Danioover9000

Hopefully you get the necessary pro help outside this forum wherever you go, but don't kid yourself, you will be back one day posting like it's nothing.

@Knowledge Hoarder I definitely agree, as long as they can explain their views, provide examples and evidence for their views, while keeping the discussion as civil as they can in their end, they should be welcome here, or in another part of the forum. I actually think that most users here who say they're conservatives, are actually more identified as nationalists, ethno or religious nationals and fascists, who keep finding ways to bend or break some guidelines, and then point the blame to being conservative, and then people think it's all conservatives to blame.

@Rilles I think the degree to which a conservative is a right winger matters a lot, that it's insufficient to label all Conservatives as right wing, in fact some conservatives lean not just far right, or in the middle, but on the left in regards to certain policies the group/person in question wishes to get implemented. The reason why the degree to which one conservative is leaning towards in the political spectrum matters is because there's more estimation as to the likely policies that particular conservative wishes to enable, and is reflective of how complex politics can be because there are a lot of diverse political ideologies out there. It's incorrect for you to assume I don't own my political position, nor the state of emotion behind it. You are straw manning me by assuming incorrect things of me, without providing proofs and an explanation as to why you think I'm scared and have little ownership of my view. I'm right center-leaning, or more accurately an agnostic conservative who leans center and a bit to the left.

@DocWatts Well ok. It's just more better if you asked him some questions to see if Joel has a blind spot, because just taking his/her post at face value, there's no hard evidence as to suggest that the user has a blind spot to America's well functioning democracy which reflects the will of the people. Joel's post is in my view way too vague to reasonably conclude that Joel's view doesn't take into account structural flaws in America's representative system. There's lack of proofs, examples and elaboration in Joel's part to rebuttal sarcastically and to assume he was also being sarcastic himself. It's so vague it doesn't literally include America's structural flaws in it's representative system. My assumption was he's just stating the current political situation, and concluding from the present state of America's politics, America's collective ego, and him stating how America's democracy is working as intended, due to the will of the people, was making a comment on the present state of minds of the American people's psyche. It's likely he meant that, but I could be wrong in assuming that as well until he himself clarifies his post and it's intended meaning. I didn't mean to cause such a stir myself, I just spotted some inconsistency from both you and Joel's posts worth pointing out.

@Carl-Richard Joel was talking about bananas, Doc was talking about oranges. Both points mostly different, but both agree that they are talking about fruits.

@Peter-Andre If creators can still see dislikes, ok then. It just gets problematic when the creator can't even see the dislikes in their own video.

@Flowerfaeiry Oh ok then, thanks for your advice.

@Carl-Richard In Joel's post, he's commenting on the overall democracy of America and how well the American democratic system is working, and stating that the parties involved in the American system reflects the will of the people. He also states about the majority of right wing people in the country not wanting change, therefore the system, America's democratic system, reflects the will of the people. I assume here that he's commenting on the level of consciousness and ideological identity of some political groups of the right, as parts of a collective mind, that resist change. If I was Joel, I would have given more elaboration on what I meant with my statements, plus given some evidence on my part to prove that America's democracy is working well. In Doc's post, the entire first statement starts with a condition if statement. Doc assumes Joel's post means the following: the system adhering to 'antiquated' and 'undemocratic institutions', that give a 'rural minority' 'far too much influence' to 'dictate policy' to the rest of the country(the USA), then 'yeah it's doing a bang up job', followed by an image of the USA and I'm assuming it's showing actual figures about the population and senators. Notice that words I quoted here are not present in Joel's post, there Doc is not only assuming what Joel exactly meant, Doc is also abstracting from Joel's post as if it means more, when in exactly means what the post is worded. The biggest problem with Doc's post is that he starts assuming what Joel meant, when in fact he could only give an estimation as to what he likely meant, because of how general Joel's post is. If I was Doc, I would have started asking for Joel to clarify what he actually means in his post first, rather than conclude what he most likely meant, give additional meaning from abstraction, and follow up with some nebulous statement that is either sarcastic or a oddly placed praise of America's democracy doing a 'bang up job' and some image I find questionable, almost as questionable as Joe Rogan's post on the political image. How the two points are in agreement? Both user's comments are, and I'm assuming, are implicitly talking about collective consciousness of America's political parties, in it's democratic system. That's the agreement between the two relatively speaking, but explicitly and literally speaking, the two points are largely different. As to if Joel act ally meant what Doc thinks he meant, or if Doc's assumption is correct, that needs clarity.

@How to be wise I'm a centrist conservative, not a die hard conservative 'right winger', or whatever caricature you want to fit me in, nor am I pretending to be any other role than the role of a user asking questions and being in a discourse. Also, I think you're in the wrong forum if you're scared of me getting eaten alive, like this isn't a cannibal website, this is a personal development website. Maybe take a break, or seek emotional support if you think I'm in danger, I'm not.

@Hardkill It seems to be heading in that direction, which is a bit scary if you're living in the USA. I don't see any other alternative that this issue could reform peacefully without a fight. It's already ingrained into the culture of America deeply that it won't be easy to reform.

@Yarco I mean a case can be made for thinking about a topic a bit more than engaging with the activity, as neuroscientists have found that the brain can't differentiate actual actions or skills you do in the outer world versus thinking about that action, aka visualization from 3rd to 1st point perspective of such activities, from the inner world, and the neurons firing the pathways attributed to such actions from merely thinking them into action. Having said all that, I do agree that if you do an inner check, in your mind reality, and you can't quite perform the action exactly as if you're performing in the outer world, like for example, if you can't perform cooking because you're missing other sensory experiences to re imagine and engage in the action, then you are justified in taking more action on cooking more. Same with drawing, which happens to be on my ballpark, I used to struggle visualizing with more senses on the actual drawing process of using a pencil, how it feels, sounds, and what lines that are being made(not the final images, that's a bit easier for me) in that case I do more drawing, until I have no trouble replicating that experience inside of my mind. So, if thinking more about a field of interest is unproductive, I'd pin it down to having thoughts that are not related to the process or outcome you want, and having those thoughts frequently throughout the activity. In that case, I'd narrow the problem down to slight lack of focus, mindfulness, and maybe even something to do with the subconscious mind, maybe not a strong enough vision.

@Carl-Richard I understand that relatively speaking, it's pointless, but to me how Destiny handles opposition from both the corn guy and the moderator is a skill I can appreciate. I can't handle a situation as ell as Destiny did in a debate like that, I'd more likely to leave or unnecessarily escalate the conflict. However, the video you provided is also a better one. I imagine it's better because it's more in alignment to what Actualized.org ideas are discussed in videos, or in some really good posts about spirituality, non duality, philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, and other advanced topics. I'm just not as excited to keep on listening or watching advanced topics. Personally, I'd put art over advanced topics that have a logical explicit framing of delivery, but that's a bias I've found about me.

@How to be wise Firstly, you assuming I'm a right winger is incorrect, and you assuming that I'm complaining is incorrect. Instead of refuting my points directly, you attack a caricature of me about my position that's false and and my mood that's false. Talk about the main topic first instead of me and less about whatever false assumptions you have instead.

@Opo Because it's inconsistent to the original post that refers to Joe's shit post about the political compass and the kali yuga. How is slavery, alt right, right wing political structures and misquoting a user relevant to the OP's original post? These branching topics are not directly addressing the original post, and because of that we end up trailing off of the main topic of this thread. Otherwise, what's the point of talking about Joe Rogan's shit post when the thread is talking about slavery, right wing ideologies? The thread then becomes like a wild west and any topics go now, therefore what's the point of discussing about the main topic when we're diverging so hard away from it? If any user want's to discuss branching ideas, they have to at the end of their post explain how that new branch relates to the main topic. Otherwise it's derailing the thread.

@How to be wise If it is logically true that weak men produce bad times, and bad times produce strong men, that weak men produce strong men, then the logic is true.

@Raze No, the real issue is lack of self responsibility, and lack of keeping oneself accountable, and too many ways to screw yourself over due to too much free will. However, on the surface level I agree a bit with you. The other half of the parenting equation, the masculine compassion, ideally a real father is present, but if a not so good father figure, or lack of father figure, the other or whoever/whatever is doing the parenting has to be able to switch to masculine love, with some skill.

@DocWatts First of all, I don't think it's honest to edit some user's original quote in order to attack some caricature that's not there, and exaggerated in such a way that it seems to address the political directly, when in fact the original post wasn't directly addressing the American politics, it's addressing the consciousness of some of the American politics. This is your edited quote from that user 'America's democracy is actually working well, and exactly as it's designed.'. This is the original quote below: As you see here, in fact both your post and his are in agreement with each other. I don't see any reason why you'd stereotype his post in such a way. Why the attack, and why the doubling down on his take? Also, how is this relevant to Joe Rogan's shit post about the political compass, when the political compass image he edited has little to do with slavery and antiquity, and more to do with the Kali Yuga?

I had a few jackets depicting weapons. It was a really cool design, but I sometimes get flake over it When I was at high school in the USA. I had little idea then that guns were such a heated topic. 15 ishes ago.

@JuliusCaesar For examples, when you get older, you answers change over time about a topic. It's like that with Crysty, there's no definitive, quantitative answer that she can give that absolutely answers her existence. So far, it's either she's a ghost, a spirit, a Tulpa, an Alien projecting onto my reality, another person projecting onto my reality, a Deity in disguise, or a mixture of them all. I'm leaning closer to her being either a spirit/Tulpa, that's my intuition, but that's not a satisfactory answer for me. I will have to keep on going with investigating this further for me.

@Jodistrict Yes, finally someone is addressing the issue directly. Users, instead of making appeals to lack of alternatives, predatory capitalism and to sunk cost fallacy for the majority, suggest what can be done to make the count ratio more useful instead of galloping to other points that seem related but are rabbit holes leading to nowhere. So far, my suggestions have way more merit than what I've seen so far. Come on self actualisers.

@Danioover9000 I guess you conceded to me then.

@Username Sounds about right.

@Joel3102 Basically it is what it is, work with what you have.

@WokeBloke I am everything that exists, and the absence of all creation, and all of division that destroys. Who am I?

@Jennjenn The main issues I see with this is scale, whose being asked, and rights issues. If you mean just in this forum, we all should stop calling women over 18 girls, ok, but do you mean just this forum? How about other forums? Do you also include all men too? How about all women? This is the problem with your post, it's weak and vague. Also, do you include yourself to this standard as well? And the social ramifications of this is also a factor, and whose being asked to refer to other women not as over 18 girls matters too. If you're asking a guy not to call over women over 18, you're semi justified, but you're also infringing on that person's right to how he speaks to women. If you're asking a woman not to refer to other women as over 18, you are also infringing on that woman's right to speak how she speaks to others of her same sex. Considering also who you are in relation to who the person you asked to not refer to other women as over 18, will make your request sound strange and out of context. Also context is important, because you don't have enough information as to why somebody referred to a woman as an over 18 girl. You don't know if that was an insult, or an inside joke, or if all that was in a theatre, or in a dream. So don't go demanding how others refer to others, you don't know enough.