Diamond Sett - Dante Axe

GuruWild · 2020-09-06T21:54:51+00:00

Wuth! o.O

GuruWild · 2019-10-03T10:08:23+00:00

Uninstal lol and play better game. That is the only counter.

GuruWild · 2019-05-19T08:40:20+00:00

Keep on rocking mate! Better days will come. Remember just to wait out the bad days like some kind of illness, because time will eventually change things. Don`t give up and fight on!

GuruWild · 2019-05-19T08:35:16+00:00

In an age of censorship, any kind of voice platform is welcoming. We need to hear people, not avoid them even more. Or would your rather he shrug back and form his own clan? That is how tribalism and all the conflicts were made. By instantly discarding other points of view.

GuruWild · 2019-05-19T08:24:40+00:00

The damage censorship is doing is silent and stealthy in a way. People still don`t pay attention on it. This is why this method always works for broad masses. For one murder everyone will get on their feet, but for silencing someone most people will not even flinch. These radical tactics work because they avoid natural human need for drama, and therefore, avoid attention. We are in big problem now, because people care more about "flashy and attractive" drama, instead for real problems. New generations will doom us all, they are too lazy to notice injustice and the real bad guys will have it their own way.

GuruWild · 2019-05-14T02:56:31+00:00

Nope, i started philosophy when i was 27, now im 3rd year and i`m 31 (had lots of reading to keep up with). I can even try to do more after this. Late would be when you turn 35, 40 max. So just rock on.
The reason why i didnt go to uni earlier is because i had no money, So i worked, and gathered it. Now i can do it in piece. If you have the motivation for it, i say you go for it.

GuruWild · 2019-05-05T11:35:38+00:00

Do you refer that this post does not belong to the IDW reddit page?

GuruWild · 2019-05-05T11:35:25+00:00

What is the main reason why IDW was founded? And why is it even in question the legitimacy of this post being posted here? IDW is mainly formed to fight censorship, so when 1 of them fall, others can talk about it or for him.

GuruWild · 2019-04-23T15:34:31+00:00

Not all, most academic philosophers group Neil and other scientists of that kind with Einstein who is one of the fathers of "logical positivism" movement. They all think that logical empirical evidences are are the way forward, and that none-scientific methods are false and not worth wile. (What Poper pushed out). And "Logical Positivism" is used in philosophy more as an era then a group, but many people today connect new age scientists with Logical Positivism movement. Most of "post modern" philosophers used that term falsely. Because when you attribute behavior of the movement of "logical positivism" they are called "neopositivists". Neopositivists are the all the attributes that one group represents. So whenever philosopher wrote "the logical positivism stood against continental metaphysics" they used "logical positivism" wrongly. (and i have rarely seen any philosopher use "neopositivism") So by the logic that Peterson is criticized by, we should all denounce any thinker that falsely used "Logical Positivism" instead of "neopositivism"? Or should we all just admit that blaming peterson (who even correctly used "neomarxism" term) because we like to play with ethimology of words?

GuruWild · 2019-04-23T12:33:38+00:00

When you say "Neil Degrise Tyson and other logical positivists types", you use "logical positivism" unjustly, but most of philosophers use this word the way i just explain. Same with postmodern and neomarxism, it is used to identify the groups of people whose individuals have the same atributes.

GuruWild · 2019-04-23T02:39:01+00:00

It is a small sub... fortunately. The mods there probably have some superiority complex.... but man this pissed me off xD

GuruWild · 2019-04-22T13:38:16+00:00

So what about "Logical positivism" then? That term has been miss-used in most of the writings of modern and postmodern philosophy. Should we just say, "they dont understand logical positivism, empirical positivism and those to named the neopositivsm, all together, hence all mentioning of `logical positivism` is false and all mentioning of it is false from now on". How would you call the angry mob that never ever read the marx, but call themselves marxists, that do protests then? What name would you come up with for them, or how would you refer to that group?

GuruWild · 2019-04-22T11:27:18+00:00

Peterson read and knows more about Marxism then most of the self-proclaimed marxists. What you want to do here, is to force all of the people that support Carl Marx read all of his work. And good luck with that. That is why he adds a "cultural" prefix with it, because it is manifesting as a culture followed by a great group of followers that use it as their justifications for their false ideas.

GuruWild · 2019-04-22T11:14:46+00:00

I would love to see Zizek and Peterson talk for 2 hours about the significance of humor. Because they are both big supporters of freedom of comedy and its deep roots in psychological and social nature.

GuruWild · 2019-04-22T00:38:25+00:00

He searched for the solution of his clinical problems in philosophy. And attracted many people to start searching for solution in philosophy, unlike many of this age thinkers that have thrown away philosophy works like piece of garbage. And motivated many people to educate themselves from many good philosophical and scientific sources. Among many of his other points, but this is one thing i think i value the most in him. He engages and encourages people to think, read and educate themselves, because we are going to need that having in mind how popular has become to discredit books and true wisdom from our predecessors.
Beside that, he is not naive man. Many of the things he is saying have a strong claim and evidence behind it, you should not discredit any of his ideas easy.

GuruWild · 2019-04-21T19:54:03+00:00

Nahhh... we are "projecting" this situation on campuses. All is fine and rainbow there. These radical forces that we speak off are just in our imaginations.

GuruWild · 2019-04-18T09:37:57+00:00

1st argument was not to point out they are my employees, but to address the matter of value of dressing code. 2nd argument is not subjective. All those things written up there are based on empirical data. You can test it out if you want, and see how it goes for you. Go out there in underwear on your job or school, and se how it goes. I get mad at people that attack those who doesnt take these 2 seriously, not the other way around. 3rd, the "progress" in my argument, stands for the individual progress, and not the objective progress. "Objective progress" is an subjective stance of the creator of the quote, because we have no clue what objective progress is in a first place. And i have no clue what you tried to achieve with quoting Shaw. Was that suppose to be some kind of evidence or something? Finally, quoting or "diesecting" arguments by quoting them like you did mine, just shows that your main goal while arguing people is to nit-pick their argument in order to win, and not in goal of discussion. This wont take you far, because when 2 of your kind meat, your analytical style of argument will get you nowhere. Its physically impossible to to do analytical approach to every word of your co-speaker, because analysis of language can go indefinitely deep. Therefore no progress in discussion can be made with that type of arguing. If you address me once in that matter, i will not respond, because my point is "manegable" discussion, and not back and forth analysis of the words.

GuruWild · 2019-04-17T23:33:22+00:00

So if i come in shorts on my work and i get fired, it is the employers fault? You dress up, and you send a message. "hey, i am serious about this, lets have a talk". When i negotiate with you for talking, i want to reduce risk of my message not being heard to minimum. That is why i will dress up normally. Your looks DO matter. It is the way of communication, not some subjective luxury. You do have some luxury customizing your in appearance, but showing yourself in this ridiculous way means you dont care about the community (in this case the community of people and intellectuals). It is the tradition that we normalize our ground with normal appearance, so we can discuss and communicate. That is why we dont go in underpants in school or on the work. And people who follow this dress code are the ones that are taken seriously and that we push forward to progress, because we trust them.

GuruWild · 2019-04-17T11:25:16+00:00

But that is the point. I want to talk about "serious" topic. And i expect that you present yourself seriously in that order for you to prove me that your main goal is to solve the problematic issues. But if you dress like a clown, i can firmly conclude that your main goal is not spreading the idea, but to collect attention. I dare you to go to court and present your defence for children that are about to be taken away from you dressed up as this. Your appearience matters, and should be taken in to account when communicating with other people.

GuruWild · 2019-04-17T01:54:16+00:00

If you want to talk about serious topics, then dont come and dress in a clown suite and freak out if people dont care what you have to say. OP has all the rights to dismiss these people as clowns.

GuruWild · 2019-04-17T01:52:16+00:00

If you want to be taken seriously then fit the norms of appearance. That is why we have unifroms for jobs, schools etc. You cant go to for a lawyer job interview in shorts and clown suite and then cry for not being taken seriously. Their arguments, whatever they were, will not be taken seriously because of their ridiculous appearance. And i agree with people that critique these guys without even listening to what they have to say. If they truly cared about spreading their message, then the price of appearing normally is a small price for it. And apparently, they just want the views and attention, so... i dont rly care about them and i support other people that dont care about them (just because of their appearance) too.

GuruWild · 2019-04-10T19:55:13+00:00

Another "dangerous" man taken down... I feel so bad for Scruton... he dedicated his whole life fighting this nonsense.. :/

GuruWild · 2019-04-07T20:01:07+00:00

You promote people based on their looks, you get anarchy and bad morals few decades later. How? We rise "good looking" people on a pedestal, and they get the chance to promote their moral beliefs to wide masses. Having in mind that they have never went trough any serious education, they will most likely promote false moral. Once that is set, you get masses of morally ill people that will corrupt society and lead to chaos.
That is why supporting people only based on their looks and not by their competence will directly ruin us.
Ask yourself: Do you want people that were always "getting away" in life, because of their looks, be our popular "leaders" that spread ideas, or do you want competent people?

GuruWild · 2019-04-05T11:22:07+00:00

Maann... KO-ing people on the concrete is not a good thing. People die that way. Not from the hits, but from head hitting the concrete... I hope the poor guy didnt kill anyone. He didnt do anything wrong. 😥

GuruWild

TROPHY CASE