/cooperatively. I don’t see a specific set of behaviours that are identical in two groupings being justified as different by using different descriptors. If beliefs are different but the resulting behavior is the same, the behavior is the same. Whether you are reading about nazis or dealing with them directly, their behavior remains the same. Whether they claim they are left or right, liberal or conservative, their behavior is the same, using differences of language to justify that behavior over others is where their delusion lies. 
 

Regardless of whether a side is left or right, the extremes always end up in totalitarianism, authoritarianism, domination, coercion, suppression etc( my beliefs are right and yours are wrong so I can justify this behavior towards you)

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

I'm just trying to see where you're coming from when you claim and justify that when a Journalist likes Donald Trump = lack of seriousness and hack entertainer, but liking Joe Biden isn't? Maybe if possible could you list some character traits from Donald Trump and Joe Biden that could justify this cherry picked standard for Journalists with right wing bias versus left wing bias?

Sorry, but I just can't be bothered to explain Trump yet again. Go ask an AI to give you a bulleted list of why Trump is a fucking devil.

[Danioover9000]

@Adrian colby

8 minutes ago, Adrian colby said:

Yes I know all of that but I’m picking a ground from which to perceive in order to have a conversation ( stepping back into the objective world so to speak) That being one of the first realisations I had when I started having awakenings was that of noticing two political oppositions would never find resolution in debate because the behavior towards one another was identical( fighting with a mirror but not being able to see it) The content of the argument was superficial as the underlying behaviour and approach was the same. Opposition is there to act as a devils advocate and point out what may have been missed in oversight and is actually a complimentary force not an oppositional one.holding multiple perspective in one’s self without conflict creates a synthesis for higher perspective. if they realised that, they stop perceiving criticism as attack and start using that info to improve collectively/cooperatively. I don’t see a specific set of behaviours that are identical in two groupings being justified as different by using different descriptors. If beliefs are different but the resulting behavior is the same, the behavior is the same. Whether you are reading about nazis or dealing with them directly, their behavior remains the same. Whether they claim they are left or right, liberal or conservative, their behavior is the same, using differences of language to justify that behavior over others is where their delusion lies. 
 

Regardless of whether a side is left or right, the extremes always end up in totalitarianism, authoritarianism, domination, coercion, suppression etc( my beliefs are right and yours are wrong so I can justify this behavior towards you)

   All of that is fine and paradoxical in reality, you can have those contrary beliefs as there's so many moving parts from reality, but when we're arguing you have to adhere to some logical framing and consistency, and you have to be careful of performative contradictions when you try to refute and justify your arguments. That's it. Those contradictions within argumentation makes your arguments weaker, and the arguer who's consistent and least performative contradiction, who knows valid and invalid arguing, who knows weak/strong arguments, and knows when they're appealing or making fallacies and corrects them is the better and stronger arguer.

   Both technically and existentially speaking, the arguer/arguing is a duality, and most arguments are projected by the arguer and their ideological beliefs and biases and worldviews. Just from what you've wrote I can assume your an airy headed spiritualist that's doing the many jumping of contexts and extrapolating here and there and mixing it up to try and coherently sound sophisticated and spiritual. This can be a wrong assumption of you I'm making, but I'm going by how you've posted so far.

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Sorry, but I just can't be bothered to explain Trump yet again. Go ask an AI to give you a bulleted list of why Trump is a fucking devil.

   Fair enough, we've reached a pass, and since you cannot define nor give examples to justify some of your fallacies and this lope sided view you have here with Journalism, and the emotionality you're displaying with some of your words towards Trump way more than Biden, we reached a dead end. We'll have to agree and disagree here. Good luck with using A.I for political science, maybe through that you'll get better level communication.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Leo Gura

   Fair enough, we've reached a pass, and since you cannot define nor give examples to justify some of your fallacies and this lope sided view you have here with Journalism, and the emotionality you're displaying with some of your words towards Trump way more than Biden, we reached a dead end. We'll have to agree and disagree here. Good luck with using A.I for political science, maybe through that you'll get better level communication.

[Adrian colby]

11 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Adrian colby

   All of that is fine and paradoxical in reality, you can have those contrary beliefs as there's so many moving parts from reality, but when we're arguing you have to adhere to some logical framing and consistency, and you have to be careful of performative contradictions when you try to refute and justify your arguments. That's it. Those contradictions within argumentation makes your arguments weaker, and the arguer who's consistent and least performative contradiction, who knows valid and invalid arguing, who knows weak/strong arguments, and knows when they're appealing or making fallacies and corrects them is the better and stronger arguer.

   Both technically and existentially speaking, the arguer/arguing is a duality, and most arguments are projected by the arguer and their ideological beliefs and biases and worldviews. Just from what you've wrote I can assume your an airy headed spiritualist that's doing the many jumping of contexts and extrapolating here and there and mixing it up to try and coherently sound sophisticated and spiritual. This can be a wrong assumption of you I'm making, but I'm going by how you've posted so far.

It’s probably not a wrong assumption. I’ve gone into the mindset of a few different factions to understand from that perspective but I’m currently in metaphysic/ objective retroduction/ subjective synthesis mode currently concentrating on an interest on how inertia/infinity makes its first disturbance to become a field/light/energy ( from what the thing is to what the thing does) there’s no room for conventional spirituality there as it all becomes bullshit when you hit that point.

i hit a point of apathy and didn’t keep up with this groups collective development so probably lagging behind. 

[Bobby_2021]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, although slavery is much older than that so it's not like they invented slavery.

So what? The slaves were the conservatives of the time. Liberals owned them.

You should take relativity into account. You cannot judge the past using the standards of today. If you are using standards of arbitrary times for assessing liberalism or conservatism, then almost everyone is conservative or anyone can be liberal. The whole exercise loses meaning.

Fix a point in time and then do the analysis. When assessing liberals and conservatives of the past, use the past standards for assessing liberalism & conservatism.

Also, how do you know who invented slavery? The motivation to venture into new lands and capture slaves was an exercise in bringing "civilization" and liberalism to uncultured and uncivilized barbarians who had to be taught liberal ways of living. So please take credit for inventing slavery as well.

 

15 hours ago, aurum said:

You would know why Green is the solution if you stopped denying it all as virtue signaling.

I am not criticizing you for being against corrupt greenwashing. I am also against that.

I am criticizing you for throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Go to the Spiral Dynamics Green Mega Thread. Actually take the time to study and understand Green. Ask yourself: What is Green actually? Why does it exist? Why did it develop in the spiral? What is its function in the evolution of consciousness? What value does it bring? 

Contemplate. Take your time, do not rush this or jump to easy answers.

Also, feel free to take it in as objectively as possible, the good and the bad. You will get to keep some of your critiques. But this will help balance your perspective if you actually do this.

You don't say anything tangible or concrete.  I am supposed to find out everything when I open my eyes?

Just tell me what is it that I am going to find out when I open my eyes lmao.

Edited April 1 by Bobby_2021

[Schizophonia]

To be conservative is to believe that there is perhaps, eh, perhaps, a reason why sedentary society has been organized in such a way since literally the Mesolithic.

Edited April 1 by Schizophonia