I have genuiney made my case, in full. There is simply nothing more to it. To understand my philosophy and what I see life as in terms of journey vs destination, look to Taoist philosophy and check out some 'Sadhguru' lectures on YouTube.
I don't want to sit and explain the philosophy of 'not overthinking something that is blatantly true' in life but if you actually want that explained. See Eastern philosophers, especially Taoists or Hindu-esque philosophers and you'll understand a lot more about my attitude to life.
You keep saying a destination is 'needed' but I never said that the journey has no destination, I said what matters in religion and theology is the journey. Wars have been fought for millennia over one side thinking their God or politics were the 'one true destination' in such thinking. I don't support that, only tyrants and/or terrorists do. For me, it's about the discussions, the search, the yearning. You want God, she/he/it will find you in its own way. You don't want God and are happy with out the concept entirely, then atheism will find its way into your heart. Either way, the pleasure of the journey and intricate twists and turns it takes are the entire beauty and 'power' of religion to someone.
No it isn't. You do not ever fall in love to fall in love, that is never the goal. the goal is actually inexplicable but in the short term is everything other than the falling-in-love itself and what comes along with it.
You speak a lot about needing goals and use Cambridge Dictionary to discuss deep philosophy... I am not sure you're 'thinking' rather just out to 'prove' a semantic tautology.
The destination in mind when falling in love with someone is to experience the love, there's no real destination for wanting it or pursuing it beyond it, in itself. the same goes for the stages in training and every day you get out of bed to do it just because you want to no sleep your life away or deteriorate, regardless of whether or not you end up as a wrestler.
Yes, it is a journey. You live for the near-future with no real goal overall just a series of tactical moves where you know all strategies lead to death.
It's clear to me with your 'never' and 'no one ever said' that you're far more familiar with traditional Western and Arab philosophy than Eastern or Pagan philosophy.
But the destination changed in all the scenarios I brought up and yet the journey continues and was so worth it regardless of their failure to become the wrestling pro they wanted to become.
Equally, a terrible journey can appear at first to have a great destination but the very horror of the journey snowballs into a hatred of having become trapped in that destiny.
do what you want, I am not going to engage in this debate. It's going to be far too easy to smear campaign me and I already know the authorities will dislike me posting what I want to post about Reagan and the motive to lie. I am not interested in this debate at all, you were correct in your presumptions.
Not at all. If you observe the people who 'do best' in life. They learned to use all kinds of experience and training, often totally unrelated to the specific walk of life they ended up using it on, and aggregated people skills, critical thinking formats and many other things along the way that gave them a unique and brutal edge in the later walk of life. Training for wrestling in a true sense, would give you skills in the entertainment industry, almost all sports and stuntman careers, modelling and much more.
Thanks for the vote, I agree with your analysis but I guess when a guy unironically compares himself to MC Hammer in a rap battle, it's clear to me that there's quite a large gap between my taste and some others'.
I understand you think you are correct, you're even getting 2 thumbs up at times from fanboys who really just don't like me and/or buy into socialist propaganda.
I am not concerned with whatever you say or if you have a fanclub, I am concerned only with letting you know that you are ill-informed and didn't grasp this debate.
You are confused because the opposite is true. Obviously the highest rankers in Google are major shareholders of it but what's also true is that by owning enough of the class B stocks while they were for sale, it granted you high authority in the company whereby you're regarded as a director of sorts that votes on executive decisions. Go into the fine-print and realise that you have no idea what you're talking about. Google, Facebook and frankly every single corporation in their realm are all owned by the same group of major shareholders differing in ones with a very specific agenda but having in common the shareholders who are involved with groups like the Vanguard group.
Private Equity refers to getting in fast and with a large amount of money at a time when a corporation is snowballing to become so juice to invest in that it will then pull off something like cancelling the biggest voting-power share (class B for Google) because it's voted to be so by the shareholders as an optimal move.
Socialists who truly take the cause to its fullest, such as yourself even though you list yourself as 'Progressive' for now, generally only support the notion because of a lack of understanding of economics, I see that you are not an exception to the rule.
You are frankly confused and lying. Many of the biggest shareholders are ex-Google CEOs or the opposite (resulting from mergers with Android etc where a high ranking Android employee moved over to Google as an ambassador from Google to Android to keep relations good) but please reveal your source that shows that the owners of B stocks are in any way guaranteed to be Google employees, I'll sit here and wait.
Google is one of the hugest corporations on Earth, you cannot possibly tell me that you are so naive to think it's anywhere near being even 40% owned by its workers (even at the top level).
That is because the firms don't usually get it by public purchase, they make private arrangements from early on and part of their voting power lets them declare permanence to the percentage of shares they hold so long as the company keeps profiting over time.
You just correctly stated my perfectly valid argument and then said it makes no sense. :) Common stocks are voting stocks, the non-voting stocks are a severe minority stock that usually workers will buy because they're generally never allowed to pull them out while working for the company so would prefer the lower risk, lower reward stock.
Meanwhile, the firms buy out huge stocks, all voting, to have major say in the company. If you can't grasp that logic, that's your burden to bear.
You will never ever find that the majority of stocks in any firm at all is non-voting, that is a total waste of investment for the firms because they want to steer the company as time goes by.
I gave sources to explain that there are massive investment firms that outweigh what workers can contribute. Not much else needed to be sourced, it was pure logic. I coul dhave expanded on every tiny point as much as 15k would allow but I know you'd call it gish gallop and it would be more effort for a more guaranteed loss anyway.
You're a confused socialist in a world you barely understand, it's okay I get it. You're biased, want me to lose and couldn't grasp the debate. I think you think I'm still angry about this, I genuinely feel nothing I am at total peace with your flaws and the equally flawed system enabling you to guarantee me losses. I am genuinely quitting this website after the moon landing debate, I had some things to clear up on CD and elsewhere before I fully quit but once I finally make my case for the moon landing and a sensible basis on which to suspect NASA, especially when they were under Nixon's admin, I will be at peace to leave the website. The problem is that it's 2-week Rounds so it will be dragged out. I hope I opened my opponent's mind in this debate and stopped caring about 'wins' after my original break when I had the 50 Cent image. I am not here to win in the literal sense anymore, I understand your monopoly on controlling that and also understand that if I got revenge it would be too long-term difficult as you're already much higher than me in Rating and intentionally pick very weak opponents alone but also because you have garnered enough respect and kinship from a select few members who actively vote (predominanty Ragnar) who think very much like you; superficial truths based on very superficial reasoning. It's fine by me, continue what you're doing I can't stop you. The foolish will cheer you on, the wise will realise this site isn't worth staying on with corrupt 'gang mentality' voters controlling who wins and loses based on how much they like them or superficially agree with the conveyed opinions.
Omg, RM tries in another debate to address every point, source everything and it's NO VOTE THAT IS GISH GALLOP!
Omg, RM makes sure not to gish gallop, tears apart the case from the seams and also noticed that common stock is voting stock because that's literally the same type of stock.
Since we're having friendly conversations, I usually don't ask this and am shocked that some users just do it on assumption that it's okay but can we agree outright that we're permitted to post sources in the comments section or wherever, in order to maximise the 20k chars?
You just said they are occult, can't sense emotions and are basically the epitome of evil creature.
Cats can be evil, it's true, especially leopards and tigers; they love to toy with their prey as do some domestic and/or feral but domestic-type cats species-wise. The thing about 'evil' is that it's not that they don't understand what the mouse feels while they toy with it, it's more likely a very sick and twisted sadistic empathy where they enjoy the fact that they're not feeling what the mouse is but fully comprehending it. More aggressive dogs and wolves display a similar sadism when they feel like either they or their owner is in danger; you will see them go much, much further than defence in attacks, more obvious in wild dogs in how offensive and non-defensive it is.
You have no clue how loving and endearing cats can be and are (as in cats not necessarily wild ones other than the cheetah, because cheetahs can be loving as a domestic cat at times if you raise them right or treat them right for long enough).
Cats have deep emotion and have displayed a much higher capacity than dogs at actually predicting a human's pattern of movement, daily routine etc. They will know when you're about to come home from work and time their outdoor activities to be inside by the time you get home if it's frequent. Dogs react, cats predict and learn patterns. Dogs do empathise better and deeper than cats do because cats get awkward about doing it. Cats display high-functioning autism as seen in humans but for them it's the 'norm'. They need their alone-time and space. Respect that and learn their unique preferences vs things they hate and you'll slowly make your cat absolutely adore you like a purr machine who cares deeply for you when you cry, laugh etc. Dogs will do it of course yes but cats will predict, understand and learn from you in a way dogs never will.
It's called 'the brain thinking and processing ideas and conclusions as sensations of some kind'. They exist and are very 'real' but there's no sixth sense.
Yes and you will probably win too which is why I wanted it unrated, people don't listen to reason, they listen to appeal to authority so long as the authority is regarded as very strong in reason (AKA a science authority).
I will not be arguing for a flat earth model in this debate, I will hint at it but barely go into it. I am going to focus on Nixon and the moon landing.
Yes, for real, I have been trying to quit for a long time and frankly it's clear to me that being smart isn't correlated with the winrate, simply being cowardly and smart combined is. I have lost nearly all drive to 'prove myself' but that tiny bit that remains is always there every time I quit so this being my finale is what I want to go out with. Flat Earth is harder to explain and near-impossible to prove in any manner in a debate like this but I do consider myself to be a flat earther.
If your concern is the edge or why you can't see the other side of the world from your side, it's because the outer ring is Antarctica (the centre is the Arctic) and that there's a maximum range of vision. Once you fully and utterly understand those 2 things, you will stop saying that Flat Earth is impossible and start then reasoning in terms of probability, not possibility.
You made it into a troll debate and then proved you don't support rap battles by not engaging in one despite the complete opportunity to. If I did this to a user, Ramshutu and Co. would gang up and vote against me so hard and fast.
I have genuiney made my case, in full. There is simply nothing more to it. To understand my philosophy and what I see life as in terms of journey vs destination, look to Taoist philosophy and check out some 'Sadhguru' lectures on YouTube.
I don't want to sit and explain the philosophy of 'not overthinking something that is blatantly true' in life but if you actually want that explained. See Eastern philosophers, especially Taoists or Hindu-esque philosophers and you'll understand a lot more about my attitude to life.
You keep saying a destination is 'needed' but I never said that the journey has no destination, I said what matters in religion and theology is the journey. Wars have been fought for millennia over one side thinking their God or politics were the 'one true destination' in such thinking. I don't support that, only tyrants and/or terrorists do. For me, it's about the discussions, the search, the yearning. You want God, she/he/it will find you in its own way. You don't want God and are happy with out the concept entirely, then atheism will find its way into your heart. Either way, the pleasure of the journey and intricate twists and turns it takes are the entire beauty and 'power' of religion to someone.
No it isn't. You do not ever fall in love to fall in love, that is never the goal. the goal is actually inexplicable but in the short term is everything other than the falling-in-love itself and what comes along with it.
You speak a lot about needing goals and use Cambridge Dictionary to discuss deep philosophy... I am not sure you're 'thinking' rather just out to 'prove' a semantic tautology.
The destination in mind when falling in love with someone is to experience the love, there's no real destination for wanting it or pursuing it beyond it, in itself. the same goes for the stages in training and every day you get out of bed to do it just because you want to no sleep your life away or deteriorate, regardless of whether or not you end up as a wrestler.
Yes, it is a journey. You live for the near-future with no real goal overall just a series of tactical moves where you know all strategies lead to death.
It's clear to me with your 'never' and 'no one ever said' that you're far more familiar with traditional Western and Arab philosophy than Eastern or Pagan philosophy.
You can have a journey to nowhere. That's exactly what life is.
But the destination changed in all the scenarios I brought up and yet the journey continues and was so worth it regardless of their failure to become the wrestling pro they wanted to become.
Equally, a terrible journey can appear at first to have a great destination but the very horror of the journey snowballs into a hatred of having become trapped in that destiny.
do what you want, I am not going to engage in this debate. It's going to be far too easy to smear campaign me and I already know the authorities will dislike me posting what I want to post about Reagan and the motive to lie. I am not interested in this debate at all, you were correct in your presumptions.
Not at all. If you observe the people who 'do best' in life. They learned to use all kinds of experience and training, often totally unrelated to the specific walk of life they ended up using it on, and aggregated people skills, critical thinking formats and many other things along the way that gave them a unique and brutal edge in the later walk of life. Training for wrestling in a true sense, would give you skills in the entertainment industry, almost all sports and stuntman careers, modelling and much more.
Thanks for the vote, I agree with your analysis but I guess when a guy unironically compares himself to MC Hammer in a rap battle, it's clear to me that there's quite a large gap between my taste and some others'.
Did you mean to vote for me or vote it tied?
Strange of you to tag them, Omar.
I understand you think you are correct, you're even getting 2 thumbs up at times from fanboys who really just don't like me and/or buy into socialist propaganda.
I am not concerned with whatever you say or if you have a fanclub, I am concerned only with letting you know that you are ill-informed and didn't grasp this debate.
You are confused because the opposite is true. Obviously the highest rankers in Google are major shareholders of it but what's also true is that by owning enough of the class B stocks while they were for sale, it granted you high authority in the company whereby you're regarded as a director of sorts that votes on executive decisions. Go into the fine-print and realise that you have no idea what you're talking about. Google, Facebook and frankly every single corporation in their realm are all owned by the same group of major shareholders differing in ones with a very specific agenda but having in common the shareholders who are involved with groups like the Vanguard group.
Private Equity refers to getting in fast and with a large amount of money at a time when a corporation is snowballing to become so juice to invest in that it will then pull off something like cancelling the biggest voting-power share (class B for Google) because it's voted to be so by the shareholders as an optimal move.
https://hbr.org/2007/09/the-strategic-secret-of-private-equity
Socialists who truly take the cause to its fullest, such as yourself even though you list yourself as 'Progressive' for now, generally only support the notion because of a lack of understanding of economics, I see that you are not an exception to the rule.
You are frankly confused and lying. Many of the biggest shareholders are ex-Google CEOs or the opposite (resulting from mergers with Android etc where a high ranking Android employee moved over to Google as an ambassador from Google to Android to keep relations good) but please reveal your source that shows that the owners of B stocks are in any way guaranteed to be Google employees, I'll sit here and wait.
Google is one of the hugest corporations on Earth, you cannot possibly tell me that you are so naive to think it's anywhere near being even 40% owned by its workers (even at the top level).
That is because the firms don't usually get it by public purchase, they make private arrangements from early on and part of their voting power lets them declare permanence to the percentage of shares they hold so long as the company keeps profiting over time.
Song name was Havana!!!!!!! I will correct in next round!!!!!!!
You just correctly stated my perfectly valid argument and then said it makes no sense. :) Common stocks are voting stocks, the non-voting stocks are a severe minority stock that usually workers will buy because they're generally never allowed to pull them out while working for the company so would prefer the lower risk, lower reward stock.
Meanwhile, the firms buy out huge stocks, all voting, to have major say in the company. If you can't grasp that logic, that's your burden to bear.
You will never ever find that the majority of stocks in any firm at all is non-voting, that is a total waste of investment for the firms because they want to steer the company as time goes by.
Common stock is voting stock, the stock that massive firms buy is always voting stock.
I gave sources to explain that there are massive investment firms that outweigh what workers can contribute. Not much else needed to be sourced, it was pure logic. I coul dhave expanded on every tiny point as much as 15k would allow but I know you'd call it gish gallop and it would be more effort for a more guaranteed loss anyway.
You're a confused socialist in a world you barely understand, it's okay I get it. You're biased, want me to lose and couldn't grasp the debate. I think you think I'm still angry about this, I genuinely feel nothing I am at total peace with your flaws and the equally flawed system enabling you to guarantee me losses. I am genuinely quitting this website after the moon landing debate, I had some things to clear up on CD and elsewhere before I fully quit but once I finally make my case for the moon landing and a sensible basis on which to suspect NASA, especially when they were under Nixon's admin, I will be at peace to leave the website. The problem is that it's 2-week Rounds so it will be dragged out. I hope I opened my opponent's mind in this debate and stopped caring about 'wins' after my original break when I had the 50 Cent image. I am not here to win in the literal sense anymore, I understand your monopoly on controlling that and also understand that if I got revenge it would be too long-term difficult as you're already much higher than me in Rating and intentionally pick very weak opponents alone but also because you have garnered enough respect and kinship from a select few members who actively vote (predominanty Ragnar) who think very much like you; superficial truths based on very superficial reasoning. It's fine by me, continue what you're doing I can't stop you. The foolish will cheer you on, the wise will realise this site isn't worth staying on with corrupt 'gang mentality' voters controlling who wins and loses based on how much they like them or superficially agree with the conveyed opinions.
"3.) Did not understand the difference between “voting stock” and “common stock”, despite it being pointed out at least 3 times."
This is where you really know there's a comprehension gap. They are the same stock.
Omg, RM tries in another debate to address every point, source everything and it's NO VOTE THAT IS GISH GALLOP!
Omg, RM makes sure not to gish gallop, tears apart the case from the seams and also noticed that common stock is voting stock because that's literally the same type of stock.
Omg, Ramshutu the socialist had a booboo
Losing a debate where the voters are inept and/or corrupt is easy Omar, welp.
The BDSM definition of great yeah? It's based on the one I used right?
Hahahahaha you are learning to troll
franklin's vote is straightforward removal for the below-stated reasons.
Your vote will be taken down because you have to explain fully why you tied arguments for it to qualify and go into where I said 'mentally ok'.
Since we're having friendly conversations, I usually don't ask this and am shocked that some users just do it on assumption that it's okay but can we agree outright that we're permitted to post sources in the comments section or wherever, in order to maximise the 20k chars?
You just said they are occult, can't sense emotions and are basically the epitome of evil creature.
Cats can be evil, it's true, especially leopards and tigers; they love to toy with their prey as do some domestic and/or feral but domestic-type cats species-wise. The thing about 'evil' is that it's not that they don't understand what the mouse feels while they toy with it, it's more likely a very sick and twisted sadistic empathy where they enjoy the fact that they're not feeling what the mouse is but fully comprehending it. More aggressive dogs and wolves display a similar sadism when they feel like either they or their owner is in danger; you will see them go much, much further than defence in attacks, more obvious in wild dogs in how offensive and non-defensive it is.
You have no clue how loving and endearing cats can be and are (as in cats not necessarily wild ones other than the cheetah, because cheetahs can be loving as a domestic cat at times if you raise them right or treat them right for long enough).
Cats have deep emotion and have displayed a much higher capacity than dogs at actually predicting a human's pattern of movement, daily routine etc. They will know when you're about to come home from work and time their outdoor activities to be inside by the time you get home if it's frequent. Dogs react, cats predict and learn patterns. Dogs do empathise better and deeper than cats do because cats get awkward about doing it. Cats display high-functioning autism as seen in humans but for them it's the 'norm'. They need their alone-time and space. Respect that and learn their unique preferences vs things they hate and you'll slowly make your cat absolutely adore you like a purr machine who cares deeply for you when you cry, laugh etc. Dogs will do it of course yes but cats will predict, understand and learn from you in a way dogs never will.
I don't know why you're being so sarcastic and winking after making an 'I'm better than you' toned comment but it really isn't subtle or pleasant.
It's called 'the brain thinking and processing ideas and conclusions as sensations of some kind'. They exist and are very 'real' but there's no sixth sense.
Yes and you will probably win too which is why I wanted it unrated, people don't listen to reason, they listen to appeal to authority so long as the authority is regarded as very strong in reason (AKA a science authority).
I will not be arguing for a flat earth model in this debate, I will hint at it but barely go into it. I am going to focus on Nixon and the moon landing.
Yes, for real, I have been trying to quit for a long time and frankly it's clear to me that being smart isn't correlated with the winrate, simply being cowardly and smart combined is. I have lost nearly all drive to 'prove myself' but that tiny bit that remains is always there every time I quit so this being my finale is what I want to go out with. Flat Earth is harder to explain and near-impossible to prove in any manner in a debate like this but I do consider myself to be a flat earther.
If your concern is the edge or why you can't see the other side of the world from your side, it's because the outer ring is Antarctica (the centre is the Arctic) and that there's a maximum range of vision. Once you fully and utterly understand those 2 things, you will stop saying that Flat Earth is impossible and start then reasoning in terms of probability, not possibility.
I won't and this likely will be my last debate on the website ever, I wanted to quit with an intellectual debate as my legacy.
He didn't know what DDO stood for and says this is his first debate site in his 'About Me'.
Do not encourage illicit drug use please, minors and maybe even addicts trying to give drugs up are using the website.
If you wish to counter vote-bomb Franklin or just vote honestly either will be appreciated.
are you still into counter-vote-bombing?
You're Welcome
'cause when I thaw** I missed the 'i'.
"regularly styled rap battles" you intentionally baited and you know it
In a troll debate I can vote all points if I want. This is a completely fair move for me to do, what you did to Gatorade was not.
You made it into a troll debate and then proved you don't support rap battles by not engaging in one despite the complete opportunity to. If I did this to a user, Ramshutu and Co. would gang up and vote against me so hard and fast.
They defy your paradigm in opposite ways.
I am sorry. What I meant is that the Totalitarian Communist and Right-Wing Libertarian both oppose you.
That's not true at all.
The most obvious severe opposing type to your entire spectrum is the Fascist or (very) Right-Wing Conservative.
The less obvious but just as extreme opposing type to your spectrum is the Totalitarian Communist.