USA Goes to War Against Iran

I don't see anything bolded ..... but it seems we see things largely the same.

I don't see humanity as being inherently flawed. But we trip on our egos. I think Einstein was enlightened. I'm grateful for his teaching and that of many others.

It pleases me that you're coming around amplify. You're validating my wish to be a useful teacher. A useful object to me.

One of the great quotes about female objectification came from a highly objectified man, actor Warren Beatty.

He was a guy who women would line up for the opportunity to sleep with him Handsome, famous, charming. Being chosen by Warren Beatty was a validation he could bestow upon them. They didn't give a damn about him as a person. His feelings. His vulnerabilities. The depths of his person. They just wanted to be chosen by him because it was an ego boost for themselves.

Beatty had a practice of paying women to come and have sex with him.

One of his male friends was shocked to hear about this knowing that Beatty had unlimited access to sex with women at no charge.

Beatty explained to his friend ..... "I don't pay the women to come over for sex, I pay them to leave when we're done".

Amplify didn't say you are dumb. He said a claim of yours was dumb.

That's generous of you geezer.

But to more precise ..... he used the qualifier "ever". One of the dumbest things he had "ever" read in reference to something which my observations reveal to me as a simple and self-evident truth.

Certain assertions don't leave a diplomatic path forward without someone losing face. He chose the path of maximum contempt and repping himself as the God / judge / morality authority.

It's not a sin to objectify women. Most of them love it when men find them sexy. It's great for their ego. That's why so many of them pay so much attention to their appearance. It's part of our primitive animal nature to want to be attractive for mating purposes. They may not want to have sex with certain men, but they generally want men to have that desire for them.

I'm not too caught up in human exceptionalism. I'm a primitive animal and so are my peers. I've made peace with the reality that we objectify each other and I'm not going to let some insecure mental midget like amplify insult me without giving him a taste of his own medicine. The only thing I would say is that his ignorance is not that exceptional. He's commonly dumb. trite-ly dumb.

Edit: for some reason, I need the hyphen in "trite-ly" or it all shows up as ******

Nut nut why do you treat this forum as your personnal blog and spread your cancer through all the threads?
Don't you realise how awfull it is?
You say people are hostile to you but take a second off the internet and question your behavior.
You are an horrible person (at least the persona you built here), you say you are the only one who cares but you actually don't care about anybody but yourself.
You are deaf and probably blind too.
The problem is you are not mute.

Unlike most people, I don't live in some fantasy world in which I am a good person or represent myself as such.

I don't prioritize getting people to like me at the expense of being honest and authentic.

I'm an animal with vulnerabilities. But I'm not vulnerable to other's opinions of me so much as I'm vulnerable to the suffering of the innocent. I'm vulnerable to an innate and personal quality which says that no stone should be left unturned in trying to salvage some decent future for young people and future generations. That's not a moral quality .... that's an animal quality.

If no stone unturned means being an a-hole and intruding on your phony ideas about morality, that's nothing to me.

You're not a horrible person weeez. You're a conformist. You seek the safety of the middle ground and have no controversial opinions. Take no risks. That's good for you.

My animal nature guides me to be the only person on this thread who expresses empathy for the Iranian people whose choice of democracy was undermined by the US government in the 1950's.

My animal nature guides me to the only user in this forum who is willing to ban the pollution that is ruining the prospects for future generations.

Does that make me good or morally superior? No.

It's instinctive. It's what you get when you strip away all of the bs about good and bad. It's raw.

You are a ****ing liar.

Hey brain midget. Welcome back.

Yeah, for sure. I remember going to the ER with my son and the doctor started doing bizarre chit, like wanting to discuss my son's medical emergency, so I snapped at him: "Why is it the only thing you care about is talking about medical shiit? Isn't my son more than just a dumb kid with a broken arm to you? What the fvck is wrong with you anyway?"

He then got super defensive and tried to claim that the only reason I'm there is to have him care for my son medically - so much so, that I am actually paying money for him to heal my son and not talk about bullshit that's not related to his job. The nerve of some people, eh?

Ok I get it, I wasn't sure but now I know you are just trolling.
I gave you way too much credit for being and old dude addicted to posting, but this is all an act.
It also looks like you are just spamming some AI chat convo , if not then it's even more worrisome.

It's funny how forum posting dominance rotates along with the bans or just the posters flat out leaving.
Every time one goes, another one rises to the opportunity of a good flooding.
You are a variation of lucy, victor and lagtight.
At least they had some wit, except the priest.

Personally, I am hesitant to describe others as liars. Strictly speaking, lying involves intent and I'm not aware of mind-reading as an acquirable skill.

Some might say that one who can represent themselves as a mind-reader and a God-like authority on moral authority is likely suffering from some form of delusion.

I can't rule out that amplify is God's modern-day version of Moses and is his personal messenger with the gift of clairvoyance.

If that were the case, I'd be in deep trouble, wouldn't I?

Another mind-reader !!!

Trolling is engaging for the sole purpose of inflaming others.

My remarks about objectification were completely sincere. That is 100% my authentic interpretation of how people relate to each other. My remarks about morality being a completely human construct were also completely sincere and authentic.

amplify's reaction to them was derogatory and contemptuous and deserving of a rebuttal in kind.

If that bothers you ..... that's your problem. I didn't initiate the personal attacks. I just responded in kind.

I'm not being 'generous' as much as just being factual.

Amplify can obviously speak for himself, but I'd be amazed if he actually believes you are dumb.

Who is the priest, Lucy or Victor?

To be fair, another possibility is that he is brazenly ignorant.

I suspect it's more likely you're brazenly ignorant than that you're a liar.

What is this example supposed to illustrate?

Your child is an object. A person whose outcomes validate your identity as a valuable parent. So you tend to your child's needs accordingly. The doctor is an object to you whose only relevance is supporting your parental identity. You don't go into the hospital with any concern about the doctor other than his / her ability to validate your identity as a parent.

The doctor needs to make a living to support their own family. In order to make a living, they need to validate their value by taking care of patients.

It's objectively mutually beneficial. No different that a man finding who finds certain women physically attractive and a woman who wants men to find her physically attractive. Both situations are win-win.

Why is it one of these situations considered perfectly normal and the other considered morally offensive? They are both win-win. How did the word "object" become so loaded with moral association ?

If you believe that I'm wrong about something, feel free to disagree. I'm human. I am wrong from time to time.

He didn't say that my claim was dumb.

He said it was one of the dumbest things he had ever read.

If you want to be factual, then quote accurately.

And I agree with you ..... he should speak for himself.

who cares snowflake you've said a hundred things about me I haven't even bothered responding to.

It illustrates that you're retaaded.

You're conflating a noun with a verb and writing an entire thesis on a failed premise. I'd expect this kind of logic from someone who is still in grade school, is a retaad, or is a troll. Which one are you?

Finding a female attractive is not objectifying her; it's one small quality of that particular person's being. If it's the only thing someone sees in a female, then it's objectifying.

so much for the

thread