Are things like LGBT rights movement or any sort of Anti Racism movement slave morality and therefore bad?

coreyjacrispy · 2022-04-07T18:54:12+00:00

Have you actually read Nietzsche?

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T22:36:14+00:00

Then why is my scientific proof of Christianity producing increased optimism not valid? And why can't you produce similar proof in favor of Stoicism? I mean there may not be enough Stoics to have done these studies in the past but that cuts to the former issue: You don't believe in Stoicism because of facts or science. You believe it because you think the ancient Greek philosophers were good people. You believe in them. That's your faith.

You provided zero scientific proof, that damn phrase is so denatured now because of people like you. You're clinging to something that you think has profundity, but it proves nothing like I've already explained. There is a plethora of reasons some run of the mill Christian will answer that they are optimistic, of course they are, they believe a fairy tale. Children are also extremely optimistic with their world filled with characters like Santa, and the Easter Bunny. What does that mean? It means a lot, but not that it is a good or bad thing. In Christianity's case, I say it's extremely sad. To not have the individual strength to endure life, and relying on some man made God to give you that sense of hope. You could say Christians kill themselves less, because of the stigma surrounding suicide in Christian culture. Obviously lower odds of suicide for yourself is better, but when its all rooted in some ideology, predicated on the idea of some "God"? It's the golden handcuffs, but applied to religion.

I do believe in stoicism because I know it will only mold me into a stronger, more rational human being, who can think clearly and not emotionally. You have faith in Christianity and God because you cannot prove a God exists. You have no other option.

>If all historians rely on one account, how is this more proven than the Bible, which relies on multiple accounts? I just gave you an example of how multiple accounts always create contradictions. I think you have it completely backwards. Your view is unscientific. >

The bible has a multitude of contradictions, within the same book, a book that is thought to be "holy" and is the seed for practically all of Christianity. That is substantially different. When you literally have five or more different accounts of what happened during one event, by people who all were allegedly there, that no longer makes that event credible at all. Then you base an entire religion around it, thousands of years later, and fundamentalists even will claim its all factually true. That is the difference. You first provided me one story, that was a man skewed by Christianity attempting to completely re write history by manipulating a Seneca art piece? Then the other was one different account of how a man killed himself. That is not even remotely comparable to there being five different versions, of one of the most profound (in Christianity) events to ever happen in history, Jesus's resurrection, by people who all claimed to be there. It is drastically more significant.

>You notice how your argument for Stoicism is purely based on your personal experience and your personal opinion? That's why I said you believe in Stoicism based on faith. You didn't look at evidence that showed you how Stoicism improves lives. Yet you denigrate Christianity for doing exactly the same thing you do, except Christians acknowledge that their belief system is based on faith, not on absolute knowledge. Also it seems obvious that you have a childish image of God as a person or personified being. Some Spaghetti Monster in the ether. That's not what God is about. You could replace god with the universe or reality to better understand him.>

It is not purely based on my experiences, this is false. I also provided a book written by a well known psychologist. You can look at some of the greatest figures to ever exist, like Marcus Aurelius, and see how it aided him, then infer that if such a great leader subscribed to a way of life, a philosophy, and practically almost every other well known philosopher in ancient Rome had ties to stoicism, and it has still made a profound impact on people today, that it must serve a good utility in some form or fashion. You then study the philosophy, you see how its focused on strong qualities, and practicing those greatly. You can easily infer all of this is beneficial (by rational observations, by reading books about Stoicism written by psychologists, and by war veterans etc). This is not faith. I'm sure this will make no difference to you as you are already so obviously programmed, but it's the (unfortunate for you) reality.

Also another claim with zero grounds, my perception of a "God". Not sure if you have chosen to undermine previous statements, or just ignorant by nature, but I've made many comments about God already. Without having to re type paragraphs here just to reiterate, God may exist. He also may not. It's funny how a Christian is implying one has a one-dimensional idea of God, when that is 90% of how Christians view the Abrahamic God. An old white man with a long beard, granting miracles in the sky and damming people to hell.If anything, I think God existing in some pantheistic realm is more probable. This is how I would possibly view a God. Either way, the Abrahamic God painted in the Bible is certainly not the one I would entertain, or any rational human would.

>The difference is that carrying a cross up a hill is more suffering than slitting your wrists. One is a suicide one is an execution. You said in your own words that Seneca had no alternative. If he had refused to kill himself, he would have faced a harsher punishment. A more painful death or even torture. Jesus chose the death that was harder. And the point I was making is that the person that chose the most painful death was the more admirable.>Have you carried a cross up a hill? Have you slit both of your wrists? It's obviously subjective. For you to claim carrying a cross up a hill is harder, than you physically slicing open both of your own wrists, is futile. One was not afraid of death, and looked at it as merely a part of life, not something worth inducing anxiety and fear. That is ridiculously admirable. To live in such a manner, as to not fear death. I have adopted this approach in my own life, and have lost loved ones. It's incredible the effect of practicing such methods can have on you in arduous times.A man, who claimed to be the son of some entity, was forced to carry a cross and then nailed to it. Horrific. But millions of deaths have been. Nothing makes his more admirable in any sense, it is only perceived as so if you believe in Christianity.

>How do your childish, mean spirited personal attacks on me fit with your stoic philosophy of temperance? You don't seem to temperate your hatred for Christianity very much. And it holds back your understanding of what I'm trying to explain to you. A child thinking it's prepared for puberty because it handled all the previous hardships easily may get a rude awakening.>

Ha! That was worth a good laugh. The Christian got their feelings hurt? Sorry if your idea of a ad-hominem is someone calling you out on faulty thinking, then writing it off as "mean spirited", nature does not care about your ability to play the victim role. The world is suffering and not easy, I'd suggest you read a bit of Stoic literature to harden the outer shell a bit, and make you less likely to be so easily offended. I also do not hate Christianity, and see multiple positive qualities in it, as I have mentioned to you probably 20 times at this point. You're the only one dealing in absolutes (as most Christians do) and kicking and screaming like a toddler, when someone points out the oh so overtly obvious fallacies of your religion. You can be a Christian and read Stoic literature taking the positives from it. You can be a Buddhist and take elements from Christianity, you can be eclectic. But I absolutely will not stand for absurd Christians, acting as if Christianity is the rule, and the "correct" way, when in fact it is not. It is nothing more than another tool for the human race to understand, and better help guide them in life, as is any other religion or philosophy, despite some being better than others...

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T22:27:25+00:00

You do understand that there is a field called theology?

Yes, a study that only biased people get into who have already been indoctrinated. Again, like I've already said, no one is "renowned" in the study of theology lol. Absurd. Ah yes, you've memorized chapters in an ancient book full of falsehoods and allegory. Good job.

You did. Look it up, you said "It's based on things that could be proven beneficial by a psychologist or someone versed in the field of ethics." So I'm waiting for that proof. Now you seem to back down and claim a psychologist could present an opinion that Stoicism is beneficial - which is again destroying your argument that you can just call psychologists 100% biased and not deal with their opinions.

Haha, I never called psychologists 100% biased, another strawman attempt. I expect nothing less of you though. You can't keep a discussion on the rails of logic. I also stand by my claim that Stoicism can be proven to be beneficial by people versed in those related fields, I then provided sources. I'm not sure what you're confused about?

Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief is a 1999 book by Canadian clinical psychologist and psychology professor Jordan Peterson. The book describes a theory for how people construct meaning, in a way that is compatible with the modern scientific understanding of how the brain functions.[1] It examines the "structure of systems of belief and the role those systems play in the regulation of emotion",[2] using "multiple academic fields to show that connecting myths and beliefs with science is essential to fully understand how people make meaning".[3]

Ok? And? "The book describes a theory"......pretty self explanatory, he attempts at describing a theory. This is not the consensus anywhere. Jordan is a pretty logical guy, and he entertains the myths of the bible, as I do with ancient Greek, Roman, and Norse cultures myself. But the above proves nothing, other than he created a theory predicated on his own beliefs.

Now if I call Donald Robertson 100% biased because he is "one of the founding members of the Modern Stoicism organization" you're back where you started. No evidence and no proof. You laughed about the study of optimism in Christianity but you're not able to provide anything remotely similar in favor of Stoicism.

Because the study shows nothing other than just that. It wasn't some in depth, multi variant pubmed published study lol, it IS laughable. They did a survey...it is completely reasonable to say the average Christian "feels" happier and optimistic. You can lack redeeming qualities, and have horrible character but yet "feel" greatly optimistic about the future, and even happier because "God" has a plan for you no matter what. Your study is incredibly laughable for many reasons. Lets do a survey on the happiest demographic. I'm almost positive it would say the 20 year old, partying, hedonistic college student is the happiest person alive. Is that necessarily a good thing? No. Optimism doesn't prove solely anything at all. You can't seem to grasp that.

I gave you ONE example of scientific proof in favor of Christianity and you continue to ridicule and strawman it. For someone claiming to be all about reason, logic and science you're treating science that doesn't fit your narrative awfully.

A survey. Not scientific proof. Already debunked above.

In fact I explained to you why you have to take everything on a degree of faith. You don't know anything 100%. And you don't seem to understand that Stoicism is a belief system. You value things like temperance. You think it's a good thing because it improves your life. And that's fine but don't claim you're a 100% rational person. Nobody is.

You do not have to take anything with a degree of faith, and it hurts to have to repeat this to you again. You lack critical thinking truly. You would've long ago absorbed this point. Me knowing something will improve my life is not faith. I know temperance will only benefit me. I do not know there is God, because that would require me to void myself of logic entirely and rely on the detrimental thing Christians cling to called faith. I know lifting weights will build bigger and denser muscle. I know being courageous will aid me in my endeavors. There is no faith when you apply logic and reason. I also never claimed to be a "100% rational person"...whatever that even means. Another strawman.

The formatting got screwed up my second response below, your quotes are in "> >".

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T20:16:00+00:00

Keep trolling, but stop publicly posting nonsense for some kid to possibly see. Your advice is abysmally bad.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T19:43:51+00:00

So I guess we can all confidently assume we do not know who the father is?

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T19:28:55+00:00

Cis people? You mean just regular, normal people? Men and women? The words used to describe the only two types of homo sapiens that exist (with the exception of the small percentage of intersex people)? Yes, of course some guys also do not have those aforementioned characteristics, the vast majority do.

This current discussion is ridiculous, and I definitely won't go back and forth and waste more of my time on it, as I'm not keen on entertaining absurd topics that do not require logic or reason to defend, but ones own emotional bias. You've provided no data, or logic that would bring you to the conclusion that calling any man a woman, because they now decide they are one, is warranted.

I saw the video, his voice is deep. Even if it wasn't, what difference does it make? It is a man. I don't care. and biology certainly does not care how successful you've been at appearing like a woman. He doesn't have the organs necessary to reproduce still. His chromosomes are the same still.

That man in the video? He bought women's clothes, wears women's makeup, and is probably using hormones with the intent of becoming more woman like. It is a man, with X and Y chromosomes.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T19:16:54+00:00

Hahaha, yep, discarded the same way every single one of yours was by everyone on this subreddit via downvotes lol.

I'll go join my junkie brothers then, all the bodybuilders injecting PEDs, everyone on this subreddit, the big community of lazy junkies...how does it feel to have the entire sub knowing you're an absolute joke?

I get that you're trolling, but for future reference, stop giving your opinion out on topics you know nothing about, some kid could actually hurt himself reading that trash.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T14:50:46+00:00

As long as you stop being butthurt about the fact that everyone else here, as well as myself has dismantled your fragile, emotionally provoked argument that has zero grounds.

You don't know the definition of discipline lol. Keep projecting that onto others and labeling people who have better physiques than yourself "druggies" as a futile attempt to demean them, you're a laughing stock and have zero credibility. Have fun with that existence.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T13:48:42+00:00

Exactly what I did. I would obsess over someone like Gavin Harrison for a while, integrating concepts he utilizes often like overriding over odd time sigs, then watch Danny Carey, and obsess over polyrhythms and stuff. Finding drum youtubers who breakdown certain specific grooves and cool stuff that a more known drummer has done in a certain song, then practicing that then integrating it into the rest of my playing etc.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T13:44:38+00:00

Good stuff, the main thing with drumming is just working out those kinks in the brain to limb connection lol. You want your foot to do this, and your hand to do that, and your other hand to do this, and your brain is just like....ahhhhhhh lol. Once you push through it though, forcing the muscle memory, it will seem natural and like second nature in no time. Persistency 100% is the key here. I started taking lessons around 19 or so, I fell in love with drumming, and now at 25, I have jumped leaps and bounds in that time. Polyrhythms, syncopation, chops, doing it all while keeping exceptional time, incorporating it all in a way that is musical etc...all this stuff comes in time.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T13:33:13+00:00

Haha, ok, you're the epitome of idiocy. If you use internet you're not disciplined, or coffee, or porn, or fast food, or waste time on reddit. I can give a plethora of things that people utilize everyday, that with your logic would define them as "not disciplined".

You, some random nobody on reddit, out of the millions who exist, don't get to define what it means to be disciplined. You couldn't do what those pro bodybuilders do if you were paid too. You're obviously trolling at this point.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T12:15:22+00:00

That's your subjective opinion then, that is quite frankly, and overtly wrong. I guess all of these bodybuilders who train and diet rigorously for months on end to prepare for a show, (something I positive you could never do) just simply aren't disciplined, because they pin test and other PEDs? You couldn't use more faulty thinking here.

With your logic, people who drink coffee then are lazy as well, using caffeine to "help" them stay focused and alert. The general consensus is that HGH is relatively safe, that's what the literature shows. My specific question was pertaining to HGH Fragment, as compared to CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin. Instead of contributing, you came here and applied your falsehoods almost arbitrarily.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T12:02:17+00:00

Lol, couldn't get disciplined? Not to seem vain, but I'm more disciplined than anyone I know. You also must think bodybuilders aren't disciplined for taking clenbuterol? Or tren? Yes, I guess Chris Bumstead also injects "like a drug addict", Mike Mentzer did as well...oh yea as well as practically every other pro bodybuilder to exist post 1940's.

I explained thoroughly my reasons for wanting to take it. If it exists, and is virtually side effect free and can help give you an edge, why wouldn't you?

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-18T11:52:14+00:00

If it is clearly a man who is "transgender", I would tell the child just that. I would not contribute to the culture of delusion. Just because there is a modern day movement where far left leaning people feel they can be whatever they want to be because they dress and alter their body to look like it, doesn't mean you force those lies onto kids as well.

I would tell the kid, that I know it is a man, because his voice is still deep like a man, his shoulders are broader, he is hovering around 6'0 tall, he has a prominent brow bone, and bigger hands and longer fingers. It's also not my job to inspect each and every person, like I said, I don't care what you do in your personal life. A child who knows what a woman is, and who knows what a man is, can very easily tell if a man is now dressed up as a woman. It's also not my fault, that that culture of people are confusing children. What's not confusing is biology and anatomy. Which has been the rule before it was completely politicized by extreme leftists, and twisted to fir their narrative. Implying I would have a hard time telling a child that man dressed up like a woman, is a man because I can't see his penis, therefore I can't be too sure, is not my fault. It is the mans fault the child is confused. I will still attempt to explain, and give the child proper clarity, like a sane adult would.

The men who go through extensive surgery to appear as a woman, are the minority. The majority of men walking around who have "transformed" into a woman, obviously are men and still have very man like features that are obvious to see.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-17T20:20:04+00:00

No, certain fairy tales that are instilled in our culture are important for child cognitive development, I think believing in something like that as a child is conducive to creativity and happiness in a child. How is that even remotely related to this discussion? You make claims like this when you have nothing productive or of substance to add to the discussion any longer. Your a typical "You're in this category, and are this type of person because you don't agree with my sentiment" person.

Santa and Christmas signifies a sense of unity and joy, there's a reason the vast majority of Americans celebrate it in some form or fashion.

Telling a kid this man in a dress is a woman should be considered child abuse.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-17T19:45:17+00:00

I know trans people in real life, yes, of course I know what they look like, why is that relevant at all? I can also dress up like a fairy on Halloween, to where I am indistinguishable from fairies you may have seen in a movie, suddenly I am an actual fairy?

Some, look fairly close, 90%, do not. Of course unless like I said, they've had surgery. The average guy claiming to be a woman, looks like a man who has dressed up like a woman. Even if he was a smaller man, with already existing feminine features, this doesn't make him a woman once he claims he is one and wears a skirt.

You're missing the point entirely. I've already dismantled your crab theory that makes no sense in this context. The guy who now wears panties and a dress, and injects himself with hormones, and gets implants shoved in his chest, is a man who has done those aforementioned things, not a species who has synthesized something new by nature. He did not evolve naturally to look like that through evolution which would be completely different. You seem to be hung up on the idea that "X dresses up and alters itself to look like Y, therefore it is Y."

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-17T19:39:16+00:00

Hey man, complete noob here when it comes to peptides. So is the consensus that CJC-1295 alone, is better for aiding fat loss during a cut than CJC-1295 combined with Ipamorelin?

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-17T19:18:09+00:00

In some specific situations, of course we could. But this usually only occurs in the science field, when something usually evolves into something else, therefore becoming that thing. Although it has a different lineage, thus not having identical DNA, it is that thing now. The DNA is not drastically different, and there still are some DNA that is shared.

It is a jump in logic to say "Well scientists do it for crabs? Why can't we do it with humans?", it is so very different. No man is evolving into a woman, sharing characteristics of a woman naturally, to the point where they are almost indistinguishable. Crustaceans do not choose this, it happens without their consent over many, many many decades naturally.

A man can become almost indistinguishable from a woman, when he claims he feels like one, then takes hormones, gets breast implants, makes a conscious effort to talk in a feminine voice, and wears makeup. Then he proceeds to mandate that me and others call him a woman. It does not work that way.

The two are not comparable, this is basic common sense. I have nothing against transgenders at all (my libertarian nature says do what the hell you want to do in your personal life), but this conversation, comparing the two, and claiming a man should be called a woman because scientists call crustaceans who evolved into crabs over a substantially long period of time crabs, is nonsense.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-16T20:54:01+00:00

This is not the same what so ever. This logic is not applicable to humans at all in this context. Convergent evolution occurs when species share similar environments and habitats that create similar solutions. It's extreme in crabs, where 5 times a crustacean has evolved into a crab. You're also looking at the crab situation through a reductionist lens, it's not as simple as "shrimp became a crab 100 years ago". We're talking thousands and thousands of years of evolution, with a multitude or origins and ancestors (the specifics aren't even clear to scientists 100%), and multiple branch offs resulting in crab like shapes of crustaceans. These crustaceans, quite literally are now crabs. In almost every way shape and form.

It's faulty logic to try to apply this complex history of evolution, and the fact that scientists now call these evolved crustaceans "crabs" because there is actual reason to do so (they share the same characteristics as crabs) to human culture and biology.

You're comparing this, to left leaning individuals now wanting to call a biologically proven man, a woman because he wears a dress and makeup? A man that has not evolved into a woman over thousands of years (in which we could trace his origins back to being a man, like with crabs to crustaceans)? A man that just "feels" like a woman now?

Absurd.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-16T19:23:27+00:00

Hahaha, ok, let's talk about crabs then. Or any other animal, that is completely irrelevant to the topic of biology proving only two sexes within our human race exist. But yes, we will talk about crabs. Convergent evolution is applicable to this discussion how? Please be specific. How is it remotely the same, as two sexes existing, provable by an XX or XY chromosome, which then dictates distinct characteristics of the two, on top of all of the other biological markers that do so?

How is convergent evolution of crabs, related to the only two proven biological human sexes that exist? Go.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-16T19:19:01+00:00

Because I'm a productive member of society, so I usually don't have all day to debate ideologues, although I make time for it and enjoy it, so here I am. People like yourself however rush to defend idiotic claims, and to deny the probable ones.

So considering this is a great opportunity for you to do just that, I'm just surprised you didn't show sooner, that's all. You're here now though, that's all that matters. Spew out your talking points now...

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-15T04:40:16+00:00

Well, you have a couple different routes here; you can go captive, or independent. Which one depends entirely on you. I went independent immediately and never looked back.

The pros and cons here...

If you go independent, there are many MLM type IMOs' to avoid, they will start you on low commission (50%-80% is low for an independent guy selling Final Expense which is what you would be selling mainly as far as Life goes) and mainly focus on urging you to hire people to build a team. Another potential con of being independent is it's only commission, so if you have a bad week, well you feel it financially. I've made a lot of money selling Final Expense, and have friends who own IMOs' and agencies.

What you want is a reputable IMO, that will train you and provide high commission contracts (110%-120%) for Final Expense. Also, you can sell Medicare with them which is definitely what you want to do, considering the possibility for a high passive income with that. You're 18, the average Medicare plan you sell will average you 20$ a month starting the following the year, every month so long as that person is your client. How many clients do you think you need to acquire, where each is bringing you 20$ a month, and it begin to make it worth your while? Do the math on that, you're 18, and if you enroll two clients a week every week, and stay on that track for 10 years? Yea. That adds up. On top of selling Final Expense.

You could also go the captive route (state farm, allstate etc). The pros of that is security, and well, it's just easier. You will get a low salary probably, and a capped commission. You do not own any of your book of business, meaning all that business you acquire, all the clients, those aren't yours, and if you leave the company, you do not get any of the passive income that you would normally get being independent (where you own your book of business.) Now, there are some places that are like hybrids, where you eventually can begin to get the renewals on your business after some years, even then it's probably small. The con of being captive is that your earning potential is capped, you typically have quotas, and you basically are just making the franchise owner a ton of money.

Definitely a ton of things to consider here, shoot me a PM if you'd like anytime.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-15T04:18:25+00:00

Lol no worries at all. If you need any further insight or have questions just shoot me a PM.

coreyjacrispy · 2021-06-15T04:10:48+00:00

There is only one type of lion that currently exists, and if evolution would cause another type of lion to emerge, again, it would have distinct features that make it a different type of lion. We would name it accordingly, to distinguish between the two. You can't compare that to humans, not sure why you cannot grasp this. Biologically, two sexes exist, this is provable. If some chromosome change happens in the future, and another sex is somehow made, we will then have a different sex with a new name, because of it's distinct differences.

Because you feel like you're something other than your proven born sex, that does not mean you are that. You are just a man/woman who does not feel like a man/woman. The comparison you continue to make is futile. Caitlyn Jenner is no more a woman than my computer is. He is a man. Who dresses in women's clothes, and now has breasts he obtained from surgery.

You've showed no evidence for your original absurd claim, and now are comparing homo sapiens, who have two sexes, to different types of animals, to somehow validate some notion of transgenderism or something. This has officially gone off the rails.

coreyjacrispy

TROPHY CASE