Danioover9000

@Juan You watch too much social media.

@Basman That's true, to some extent.

@CARDOZZO Once upon a time, there was a dumb car. Who dozed off and drove into the wrong car. Then he got out, dazed. Barking up the bar king, so wrong and no bite, now I get to blaze this easy piece of cake. You a masculine guy? Yikes, you mask and you lie all day and night, with drinks you spike. What a mistake, to think your thick but you paper thin, Imma think to ink in your chain links, kinks to your armoury, your so called bravado will melt with my pen game. You got fake fur pelts, I golden fleece, shower your so called sleeping beauty, that passed out on collision, what a guy. Picking to fight me, forgets the love of his life, the wifey.

Big dick energy.

@Cireeric Yeah, that ego mind of techno optimism and technocrat needs to die. A good heart? Maybe, but a sincere question to you, based on his body language and tonality, don't you feel bored or feel something is wrong with him? It's not normal to sound monotone and have such a dead race, like he got strike in the past or something. I just feel like his good heart is in a deep sea if lies and deceit if this techno dream. I also made a diss track about him, that's how much I don't like him.

@Nabd I agree, sometimes those 'stupid' questions are just PR and to make the interviewee look good, like with Netanyahu, just soft ball questions. I'll even go sk far as to say he misrepresented Kanye west's view.

@CARDOZZO *Devilish god. While the concept is nice, in practice it's hard to understand nor solve this Moloch issue, which creates a subtle paralysis by analysis and armchair philosophy which is the majority of those systems thinking groups.

@Rasheed I see. Well have to agree to disagree and part ways. I took you asking a sincere question as you being ready for pushback, and able to argue for yourself. I guess this thread may just be more distraction and out of boredom, so I came here and challenged you too strongly. So maybe misunderstanding on my part of your intentions of this thread.

@Rasheed Also, since you asked a sincere question, I gave a sincere argument against that and your refutation of that was insincere at best, deceitful and bad faith at worst. If you cannot argue and defend your worldview with a sincere argument, why ask a sincere question you cannot honestly defend?

@Rasheed Also, since you asked a sincere question, I gave a sincere argument against that and your refutation of that was insincere at best, deceitful and bad faith at worst. If you cannot argue and defend your worldview with a sincere argument, why ask a sincere question you cannot honestly defend?

@gettoefl I'm not even that far right, I'm conservative moderate, and sometimes depending on other factors I lean left or am agnostic. I might even grant the abolition of monarchy, but I'm just asking how would the OP deal with potential fallouts from abolishing monarchy? Hypothetically speaking, let's say that you and others get to abolish big pharma and other big companies. Okay, how are yku going to deal with the major and minor issues that follow for society at latge?

@Rasheed Also, going back to your main argument for why we should abolish monarchy, how are you going to deal with the resulting high inflation? Yes, you release a lot of wealth and money from the royal families and monarchy, yet that big increase in funds of printing paper money and producing too many coins will devalue the currency. How are you going to manage the huge financial increase in economy?

@Rasheed From my perspective that all sounds like post rationalization from the majority of followers that blindly and dogmatic believe in egalitarianism and secularism, and rationalism of why secularism and egalitarianism should exist, because monarchy bad. Just monarchy bad bad bad, yet a good chunk of human history was in kingdoms and feudalism that was the backbone of most countries development.

@Rasheed I understand that you have a lot of cliams, with little justification for why. Again, tbe Soviet union and Lenin overthrew their monarchy, a theist structured power, because lenin and Stalin stopped believing in a god, and don't like that theocracy and tradition holds all the power in their country. How am I wrong again? Russua and China's revolutionary is basically a deep denial of god and theocracy, and secularism and atheism pretending to have the moral superiority even when such revolution lead to massive deaths. Can you actually acknowledge this point, or are you just going to dodge and repeat this content versus structure point? BTW, just because the USSR and Mau's party are theocratic, 'authoritarian', and 'monarchical'(which I highly doubt because if true then why overthrow their monarchs and traditional ruling class when they themselves share equal values to them?), doesn't mean that China and Russia are equal to other stage blue countries. Stage blue also has nationalism and patriotism, which also has to borrow and source from, you guessed it, theocracy and religions!! So the nationalists who are secularists and atheists overthrew the traditional religious ruling class to self determine their own ethical codes, which again look at the fallout of that. That fallout was also the start of more secularism in Russua for example, and it being the first country to allow abortions and state divorce, has experienced the most severe birthrate decline ever in all other westernized countries. China's 1 child policy and legal abortion also played a rule in it's birthrate decline. Jaoan and south Korea also suffer decline in birthrates. How can you argue for humanism, secularism, egalitarianism and feminism when those ideologies you argue for are also causing the birthrate decline?

@Rasheed Another problem with egalitarianism is that if folliwed blindly, egalitarianism assumes equality in all men, women and children, and even objects. Therefore, how can we determine the utile between two people, or two objects, when egalitarianism equalizes the valhe providedz flatten the value such that it is equal? And why should we care at all when the valie provided by people and objects are of equal values, and the hierarchy of usefulness is a flat plane?

@Rasheed How is my argument a failure to distinguish content and structure? Am I wrong, or is history wrong in describing the secularism revolution within Russia which leads to the USSR, and Mau's party taking over China? After these countries had a bloody coup to overthrow the traditional theocracy ruling these countries, the new god then became the ruler and the freedom fighters, the new secularism, humanism and atheism of Stalin and Mau, figures who hate religion and theocracy, and wanted to rule and establish new norms and new ethical principles from secularism and atheism. Both were deep stage blue religious, until revolutionary have overthrown them and tried to impose arbitrary moral and ethical codes to the entire population to follow. Whether god is real or a fictional is another seperate argument we can have, but regardless it's afterwards, when we have to collective construct social norms, consensus over which moral feamework for society to use, whifh has the more robust versions: theocracy or secularism? Religion or atheism? Patriarchy or feminism? Authoritarianism or egalitarianism? Which moral and ethical system is more robust and stood the test of time, and is beneficial for human flourishing? Whifh is better for human flourishing: secularism and atheism that has no intrinsic moral systems, and allows post modernist ideology to muddy traditional gender roles and biological sex allows corruption of definitions of a man and woman, that me can get pregnant? That affirms transgenderism, homosexuality and other ideologies like egalitarianism, feminism and multiculturalism, when it's mere group think and reproductive dead ends antithetical to human flourishing, the same group think and dogmatism that atheists and secularists complain about? Or religions and theocracy, that encourages marriage, raising of a nuclear family, and are not reproductive dead ends, and offers standards of human decency that hyper stage greens do not have, that actually has the basis for himan flourishing that secularism and humanism, in its ideological hubris declares it has? Plus, again majority of westernized secularist countries with egalitarianism and feminism cannot reproduce natively to replenish replacement numbers to sustain themselves, which makes them source from foreign countries which have theocracy and Conservativism as it's doctrine, so why is it that secularism and atheistic countries, claiming the moral high ground, having to source from theocratic countries to replenish the dwindling population and decline of birthrates? What about egalitarianism? Are men trully created equal? Are women created equal? Are children and babies created equal? Are the elderly created equally? Is technology created equally? Are wars, famines and diseases created equally? Are careers created equally? Are ideologies created equally?

@LSD-Rumi The reason why is due to similarities in developmental factors like Spiral Dynamics stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types and traits, ego development, other lines of development especially societal, and ideological beliefs indoctrinated via family upbringing, culture, newspapers, radio, tv programs, social media, and other information intake points in the information ecology. One major factor I think is that because Israel is more developed, and has similar ideologies that are somewhat democratic, egalitarian, feminist, and generally left leaning in appearance and on paper. There may be business and capitalist ideological incentives for the USA to show political support for Israel. I think it's that, especially if you see the surrounding areas like Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, parts of Iran, even Turkey feeling they want to get involved, it's understandable they'd side with Israel, especially in USA's history of taking over the Americas and taking lands from the Native tribes there like the Apache and Comanche, they both have a shared ego collective historical pattern of conquering lands.

@Nabd The reason why I hate Lex Fridman is because he's inconsistent and bends the truth. Yes, he's a good listener and podcaster, however he gives blind cover to Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, and due to his biases and preferences it makes him blind to their evils they do. He claims he's for love, for truth, for objectivity, yet bends and manipulates the truth to suit his hidden agendas. I don't like that at all. Why do you think he does a good job? A good job sounding boring, like a robot, hyper logical, always appealing to pathos and ethos and logos? If you think it's a good job boring the audience like that, and falsely worshipping the technocrats, then that's a good job I guess.

@Carl-Richard Wht not try boxing, or even do martial arts like kung fu? In southern Chinese martial arts they focus more on different stances and holds, like horse stance riding which is isometric for the glutes and quads, but also the inner calfs if you raise on balls of foot. While running has it's benefits and costs, just shadow boxing and working the bag and pads is stimulating enough for the cardiovascular system and other systems of the body. In fact, isometric exercises and just flexing and posing in front of mirror, that act of muscle contraction increases blood flow to braun because the muscle is squeezed. Nice thing about isometrics is that you get stronger and increase mund muscle connections and muscle coordination which increases endurance as the muscle is educated in how much force to generate and how long to maintain such force. All the while muscle size just slightly increases, and that's good because the bigger the muscles the more cortisol and stressful in maintaining huge muscle mass, which can effect energy levels. Having said that, a lot of yielding isometrics and one minute push ups among over very slow movement exercises under tension can increase muscle size.

@Cireeric It's a good watch, but of all podcasts why choose Lex Fridman? That guy's cringe.

@Rasheed Yes, there are no practical reasons to dissolve the monarchy, as well as religions and traditional structures. Why? Because when the atheists, secularists and humanists within a revolutionist movement did just that, overthrown the Zars Russian Monarchy, and overthrew China's imperial traditional rulership, that created a power vacuum and lack of doctrine that needed to be filled, as the epistemic madness cannot be tolerated in the masses, therefore the smaller anti establishment groups took power violently and quickly proclaimed self determination, and hyper individualism, and new doctrines, which resulted in communist USSR and Mau's party taking over China, two examples of two countries that went secularist with disastrous, short term suffering and bloodshed. Again, how am I wrong in my argumentation that secularism and humanism does not provide any sufficient moral framework that out competes against theocracy, and all other religious doctrine which formed the backbone of many other developing countries, governments, and politics today? How am I wrong in stating that the declining birthrates suffered by most western countries is tied to feminism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and secularists run amok, thinking they are so much better ethically than the theists when secularism and humanism has to source it's own justifications and morality from other ideologies. For example, when westernized countries suffer severe birthrate decline, when rates are below the threshold of replacement numbers for human reproduction within that western secularist country, that quickly follows an increase in immigration from other countries and cultures which are mostly conservative/traditional values dominant, and have a religious and theocratic indoctrination and can reproduce within it's country, how can you think secularism is good for human flourishing, and a good ethical framework? When Secularists and humanists, as well as atheists allow stage green post modernism and relativism to run amok, to degrade morality, and allow group think and blind following of stage green ideologies, and the result is severe birthrate decline and high divorce rates and break up of the nuclear family, and an increase in single parent and other parent household other than a mother and father household, how is that a good ethical framework for human flourishing?

@AerisVahnEphelia You would cancel 99% of humanity for hate speech, but 1% which contains you and your in group would be exempt? I think having a bias and preference of one group over another doesn't make you a Nazi directly, it makes you just biased and preferential. Would you consider yourself a Nazi and fascist for being biased and preferential for yourself and your culture you're a part off, or consider yourself just biased?

@Princess Arabia Yet a large chunk of truth and discovery, and philosophical and epistemic and metaphysical insights comes from arguments between two perspectives, via making claims and assertions with justification followed by evidence to corroborate those assertions, and an open exchange of ideas via expressing different truths, albeit in heated ways. Majority of western and eastern societies are built through communication and argumentation of this kind, so are you denying the importance of arguments?

@Princess Arabia If your starting career involves making a website, with a series of video courses, followed by a YT Channel with free video content,and thag is your life purpose, how am I wrong or how is it not considered a betrayal when the audience and viewers from YT, having watched weekly releases of videos, to having to deal with irregular schedule, to now have to wait and deal with a long hiatus? How is thag not wrong for a content creator to subject his consumers to a long hiatus? How is that not a betrayal of the implicit contract between creator and customer base?

'Free speech is hate speech, and hate speech is free speech.' Quote by Max Kharson, aka Mr. Girl.