Total posts: 19,931
-->
@Lunatic
I will try not to moderate chat much.
Created:
It will have a theme but because the cast of the Anime is so small, the divide won't be strictly obvious. I will not give fake claims to Mafia.
I want to prove myself as a host, you can dislike my playstyle but I am a very fair host.
I will be lenient on banter but if you go too far or try to use Outside-Game Influence types of threats or doxxing (beyond revealing who a player was on Debate.Org) I must step in.
Do not paste my PMs to you, try not to copy more than three consecutive words I used in my PM to you when paraphrasing.
I realise Anime things are the hot thing here so I'll give it a try.
Created:
Posted in:
Signups:
RM (from on hold) - Kakegurui
In the Hopper:
Speedrace - Speed Is Never Town
Lunatic - Stephen King Universe
Danielle
ILikePie5 - Ancient Roman Battles Mafia
Earth - Fire Emblem
Bullish - special mechanics
On Hold
Virtuoso, PressF4Respect, BearMan, That1User, Crocodile, Elminster
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
I see, so suppress and censor, like they do with evolution and other religions in Sharia nations? :)
As for your 'theory' it makes no sense. Your theory is axiomatic as the pastors, priests, rabbis, imams so on and so forth that believe in their religion are what you'll then say are the victims of other preachers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
How do clamp down and how do you know they don't believe what they're preaching?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
The Latin Americans who use the name Jesus are naming after Jesus, not the other way around.
Jesus' actual name during his era was Yahweh, not Jesus. Jesus would never be a genuine name of a Jew, they don't use the letter J in their Hewbrew naming system.
The name Joseph, for instance, is actually Yosef, Joshua is actually Yeshua.
The reason they later derived Jesus is that Yah'weh was a nickname, his original name was Yeshua and later changed into Yahshuah which means savior of all.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
False, Mosquitoes have not ever shown signs of self-awareness, in fact outside of mammals it's a very rare trait indeed.
They are conscious (barely) but they are not genuinely aware that they exist as an entity that others percieve and which interact with their surroundings in complex ways.
Humans become conscious at only 5 months of age usually, yet they are not actually aware they exist and can interact with the outside world as an entity themselves until 15-18 months (15 months is genius level, babies that either can walk or talk at this age are very fast learners).
A test to confirm this involved a trap where a baby had to try to push a trolley that their own body weight was holding down via a carpet/rug.
Babies/toddlers below 16 months generally couldn't work out it was them stopping the cart.
Created:
Posted in:
The problem with guns being so legal in the US and so prevalent illegally too, is that cops are trained to be ready to be vs an active shooter, as a baseline reflex.
This is why these things just do not happen much in any other country on the planet. The reason is that in all other countries, the baseline reflex is that they predict the criminal is either not possessing a firearm or that they know you don't ever shoot a cop.
Instead, US has not just got a pro-gun culture to deal with, they seem to genuinely have (or at least had) criminals that are far more willing to shoot cops in broad daylight. This has then resulted in a vicious cycle.
I have absolutely no idea why the US doesn't do what every single other highly developed nation has done and remove its guns via several sting operations. Undercover work and sting operations can and will annihilate illegal gun trade. It always works, in all nations that have done it. Not saying 100% but to 98% efficacy at least.
You simply do not get people with guns as a baseline worry in other highly developed nations (actually you so get it in most underdeveloped nations too). There is no country other than the US where this particular issue if cops gunning down or brutally handling criminals in fear of the criminals being able and willing to murder them is so widespread, racism is a whole other layer of issue there but the actual cop preparedness to be vs an armed and willing assailant is so unlike any other nation's police force.
Created:
If you honestly think the autopsy not explicitly saying 'asphyxiation' is some magic vindication, I guarantee you that you're not qualified in medicine or law and that you lack general knowledge surrounding the subject.
In forensic analysis, you do not always definitively know if asphyxiation was the cause of death. Unless the victim was directly strangled, the oxygen deprivation isn't always capable of autopsy-conclusive murder as a verdict.
What you then need to do is usually investigate clues but in this case that isn't needed much at all. You could physically view the murder for the first few hours before the video was removed due to graphic content and censorship.
This was a hate crime, a murder. To suggest otherwise is to say that the video and Floyd pleading to be able to breathe and the officer remaining on his chest, resting a huge portion of his entire body's weight is somehow unrelated.
If Floyd's drug intoxication and SARS residual infection played a role, that doesn't justify the officer offering 0 release at all, of pressure, despite Floyd literally saying he can't breathe.
Chauvin, as a bouncer, was known to be so hostile especially with non-whites, that he apparently got fired from his job, they just failed to list violence as the official reason, it came to light post-Floyd due to people investigating Chauvin's history.
There is absolutely nothing at all vindicating or discrediting the evidence and conclusion everyone drew originally. The autopsy didn't directly state asphyxiation because there was a lack of strangulation marks as well as not sign of plastic bag-over-mouth type restriction, which we already knew.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The answers you gave, can you find anything in them that Mussolini wouldn't have answered, other than specifics about you?
I specify Mussolini because Nazism was an unusually extreme version of Fascism, so Hitler would be an unnecessary comparison.
Created:
Posted in:
There hasn't been a President I'd call even close to flawless or ideal but Obama was closest in my opinion.
Idk the exact traits but good/improved international relations, lack of ignorance and being down to Earth are three I hold in huge importance. Caring for the poor and pushing forward things to help the impoverished as well as women and other classes that need empowerment are things I deeply admire as well (if done in a sustainable way). Obama fell short here in quite a few respects but in terms of trying and half-succeeding, he achieved a lot across the board (to put this into perspective, no other President has got close to even a fifth of success at pushing for genuine equality, Obama was just under half way, around 47%). Also, Obama's smile and charisma were/are to die for but that's subjective and the asshole Reagan had a nice smile and charisma too. I'd still say Reagan's was more fake and offputting.
Created:
You think too rigid about almost any topic you take on, it's also what's led to you clashing with so many members here.
I also clash with many members but this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Unlike you, when I come across a member I disagree with, I either try to be flexible and adjust to their way of thinking or I lay down my sword, block them and move on.
You tend to keep grappling with them, lashing out and perceiving a deeper attack than was really meant. This results in you, inside of formal debates, being too in-depth in certain rebuttals while assuming other aspects or points were sufficiently addressed by you since you perceive the entire thing through your lens of reading and thinking.
Both inside and outside of debating, I would recommend your greatest area of improvement to aim for being flexibility in thinking and perception. Sometimes there's 3 or 4, not just 2 and definitely not just 1 way to perceive and think about a certain clash of ideas relative to a topic. The hugest strength this gives you in a debate is to know what to try the most vs least with in effort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
please answer all or none of them.
Only question 3 is an actual debatable question and this is a website I use to debate.
Do you believe that American society is - on average - more racist than the rest of the world?
No. This is because of a few reasons. America is such a huge society in the first place, compared to most nations, that it has more range even within itself such as the average southern-State resident is more racist as are the institutions there, than the Northern or Western ones (America's 'east coast' seems to come under its North for some reason and its West does too even though California is actually in the SouthWest, it counts as West).
That's just the first reason. The other reason is that America was so unbelievably racist and brutal to the race it held inferior that it had the same bounceback against racism as Germany had post-Nazis. Unlike, Oromagi, I know that the Japanese are not racist much anymore. In fact, Japan and South Korea are so close to non-racist social democracies that it is fascinating how racist and harsh China and North Korea are in comparison (given the proximity).
As for the past, Japan was probably the most racist of the East Asian nations and cultures. The Samurai were even ethocentric racist meaning they thought the Samurai lineages were inherently superior bloodlines to the rest of Japan's bloodlines and within Samurai bloodlines deep rivalries between distantly related bloodlines happened often, even siblings did especially if there were times when it wasn't clear who was the father of a certain concubine (wives were off limits for other men but the concubines a Samurai cheated with were not, so the same Concubine at times had two Samurais inseminate her).
The Middle East and Islamic nations in general are extremely ethnocentric. This is also the case for severe Christian nations, such as Russia, Uganda and Honduras. Racism doesn't tend to mean what Americans think it means always. For instance, in Sri Lanka, there was systemic racism but both ethnicities involved were brown-Asian (Sinhala/Sinhalese and Tamils). The issue with this is that you can't go around thinking racism is only white-on-black if you analyse it worldwide. The reason it is indeed that in America is that Caucasians have been unfairly superior there ever since the brutal invasion and pillaging done to the natives through to now.
So, since America is more open about its racist attitudes and has variation inside it, it isn't the most racist nation whatsoever. It's actually one of the most actively fighting against its racism at present, which is a great thing to see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
The answer to your question is that the average Theist takes ideas from authority more readily and less readily from their own mind's critical thinking capacity.
This tendency, when extended over many years of life vs the learning opportunities presented, results in a brain that has essentially barely ever gone to the gym so to speak vs one that regularly flexes itself and is ready to visualize links between different inputs, which is the type of thinking that IQ tests rely on measuring.
Typically, Theists think as a chore, trying to live life avoiding the need to think too much. Atheists tend to think as a hobby, sometimes overthinking but certainly thinking nonetheless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Shaivism not Shaivanism sorry
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Probably because your profile says pastafarianism?
There are a minority within Hinduism (especially Tamil Hindus) who oppose the term because it is a phrase British Colonists forced onto them by pooling together what were different philosophical groups within a broaders spectrum.
The Shiva branch of what's now known as Hinduism was its own religion entirely, called Shaivism and the Vishnu branch was known as Vaishnavism. In fact, they believed the same blue god was a different person (the Vaishnavism believed that same individual was an entity with the values and personality that the British made them call Vishnu and the Shaivanists didn't actually believe Shiva was a god but instead had a more abstract concept). As for Brahma, that was several pagan religions meshed into one, in order to bring peace amongst different factions and castes within India.
The idea of statues being sacred was, again, a separate religion known as Nadukkal-worship and it is from Nadukkal sculpturists that the British got the idea to fuse Vaishnavism and Shaivanism into one.
Ancient 'Hindu scriptures' such as the Vedas, Mahabharata and Ramayana, were actually separate concepts and religions to one another. Vaishnavism is based more on Ramayana while Shaivanism is based more on Mahabharata.
The idea of Hinduism and all of it fitting together in one is from the British trying to 'define' and pool together all the native Sanskrit ideologies still present in India and put it into one religion on its own. That's also why Hinduism is so confusing and has so many demigods, this is because the Nadukkal worshippers didn't follow any kind of Hinduism at all, they just liked to make statues and worship them (literally), it was a hobby and specialist craft.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You are a Hindu?! I am shocked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
But there is some martial arts specific conditioning that isn't necessarily athletic. Shin conditioning by thai fighters is a good example. Kicking a hard bony part of a person like the knee hurts, so fighters will condition their bones to be harder and their nerves to be deadened so that when they throw a low kick and it gets checked, it doesn't feel like they just broke their shin bone.
Actually the Muay Thai fighter tends to 'knee the shin' as opposed to the way around you are describing. The part of the knee at the very top of the shin, just below the knee-cap is where they toughen their muscle so their 'funny bone' doesn't react as strong.
The 'knee-kick' is much more of a Krav Maga move.
Tae Kwon Do, Karate and Kung Fu aim to avoid leg-to-leg kicking as they want to use the legs to kick the upper body at crucial points, in general.
I'm not sure about Jiu Jitsu or other variations of martial arts.
Created:
And I repeat,
If you murder someone who was dying anyway, you still murdered them.
This line of defence is futile, he's a murderer even if they totally succeeded at propagating their lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Your position is Fascism dressed in the name Paleoconservatism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Was replying to yoyr question about why I said I could solve it faster.
As for your puzzle, 12 came to mind as did 32 but I don't comprehend why exactly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I instantly thought of letters when I saw the code and saw 1 was the wrong answer.
Created:
However there is no validation for joining a society which sets itself up in direct opposition, and that is exactly what Atheism has became. To be an Atheist is to be part of a society which opposes the beliefs of others without empirical evidence to support their disbelief.
Irony at its finest.
Replace 'atheism with Theism' and reverse his original theory and you are much more accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's why I thought it was Beta Delta, he mentioned a Greek thing with puzzle 2. I think Beta Delta would have been a better #1 answer and that they should have been done the other way around.
Created:
Why would you make this thread while the other thread is gaining momentum? Don't steal your own thunder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Interesting, I would have got it fasters than Athias anyway but I was pretty sure the puzzle was Beta Delta. Anyway, what exactly makes the second puzzle ETA?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't think wrestling has belts or sashes but in Kung Fu, most fighters are white-to-orange.
That should be obvious. However, I do understand what you are saying, was just pointing out there's 2 variations of distribution in a competitive environment.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Nothing can't emerge into something.
It actually must be able to because God did so in your reality and reality itself did so in the atheist's reality.
Also, God makes things emerge from nothingness into existance in your theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
It depends on the ranking system actually, for other systems most people appear in the lower quartile of it and it's much more of a steep slope at the top, as opposed to the bell curve you are presuming.
For instance, if we took the ranking system that the game League of Legends has, most fall into the lowest 3 rank brackets (Iron, Bronze and Silver), by far outnumbering those in the middle 2 rank brackets (Gold and Platinum) and even further outnumbering those in the highest rank brackets.
Created:
Posted in:
Embrace the idea that winning isn't everything. Debaters who gets winrates likes Oromagi, Ragnar and Ramshutu grow sick and tired of debating because it was a chore from day one where they never really stood for all that much nor flexed their ability all that well.
If winrate and Rating are everything to you, unfortunately it's merely a timing issue. Oromagi, Ragnar and Ramshutu as well as even myself were around when some trolls were here who were easy to defeat, the average debater has improved as this site seems to only retain tryhards in the long-run.
You should begin by asking what winning a debate comes down to, it's not actual logical warfare, it's voter mind-manipulation warfare. Study closely the way people interpret certain 'bad faith' angles vs when they call it a clever Kritik and over time build a repertoire that leads to you being very creative in how you ease the opponent into going for angles and styles of debating that you know voters don't care about or worse, punish.
You want your opponent to seem dull, not necessarily stupid or evil but dull. The audience needs to feel like each Round from you is pure juice whereas each Round from the opponent is some bitter-tasting water-like substance.
Then, after you have done that, of course the Chess elements of debating play a factor. You need to ask what precisely a topic is, wonder how to interpret each word in the title and how to twist your enemy's logic against themselves. Do this and it doesn't matter if you lose, you are essentially going to the gym for your mind with each debate, it will keep you stimulated.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't recall talking condescending to you and I also don't recall a time when you weren't the initiator and aggressor with me.
That being said, this thread's topic is something I can explain. You admit in your OP that insecurity and overly passionate emotions are at play. I notice you talk of 'deserve anger'. If your worst enemy 'deserves anger' and your best friend doesn't, there's something wrong about using the word deserves since anger hurts you, you're the one suffering and made this thread regarding that.
Something I do is save my anger and emotions for those who matter. So if my enemy actually is a thorn in my side I can't remove and if I can't escape the situation, only in this scenario is anger inevitable and worth embracing to a degree.
You told us before that you're on medication for anxiety. Medication can have side effefts due to what it does to the brain and body.
That being said, you mentioned always having anger issues even when very young.
When rage sets in, you don't notice it. That wasn't a question, it was a statement. What you are able to notice is when you're already angry. At any time you notice this, I want you to pay attention to your breathing. I want you to make it slow, with a literal gap in time between breathing in and breathing out. Don't do it too loud, don't breathe oht through your mouth like a yoga instructor would tell you to do. This habit needs to be subtle amd something you can do when facing your kost triggering people. While paying attention to this constantly throughout the remaining interaction, I want you to analyse your surroundings, what colour is the hair of the person you're dealing with? What's their nose like? What's their anjoying voice actually sounding like? Take it in, keep breathing deeply, pay minimal attention to their words, only as much as is required to pretend you care while responding.
Later, when calmed down, digest the situation and consider their viewpoint for real, not pretend. If you feel you have more to say and apologise for, do it then. During the interaction you're getting flared up, think of the other person like a dog yelping at you, barking but not biting.
If things get physical, that's different but not mentally. Kung Fu is a great martial art to start learning the basics of, it encourages to be calm the entire fight. You just need some basics in general. If they really, really beat you, let some rage fill you but definitely let anxiety sliggtly set in and still focus on breathing. Do anything you can to make them surrender that doesn't break the law. If they keep going for the kill and you will potentially die or get cut, bruised etc, idk what to tell you. Eventually in an extreme scenario, rage and fear are good to feel and indulge in. However, most of the time they're byproducts of evolution that aren't worth feeling to the full extent.
That being said, this thread's topic is something I can explain. You admit in your OP that insecurity and overly passionate emotions are at play. I notice you talk of 'deserve anger'. If your worst enemy 'deserves anger' and your best friend doesn't, there's something wrong about using the word deserves since anger hurts you, you're the one suffering and made this thread regarding that.
Something I do is save my anger and emotions for those who matter. So if my enemy actually is a thorn in my side I can't remove and if I can't escape the situation, only in this scenario is anger inevitable and worth embracing to a degree.
You told us before that you're on medication for anxiety. Medication can have side effefts due to what it does to the brain and body.
That being said, you mentioned always having anger issues even when very young.
When rage sets in, you don't notice it. That wasn't a question, it was a statement. What you are able to notice is when you're already angry. At any time you notice this, I want you to pay attention to your breathing. I want you to make it slow, with a literal gap in time between breathing in and breathing out. Don't do it too loud, don't breathe oht through your mouth like a yoga instructor would tell you to do. This habit needs to be subtle amd something you can do when facing your kost triggering people. While paying attention to this constantly throughout the remaining interaction, I want you to analyse your surroundings, what colour is the hair of the person you're dealing with? What's their nose like? What's their anjoying voice actually sounding like? Take it in, keep breathing deeply, pay minimal attention to their words, only as much as is required to pretend you care while responding.
Later, when calmed down, digest the situation and consider their viewpoint for real, not pretend. If you feel you have more to say and apologise for, do it then. During the interaction you're getting flared up, think of the other person like a dog yelping at you, barking but not biting.
If things get physical, that's different but not mentally. Kung Fu is a great martial art to start learning the basics of, it encourages to be calm the entire fight. You just need some basics in general. If they really, really beat you, let some rage fill you but definitely let anxiety sliggtly set in and still focus on breathing. Do anything you can to make them surrender that doesn't break the law. If they keep going for the kill and you will potentially die or get cut, bruised etc, idk what to tell you. Eventually in an extreme scenario, rage and fear are good to feel and indulge in. However, most of the time they're byproducts of evolution that aren't worth feeling to the full extent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
@Puachu
Any suggestions for the second riddle/puzzle? As a team we'll achieve more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Firstly Ethang5Secondly AthiasLastly Seldiora.But what was seventh?
Ethang5AthiasSeldiora
The seventh character was 5.
5th letter in the alphabet is E
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Firstly Ethang5Secondly AthiasLastly Seldiora
This either refers to some thread or ranking where they appear in that order or it has a sequence and someone is seventh.
Ethang5
Athias
Seldiora
I can't figure it out at first, a clue would help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Just saw this and realise the first puzzle related to letters before reading you implying it with the 27 remark.
1 2 5 20 1 4 5 20 ?
ABETADET
Beta, de#ta
L is the 12th letter in the alphabet. 12.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Buddy, the last time you made a thread worth reading, your grandma was still a virgin.
Created:
Posted in:
Science:
Generally, do you believe science to be an accurate way of interpreting and describing our reality?
'Generally' yes, but if you asked 'completely', then no. Philosophy and looking beyond the measurable in a linguistic/lexical level of thinking as opposed to mathematical or algorithmic is required if you want to truly perceive reality.
Do you believe that the theory of natural selection and evolution is how the current species of the earth developed?
Within themselves, yes. I fully believe in microevolution.
As for how species began to fully split to the point where they couldn't reproduce with other related species anymore and also the 'originals' in terms of beings or the way we went from dinosaurs with scales to warm-blooded skinned beings and feathered beings as well as how gills suddenly mutated to make lungs, I'm skeptical. I believe in what I call 'petri dish evolution'. We were originally made by creationism and left to evolve over time as an experiment for 'god' to watch.
Do you believe that creationism is how the current species of the earth developed?
No. Not the current ones, they definitely evolved (at least 99+%, we never know if ancient beings are capable of shapeshifting or something especially underwater ones).
Do you believe that the big bang and cosmologic evolution is how our current universe "began"?
No.
Do you believe that the oblate spheroid model of the earth is accurate in regards to the shape of the earth?
No. I believe the Earth is flat and that Antarctica is a ring around us, with a much bigger south than north.
Do you believe that climate change is happening at an increased rate?
Somewhat yes, what I believe is that it's real and that our pollution is influencing it. I also believe that an ice age of unimaginable scales hit the world a while back and that climate change is normal, cyclical if you will. So, I have skepticism about how bad it will get, given that I'm a flat-earther but I don't think it's a conspiracy that global warming and climate change are really happening and influenced by our pollution, it's a pretty solid fact based on trends. Statistical trends are the single truest part of scientific analysis, the rest is open to manipulation and deception, the statistics are irrefutable if you understand enough about data and mathematics.
Do you believe that there are genetic differences between different ethnicities aside from melalin content?
You mean race, not ethnicities. If you do mean 'ethnicities' then yes, absolutely.
If you mean race instead of ethnicity, then the answer is also yes, especially in facial structure, general body shape/proportions and colouring as well as of eyes and hair.
People of whatever original homo sapien race evolved into both 'yellow asians' and 'native americans' as well as inuits and such, have much drier, coarse earwax than other races. Caucasians are known to have the wettest earwax. Black people and many 'brown asians' have coarse hair, like a metallic wire to touch and handle, other races have only got that texture on their pubic hair (especially males) with quite a contrasted softness to their head-hair, eyebrows and forearm hair which tend to be soft.
Feet and toes actually have differences even within races, for caucasians there's massive variation depending if you ascend from Romans, Greeks, Vikings, Kurds or Hebrews there's a huge variety. I am aware Kurds aren't caucasian but many darker haired caucasians have kurdish or hebrew in them further up their bloodline.
Do you believe that IQ tests are accurate ways of measuring an individual's intelligence?
Not exactly, no.
It is physically impossible to get the IQ of a blind person, since what it tests relies on your eyes visually intaking information and conceptual patterns, even the worded parts need that. It requires a type of thinking that isn't as fast or measurable in a brain that processes non-visually.
IQ isn't what 'omg high IQ means genius and that's a fact' people think. High IQ means that your brain rapidly visualises links between things that it then can also rapidly unravel with ease back into 'thinking logic'. If your brain is able to do that very rapidly, you have one of the highest IQs among us, if it struggles, you have lower IQ.
IQ doesn't measure memory capacity, depth of thinking (though it touches on it), creative use of information or ability to relay information in a way those who lack it can digest (AKA teaching intelligence as opposed to learning intelligence, the ability to make what you know useful to other humans).
You need to factor in the other 3-4 categories before making a comment on someone's overall intelligence.
Someone like Freddie Mercury probably had a very mediocre, unimpressive IQ. His creative intelligence, however, was off the walls and his memory storage was no joke, catch one of the few interviews where he isn't too shy and he is something to be reckoned with in general knowledge indeed.
Most game shows actually do not at all involve IQ, they only measure memory capacity and some small part of creativity in terms of how you estimate answers that you aren't sure of.
Do you believe that the current scientific consensus is accurate in regards to the description of reality?
No. NASA and Roscosmos need third party audits with publicly available live feeds from space where we can wave up at the camera and stuff, not just see clouds, before I will truly take this serious.
What questions, if any, would you add to this section of the survey
ask about what kind of science we like best and why etc.
Created:
Posted in:
Religion:
Generally, which religion do you identify with?
If you have any religion that isn't an identifiable mainstream one, it comes under the umbrella term Paganism.
I am heavily in agreement with Taoism on most things, only differing metaphysically as the 'duality' it leaves as yin and yang are something more concrete in my outlook.
Taoism is not an easy thing to decode, most of the first results on Google give you 'mumbo jumbo' regarding it. You have to dig deeper, listen to lectures/talks on it and think for yourself. It's not pseudointellectual, it teaches something no other religion does; that it is in altering ourselves continually that we remain sanest and capable of being net-kindest in changing circumstances.
Generally, do you believe religion to be important to society - how so or how not?
Unfortunately, yes, it has been and currently still is to most societies. I do not see that as a good thing. This is a fantastic speech by one of my favourite official debaters/speakers of all time, Richard Dawkins, on the matter:
We evolved religion (he speaks excellent all the way through but if you want to skip to it, 2:35is a good timestamp):
Do you believe the religion you identify with is being persecuted or bigoted against?
Yes, however since I'm the only one following my particular one, I don't worry too much. When people ask me about what I believe (which is rare, such topics are barely spoken about in general conversation), I size up how much intellect and shit-giving-level I think the person has against how much time and effort I'm willing to put into the conversation with them and if it does match up, I try. In my experience, barely anyone can grasp my outlook anyway and those that do go 'it's just a theory' so I smile and know that the goddess of reality (god is a mother figure, not a father figure) is testing my patience and reminding me to keep the truth hidden only for the worthy to discover.
Do you believe that its important for education to instill religious values into children?
No.
You see, some of what religions teach is good, those don't come from religion but were inserted there from our inner moral compasses at work while making these man-made religions. That inner compass is known as the Tao in Taoism, that should be partially taught, yes. Stuff like don't steal, don't bully all of that, great stuff but it doesn't come from religion.
What comes from religion when it's strictly adhered to can be seen still today in many Islamic nations and there's still 'extreme Christianity' in some too, such as Uganda and Honduras. It's ignorant, brutal and was seen in more developed nations a while back, in the Middle Ages or so.
Aside from the god of your religion, do you believe that religion is the most important aspect of life?
Philosophy is a huge part of my life actually but religion itself is not.
I don't know how to put it but I don't consider myself religious in all honesty, I am closest to 'deistic' as opposed to 'theistic' if you want to comprehend what I'm saying on a strict scaled system.
Do you believe that everyone else, or the majority of people, should be of your religion?
I did at first, when I discovered/uncovered what I did about reality. It became apparent simply due to how our world is and also due to clues, which I won't go into, I am not mentally ill they are real clues and are there throughout history even, that the god watching and enjoying the show of this world doesn't want everyone to know the truth, just some version of it perhaps. The real thing they want to see is not even who can uncover it but who can make use of it when they realise it. Religious people who do a lot with the motivational zeal that religion gives them, are the most entertaining to the goddess and I believe get an 'edge' in terms of luck and stuff, very possibly.
Those that wither away, conforming entirely to the life that's simple don't necessarily get punished but they get less and less lucky, they bored the goddess and don't go far.
I have of course come across people who were lazy yet successful to a degree and vice versa but they tend to have some other very odd things about their 'spirit' and life path that tends to explain why it may still fit in to this mould.
I'm not saying wanting something gets you it, I'm saying it's an actual spiritual factor, you become like a magnet to joy and success but also to haters, so beware your glow, it has drawbacks. That's also why I realised I probably never want to be famous, it's actually a lot less good vs the bad than most people believe I feel.
I know this doesn't truly answer your question, however I tried to give you a glimpse.
What do you think of individuals who do not affilate with your religion?
Depends on the individual (that's actually a strict teaching in Taoism, never approach two people or situations the exact same way).
Do you believe that the church and government should be seperated?
Absolutely 100%
Do you believe that individuals have a freedom from religion as well as a freedom to religion?
Okay, this is a very difficult thing to answer because where do we draw the line?
I don't understand why the left-wing support Islam as much as they do, it's an extremely horrific right-wing religion anywhere it's been fully embraced. Yet these same left-wingers will probably diss Christianity or Israel's Judaism without a second thought.
I don't get it.
I'm also against circumcision being legal. I see any mutilation to the body as a horrific act unless there's justification. Especially to someone who is too young to even speak, let alone consent. When it comes to female circumcision I'm not just against it, I want to do graphic things to the psychopaths who keep it going. That is unforgivable shit, just because you don't believe in masturbation you take away the woman's ability to feel any orgasm at all. If you agree to that based on your religion then I don't respect it (I'm sure we agree).
I believe in human rights, animals rights and fairness to all as absolute things we should strive for. If your religion gets in the way of those things, I side with them over your religion any day, in the blink of an eye.
If your religion doesn't interfere with them, I'm open to 'freedom' within reason. Cults are only easy to justify forcefully stopping when they demand money and isolate their followers. What about when the followers think it's not a cult and have some valid reasons to back that up? What then?
What questions, if any, would you add to this section of the survey?
So many, however I don't know if most would answer.
Created:
Posted in:
Social:
What do you believe to be the biggest social problem of today's era?
Very difficult to pick just one.
I would argue that poor females in underdeveloped nations and the stark gap between the opportunities they have and way they experience life vs the rich males of this planet is probably the hugest issue but there's very close second, third and such.
How do you think this problem could be solved generally?
The 'how' in theory is actually straightforward, with the correct public-funded moves to give the poor educational, healthcare and transport provision that doesn't bankrupt them along with affirmative action on the behalf of the poor (especially poor females in less developed nations) and you have begun a snowball that will mean the grandchildren already experience a much more feminist society.
I'm aware I didn't mention the right to vote, I would say that the right to vote in a country like... let's say Bangladesh, is a pretty futile right to have if you catch my drift. Women have had the right to vote there since 1947 though and democracy is indeed a next step but I stated how to fix the issue even in a dictatorship.
What do you think of these sexual/gender identities; Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender, or Asexual?
Homosexual and bisexual 100% acceptance and support.
Transgenders I have no issue with the femininity of a trans-woman or the masculinity of a trans-man however I would like to say that this new age movement where we are even discussing damaging hormones being ingested by young children and teens because we think they're old enough to make that informed decision is just wrong. It can and will eventually be proven to irrevocably hamper the quality of their puberty. Chromosomes limit what your body experiences in puberty, you don't suddenly benefit from low testosterone and high oestrogen if you're born XY, while your body is still growing into an adult.
There needs to come to be a good sense about what's right or wrong to let someone do to their body. I am sure you would not want to let someone who self-harms keep self harming... Why would you want to let someone pay a surgeon to remove their cock or to do some strange thing to their vagina, clitoris and labia that makes it easier to 'pull off' the opposite one? This is seriously worrying if you loathe something you should love and be proud of owning to that level. I am not going to sit here and be called some bigoted transphobe, I am talking about mental health issues where someone loathes the natural body they have so much that they do things to their own genitalia simply to feel comfortable in their own skin.
I will not sit back and say that's a good idea ever, I will not virtue signal that level of acceptance. There needs to be a line we draw at some point where we teach them to love their body and chromosomes, not loathe it. I am 0% advocating denying how feminine and masculine they are, I am saying that if you are born XY or XX, you should feel comfortable being what you are. I am aware that society doesn't let you do it so comfortably in the vast majority of the world (and even in many places within the 'more accepting nations'). That has to change, that's where I am 100% pro LGBTQ, I would not laugh at, sneer and tease someone for being different to what we expect from their biological sex's normative tendencies. I would simply worry if they felt ashamed of it and forcefully change it because they can only feel happy if they do that.
Asexuality is fine if you really have low libido.
If you meant genderfluids who go by they/them, I got no issue with it actually. In my opinion genderfluids do not necessarily have a self-esteem issue whatsoever, that actually is an extremely sensible conclusion and middleground way to say 'I don't act normal for my birth sex and frankly think the standards we set on men and women are stupid'. So, I back genderqueer people very much so. In fact, I wouldn't mind a world where we have no he/she on a societal-normative level anymore. That's a pipe dream though.
What do you think of cultural labels such as "cultural marxists" or "TERFs"? (though not limited to those labels specifically)
I think that terms are a funny thing. SJW was almost definitely coined by actual SJWs, the true origin isn't known but it's the type of term you'd compliment yourself with 'we are social justice warriors' yet now it's used by the pro-status-quo to insult the radicals for being so passionate. Terms change contextually over time, clinging onto a term the 'other side' is using to insult you isn't stupid but instead what is stupid is worrying too much about the exact term. I identify as a Progressive Social Democrat but if the term 'Liberal' becomes much more convenient and applicable vs the context of the current political landscape, I'd pick that instead.
Strong minds adapt, weak minds cling to the past.
TERF is the same scenario as SJW. It was made by people within the 'clique' and got turned into a perojative term by the other side.
Redneck has this same sequence, though it may even have had one before where landowners called their labourers red necks as they were sunburnt.
Which, if any, circumstances do you believe justifies abortion?
The thing we forget when it comes to abortion is that literally every second you aren't having sex with someone, sperm cells got wasted if the only correct way to utilise them is to reproduce and if that's so paramount to ethics.
If I kiss my lover and don't copulate unprotected it's not immoral yet you can't deny had I done so, if both her and I are fertile, we'd produce offspring right? So, just because the sperm didn't hit a condom or didn't die off in vain inside one's own ballsack but instead they hit the egg and that life is unwanted, we need to begin on a neutral stance, not an "OMG now it has to be born or we are devil-worshipping murderers" stance.
Up to the third trimester, one can argue that it's not conscious enough or 100% guaranteed to be born. At a stage where this being has a brain, where you have gone significantly into the pregnancy and you suddenly say 'kill it' then I agree with pro-lifers on it. If we justify killing that human being at that stage of development purely because it's parasitic to the mother, we are being as bad as the right-wing can be to the poor. This is where we need to realise ironies and crossovers in stances.
Right-Wing are typically only pro-life until you're born then it's everyone fending for themselves.
Left-Wing are more realistic and know how much time and care each life will take, it's not about heartlessness it's about realism.
I'm not saying pro-lifers are all hypocrites, you do get the 'care and share, give to charity' type of right-winger who definitely isn't a hypocrite in being pro-life but that type is rare and also quite naive since they forget other rich people won't give to charity if they aren't forced/pressured to, in general.
What do you believe to be the ideal home environment?
Soft spot for me, didn't have this growing up. Dad didn't understand me. Don't feel like sharing more than that.
What do you believe to be the most important value to instill in young individuals?
To take in your surroundings before assuming you understand the situation you and the others around you are in.
Sound cringey and BS right? Too many adults are hindered significantly in life because they weren't taught to even try to do this.
What do you think of cultural movements such as BLM or Feminism?
Love those 2, depends on the movement though. BLM and Feminism are 2 of my absolutely supported movements.
Should taxpayer money be used to support policies such as Universal Healthcare and Universal Secondary Education?
Those 2? Yes, definitely.
What questions, if any, would you add to this section of the survey?
Your questions didn't seem geared towards social issues but rather what 'values' we believe to instill in others.
Ask more open-ended questions, maybe, that's my only suggestion.
Created:
Posted in:
Politics:
Generally, how do you identify politically?
Social Democrat or Progressive.
Progressive refers to the idea, it also includes Socialists and Technocrats within it. I am not entirely against technocracy, though I am weary.
Social Democrat refers more specifically to the notion of being a left-wing ethos individual who concedes that Capitalism is a necessary evil because humans are driven by selfish motivations (which is fine, if it's controlled and channeled correctly by the society).
Given the following 6 political identities, which do you most closely relate to? (Anarchist, Liberal, Centrist, Libertarian, Conservative, Authoratarian)
Liberal.
I definitely prefer the term Progressive, I respect that the term 'Liberal' is originally what we now call right-wing Libertarian and I do not support uninhibited Liberty.
If you were to choose 4 political identities as the most common - which four would they be?
Worldwide, I reckon it's this:
- Right-Wing Traditionalism (security-focused, oldshool conservatives)
- Centrist with Corporatist leanings in who benefits most (newschool Convervatism, a huge amount of Africa and South America has this, China is in between 1 and 2 as is India).
- Social Democracy that focuses on keeping things fair on the poor (Canada, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand)
- Social Democracy that focuses on infrastructure/local-industry (Singapore, Morocco, Japan, South Korea)
In the parantheses, I name things to help you get an idea, not stating the only ones. Of course #5 is Socialism and Cuba and Viet Nam are classic cases but real Socialism hasn't been done in the world yet, just saying.
If you were to briefly describe your general political identity - how would you?
I am pretty much the opposite of a single-issue voter. I look at things as a big picture concept.
The lesser evil is what I side with, in practise not theory. In some nations the right-wing party really is the only evil or lesser evil you can settle for, such as in China I have noticed that the right-wing party there leads more mercifully than the so-called Communist one. So, I understand what pragmatism is but I do believe Social Democracy is the endgame to go for.
If you were to briefly describe your closest-relative political identity - how would you?
I was raised to care about the poor and downtrodden, my close relatives lean left-wing, that's all I'll say. Not how far or whatever else.
If you were to briefly describe the political identity which is directly opposed to yours - how would you?
Fascism, definitely. This isn't me being an ignorant SJW virtue signalling, I know what Fascism actually is, I have read up on it and every single thing about it is the opposite of what I go for. That being said, in practise Communism is even worse because there, there isn't even an iota of meritocracy, Fascism at least has some meritocracy and upward momentum for the poor of the favoured ethnicity/ethnicities, types etc.
This isn't me sympathising with Fascism, I loathe it. This is me understanding that in Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and such, you had no way to work your way out of your hellish situation at all. If you were suffering, you were doomed. That is also what the underfavoured ethnicities, homosexuals, the disabled and the mentally ill experienced and still experience in Fascist regimes today. Much of the Middle East doesn't use the term but is Fascist, Iran is undeniably so but Saudi Arabia has many elements of it too, neighbours not excluded.
If you were to list the positions most integral to your political identity - what would they be? (listed from least to most important)
I can tell you that privacy from unwarranted government surveillance is one of them (ironically, I am not afraid to post what I posted here because I'm aware of the 'watchful eye' and what is seen.
However, due to that, I prefer to keep most of my views in terms of the specifics, private.
I am an avid Feminist and LGBTQ rights advocate but with T, I believe they have a mental disorder and this isn't me looking down on them nor being transphobic. I genuinely believe that transsexual identity is due to the fact that if you are an extremely feminine male, due to social constructs you conclude it's easier to cave in and deny you're male so people accept your femininity better and vice versa for extremely masculine females. I would prefer an endgame for society where it's accepted that this person is very feminine or masculine and they don't feel the slightest sadness, insecurity, anxiety or anger at the notion of identifying as their birth sex's 'assigned gender' while maintaining their natural feminine habits as the male or masculine habits as the female. This isn't spoken from ignorance, I have come to understand what drives people to do things so extreme as take artificial hormones and even pay a surgeon to permanently damage and alter their genitalia just so they can feel comfortable being as feminine or masculine as they already felt. To me, it's not transphobic to believe they need help and that the real change society needs is to not give 'funny looks' or snide remarks, teasing and such towards people who act odd vs what you expect from their demographic.
I support public education, transport, healthcare and even Internet access. I hope this becomes mainstream in the future.
I was and am completely against Brexit, it benefitted neither the UK nor the EU, it was stupid lose-lose thug mentality.
My other stances are stuff that I don't care to mention right now.
If you were to list the top 4 positions which you most agree with, what four would they be?
I don't believe in or understand this.
Privacy, LGBTQ rights and public services for the poor matter to me.
I don't think a 'top 4' applies to all nations the same way, especially not for different priorities in different people's circumstance. It comes down to context.
Do you consider your political identity widely represented in your respective government?
It isn't important to me to talk about my own nation on this website. I will talk about almost all nations quite readily.
I intentionally settled for an outlook that wasn't too 'edgy', I think too many independents refuse to settle for the least evil viewpoint that has representation.
Social Democracy has representation in a fair amount of nations, yes. I wouldn't select a viewpoint noone had and call that my political identity, I'm not afraid to box myself in.
What questions, if any, would you add to this section of the survey?
Less 'top priority' questions, more 'in this situation, which option do you see as least evil' type questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I have reached the end of my tether. Ending my the day phase and dying is my way out of this prison.
Unvote whiteflame
VTL Earth
I don't like that he didn't answer my question just now, his reads don't really add up.
If I let this NL, you guys will pile on him next day phase regardless. You can scumread me changing my mind, I don't care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
Did you check any of our suggestions out? Any feedback?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Do you agree Scum is most likely in the following pool (with noone outside it):
Coal, Whiteflame, Oromagi, Lunatic, Speedrace
Yes or no
Created:
Posted in:
Most Town:PieRMOroMCLunaticCoalWFSpeedFTEarthI agree with this list a lot, Earth being so low isn't what I see and FT definitely not that low for me.
The general split between top vs bottom half is what I am agreeing with.
Created:
Posted in:
Earth being lynched gains us very little at this point, I believe there'd be a miller in the setup especially if there's 2 cops.
I believe that there is also a lawyer if FT is real.
Earth being scummy doesn't mean lynching him is a positive thing, he is scummy regardless of alignment, lazy as well. He hasn't significantly scumtold other than being lazy.
Created:
Posted in:
To be clear, Everyone below Lunatic is equally scummy for different reasons at this point in the game now. Oromagi's sudden absense and lapse in activity as the day ends is a scumtell he has.
Created:
Posted in:
I will now do a ranking, this is based on what I want others to believe my reads where when I inevitably die N1. This is not necessarily my true rankings but generally most will be accurate relative to others.
Most-Least Town:
MC
Myself
Pie
FT
Speedrace (I think he'd be much more keen if he were scum especially post-return, it's a tell I noticed that's been consistent for him, he tries harder when he feels a team he interacts with relies on him, such as the interaction in a scum chat)
Lunatic
Earth
Oromagi
Coal (his aggression and activity in the recent posts has somewhat made me consider he just is very bad at projecting town vibes in general, this is low enough on my rankings to still justify a lynch and pressure to force a claim)
Whiteflame (there is no way he'd be this laid back and passive, especially not as he's an expert on the theme, he's way too 'background' to what town WF would be in this game, especially when he's cool with lynching RM to Coal's request. Town WF wouldn't find it funny or go along with it when Coal asks to OMGUS-lynch uncc'd Doranbalt night cop in this game.
Created: