|
MISC.
TO ZOOM PAGE: Hold Ctrl and press +/- or use Mouse wheel
---------------
YOU CAN COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY by clicking " Comments" under each post, and then, chose " anonimac" (anonymous). Write your comment, chose a nickname ( Vaš nadimak), and send the comment ( POŠALJI)
---------------
Who was Captain Nemo?
Scroll down the post.
---------------
Beautiful Melodious Music
Some changes in the forum's software made the videos in the posts from pp1-16 disappear. Just open the links visible in the posts in new tabs.
---------------
Great Craftsmanship and Industrial Design
---------------
Topic about substances that could inhibit the Coronavirus infection
---------------
Sunburns: how to treat and prevent
---------------
Dr Brad Stanfield YouTube Channel
---------------
Dr. Sten Ekberg YouTube Channel
---------------
Dr. Eric Berg DC YouTube Channel
---------------
KenDBerryMD YouTube Channel
---------------
motivationaldoc YouTube Channel
---------------
Istria is the world's best region for extra virgin olive oils, six years in a row (Well it had to be said ;-))
---------------
THE BEST ANSWER TO WHITE GUILT (Don't know if it is the "best", but definitely a usable one.)
---------------
JENNIFER MOLESKI - YouTube Channel
One of the best channels out there, particularly for women, and particularly for those tempted by feminism and who are not irretrievable yet.
----------------
YOUR WINGMAM (dating advice)
Although I do not agree with some things, like the apparent acceptance of casual dating as something normal (although she seems to have changed after some criticism from me, and even incorporated some of my comments in her videos), the channel is still very worth watching if one filters these aspects out.
---------------
TAYLOR THE FIEND
Channel about modern dating and relationships. Often caricatural and exterme, and oriented resolutely against marriage, which I disapprove, but there are also some very useful insights to be found, if one keeps thinking with one's own head.
----------------
MANOSPHERE
Channel about modern dating and relationships. Similar to "Taylor the Fiend", but sometimes with a different emphasis and some studies results. I actually didn't watch much of his videos, and learned about them recently on "Taylor the Fiend" as they seem to have a cooperation.
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT COOPERATION, and mostly a great video to watch, although I don't agree with some things, but despite that very much worth watching.
----------------
FAIL FOR YOU
Hilarious and instructive. Don't agree with everything, but gets seal of approval. (I must admit that I didn't check it for a long time.)
---------------
RED WOLF
Former Russian psychologist talks about female nature, psychology, dating, relationship. Unfortunately, he doesn't make videos anymore,but those he made are worth watching
---------------
All those YouTube channels make me cringe for various reasons, because they do not represent levels of humanity high enough, but still, as someone said, a wise man can learn something from everyone. Particularly if he uses his own critical thinking.
---------------
Casey Zander YouTube Channel
Video channel about building a masculine frame. I do not consider the masculinity paradigm presented here to be complete, but it's a start, although some things are quite simplistic and do not include a higher life wisdom about how a Man and a Woman must create life together. Masculine frame is one thing, but knowing what to do with it is complete masculinity. In the following links, more comments on Stormfront:
Comment 1
Comment 2
---------------
Alexander Grace YouTube Channel
Channel analyzing the relationship of the sexes, mostly through a perspective connecting biological evolution and the psychological dimension. While the author has recently more or less evolved from the advocacy of promiscuity to more fundamental values (still unclear), he is still stuck into reductive individualism and libertarianism, not understanding the importance of the collective and the need for a political transformation of culture. However, some very good psychological insights, but insights that have a "ceiling" in the spiritual height of that individual, which is not sufficient; too stuck in relativism. He is also too stuck inside animal models, not understanding that Humans are not animals, and have much higher potentials that must be activated. His ideas unfortunately don't help in that process of humanization and spiritualization. That little cunt even silent banned me for contradicting him and for offering better paradigms than his, but if you keep your critical mind, the channel is still worth watching.
|
Captain's Blog
12.04.2021., ponedjeljak
Replies to questions by forum members and ex-forum members
You don't have any a priori "legitimate" right to live, outside of an agreement inside society representing the exchange of that right (mutual recognition) between the members of society.
Legitimacy doesn't simply float in the air. It is a question of mutual recognition of a right inside the system of exchanges we call society.
And for the exchange with the whole, the implicit moral exchange is that an individual has no right to do what harms the whole.
Can the whole always a priori recognize or not if something is harmful to it, is a different question. This thing is done a posteriori, by analyzing the consequences for the whole, but in the context of a preexisting moral frame of exchanges between the individuals and the whole.
And it is the whole that decides (by whatever social mechanism it establishes), not just individuals directly affected, like you claim.
Btw. the issue of practical decisions has to be partially discriminated from essential moral issues.
For example, even if it is established that a behavior is harmful for the whole, a society might not have the resources to weed it out efficiently, and then must, at least temporarily, weight if its forceful efforts to do so are productive or counterproductive in the sense that they can do even more harm, and adopt other ways to progressively curb such behavior.
But such activity by the whole is also the consequence of an agreement or lack of agreement about giving the right to the whole to decide if some behaviors are acceptable for the whole or not. This is a practical issue concerning the question of members of a society giving or not giving that right to society for everything/something, or not, and can they collectively live with the consequences of that decision.
(If they decide wrong, that can even lead to the destruction of society.)
All those things are implicit and often poorly defined, but a correct theory of morality should precisely make it all explicit, or more exactly, give a correct frame for the moral explicitness in any kind of situation, so that things can be weighted correctly inside a frame defining the relations of exchange involved.
The reason why it is important to understand morality as exchange based, is precisely in areas concerning the exchange with the whole, where some ideologies claim that some rights exist by themselves, and that the "natural" rights of some people are infringed if one does not allow them to do something.
Without the correct frame of understanding, it is sometimes hard to find the right fundamental arguments why it is not so.
A correct theory of morality allows moving from ideological arbitrariness and subjectivism, to an objective analysis of moral situations.
It doesn't mean that in some cases even such analysis cannot result in a dilemma, it can, but there are other cases that are far more clear cut morally, but are muddied by purely ideological false beliefs and choices.
|
|
|
| < |
travanj, 2021 |
> |
| P |
U |
S |
Č |
P |
S |
N |
| |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
| 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
| 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
| 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
