And what came of those protests? Nothing.
— baker

Captive /.../ — FreeEmotion

It's not clear what your reply has to do with my question. The protests against the war in Iraq changed nothing, other than once more convicing people that protests accomplish nothing and are useless.

I will say that the quips about Zelensky being an ex-comedian somehow a bad thing is dumb and classist. — StreetlightX

The previous prime minister of Slovenia (prime minister is the position with the most power in the country) was a former comedian. He wasn't in position for the full term, he was overthrown by the current government just before the covid crisis broke out.

He has proven to be a competent enough politician, but it's just hard to take him seriously, because everytime he begins to speak, I recall his comedic impersonations of politicians.

This has nothing to do with classism. It has to do with the justified expectation that a political leader should be an honorable and capable person.

I want more comedians, baristas, garbage people, dance teachers and brick layers in positions of power, as a general rule.

"Vote for us, and you will all have higher salaries!" is a slogan one of the current government parties here is using (the elections are in April). I used to think such slogans would be limited to dystopian science-fiction and caricatures in politology textbooks, and that no actual political party would ever say such a thing. But they do. And they come from the ordinary people.

What do the categories of people you mention above know about how to run a country?
And how could they fend against political extremism taking over?

If anything Zelensky's sense for the dramatic has been an absolute boon to Ukraine in this war, even if people are really so thick as to take it at sheer face value. But that's not Zelensky's fault.

It doesn't help that the war is presented as a video game.

Tell us more about the West's racist "Jihad" against Poland, Czechoslavakia, Bulgaria and Croatia. — Baden

I suppose one needs to be a member of a Slavic nation to experience this and to noitice it.

You know what the slang term for Slovenes is? "Viennese horse stable keepers" (it's a succint phrase in Slavic languages).

Ever since I can remember, it's been beaten into us that we are inferior, an inferior race, and that only the British, the French, and the German are "proper people".

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "acting in bad faith", but I don't think accepting we've emboldened Putin matches any understanding of the term I know of. — Isaac

You've used the image of the bully on the block in other discussions about this topic. Thus taking for granted that he's a bully (and that "we" need to find ways not to provoke him).

What would you do if someone called you evil, a monster, and would persist in that for a long time? Eventually, you'd probably conclude that the person doesn't mean well to you and you would take some action against them, depending on the circumstances and your resources. Would that make you an monster, a bully? Or just someone concerned about his own safety and wellbeing?

I think the same kind of scenario happened to Russia, on a much greater scale, of course. The West has always belittled and demonized Russians, and acted against them. The Russians were fully justified to conclude that the West doesn't mean well to them, and that proactive self-defensive action needs to be taken.

It's why I think the West didn't "embolden" Putin. To "embolden" Putin implies that he's a thug who just needed a little push.

My point is that the moment one thinks of another person as evil/a bully/etc. and treats them accordingly, the interaction is bound to deteriorate. You can observe how this happens between individual people, and between countries.

There is, of course, a tendency to minimize the context in which one sees the matter, people tend to ignore the initial bad faith in which they entered the interaction, and all they do is look at the other person's negative reaction.

In contrast, when one genuinely means well to others and acts accordingly, the other person will generally reciprocate in kind.

If the West would be fair and goodwilled toward Russians from the onset, the Russians would have no reason to think the West doesn't mean well to them, and there'd be no conflict. No war.

The West is like someone who hits the other person first, and then cries foul if the other person hits them back. "Look what he did to me! He hit me! He must be destroyed!"

Another example of ignoring the existing qualitative aspects of a relationship to frame one’s position as ‘logical’. There is no logical position in a power differential. Anyone who ignores this is kidding themselves to think they’re in a fair fight. — Possibility

*sigh*

A fight is a fight. In any fight, it is assumed that the one who hits first is willing to fight. Regardless of perceived or real differences in physical prowess and fighting skill. — baker

And I didn’t frame it as ‘man vs woman’. Read it again.

You said:

If she’s emotionally destroying him with her fists, then he needs to tell her that, rather than pretend there’s no emotional attachment to destroy. — Possibility

If men would rather not be hit by people, then they should stop pretending it doesn’t hurt. If it hurt, then for fuck’s sake TELL her that it hurt.

Are you grateful to your god/s?
Do you express submission to your god/s?
Do you acknowledge that they were there before you and that they contextualize you?

Clearly I do.

I've discussed him issues far enough. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. — ssu

You're confusing his anti-Western stance for being pro-Putin.

The matter is the same as in the covid discourse: a simplistic side-taking prevails.

So there you hear from the troll. Starting from that Putin cannot be a dictator. Putin has a point in many things, according to him. And he tells what Putin has told very accurately. Only saying that what Putin says are facts.

Has it ever occured to you that he is just trying to be fair?

And when you never, ever utter anything negative or critical about someone, it tells who you are.

Again, you're confusing his anti-Western stance for being pro-Putin.

Secondly, some people still have a sense of shame and so they would not say about another person (what to speak of saying it to the other person), "He's a piece of shit", "He should be put down", "You have no soul", and things like that.

There was a time and a place when people considered it beneath their dignity to say such things about other people, what to speak of saying them directly to them. They believed that they would lower themselves if they said such things.

It seems there are very few such people left.

I feel disheartened to see what language is being used in this discourse (as well as in many others). It shows how low so many people have fallen.

Thus such "theists" themselves render God irrelevant.
— baker

Well, without them we wouldn't exist. So they give meaning to all life. Their reasons for creating us were selfish but understandable. — EugeneW

What you have isn't theism, it's a type of atheism, and of the worst variety.

Theism proper requires active membership in a monotheistic religion. Without that, one is just making stuff up to suit one's fancy.

But maybe it's not necessary to intepret it in this way. What if it means, not that Christianity is the only true religion, but that only those who follow 'the truth, the light, and the way' - in whatever form it manifests or incarnates - are 'saved'? That is one of the interpretations of John 10:16 'other sheep that are not of this flock'. (Of course this kind of interpretation is much more intuitively obvious to Hindus than to Christians.) — Wayfarer

No, this is still a Christian rendition of a Hindu view.

A Hindu view would be something like: God is the source of all religions. People are born into a particular time, place, and religion according to their spiritual acumen (as developed in previous lifetimes). God gives people a particular religion according to their spiritual acumen.

Which is why in Hinduism, among other things, preaching to outsiders and religious conversion are unintelligible concepts.

There is not one god. There are as many gods as there were, are, and will be creatures in the universe. — EugeneW

Thus such "theists" themselves render God irrelevant.

The other week, Zelensky gave a pep talk and he winked. He winked.
This is what we've come down to. Presidents in war-torn countries winking to their people in support.

The whimsically selective memory of the Putin troll. — ssu

Clearly, you don't actually know his stance on Putin.

This discourse is the same as the covid one: "He that is not ferociously with us is feruciously against us, end of story, those are the only two options."

It's this simplificationism that keep the fires going.

Fifteen years ago, on Feb. 15, 2003, somewhere between 6 million to 11 million people turned out in at least 650 cities around the world to protest the United States’ push to invade Iraq. It was the largest anti-war protest and remains the largest one-day global protest the world has ever seen.

And what came of those protests? Nothing.

An egotheist, then
— baker

Haha! A selfish theist? Or a theist thinking he's a god himself? — EugeneW

A theist who glorifies himself and creates a god in his own image: "God is whatever I say God is".
A self-styled "theist" who doesn't care a straw about God.

If you are just re-creating Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and (middle-class trope) of "Self-actualization", just say it. We can also read 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and What Color is Your Parachute?, afterwards (please read sarcasm there). — schopenhauer1

Haha.

I used to think that people who are successful in their careers and who have "made it" in life had first figured out the Big Metaphysical Questions, the Meaning of Life Problem, and then, with the solution firmly in their pocket, went on to succeed, one sure step after another.

Turns out one doesn't need any of this in order to succeed in life. People's minds can be utterly barbaric, yet they can still do well in life. And be happy!!!!!

I’ve merely responded to what I consider to be a misapplication of Buddhist language. You’ve yet to provide an argument that might change my position on this. — Possibility

For that, you'd have to study the suttas yourself. But this appears to be out of the question for you, you don't see the texts as authoritative.

I never claimed that Early Buddhism is wrong, only that misinterpretations abound, as in any religion that is based on a living exemplar. The truth of Buddhism is not from interpreting doctrine or written texts, but based on the path taken by Buddha himself, and what it teaches us about ourselves. I would make the same comment of Christianity. The truth of the Tao Te Ching, by comparison, is based on self-reflective interaction with the written text itself (from which subjective translations are misinterpreted).

"Misinterpretations".

Suit yourself.

Eh, I don't care for this "First rule of Fight Club is don't talk about Fight Club". Like if you want to discuss it fine.. — schopenhauer1

No, it's not fine.

My point is that you're confusing yourself with low-grade sources about Buddhism, and this leads you astray on many aimless tangents. Thus causing yourself suffering, and unnecessarily so.

There is no need to insist in those low-grade sources about Buddhism. If you'd study up on Buddhism, you'd see that many of your ideas about it are wrong, even though you apparently get emotional satisfaction from them, which is why you insist in them and refuse to eliminate them. Your wrong ideas about Buddhism are a great source of pleasure for you, and you apparently don't want to jeopardize that by educating yourself or dropping the whole thing altogether.

You I believe were the one bringing up ideas of the no self and Buddhism etc.. So I am accommodating.. I couldn't give a shit really about ideas of the "no real self self" thing..

Indeed, as I was trying to explain another poster's points.

Both griping and passivity should be beneath one's dignity, simply as a matter of principle.
— baker

That's just the middle-class perspective /.../

Not at all. It is closer to the upper class' "stiff upper lip".

.. fuck that, I'm COMPLAINING!!! The situation is FUCKED and there is NOTHING besides NOT SPREADING IT TO OTHERS one can do about it..

Talk about limiting beliefs.

This doesn't equate to advocating optimism etc. It's just about common decency.
— baker

What the fuck matters about common decency when one is thrown into a situation one would not ask for and given the option of suicide or comply as a way out? Sitting and trying to rid the self of self or any Buddhist thing you want to think of is just one coping mechanism.. It doesn't mean that the peaceful looking monk is any more dignified than the smug asshole statue of some Roman Stoic philosopher.. Both just coping mechanisms my man.

You're high-maintenance ...

Person referring to Holy Scripture in the justification of the war he started — ssu

You need to be more precise. He didn't use the Bible as his justification for his actions in the Ukraine, nor did he argue that he is following God's orders or that he otherwise has divine justification. Unlike the way US presidents did.

Accept that we've emboldened him — Isaac

This is still part of the narrative "Putin is evil/a monster/bully/etc. and everything he says and does must be interpreted in line with this fact".

This is where it all goes wrong. It's acting in bad faith. Acting in bad faith goes wrong as long as the other party still has some strength to resist it. The only times when acting in bad faith seems to work out fine is when the other party is too weak to offer much resistance.

The actual problem at hand is operating on the idea that acting in bad faith is good, or at least not problematic.

So, it's about keeping doors open. Even if Putin wants them tightly shut with no light shining in. — Amity

There you go: The West's supremacism. It radiates through every crack.

Westerners insist in their supremacism and entitlement, while there are still people in the world who refuse to submit to it. And yet they are the bad guys!

Self-criticism. This is my way. If a person practices self-criticism, that person cannot be so destructive, because that person will continuously ask to herself: “What am I doing? Is it good? Is it intelligent? Will it help progress?”. If Hitler had a habit of self-criticism, he would have thought, every second of his life: “What am I doing?”.
— Angelo Cannata

For people with delusions or paranoia - mad or bad, it is not possible to reason like this.
They have no reason to. — Amity

What makes you think Hitler wasn't being critical of himself? What evidence do you have, either from existing recordings of him, or what appear to be his writings (published or private)?

What makes you think that self-criticism should result in exactly one kind of answers? Namely, those pleasing to the current mainstream politically correct agenda?

This reminds me of a Christian preacher who said, "If you're honest, you will realize that Jesus is your Lord and Savior. And if you don't realize that Jesus is your Lord and Savior, then you're simply not being honest." He imposed his standards of honesty onto others.

You're doing the same kind of thing: Imposing what the result of self-criticism should be, and that if a person seems to lack that result, it can only be that they aren't self-critical.


This is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler. "Gut feeling" is not an argument.

How do we solve a problem like Putin?

A person isn't a problem to solve.

As for the situation at hand, the solution is simple, but people generally refuse to implement it: Act in good faith, with common decency, and treat people like people.

But most people will rather have their right hand cut off and their eyes plucked out than act in good faith, with common decency, and treat people like people.

They generally refuse to do so in peace time, what to speak of doing so in times of war.


I'm not going to mention names, but some of the people who wrote those essays you're refering to generally sound like lumpenproletariat with advanced degrees.

One person's "cognitive rigidity" is another person's "steadfastness" and "self-confidence".
Who gets to define the terms? Humanist liberals with their particular agenda?
— baker

History is full of it. — Benkei

Full of what? Answers to "Who gets to define the terms?" ?

Why should that be a problem? You exclude others.
— baker

Intolerance of intolerance isn't exclusion but nice try.

*sigh*

No, a ius ad bellum argument. All wars of conquest were unjust, even then by our own standards. But again, history, which you've must have missed in class.

This is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler. There should be more to one's moral arguments than "gut feeling".

You're reflecting an uncritical acceptance of liberalist pop-psychology.
— baker

I'm reflecting the latest research on the matter and you offer nothing substantive in return.

Only some of the latest research. There is other research that says that people are naturally resilient and that much of what psychology at large has been doing is actually useless or even counterproductive.

Why would one have to tell another person anything when they are afraid?
— baker

Indeed why?

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

Shutting up would already be an improvement but unfortunately society is filled with people telling people what they are supposed to feel, supposed to look like and supposed to do. Usually starting with your parents.

Can't you see that your "latest research on the matter" is doing the same thing -- telling people what to think, feel, speak, and do -- except that it does so under the guise of "science" and "latest research".

Seriously? “She hit me first” - that’s the argument? — Possibility

*sigh*

It's not an argument, it's an anecdotal estimate by a self-defense professional.
Actual studies of these phenomena are relatively few, because the issue is so loaded, so anecdotal evidence is often all we have. Generally, victimology brings up many concepts and study findings that are unpalatable to many people.

What are you, five?

*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*

If men would rather not be hit by people, then they should stop pretending it doesn’t hurt. If it hurt, then for fuck’s sake TELL her that it hurt. Use your words. This is not a test of bravado.

If someone hits a person who is physically stronger, the implication is NOT the same as a physically stronger person hitting them. This is true regardless of gender.

A fight is a fight. In any fight, it is assumed that the one who hits first is willing to fight. Regardless of perceived or real differences in physical prowess and fighting skill.

It's misleading to frame the matter as "man vs. woman". It's fighter vs. fighter, or fighter vs. non-fighter.

If she’s emotionally destroying him with her fists, then he needs to tell her that, rather than pretend there’s no emotional attachment to destroy.

Superficial and stereotyped relationships come at a price.

That's an odd belief, that one cannot love a mad person. — Olivier5

It's incoherent to love that which one hates or despises or otherwise considers wrong or substandard.

I don't think that this crisis will be contained to Ukraine, but I'm an optimist that it will be contained from becoming WW3. — ssu

How?

As an analogy, what if this was the mindset of every person born into actual slavery? How do you think slavery was abolished? Not just by griping. It was the efforts of people focused on the possibility of a complete cessation of slavery, despite the reality of their experience. And they developed an understanding of their oppressors, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with this so-called forced agenda, until it no longer appeared to be ‘forced’, but was a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion. — Possibility

You do realize that the implicit motivation for ending slavery wasn't some kind of enlightened "But blacks are people too!", but the capitalist motivation to produce an easily indentifiable category of workers that could be exploited even more easily than the white trash. Remember, owning slaves is rather expensive: the owner has to provide for them housing, food, vocational training, various other practical matters. By "freeing" the slaves, all those costs are now on their own shoulders.

Fair enough, and I think Schopenhauer would have a similar view. One point I am trying to make, that you criticized (it seemed) by saying I was overemphasizing, is that we are ALREADY put in a position that we will have those two types of craving AT ALL. This is my ethical stance against procreation, but also informs my overall pessimism. The fact that we are already PUT in a stance to HAVE to move forward with burdens, overcoming burdens, overcoming the burden of all burdens (chanda, let's say), — schopenhauer1

I think that at the core of your predicament is that you're too passive, you wait for too long, wait for others to tell you things. This has many consequences, one of them being a general sense of being-thrown-in-at-the-deep-end.
There are aspects to your pessimism that are the product of inaction. Perhaps also products of laziness, indolence, convenience.

Specifically in reference to Buddhism: Ideally, in a Buddhist context, a person doesn't wait to be preached to, to be taught. The normal way to go about learning the doctrine is to study it yourself, or not bother with it at all. If one leaves oneself to the mercy of others, they will teach what they think one needs, which, however, might not be be relevant to one's needs, interests, and concerns.

It's all part of a STANCE one HAS to take in the FIRST PLACE because one is ALREADY in the situation to begin with.

There is one stance that I do expect you to take, and that is "What you do matters".

And this, you may call "unduly pessimistic" but it is the reality, and a reality that cannot be contested, as even the very act of contesting proves the point!

So?

So I brought up the idea of gaslighting with Possibility. In a way, Buddhist (and other Eastern religions) are doing the same thing as what (it seems if I can understand her jargon) she is doing.

It's important to note, though, that ideally, you wouldn't hear anything about Buddhism (or most other "Eastern religions") unless you made the effort yourself.
Instead, what has happened is that some Westerners have spread "Eastern religions" in the West, using the model of religion as they devised it based on Christianity. Unlike Christianity, "Eastern religions" generally do not proselytize, they are closed circles intended only for those with sufficient personal interest and who are willing and able to make the required effort.

That is to say, it tries to make the suffering inwards (it is YOU who must change your view or right way of thinking to overcome suffering).

And not having heard anything about Buddhism, you wouldn't be griping about this.

1) First off, I don't think the metaphysics is true. I DON'T think that the world is SIMPLY a construction. Rather, I think that there are SOME necessities (i.e. situatedness) of reality that one CAN NEVER change. These processes are the reasons we have desires and wants in the the first place. They are basically originated from evolutionary means, and what it means to be an animal in a physical environment.. (hunger, boredom, language, working together to accomplish goals, and the self-awareness).. it's all part of a sort of necessity of what it means to be "born" at all. I think it is a long con game to pretend that, "No we are not born, we only THINK we are born".. I think Descartes pretty much took care of that kind of thinking. Buddhism INSISTS there is no THERE there but there is a THERE. If there wasn't you wouldn't need things like Chanda or Buddhism at all! It's a pseudo-problem, really.
But you can always gaslight and say, "No no, that is just what you would say because you are too deluded or you don't have the right understanding".

I think the cure for all this is to actually study Buddhist doctrine, or else, drop all talk of it.

2) Second, I notice that Buddhism is basically about the Middle Way.. This allows for things like having families, working tirelessly at your job, or whatever.

Again, I advise to take up a serious study of Buddhist doctrine, in order to clarify all issues, or drop the whole thing altogether. Such a populistic level of understanding is a waste of time.

Thus, my answer is griping. I know that sounds oddly pedestrian, but it is more than just complaining.. It is the communal realization of our predicament..

Clearly, it's not all that communal, given that not everyone shares it.

In part, I agree with pessmism -- in the sense that this world is an endless round of suffering. Where the pessimism of your variety and I part ways is the "communal consolation" aspect and the passivity. Both griping and passivity should be beneath one's dignity, simply as a matter of principle. This doesn't equate to advocating optimism etc. It's just about common decency.

That's like saying that the operation was successful, and who cares if the patient died!
— baker

The operation is a choice the ‘patient’ makes freely, with an understanding of the risks. A failed operation is an opportunity to improve on the next attempt. Or not. And I’m not saying ‘who cares’ at all. I’m just saying that those who consider it worth the risk have often taken more into consideration than you might be aware of yourself in judging them. — Possibility

I used the theme of the successful operation but with a dead patient to comment on your lack of concern for the people involved, and instead your prefrence for some "bigger picture".

Notice I didn’t say a significant or noticeable difference. Making an incremental difference is not about anyone acknowledging your existence but the ‘self’ you construct to engage with the world. But this is only what I choose from my experience. I see it as an example of creatively re-arranging this supposedly ‘forced agenda’ you two keep harping on about as some ‘big bad’ we’re supposed to try and ‘win’ against. But it’s not about winning, it’s about understanding how the agenda is constructed - and then changing it.

"You two". Blegh.
Schopenhauer1 and I do not have the same stance, and I'm not "griping" about the agenda.

This has nothing to do with ‘craving’, but selecting freely from options that include suicide, asceticism and griping. But you will continue to insist that I must be craving something, because you seem unable (or unwilling) to understand it any other way.

It is craving, it's textbook craving. You bring in Buddhist references, so I assume this is the language we can use here.

"Just like you, we also don't actually know whether God exists or not, but we'll burn you in his name anyway!"
— baker

Strawman

No, a reflection of your supreme self-confidence.

While you reduce whatever I (or some other posters) say in such a way that you can dismiss it.
Talk about ignorance and exclusion!
— baker

What have I dismissed?

Buddhism, for one, despite making references to it and using its terminology.


I'm not a Buddhist; I'm familiar with the doctrine, though. When I see someone making egregious claims to the effect of "Early Buddhism is wrong", this catches my attention and I want to see what said person has to say, how they hold up in discussion. Whether they can offer something that is superior to what the Buddha of the suttas taught.

What I’ve been trying to articulate (obviously unsuccessfully) is the possibility that we’re both approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure. I’m exploring the possibility that we could both be correct and incorrect to some extent, and using this interaction to improve the accuracy of my own position (and potentially yours, but you don’t seem willing to even consider that). — Possibility

I am quite certain that we are _not_ "approaching the same truth from different positions of perceived value structure".

Anything that is less than the complete cessation of suffering is not relevant to my theme. You seem to be saying that the complete cessation of suffering is not possible. On this account, I'm interested in seeing what you have to offer, hence why I'm still discussing this.

Or else, it's a matter of being self-confident, which is a good thing.
— baker

Self-confidence is about problem ownership, admitting mistakes and being prepared to let go of beliefs when they turn out to be wrong. There's no self-confidence in dogma, only a failure to think. — Benkei

One person's "cognitive rigidity" is another person's "steadfastness" and "self-confidence".
Who gets to define the terms? Humanist liberals with their particular agenda?

There can be cooperation without the trappings of inside jokes, secret handshakes and cordoning of us and them.

The problem about brotherhood is that it excludes others.

Why should that be a problem? You exclude others.

Do provide three examples of such wars "to remove real evil".
— baker

Every war fought by indigenous people against European invaders plus Hitler.

Ah, the noble savages argument.

And the "healthy reaction" to any emotion is to be passive. "Look, there's a man setting my house on fire! I feel so afraid! I must have a healthy reaction to fear!"
— baker

How does this even relate to my post? A healthy reaction is acknowledgment of the existence of the emotion and for your surroundings to accept that existence.

You're reflecting an uncritical acceptance of liberalist pop-psychology.

So if someone if afraid, you don't tell them there's nothing to fear, because that's a dick move.

Why would one have to tell another person anything when they are afraid?

It also means no one wants to deal with them anymore, no one wants criminals around them. — Christoffer

Nobody ever wanted them to begin with. They have always been treated as third class people. To whatever extent they were accepted, it was all conditional. Russians (and Slavic people in general) have always been expected to earn the respect of the Westerners, while the Westerners feel entitled to getting respect from others without ever earning it.

This skewed dynamic is at the core of this whole conflict, and many others.

Seems absurd when expressed this bluntly, but it's really true: the most challenging philosophical task of the modern world may be what to do about our need, compulsion, desire to chew. — Enrique

Not chew in particular, but to ingest, to eat. The real philosophical problem is eating, feeding.

But isn't that all weakness? Not being able to change your mind because of what? Extreme beliefs to me seem to be about clinging to what you think you know. — Benkei

Or else, it's a matter of being self-confident, which is a good thing.

In brotherhood we just do what everybody does because it feels safe.

I doubt this generally holds true. Group psychology isn't just about mediating fear, it's also about achieving mental and practical outcomes that a single person could not.

A purely defensive war or a war to remove real evil, you know the level that makes you sick in your stomach and retch

Do provide three examples of such wars "to remove real evil".

But where to go from there? What does it help if we can reduce causes for war to this. We're not capable of teaching the world to have healthy reactions to emotions.

And the "healthy reaction" to any emotion is to be passive. "Look, there's a man setting my house on fire! I feel so afraid! I must have a healthy reaction to fear!"

What we're apparently not capable of is to treat eachother with common decency and generally refuse to act in good faith. It's this lack of common decency and the insistence in bad faith that progressively worsen the situation until it deteriorates into armed conflict.

Thank you, you are very kind. Honestly I failed her, but yes, in the end it was her choice.
— Olivier5

It pains me to read that you feel like you failed her. I don't want to try and change your mind, I just want you to know, that you do not have to carry this as a failure on your part. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Of course he failed her. She risked health and life so that she could keep the relationship with him at all, and it wasn't enough.

There is something peculiar in that line of reasoning though, because the solution is so obvious, release the taboos around sexuality. — Tobias

List three examples when the lowering of standards led to a better result.

Besides, nowadays, we have more taboos around sexuality than ever. We are under the dictate of discussing the matter, but are allowed to do so only superficially.

banged a girl — Hanover

And people who use such language should be regarded as arbiters of righteousness ........

By whom were you hit more often? By men or by women?
— baker

By men. Definitely men. — Possibility

Women. Absolutely by women.


I heard from a facilitator of women's self-defense classes that according to their internal study, in about 50% of the cases of violence of men against women, it was the woman who hit the man first (and things then escalated from there).

I still loved her but couldn't take the madness anymore. — Olivier5

One cannot simultaneously love someone and beileve they are mad. One of the two is not true.

every religion that rejects worship all deities entails atheism with respect to those unworshipped deities
— 180 Proof

A fallicious entailment. You think I worship any of them? No way. — EugeneW

An egotheist, then.

↪Gregory A Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?
a day ago
— baker

As a loser, a homeless person, someone sleeping in a car, yet with a message, can communicate with others wherever they are in the world I can't help but consider such an outcome so slanted in my favour can come about by mere chance. But, still don't let me stop you believing that a 12v powered tablet computer, a hotspot from my phone, like the Mount Rushmore memorial are simply Natural features of an uncaring universe. — Gregory A

You're working with a fallacious reduction of options. There aren't just "either believe in God, or believe in mere chance". It's also possible to not have any particular opinion on the matter. Or believe that Earth is controlled by beings from other galaxies. And whatever other cosmogonies people believe in.


I asked you
Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?

This is to point out that most people who have ever believed in God, have not done so as a result of careful consideration and choosing, but were simply born and raised into a monotheistic religion. They were taught to believe in God, they never chose to do so.

The people who _choose_ to believe in God are a minority.

Do you have any comment on this?

Ukraine? — schopenhauer1

I'm not that close to where it's happening. But the government of the country I live in decided it would be a good idea to get "more actively involved" in the war, so ...