The last thing Trump needs to be worried about is environmentalists and social justice warriors, and the only thing that he's lost is the election. He's untouchable.

Ah, I didn’t see the ponytail until now. That’s even more mystifying though, because it seems highly unlikely that Greta would warn Trump about losing the election.

The other two human characters are children — universeness

No. The body proportions clearly show that the man with the “I warned you Trump” t-shirt is an adult.

There is no shame in putting yourself in a composition. It is to be admired, actually, because it demonstrates the courage to truly own the message that is being expressed. An after-the-fact warning is alway 20/20, as the old saying goes, because there is no possibility of making a false prediction. You give yourself all the credit and take no risk whatsoever. It is truly courageous to blatantly demonstrate, and to personally own, such shameless positioning.

I think you misunderstand my comment. — Apollodorus

How so?

Anyway, I guess my point is that because religion is based on faith rather than reason, an uneducated but charismatic person could do just as well if not better than an educated person in establishing the "correct" view.

In religion, the only "correct" view is the one coming from religious authority and the view that most people believe is true. It's not known to be true of course but believed to be true. It's a matter of faith.

If you had only one educated and one uneducated view, the options would be reduced to just two, making it much easier to choose. — Apollodorus

Does God exist? An educated person could probably make a better argument one way or the other, I suppose, but in the end only experience matters, unless it doesn't matter and the point is other than spiritual.

I think the main confusion arises from the vast range of interpretation and, in particular, from the divergence of popular vs. philosophical or "educated" views. — Apollodorus

This statement doesn't make sense because, if nothing else, all philosophical or "educated" views are not in agreement.

Good game, I enjoyed it.

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5
10. Nc4 Qe7
11. Qxh5 f5
12. e5 f4
13. Re1 Be6
14. Re4 Rf5
15. Qe2 Raf8
16. Bxf4 Rxf4
17. Rxf4 Rxf4
18. Nd2 Rxf2
19. Qxf2 Bxf2+
20. Kxf2 Qc5+

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5
10. Nc4 Qe7
11. Qxh5 f5
12. e5 f4
13. Re1 Be6
14. Re4 Rf5
15. Qe2 Raf8
16. Bxf4 Rxf4
17. Rxf4 Rxf4
18. Nd2 Rxf2
19. Qxf2 Bxf2+

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5
10. Nc4 Qe7
11. Qxh5 f5
12. e5 f4
13. Re1 Be6
14. Re4 Rf5
15. Qe2 Raf8
16. Bxf4 Rxf4
17. Rxf4 Rxf4
18. Nd2 Rxf2

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5
10. Nc4 Qe7
11. Qxh5 f5
12. e5 f4
13. Re1 Be6
14. Re4 Rf5
15. Qe2 Raf8
16. Bxf4 Rxf4
17. Rxf4 Rxf4

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5
10. Nc4 Qe7
11. Qxh5 f5
12. e5 f4
13. Re1 Be6
14. Re4 Rf5
15. Qe2 Raf8
16. Bxf4 Rxf4

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5
10. Nc4 Qe7
11. Qxh5 f5
12. e5 f4
13. Re1 Be6
14. Re4 Rf5
15. Qe2 Raf8

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5
10. Nc4 Qe7
11. Qxh5 f5
12. e5 f4
13. Re1 Be6
14. Re4 Rf5

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5
10. Nc4 Qe7
11. Qxh5 f5
12. e5 f4
13. Re1 Be6

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5
10. Nc4 Qe7
11. Qxh5 f5
12. e5 f4

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5
10. Nc4 Qe7
11. Qxh5 f5

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5
10. Nc4 Qe7

Funny, I ran through a bunch on scenarios but didn’t see that move. :monkey:

Where that saying is coming from is outside the ego-logical point of view through which we automatically interpret everything. — Wayfarer

If only people really did reason according to strict principles of validity more often. In truth though, it's the rare occasion that we do.

That’s what triggers the incredulous response, ‘what, you get nothing from it?’ — Wayfarer

It's unbelievable simply because it's not true.

There’s a saying in the Diamond Sutra which is one of the core texts of Zen, where the Buddha says ‘I have realized the supreme, ultimate truth, and I have gained nothing from it’. It’s a very hard saying, that, as we automatically interpret everything through the lens of gain and loss. It’s in our DNA, you might say. — Wayfarer

It's actually very easy to say. Religious leaders are forced to mystify because if their preachings weren't mystifying they would not be needed.

What did the Buddha realize? Emptiness. Emptiness is not a something, so in that sense, he gained nothing. You might say that he actually lost something, his sense of self. And if that were the case then there would have been no one to gain something, so even if there were something to gain there was no one to gain it. What's gained is a beneficial experience, to put it plainly.

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O
9. Nd2 Nh5

always remembering Suzuki-Roshi’s advice, ‘give up all gaining ideas.’ — Wayfarer

What do you hope to gain by giving up all gaining ideas? :lol:

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5
8. h3 O-O

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4
7. O-O Qxe5

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5
6. Nxe5 Qd4

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6
5. d3 Bc5

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6
4. Bxc6 dxc6

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 Nf6

It's an interesting idea in pondering what you are saying because it kind of sounds like guys are getting all the pressure to not lose to a woman AND not lose to another guy? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Maybe it would help if I just try to describe my experience. Surfing in Southern California is highly competitive because of the scarcity of good waves. The only informal rule or etiquette in the water is that when catching waves the person closest to the breaking part of the wave gets priority. It's very bad form to 'drop-in' on someone because you'll be in their way and it's hazardous. When it's not too crowded or the waves aren't that great people are usually pretty polite and kind of take turns. In the best spots and when the waves are good it's always crowded and folks get really aggressive. In situations like this positioning in the lineup is key. As I mentioned, whoever is closest to the breaking part of the wave gets priority. I should mention that there are very few women who surf these conditions. Btw, I just asked Google and she said that the ratio of men to women in surfing, in general, is 8/2. That sounds about right.

Anyway, back to the lineup in primo waves. When I'm in the lineup and someone paddles by and positions themself just ahead of me, that is, closer to the breaking part of the wave so they get priority, it feels rather rude if they're too close. A while ago a woman did this and I noticed that it bothered me to an unusual degree. I thought that was odd and that it indicated an implicit bias, in that particular arena anyway.

Sometimes it isn't always clear who should get priority, like if it's a peak wave, or the person on the inside is too deep and may not make it past the break of the wave. I remember a situation like this about two years ago where a woman with a longboard dropped-in on me. In fact, I think it was the only time a woman ever dropped in on me, and I really felt burned. It didn't feel right to feel that burned just because it was a woman. That is fucked-up, as you say, but I'm glad that I'm aware of this bias.

ZzzoneiroCosm v. praxis

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6

I am curious as to what sport you regularly engage in... — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's beside the point. The point is that in any aggressively competitive game predominated by men, losing to a woman may have an extra bite to it, and if that's the case, an implicit bias could exist against women in these games. To be clear, I don't support such a bias, I'm just pointing out its existence.

This forum takes on a kind of gladiatorial arena atmosphere from time to time, you must admit.

How about 'transformative'? — Janus

Is it actually transformative?

I work in a creative field and because of the nature of that field machoism or whatever is even less of an issue, I imagine.

There are various spheres of social life and some of them are less structured than others. Some of them are also more physical and dominated by men. The sport that I regularly engage is very physical, entirely unregulated, and dominated by men. To get out positioned by a woman in this activity has an extra sting to it, if I may speak frankly. That’s just what I’ve personally experienced, and it’s because of my social conditioning. I know it’s wrong, and I wish it weren’t the case, but there it is.

I imagine the same sort of thing is experienced in other aggressively competitive activities.

1.e4 e5

I am not sure you have met the other women of the forum, besides myself. But I think it fair to say that there are other "strong women" in addition to TimeLine that absolutely feel as welcome as any man might. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Your assumption about who I've met on the forum is curious, but putting that aside, I'm not sure you know what I mean by strong. People can be strong in various ways.

If a man and a woman were in a fight and the woman was kicking ass, well, in this man's world that would just not be okay. Sure we can all cheer to the call for women's empowerment, but when you get your ass handed to you by a woman, that's too much. Equal perhaps, but not more powerful.

There’s absolutely no doubt that this is a man-centric forum. Women are welcome, of course, but just like in every other patriarchal culture strong women (think TimeLine) are not welcome.

I really think Craig is one of the most enlightened people I've met with his attitudes towards death and dying — Adam Hills

Indeed. :fire:

A quote by Allan Watts comes to mind. Something like “If the universe doesn’t take me seriously then why should I take it seriously.”

Yes, it can be argued that this is the case for close to any aspect - it's just that being materialistic about some does not trigger me as much as being so about arts. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Undervaluing art for its own sake is a lamentable symptom of a materialistic and unhealthy culture, in my opinion, so in that way I can appreciate what I think you're saying.

What I am arguing is that when money or market gradually makes up a greater role in considering the worth of art, we seem to accept that how much art is worth lies completely in how much revenue an artist makes, or how willing the public is to consume for the art. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

I don't see why you would need to argue that. If art is bought and sold in a particular price range then clearly there is an agreement among art buyers and sellers about the art's monetary value.

We all agree that a $100 bill is worth one hundred dollars. The paper and ink itself doesn't contain the value. It's a promise of value or social agreement of value.

Obviously, ignorance can be exploited and people can be fooled into believing that something has greater value than it actually has. This is true in many aspects of culture and not just the art world. Maybe that and problems with financial speculation, or materialistic culture in general, are what you resent?

Art is Art and money is money. I actually don't give a s**t if people straight-up call it "products to profit" and make billions - the problem is that calling these products art is actually corroding aesthetic standards; it reinforces the monetized value as the signifier of the aesthetic value of arts without justifying it. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

You seem to be suggesting that there are universal or objective aesthetic standards. Is that right?

It appears to me that the painter has painted himself into the picture.

Hindsight is 20/20, they say, but what is more interesting is that the artist views himself as half the man that Trump is.