zeke5123a
21hr ago
In fairness, is he wrong re capture? Reminded of The point of war isn’t to die for your country but to make that other poor son of a bitch die for his country.
zeke5123a
1d ago
Yes sex is very enjoyable. There is a base need there. But my example which you seemed not to understand is that even erotic love is greater when exercised with another that has a capacity for choice as opposed to self-love. It is in choosing each other and focusing outward that eros achieves its highest form. It is in self love where it reaches a base form.
zeke5123a
1d ago
You think pretty highly of yourself despite being a cad (if your story is true — more likely it is fake) and not particularly bright.
Your argument is against breeding—yes there are animals such as dingos that aren’t domesticated. But most dogs that humans interact with are bred to be domesticated meaning they don’t really have choice.
And kids love different than grownups. My daughters do love me but there is a difference in the kind of love that my wife and I have for each other. But the love my kids have for me will change with time—both for the better and for the worse (sadly it will lose the child like innocence but hopefully deepen in connection and understanding). There is a reason the Greeks had more than one word to describe love. I’m suggesting the highest love needs choice. It’s also the differences between parental love directed towards the child and the child’s love directed towards the parent.
zeke5123a
1d ago
To put it in erotic terms" is a phrase that almost invariably precedes a terrible argument.
Funny I have the same reaction when I see your name on a post.
First you are wrong with dogs. I’ve been around plenty of dogs who I’ve spent very little time with. They all reacted perfectly nice to me if I pet them. I didn’t earn anything.
And you misunderstand the argument. It isn’t about withholding love until certain items are measured. It is about choice. Dogs make very simple choices because they are simple creatures who’ve been bred to be simple. It is very simple to get a dog to like you — it really isn’t about you.
In contrast, humans are complex. They have a real choice in the matter of interpersonal relationships. You can’t form deep connections without some degree of choice on both parties. But it can be a beautiful thing when that choice is made. It is, in my mind, somewhat similar to charity as an act v charity as a law. The choice in the first situation isn’t about judgement but about love. But in the second? Sure you can feel for your fellow man but you are performing the charity out of obligation.
To conclude, the ability to say no is a prerequisite for forming deep connections. Provided you feed and don’t kick dogs, they can’t say no (they are after all your property and were breed to do exactly what you want). Ergo dogs don’t really have the ability to choose.
zeke5123a
2d ago
Dogs suck. The fact you describe it as love shows why dogfree is important. Dogs are conditioning to be pack animals and you are part of their pack. But for there to be love, the other party needs to have the capacity to judge you; to reject you. Dogs are incapable of that. To put it in erotic terms making love requires another human and the best kind is when each is enthusiastically into the act. Masturbation is a pale imitation of the real thing because it’s missing that other human. So it is with dogs.
Dogfree is less about hating dogs (though they do hate dogs) and more about hating dog people who degrade our society by abandoning attempts at true love and replacing it with the narcissistic love of dog.
zeke5123a
2d ago
Dogs qua pets suck. But dog lovers are the worst. They elevate dogs to be above humans. Their world revolves around their dogs. Just wild people. My sister in law gets deeply offended that I don’t like her dogs.
zeke5123a
2d ago
The fever pitched he described in the media rooms to hire not white men was coming from the women and minorities they hired because in part the women and minorities understand they were hired because they are women and minorities.
But it explains why these institutions are failing hard.
zeke5123a
3d ago
It’s also worth taking into account the other poster by his own admission hates white people and is from the subcontinent. The free speech debate is directly tied to the immigrant debate. OP benefits from quashing the immigrant debate but knows free speech is broadly popular and therefore prefers to downplay the assault on free speech.
The OP also confuses state actors with private actors; one is stochastic and the other systemic. Even if the rate of being arrested is similar to the rate of being at a school with a shooting, it doesn’t mean the felt effect of the two would be similar.
zeke5123a
4d ago
I dont think ought is all that interesting. Or rather, I think focusing on oughts lead to utopian thinking which lead to disaster. Much rather have some basic ideas of the good while focusing on marginal improvements of “is”
zeke5123a
5d ago
No you have to force economic conditions to suck for immigrants. Strictly enforce e verify. Heavily tax remittances. Harshly restrict benefits to immigrants. Turn off chain migration.
zeke5123a
5d ago
I’ve made this point a million times. Deny all benefits to illegal immigrants. Strictly enforce their inability to work. Tax remittances heavily. Put a harsh jail sentence for catching an illegal. Turn off chain immigration.
Illegals go bye bye.
zeke5123a
5d ago
I think the framing is slightly incomplete. It wasn’t that Russia simply out of the blue decided to invade Ukraine. The relevant areas have been essentially disputed for a decade with low level attacks against Russians in the relevant provinces and Russian agitation in the same. You have the color revolution in 2014. The whole thing was messy and then Russia decided to turn it up to 11.
Also re nuclear weapons Qaddafi was the impetus.
zeke5123a
6d ago
But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”
Why do you think Clinton talked about 3m votes? What another other shenanigans? It’s quite clear she is strongly hinting without saying that she did in fact win.
Also, keep in mind Clinton knew the Russia shit was bullshit that her own campaigned came up with and that she signed off on.
zeke5123a
7d ago
Sure but if the UK is implementing EU policy, then UK can be used as an example of bad EU policy.
zeke5123a
8d ago
Well, the point is that free speech is important because it can be ugly while telling important truths. I agree the speaker in this context was not polite but he shined a light on the evils of Islam.
zeke5123a
8d ago
But this illustrates why free speech is important. Let’s assume ad arguendo that Muslims are in fact making Britain worse. If you categorically remove the ability to question problems (eg increasing Muslims and encouraging Muslims to stay is making Britain worse), then you either (1) end up with a worse country and/or (2) remove it from a political discussion into a violent one.
zeke5123a
8d ago
I think your comment says more about the Muslim community than anything.
zeke5123a
8d ago
Why mention winning by 3m votes coupled with saying the election was not on the up and up if all you meant was Trump was a Manchurian candidate? There really isn’t anything in there about Manchurian candidate. That’s motivated reason to avoid the obvious truth.
zeke5123a
8d ago
That’s just an unreasonable interpretation and I suspect bad faith.
You don’t mention winning by 3m votes while claiming the election was not on the up and up / saying something isn’t right here simply to mean “Trump is a Manchurian candidate.”
The whole point of mentioning the votes is to to suggest you were actually elected but something “not on the up” happened.
zeke5123a
8d ago
Here is the quote from the article:
“There was a widespread understanding that this election was not on the level. We still don’t know what really happened. There’s just a lot that u think will be revealed. History will discover. But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on about come away with an idea like, ‘Who’s, somethings not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”
That’s fucking clear as day election denialism. Care to recant?
zeke5123a
9d ago
Your claim was nonsense. You claim there was no election denialism. Yet Hillary made points about downstream votes making you scratch your head? What do you think that is? What do you think she meant when she said he wasn’t the legitimate president? Of course she is claiming the election was not on the up and up. Just because you have a specific definition doesn’t make your claim reasonable.
Hell Trump admitted that Biden was the lawful president. See he didn’t deny the election.
No of course not. It’s an overboard statement. But again the basic instinct isn’t wrong (ie you don’t win by being a pow)
More options
Context Copy link