RationalMadman

That is corrupt. Also, I did not call affirmative action racist. It is there to reverse racism, sexism and ageism (as well as 'SpecificReligionThatIsNotACultPhobia' and homophobia but that's not directly enforced via affirmative action and instead is enforced by reforming company policies on an ex-employee-complaint and media-shaming basis).

Not to mention that Autistic people have only properly been understood to not be assholes but just 'needier' in recent times and over time there will become official equivalent protections for the hiring of them, especially in corporations that are more geared towards them (think less physical things, more specialist) such that they are provided for and not thought of as difficult for being extra sensitive to noise, personal space issues etc.

So if there is no such thing as reverse racism and there's only racism if you base on race, then in your semantic world, you call racial affirmative action racist rather than reverse racist?

VP should be fundamentally selected based on competence and loyalty, any other reason is corrupt unless to reverse another corruption in a subtle way.

Dr. Franklin is among the outcasts like RM in that he is one of the last to be picked for group work of any usual kind. What makes this 'outcast' type unique is that he is unequivocally uncaring of what others think of him. There are fundamentally four types of outcast:

Dr. Franklin is the stoic type. He simply is very weird and peculiar and has a 'stiff upper lip' approach to his pain. He doesn't seek acceptance, he doesn't seek much prowess in any field at all whether in academics, in the clubs or whatever else. He just is himself and if you don't like that, the issue is yours. He is prone to pick a fight with a significant bully type who specifically preys on outcasts (rather than the bully type who picks on everyone equally, where this type will join the bully and laugh at the others). When someone singles out the Dr. Franklin they face an opponent with nothing to lose who laughs in the bully's face as it backfires hard on them, the more that they try to humiliate him. You throw shit on him, he hugs you and rubs it on you. You tease him for being weak, he goes to the gym and gets stronger or finds your weakness and ensures you're humiliated for it hard until you back off him in the other arena. 

If you leave him alone, he's just a dude who shows up, says hi to you and gets on with the day. If you bother him, you will be bothered significantly more.

The CasaBrova

The confusing dilemma of the casabrova is that he doesn't himself know whether he even minds being friendzoned all the time. Genuinely, he enjoys being the guy who just gets along with others however if you think that's all there is to him... You will face grave consequence in the battlefield. He is the Jock who quietly writes poetry, he is the guy who can chat up the emo girls just as easily as the superficial queens and yet ultimately isn't entirely sure which he even wants. This issue isn't just with relationships, it's in everything in this type's decision making.

Part of him wants to be the softest, most sensitive and caring guy in town, the other part that comes out when he's feeling threatened or angry is a bloodthirsty, ambitious beast. The only thing in your favour when facing against him is that he wants to be the softer one; he's very agile, creative and charismatic. His only true weakness is prolonged strategic 'beef' but his charisma avoids him ever having such a thing with anyone other than 'relentless' types who themselves have too much beef with others to hone in on the casabrova.

There is no way you are Trent's type in reality, you are not possibly the quiet type.

Stereotype is meant to be exaggeration, but I am glad I got it wrong as it is supposed to be ridiculous.

Dude, the worst games are games I don't play, of course I won't know it. This is a silly thing to ask.

User_2006 is that whiny prissy prep. Dresses very sharp, even in his spare time, smiles extra hard for photos, works extra hours to study and most importantly knows someone in every other clique (whether they like it or not). He's a hard guy to hate, he's enthusiastic, hardworking and pitches in when it's a teamwork situation, the real issue comes when he feels he's underperforming.

He's the kind of guy who wants to be Phelps while he's still struggling with the breaststroke, so he focuses too hard on that and loses his skill at front crawl and butterfly as he fails to practise the muscles for them and loses all races as he stretches himself thin. You could also compare it to a geek who spends too much time obssessing over one particular hobby and interest, neglecting everything else about a subject so that even in the subject that it relates to, they score poorly overall.

We all know someone like this, even in the roughest schools there's always the tryhards, however the quinetessential aspect of this type is that they know they're a tryhard.

Trent is that dude who is way too mature for his age and that isn't always a good thing. He's always a little too serious, always a little too bored but most importantly, he's 'greater than you'. He turns up everyday, has that 100% attendance award, but people in general don't always realise he's there. He's very reserved, quiet and steadfast in his work, he matches well with others who work hard and keep their mouths shut.

He will grow up to become the 'stern and quiet' old monk stereotype.

I was just helping to clear up a misunderstanding you had with zedvictor. A coward would be someone too afraid to reply to you. Anyway, I'll leave you be.

You post here your consent to be stereotyped and I will tell you which stereotype you are.

Situations change but high school cliques are not all that different to fundamental primate hierarchical structure. 

Let's begin with RM, the weird dude who isn't the quiet dude. It's that choirboy who sings loud and proud, it's that nerd who yells "math club leader" as the proudest title of all. RM is the weirdest motherfucker who isn't quiet or ashamed of being it.

There is. There are 18+ text porn sites with content that would be illegal to print in an under-18 environment.

No, he is saying that the voice in your head that you use while reading and writing, for instance, is not even noticed by you to be a voice that you're hearing.

No, they don't. This is why I pushed on your assertion that anyone even has consciousness other than you. Of course it's insane to think of true solipsism as reality but the reason that it's insane is that the clues strongly imply others have volition and thoughts independent of our own and unfeigned in nature.

Everything about reality is garnered via clues that our senses and thought structure allow us to have, is it not?

No. He will be accused of picking based on reverse racism rather than competence. This is as corrupt as only hiring majority race, gender etc in how wrong it is as a basis of hiring.

I am not stupid, of course I know we need affirmative action, however this direct and blatant an alteration of hiring based solely on appealing to masses as a non-racist because of a recent event is so utterly corrupt and will be too obvious to gain more votes than it loses.

This isn't the worst game, the worst part is the ending. Imagine one of the best made adventure games of its era with storyline depth and interesting mechanics between things (having to use one move and tool in combination with one you do elsewhere for massive chain reaction things that unlock a third thing to be possible etc) and to have it all end with

There is apparently a different way to play out a point in the middle-to-end area of the game that is very unusual that allows him to be free at the end but it is extremely counterintuitive and not at all how you're supposed to play that area.

The game is this:

It is so brilliant except for the ending.

I guess that gaslighting all believers and trying to convince them that they are hallucinating didn't work out for your interviews' longevity?

I am not asking to spite you, I am letting you know that if you genuinely intended to get to know their belief's basis and to explore what they hold dear, you went about it all wrong.

Are you referring to the lockdown becoming mandatory in some states or about the police and the incident with Floyd?

How can freedom and peace coexist when often to maintain one, the other has to be sacrificed?

I am aware that I am being hyperbolic here.

Welcome back all to EPT, the show where we explore the spectrum of one's politics!

This time we have DPR, a self-proclaimed 'pragmatic libertarian'. 

He says that he equally values both freedom and peace above all else in a society but that a balance is optimal.

A mess that has happier citizens is superior to a neat and tidy clinical hell, would you not agree?

I am asking you as an open-ended question hoping you will elaborate on how important structure is for your society.

Since your ethos overall runs against 'if it aint broke don't fix it', what do you say to people who go by that?

Also, regarding society's morality in an extreme scenario like human cloning or even testing, do you think it's correct on a moral level that the desperate poor should be willing to do severe harm to their bodies in the name of science? These are often people who are so desperate and helpless due to a lack of sufficient welfare safety net for the poor.

What is Christianity to you?

This edition of ERT we have a proud Christian known as Dr. Franklin.

He hasn't revealed much else in his application than that he is a devout Christian.

Please introduce yourself, Dr. Franklin!

Your approach to love is a very feline one. Well, very animalistic in general but especially cats are known to particularly 'love' based solely on superficial things (yet they feel very deep to the cat and it's not pseudo-love).

The problem with your approach is, of course, that no single human can possibly have enough contact with other humans in the community, society and/or country such that they have developed feelings towards what those people do or act like. Thus, we cannot base our morals on that alone if we seek to be a moralistic society.

What is your retort to me saying that?

Thanks again for this in-depth reply. 

Is there a hell or just rebirth in your outlook? How exactly does afterlife work?

What are you talking about?

If they stopped worrying about offending people, then people such as yourself would call them even more evil and rude on top of it.

I don't exactly know what this is but this is not stereotyping.

While stereotyping does involve exaggerating 1 or 2 particular traits, the idea is that you band people together into groups.

I take it that you want to end this interview.

If, consistently, any group of our species (the 'we') in any terrain, any ethnicity and any IQ level average among them, pushes away from anarchy rapidly as the generations progress, it implies that there is indeed a logical 'gravitating away from anarchy' consistent among even entirely opposite systems.

On top of that, anarchy itself is an illusion. When is everyone free, even of social hierarchy and norms pressuring conformity? Never, right?

Thank you for your answer.

Why is tradition important to you?

With science, you say that we should be pretty ambitious and willing to endeavour new things so long as the ones doing it handle it wisely, yes?

Is this your approach with all aspects of politics, such as education, healthcare, new benefits schemes etc.?

So where do you begin with morality? How do you approach it, with regards to a starting point?

Similar to the case of solving crime, we cannot always be certain beyond any doubt of the truth in philosophy. All we can do is pursue it based on the clues available.

More being at stake can't just make our ability to reason and conclude disappear, or does it?

Where do you believe that morality begins? How should we approach it?

I think we lack too much middle ground to continue this interview successfully.

You are completely incorrect. A sandwich is anything with both bread and food on that bread. Your opponent was unwise/ignorant to not bring up open sandwiches, which are popular in Scandinavia. Open sandwiches have one slice of bread, not two. I still think you lost as you conceded that things with structures similar to a default sandwich can still qualify as sandwiches, your opponent didn't fight hard enough to make it clear cut who won but overall I still think you lost.

Users such as Ramshutu and Oromagi have actually voted against me even though I objectively exploited logical and grammatical fallacies in my opponent.

More important than knowing the logic of debating is knowing the psychology and core values of voters. What really pisses them off vs pleases them? It takes a lot of trial and error to truly master, however you can play it ultra-safe and always take the mainstream, popular side of debates if you don't want to experiment as much as I do and will keep doing.

stop typing while you're ahead. You are justifying killing someone in cold blood. What you are saying is irrelevant to what happened. 

Is it the anxiety of not being sure or rather a principle against deduction based on clues that makes you so vehemently stand against concluding without concrete, irrefutable evidence?

Theism aside, crimes are usually solved using the type of concluding and hedging bets that you are against.

When we sleep, where do we go? Do you genuinely transfer our consciousness away? How about deep meditation and/or daydreaming where we truly forget where we are temporarily?

In the case of energy, it can be measured in Joules and we observe that while things don't create it, they transfer it from one form to another.

In the case of consciousness, how do you think consciousness arose? One major issue I find with your theory is that while God's consciousness is said to always have been, how is it that you and I have our own unique experiences and consciousness where I can't feel your pain and you can't enjoy my pleasure in a conscious sense of the terms (not empathy based)?

So, to be clear do you or do you not support social security?

Why is tradition important to you?

If what you are saying is true, why did we begin at anarchy and end up here? If we began with the system that is most logical and which all gravitate towards, how and why did we consistently move away from it in pretty much each and every continent, country etc?

So, you're a scientist yes? Does this play into your political views? Would you highly prioritise technological development above all else? 

What's your opinion on Trump and NASA using their budget on SpaceX holidays during this highly chaotic time, both due to the virus and the event with the cop?

In my opinion yes and if you invite me to challenge you and present my own ideas, I will.

Nonetheless, we can assume 'no' to continue with you as the interviewee.

Your system actually reminds me very much of Confucianism (which South Korea runs on but also quite a few parts of China). It relies on strict adherence to one's role in society and the duties that come along with that. It's very stoic in the sense of 'shut up and get on with life, don't show off' and only differs to your ideals in that it isn't Christian and its afterlife is almost nonexistent (this is because it stopped being developed as a religion and turned into a political system during its evolution).

One major issue with the ideals you hold is surely the mental health and thus happiness of those involved. Do you believe that happiness matters or is happiness a luxury? How about confidence?

Deism is correct in that God isn't a 'good being' significantly more than it is an 'evil being'. God is neutral in my eyes and enjoys the show, whether it's hostile or pleasant.

Deism is incorrect in suggesting that God has neglected reality and grew bored of it. God did grow bored of reality at the start of its/her existence, since everything was predictable. What happened was that this god being increased randomness and eventually we have what we have now.

I call my god Fiora (like the league of legends character but there is reasoning behind this name) and the random generator at the core of reality (which is even above god) Aurora.

You asked us to state our thoughts, you then complained that we did.

In the eyes of many scientists, your entire conscious reality and experience is 100% caused by your physical neural activity of the brain. How would you suggest we approach this differently to identify the neurones as a result and not cause? Are they perhaps a catalyst/medium?