Philosophy Discussion Forums

Prince Charming in Shrek

A limitation of proving that someone is negligent or has a small bit of malice aforethought in an accident is that there’s no limit to the sources of potential envy and stereotypes. Then the diverse combination of stereotypes can dilute the intensity of any single stereotype causing the most dislike as a form of concealment. For example when my father screeched a knife in a restaurant then it couldn’t immediately infer how aggressive he might have been in producing a jerky arm motion when I didn’t see his initial motion and only his recoil. The way my father as a young adult was thinner than me and then more overweight than me in his middle age meant that I couldn’t rule out how calm he appeared afterwards because he might have been able to move his arm faster than me in spite of me being taller or having slightly more upper body strength. In other words I couldn’t immediately put myself in his body to think of how indifferent I could’ve appeared to produce a similar knife screech. The way I wrote about having an immaterial perception in other threads can be mutual with my father having his own religious faith such that I couldn’t work out how materialistic his own sensory perception could be in how he himself managed to withstand the knife screech. Luckily my father eventually said he was very sorry even though I know in court cases that sometimes the perpetrator of an accident doesn’t want to say sorry in fear of revenge even though the initial sorry would’ve been safe and harmless in and of itself were we idealistic. Perhaps a limitation of Christianity is a risk of hypocrisy as if you shouldn’t promote forgiveness to non-Christians and then demand they still be slightly vengeful in court! So where karma kicks in is if someone doesn’t say sorry for being negligent in an accident then they’re at risk of bearing slight responsibility in how someone else who perpetrated a pure accident might be subjected to needless scrutiny or revenge if everyone became paranoid over negligence. That way forgiveness can always make you nicer and limits a perpetrators capacity to promote evil were they secretly evil. It’s as if Christianity can impose a facetious standard of evil as if the mere appearance that someone cared about being sorry without actually being sorry is itself culpable much like the prodigal son!

The idea of the lost son in the bible can appear relevant to other rape cases as well as if it was the impression that a perpetrator was nice can itself be blameworthy insofar as they can be better at self-promotion in spite of being complicit in immorality. So the prodigal son is often the most hated parable for its impunity but when Christianity is stress tested in amoral individuals it might end up being taken more seriously. In other words a false charm can be more annoying than there being no charm at all as if the idea of being nice can itself be subjected to treason if people ended up being nicer to try not being nice. The prodigal son can be the ironic reason that civil wars, internal sectarianism and family feuds or even cases of unrequited love can be more fierce than any other conflict!

One source of vigilantism on behalf of another is the idea the victim was naive to be forgiving were they lapsed Christians. That way the manner of forgiveness can resemble a glass half empty or half full. So you could forgive someone in the name of a supernatural Christian religion even though this might sound too epic. Or forgiveness can stem from the idea that ancient Rome is itself forgivable in such a way that revenge was indeed the natural response. An advantage of this concession is that anyone who appeared not to care about forgiving a perpetrator was inherently sincere about forgiveness because they made an active choice to forgive only in the context of ancient Rome. In other words victims don’t need to be reminded of a temptation for revenge were revenge already an intrinsic response ironically enough.

One reason a working backwards mechanism can be so humiliating is that there’s no limit to how fast a reflex can be if you wanted to be more serious in general. So when I failed my leaving cert in 2013 I remarkably didn’t care too much in the weeks afterwards but in later years I couldn’t quite grasp how little I valued the analytical skills during the two years of study. It was an issue I didn’t care too much about either quite frankly such that not only my leaving cert but also the meta-issue of what analytical skills were learned were both placed in the back of my mind. It’s the type of thing I’d guess an answer at once or twice a week and let it sink until the next to see if my unconscious mind settled with an answer. So over a decade later I think the meta meta issue of why I spent so long of pondering the meta issue of whatever analytical skills were acquired during my leaving cert study revolve around the idea that the more counterfactual questions I ask myself rhetorically about the analytical skills the more my unconscious can trust me. So years ago I once thought if I knew ahead of time that I wasn’t sitting my exams would I bother studying for them. More recently I thought had I studied harder for my exams would I have acquired even more analytical skills without actually sitting exams. The way in which I once very indirectly asked about foreknowledge in failing my exams and also in thinking of what analytical skills I might have acquired from all other blog topics in years since lead to complacency in me not challenging myself to enthusiastically embrace the idea of having studied even harder than I did to get extra analytical skills during my leaving cert study. In other words had I studied French harder in secondary school I would have spoken more fluent French in years since without ever having to revise French in later years for more analytical skills. One interpretation of the above line of logic is how little I could possibly care about whatever really happened were I myself challenged by others to explain myself. In other words the way I never even spoke much French in the past decade meant that I’d be neurologically compelled to appear so relaxed at the idea of speaking French as if the idea of finding analytical skills were itself a decoy to force me to comprehend French better. Another interpretation in terms of philosophy of mind is how distinct my line of reasoning was in finding the analytical skills in contrast to a computational line of logic in such a manner that I worked off indirect questions off yet more indirect questions to satisfy an unconscious confidence level.

The way in which I could stop thinking about any analytical skills for a few weeks in later years from my leaving cert study only to forget about it lead to a perversion in which I could simulate the idea I’d indeed spent those weeks analysing any potential analytical skills in way that benefited how far behind I was on all other blog matters only to be inundated the odd time by how obsessive I theoretically could have been about investigating those meta-meta analytical skills!

Part of the problem with tinnitus is ironically temptation seeing as my right ear with the tinnitus is theoretically better than my left ear at detecting stealthy sounds or taming very loud sounds. That way in conversation with my parents I’m tantalised to try to hear more with my tinnitus ear instead of my non-tinnitus ear as if I were meant to be that serious only to sometimes ignore part of what they were saying. As an older adult I cannot rely on the same level of a growth mindset as I had as a teenager where I almost need to try to limit rather than expand my hearing under tinnitus.

Batman 2022 A creepier Times Square in Gotham with a gothic mansion bat cave to defend against Christian connotations!

One way to think of gun rights in terms of moral relativism is that an initial want for guns create a need for guns in a way that’s circular because criminals can adapt to the unique culture of each country. So like we see in drug cartels in South America it’s possible that criminals would only fight in gangs against innocent people in such a way that individual combat becomes rarer and rarer as a downward spiral when you’re outnumbered. This becomes a reminder that you need yet more guns. Yet much like high tax Scandinavia it’s possible that slightly enforced gun control can itself be circular as an upward spiral as if a nicer society might lead to criminals being less Machiavellian in general out of sheer apathy. In other words you’d soon learn to show no embarrassment were you outnumbered and defeated in an unarmed confrontation or outmanoeuvred by a flukey opponent. Often when I attend tennis tournaments I struggle not only against the strength of faster-running opponents but also out of the idealism of their shots as if their looser joints can simulate way more sublime shot accuracy than they might actually have if I don’t respond violently. Yet because I never fully studied tennis I could never rule out the idea that my technique was simply insufficient such that I often tried to capitalise on each defeat with a growth mindset. That way in an unarmed street fight were you distracted with work and study you’d have difficulty limiting your ambitions to immediately improve your resilience by taking a hit or prolonging a fight if you’re under-experienced and tempted to copy and learn from your adversary in such a way that guns do have redeeming qualities but at a high cost to society.

3 times lucky with different links to same video?
[yid=dmiTR_ciKKM&pp][yid] [yid]
[yid==dmiTR_ciKKM&pp=ygUeRWRkaWUgUmVkbWF5bmUgQXNzYXNzaW4gcXVlZW4g][yid]
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) - Assassination Attempt Scene (2/10)

Tip: I removed &pp for the successful second link above.

There’s a risk that the longer billionaire capitalism persists the more indifferent the super rich can appear to emphasise a nihilistic backdrop for social welfare until it becomes a battle for whoever cares less with welfare applicants like myself!
Batman set of Wayne Manner 2022

To square the circle between rehabilitation and deterrence is a risk of infinite regress in how much you could sugercoat a spectrum of revenge. On one side anyone who forgives a criminal is theoretically worse than the criminal in inciting more criminality from lots of other criminals. An ironic advantage of such a perception is an ultimatum where victim blaming is subjected to a game of chicken as if a victim of rape couldn’t be slightly evil to not enact revenge and only very evil relative to the notion the Christian religion would be itself forgiving in the name of evil! On the other side the way in which deterrence can be beneficial to the perpetrator being punished is to relieve them of any guilt not only of their crime but of any other criminal they had culturally sided with in a way theoretically aggravated how sad they might have felt were they truly sorry. Yet this idea of making someone feel guilty by punishing them to make them feel less guilty afterwards can be as ambiguous as that!

The idea of equality of opportunity might stem not only in democracy or communism but also in how Jesus appeared to rebel against His own parents by saying He was created only by God the Father! Hence one argument for socialism stems not only from equality but also from a subtle anti-state vibe that if people were never actually ethnically connected then they couldn’t rely on etiquette under capitalism without a concept of a state with redistributive or progressive taxes of one kind or another.

Jesus’ march towards Calvary rhyming with the galloping cavalry!

A complicating factor in gun rights is that Christianity itself is mired in the “thorny” issue of upperbody strength as if Jesus walk with the heavy cross was an involuntary and defensive justification of upperbody strength in an otherwise thin person. The problem with upperbody strength historically is treason as if those with slightly less upperbody strength would keep justifying horror in the implied amount of cardiovascular strength without actually being thin. That way the bodybuilders in ancient Sparta were conquered by the leaner ancient Romans who in turn were later defeated by the nazis hellbent on the implied bodily height of Arian supremacy. Ancient Egypt sums up the dilemma in achieving what would have appeared to have the golden ratio of upperbody strength versus cardiovascular fitness. Yet as we see in their defeat to ancient Rome a golden ratio in athletic strength is insufficient without an equally violent mindset where it’s too difficult to maintain an enraged demeanour. As such the Christian version of upperbody strength mimicked gun rights only insofar as upperbody strength could simulate evil in cardiovascular strength as an empty threat without actually having to be evil. The way in which you’d appear less serious than an evil version of yourself to have upperbody strength could’ve been backhanded and yet is forgivable simply because Christianity never tried to be as omnipotent as ancient Egypt!

A sarcastic justification of welfare might be that if a country or city doesn’t actually make sense or isn’t collectively self-aware then welfare applicants ruminating on the scenery aren’t objectively very indulgent which helps humility. For example many hedonistic sensations like food and music might never fully make sense if you’re not serious enough no matter how long you spend on them such that a welfare applicant’s subconscious mind might not be as idle as their conscious mind economically speaking!

“Dylan Moran was born in 1971 in County Meath, Navan, Ireland. He left school at 16 with no qualifications and apparently spent four jobless years 'drinking and writing bad poetry'. He once worked as a florist for a week but hated it. He is not very tall.
Dylan fell into comedy at age 20 after watching Ardal O'Hanlon and other comedians perform at Dublin's 'The Comedy Cellar', a small 90-seater comedy club with no microphone.” Meath ie

One way to think of the defeat of communism during the Cold War was that if communism were intrinsically superior as a faith then unfortunately it didn’t fully exist in history. So a Christian way to think of the fall of communism might be how forgiveness never fully made sense anyway such that the way America relates to communism is to actually not care too much rather than to be an inherent enemy. In other words were gun rights and capitalism the most basic perception then any other worldview that cared passionately ought to have exceeded American culture. So when we think of the wealth of Miami it’s possible that they’re the victim of their own success such that few other countries might be as capitalist as they claim. In other words the third world would be actively choosing to remain poor relative to the idea that Americans don’t care too much about themselves relative to how much communism might have cared about their own society. This a variation of lassaiz-faire capitalism where not necessarily poor people are at fault but really just the entire country seeing as the opportunity cost of not being nominally American and consenting to an alternative ethnicity might actually be that extortionate were we playing God. That way an anachronistic solution to the third world would be to increase wealth inequality like England and America did in the early 1900s during the swinging 20s. That is to say the third world would need way more billionaires like the 1800s centi-billionaire of Rockefeller. An irony of this concession is that welfare would then be justified simply as a shortcut to bypass historical impasses in the economies of the third world even if it’s not ideal relative to many Americans!
Mansions along Miami beach

A parody of a malthusian catastrophe might be that any racist people in either the upper and middle classes or welfare might not actually compete in working class labour simply because they know they’d be outcompeted by foreigners in a way that reduces the burden of overpopulation. Yet those who aren’t racist in the working class might somehow get by in first world through personal luck even if they lack that streetwise perception in a way that ironically risks aggravating every third world country to support the idea of an unstable job to others were the third world ever viewed as a disaster.

“Malthusianism is a theory that population growth is potentially exponential, according to the Malthusian growth model, while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population decline.”

The idea of making porn to pay off college debt might be an ironic parody of communism as if were everyone making porn then no one would be poor but few people might ever be relevant in the context of such sexual competition! Welfare would then be an ironic way to tame not just thievery as rightwingers might complain about but also the symbolism of prostitution as if any profession could become perverted if taken out of context. By contrast wage slavery might imply the job still had a small bit of relevance! For example when I was younger myself and my dad cut a small bit of ivy off a few trees in a local forest to stop them dehydrating but no matter how good of a deed this might be if most people cut ivy for a living then this might indeed mimic prostitution! In other words there’s no limit to an absurdity in how irrelevant someone could be out of billions of people in the world. Welfare states ironically have fewer hippies than America had as a version of karma in promoting free love to welfare applicants only interested in paid love! They say workfare could backfire in reducing the minimum wage but then again were everyone irrelevant in the context of billionaire capitalism as if the cost of welfare were an imaginary number in comparison then this might not be the worst case scenario. An advantage of general education would mimic the polymaths during the Renaissance as if a good painter would likely still be serious at sculpting without even being trained in sculpting just to have a focused mindset. The subjective value of art mimics the dilemma of welfare as if anyone educated enough could satisfy a basic job but aren’t actually needed in such a way that a reserve labour force isn’t as artificial as it sounds in promoting the idea that welfare applicants might actually have to be employed by fellow welfare applicants to compete against the third world!

An advantage of forgiveness in cases of recidivism isn’t only about allowing you to expose prior deceit in a way that wouldn’t have been possible without forgiving them but also to expose that people weren’t as nice as they claimed to be. In other words Christianity isn’t just about opposing evil but also about opposing false charms. For example an advantage of public education isn’t just intelligence but also humility which can be very stealthy. So while you can compare yourself to better students in private schools an ideal in public education is to simply not compare yourself to others rather than in trying to compare yourself charitably to weaker students. That way it’s possible people could go awry from junior infants from misjudging others and taking themselves too seriously in a way that trickles down to adult life! So one way to compare ancient Rome’s conversion to Christianity wasn’t only in how much nicer Christianity might be but also just like rival mafias that Christianity itself was simply more brutal than ancient Rome! That way the virtues of Christianity like humility and forgiveness can contradict themselves like an intentional decoy to overcome a Machiavellian dark triad of psychopathy and narcissism. So the way forgiveness can reap dividends isn’t always materialistic in how someone who lies that they’re sorry but still helps you and gives you charity without thinking you’re actually nice as a person is helping you directly materialistically but it’s the opposite spiritually. In other words they’re not necessarily helping you directly in lying but can actually help you as a deterrent in a way that isn’t reductionistic. Much like the tax code where rich people aren’t necessarily very charitable to give you lots of money if they still have lots spare then the same logic can apply to poorer people as a version of karma in limiting how a kind gesture or small talk wasn’t quite as nice as implied. So if someone doesn’t think you’re nice but still helps you then they aren’t actually very nice to their own belief system to still comply with the idea that you were even worth helping. That’s why giving a small bit to foreign charity can be that rewarding to compel you to justify to others why they should give to charity even if the recipients aren’t deemed very deserving in a way that might even exceed Christianity! To paraphrase the idea of helping others without thinking the recipients were nice can create a high opportunity cost that someone was supposedly never nice throughout their life to have consented to being helped in a way that’s atoned for by how Christianity is simply holistic in nature!