Leaderboard

You quoted me saying: That is a contradiction. Don't talk to me in the 3rd person as if you're taking the pulpit or something. I know you're shook and looking for validation from others but I'm the only one here on this thread that's reading your responses to that wonderful man, Wuzzums.

For one it means no one has a claim on the moon. And perhaps the tax payers has something to say about their money being used for a very expensive 'show'. And it can be nice to keep it in mind. For example when/if NASA or others try to convince people about a trip to Mars. High production value videos were popping up several years ago, that always linked a flat earth perspective with 'that's why there was no moon landing'. It is quite an ingenious psyop to link scepticism, with a flat earth perspective. It has found its way into this forum which is an example of just how effective it has been. These high production value videos did not just spawn by themselves. They would need funding. (Even the narrator is professional sounding in these videos). There are probably people who really believe in flat earth, but if there is, they are usually residing in channels with a low production value. What also happened as far as I know, is that real hardcore long time flat earthers has a website/forum that was rapidly invaded, and obfuscated, by new people, which also shows that this was not some natural growing support for a flat earth perspective. It was pushed along, and always with the 'that's why we did not go to the moon' agenda. It also means that someone found it necessary to create this psychological operation. And that is likely because science, evidence, observations, pictures, etc all stack up to not be in favour of a successful moon excursion. And these things are easily shared on internet. But since this successful psyop, those do not readily have much value anymore. Since anything I or others say about it will now be countered with the produce of the psyop. You put different things in a bag, labeled it religion, and presented that to a person who is talking about some, or one of them? Ok behaviour?

This girl thinks the same as you! "When people say they want to be happy, what they really mean is they want to be content (and they want YOU to be content) and that's fucking dangerous." (Parenthesis mine) BAD PEOPLE around you want you to be "optimistic" about them so they WON'T HAVE TO GET BETTER. Optimism about dysfunctional people is enablement - it's SUBSIDIZING THEIR SHITTINESS with your smiles. -Stefan Molyneux https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jyhrUiLXm4&t=3163 start at 52:43

Could you be more specific in your examples? There are cetainly times to look on the bright side, and times not to. If I am hungry and can't find my favorite food to eat, I may be dissapointed but I will look on the bright side of the fact that I have found food that I do like, even though I don't love it, it is still worth being happy about. On the other side of the coin, if you are repeatedly punching me in the face while I ask you to stop, and you reply "come on, look at the bright side, we are spending time together" then it would be irrational for me to continue looking at our relationship positively. I know that's a silly example, but the point sticks, right? If you are hurting, then you deserve a relationship where you can express this hurt, don't you? Let's start there.

Very convincing. I take from something you said elsewhere that English is not your first language. So I will verify that you know what a lie is. It is a statement with a deliberate intent to deceive. Is empty libel really how you want to present yourself? Also, if you want to hide my posts from the whole forum by going back through my posts with a flurry of -1 reps because I disagree with you, you only reveal yourself as an insecure troll that is less interested in philosophy and more interested in surrounding himself with an echo chamber to reinforce his ego. Why not just go to my profile and -1 the rest of my posts and get it over with? Since I arrived to this forum I have found that it is quite the opposite of what I would expect from a so-called philosophy community. I've met with little but insults and almost every time people disagree with me about anything they get angry, nasty, fence and try to hide my posts. You embarrass yourselves and make a mockery of the spirit of FDR. I've scarcely ever seen such an anti-philosophical community. I said nothing even close to those being opposites. It's baffling why anyone would give a such a response. I can only assume that Wuzzums somehow did not understand what I said at all or understand the words he uses. An action is not cognitively aggressive or competitive. The concepts of aggression and competition depend on the meaning of actions in a context outside of the person performing it. E.g., if Peter hammers a nail into a board, that is not an aggressive act. If Peter hammers a nail into Paul's head, that is an aggressive act. Experiments adding and removing factors is just elementary deductive research procedure. The logic of this procedure is very simple. If you change something and something else changes following that and only that, then what follows is dependent on what was changed. Experiments that sometimes involve transgendering are the key to understanding men and women. The person that is best qualified to understand and explain the difference in sexes is someone whose experienced extends the most into both. I don't think the fact that genetic males with CAIS have female heterosexuality requires explanation. Libido and even orientation is controlled by sex hormones. Up to this point I'm the only one that has given any evidence for anything. All Wuzzums has done is shovel out empty insults and try to shut me out of the forum. I don't scrape gutters. My patience for keyboard commandos is very close to zero, so unless nothing but substance on the topic is forthcoming and those replying to me decide to act like a person that has come to FDR with an interest in genuine discussion I won't be visiting this site again. You'll have to decide: a community of trash talkers or a community of philosophers. Not an argument. Trash talk. Trash comment. A reasonable response would be something like, "Caley, that makes no sense to me. Can you prove it?" I acknowledge only people that conduct themselves at the standards they maintain when using their real names and speaking to someone's face. You're not in kindergarten. I'm sure you can handle that.