Leo you misunderstand Hitler completely

[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

[Leo Gura]

Yes, there is very good reason behind slavery, oppression, war, theft, and genocide. It's all very useful and wonderful stuff when you are on the benefiting side of it.

Edited April 1 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, there is very good reason behind slavery, oppression, war, theft, and genocide. It's all very useful and wonderful stuff when you are on the benefiting side of it.

It was very beneficial to slaves as well.

Think about it.

Would you be willing to be subjected stage purple tribal cruelty in some burning hellhole in African desert drinking parasite infested deer blood, and die from malaria

OR 

You can live in America as a slave to some white dude. He will make you do slave labour but feed you well and clothe you. But he wouldn't give you basic human respect.

But you would not be getting basic human respect in tribes in Africa anyway. 

I am not saying the latter is heaven but blue oppression is orders of magnitude better than purple oppression which is what blacks had to endure in their tribes in Africa.

Even today parts of Africa are terribly undeveloped that world has ignored it's existence. Stage red warfare is a daily occurrence in vast portions of it. Most places are still using the bridges that the whites built when they came there.

Do you want your kids to be living there? Those kids of those slaves who were transported to America had more opportunities to succeed in life than billions of other people in the world by having born in America alone. They should be thankful to have been born in America, the land of opportunities when considering the alternative that they are born in Africa. There are no opportunity in Africa because the geography and climate  is so fucked. You can only do so much. 

So it was a fair trade, at the time.

Now don't jump on me. The keywords are "at the time". At the time, slave trade was a fair transaction when you take into account what both parties received and didn't suffer. 

[Danioover9000]

@Bobby_2021

6 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

It was very beneficial to slaves as well.

Think about it.

Would you be willing to be subjected stage purple tribal cruelty in some burning hellhole in African desert drinking parasite infested deer blood, and die from malaria

OR 

You can live in America as a slave to some white dude. He will make you do slave labour but feed you well and clothe you. But he wouldn't give you basic human respect.

But you would not be getting basic human respect in tribes in Africa anyway. 

I am not saying the latter is heaven but blue oppression is orders of magnitude better than purple oppression which is what blacks had to endure in their tribes in Africa.

Even today parts of Africa are terribly undeveloped that world has ignored it's existence. Stage red warfare is a daily occurrence in vast portions of it. Most places are still using the bridges that the whites built when they came there.

Do you want your kids to be living there? Those kids of those slaves who were transported to America had more opportunities to succeed in life than billions of other people in the world by having born in America alone. They should be thankful to have been born in America, the land of opportunities when considering the alternative that they are born in Africa. There are no opportunity in Africa because the geography and climate  is so fucked. You can only do so much. 

So it was a fair trade, at the time.

Now don't jump on me. The keywords are "at the time". At the time, slave trade was a fair transaction when you take into account what both parties received and didn't suffer. 

   Sure, but don't forget it's not just purple oppressions but red oppressions as well, and some blue oppressions. Take for example the history of early America, and the conflicts between the native American tribes and early European settlers, for example the Apache and Comanche conflicts which interconnect to the Spanish early settlers conflict over limited land and food resources.

[Leo Gura]

47 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

It was very beneficial to slaves as well.

Just no.

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Just no.

   I'm guessing with @Bobby_2021 claiming that 'it was very beneficial for slaves as well' in reply to your claim of there's 'very good reasons why slavery and wars exists' is because of the differences of how a dominant and advanced culture treats the less dominant culture they have assimilated, historically speaking throughout time. For instance comparing the last 400 years of American slavery industry, to the slave trade during the Roman empire for example, Roman slaves overall had more benefits and difference in treatment by their masters in comparison to how African black slaves were treated by the Yankees and Southern American states.

   Of course if we go far back, we see there's even the slave trade throughout Africa before Europeans discovered Africa, and slave trade between African rulers and Arab tribes, and if you do a comparison between how Arab masters treated their black slaves versus how American white masters deal with African slaves it's far more negative and stark. Of course if we more the initial point of comparison away from 4000 years of American slave industry to modern day wage slavery, wage slavery is way more humane in comparison to 400 years of USA slavery trade, or to African slave trade or how the Romans/Greeks did their slave trade et cetera. 

[Bobby_2021]

@Danioover9000 Thanks. Couldn't have explained it better.

Slavery was ubiquitous in the world at the time.

Slavery was a massive improvement over the tribal rituals and all the associated bullshit.

Then Capitalism was a massive improvement over the slavery.

100 years from now, working at a job will be seen as slave labour by the liberal intellectuals of 2124. Which it honestly is. They aren't wrong.