Sign into an existing account

In the heart of a great forest, the mighty lion ruled with unchallenged strength and authority. He spent his days in quiet dominance, secure in his position as king. One day, a hare approached him.

“Great lion,” she said, her voice trembling but full of bravado, “I challenge you to a race!”

The lion glanced at her, clearly amused. “A race? With you?” he said, stretching lazily in the sun. “Do you know who I am? I could run circles around you with my eyes closed.”

But the hare insisted. “I am not afraid of you. I may be small, but I am quick and cunning. If I win, you must promise to spare the lives of all the smaller animals in the forest.”

The lion laughed, his great chest shaking with amusement. “Very well,” he said, “I shall accept your challenge. But I warn you—no creature can outrun me.”

The race began at sunrise the next day. The lion, with his powerful legs, bounded ahead, leaving the hare far behind. Confident of victory, the lion soon found a shady spot and lay down to rest, thinking he had plenty of time to catch up.”

Meanwhile, the hare, though small and seemingly weak, kept running with swift, steady steps. She had no plans to stop. She knew the lion’s pride would lead him to underestimate her, and that was her advantage.

As the lion lay napping, the hare passed him by. She kept her focus, never slowing down, and soon reached the finish line, where the animals of the forest had gathered to watch.

When the lion awoke, he rose to see the hare already at the finish line, smiling triumphantly.

But as she stood at the finish line, gasping to catch her breath while waiting for the lion to catch up, she saw him casually strolling toward her, unhurried and entirely unsurprised by the race's outcome. In just a few leisurely steps, he crossed the line, and looked down at her with a nonchalant glance.

Then just as the hare opened her mouth to announce her victory, the lion, without so much as a word, seized her up and, in one swift motion, began to devour her.

Moral: Boldness without sense is the greatest form of folly. Some challenges are never meant to be won; they are simply a trap for the overconfident.

and conversely, every dystopia is simply a society too far removed from the one with which we are most acquainted.

We know the pros and cons of the familiar, the ups and downs, the risks and rewards.

But for the unfamiliar state, we lack this knowledge, it is the realm of the unknown, and so we populate it with dragons and other monsters.

Within anything unlike what we are familiar with, we automatically assume the worst case scenario as a matter of course, we see any positives as being facades that hide the dangers and horrors of the new world.

Our world should get it's own movie, depicting it as a dystopia, the political system should be the exact same as the one as in our reality, but as this was the imagination of how a writer from a world in which their society is radically different might perceive our world, since they see theirs as normal and therefore as a better alternative to our (in their world hypothetical) dystopia, all the negatives that exist or could potentially exist in our world are cracked up to a ridiculously absurd degree of fearmongering anti-our-society propaganda.

We'd see a story unfold in such a society that would never actually occur here, dealing with such horrific circumstances as if they were novel and unilaterally evil conditions that MUST be overturned. We'd be presented as a society that is evil and dangerous in an over the top way, Basically, do for our world what our world does for all others when it presents the liberal state as utopian or at the very least the least worst bad option (wherein the flaws of our cultural philosophy are acknowledged) and all others are treated as completely unacceptable options for the way the world may be run.

It is for this that we have "far" and "radical" and "extreme" political views, because these veer too far away from what is well-used to, it questions the world we live in, the dangers of our society are not nearly as fearful, we are aware of them, so they don't scare us as easily.

In time travel stories, often the act of going back in the past is seen as dangerous even in the absence of paradox because we place more risk on changing the past events and bringing a new future into fruition than we do on changing present events and thus bringing us into a new future.

Even though by all logic, the case should be the reverse: in the latter case, you go forth far more blindly, than in the case of the former.

Abuse victims tend to become abusers because of their familiarity with the abuse they are inflicting, for it was inflicted upon them previously, the reason isnt because of their knowledge about how bad the abuse was, but the far more taboo knowledge that came from their prior victimization: how bad the experience of being abused WASN'T. They know the limits of the bad parts of abuse, and they know the upsides as well, for being a victim always carries some positive benefit to the victim along with the pain, and in many cases of self-perpetuating cycles, the last years victim may well count those positives as worth the hell it took to get them, so they count it as a favor that they are visiting the same privileges of their experience upon another generation.

"I don't think a felon should be president"

"why not? america was founded by felons, all the founding fathers were domestic terrorists who won, chasing their own government out of the territory they would claim as their own ands found the usa on"

"why not? a felon is simply someone convicted of a felony, it says nothing about their merits as a leader, it says nothing about his morality, or his trustworthiness, in fact, what it means is that he's probably not on the inside track of the establishment, and that he's seen the problems inherent in the system more intimately than most."

"why not? many world leaders were convicted felons, including darlings of the left like gandhi and mandela"

Plus, it's impossible to get a job in Canada: https://www.facebook.com/oldcanada/videos/john-candy-on-sctv-theres-always-jobs-in-toronto/1835873393583848/

Canada is addicted to Immigration like a junkie is addicted to his drug of preference; they will blame everything for his problems except for immigration, they will be willing to converse all round the drug (immigrants), but never will they even for a moment consider the drug itself as the true source of their issues.

For example: The Canadians will blame the billionaires for the housing crisis (which is actually an unemployment crisis, but talking about employment leads directly into discussions of immigration), but will not even entertain that the way the billionaires have caused it was through their immigration policies.

Also, in such a kike-infested urbanite shithole like Toronto, nobody is willing even to glance at the ethnicities of these (((billionaires))) they are complaining about, better to just call them "white" (but we all know damn well they ain't white).

Mr. Ellison, whose 29 percent stake in the company is worth about $268 million, uses another historical reference to describe Oracle’s competitive stance. “Our idea of the most aggressive sales vice president is Genghis Khan,” he said. Paraphrasing the Mongol leader’s philosophy, he added: “It is not sufficient that I succeed – all others must fail.

restrictions: in politics, this is the purpose that "rights" is supposed to serve.

right now, we give rights to people that tells the government what it cannot do.

but what happens is the government looks through the wide range of things that the rights do not specifically forbid them from doing, and finds an indirect route to getting to its desired result ("totalitarian control").

what we should do instead is we should see rights not as protections, but as a set of permissions, and in this perspective we should take rights away from people and give them to the government instead.

think of it this way: the government is given a very specific list of things that it is allowed to do, and it is forbidden from doing anything that it has not been given the express permission to do on this list. it cannot do anything it had not been given the right to do.

evaluation: i see it all the time here, we judge the merits of a system based upon a result state (ie whether things immediately get better or worse), rather than on the pattern of states that follow the implementation of the system (ie whether the series of result states trend towards improvement or worsening).

its for this reason that totalitarian socialism is loved, because everything immediately gets as good as it can get for everybody.

but people ignore how after that the state of things under socialism trend towards a worsening state, until we reach the worst case endstate that opponents of socialism love to fixate upon.

minarchism and other forms of libertarianism are similarly judged and so are hated.

anons here have talked about the fat old naked guy who smoked weed and jerked off on his front lawn as schoolchildren walked by, like that was the final form of a free country, rather than just the initial result state.

they fail to grasp that the merits of decrntralization is constant incremental improvement.

people would react to the fat old guy by having the landowner establish rules for living in that area, rules that we call "laws of the land", which would be enforced by the government along with the laws derived from the principle of non-aggression.

such areas are known as "covenant communities", and all this was the original basis for the union of states in north america:

united under the nap, each state has the right to set their own laws for their territory that exist within their borders in addition to the federal laws that exist for the union as a whole.

and, should they have a majority agreement among their citizenry that they wish to leave the union, for any reason, they should be permitted to do so, as mmembership is wholly voluntary.

abraham lincoln changed that.

biggest bullshit that happenned before the nuremburg trials, where soldiers were tried and sentenced to death for violating a set of laws that had been made after the offences they were being punished for were committed by them.

imagine me making some act you had committed in the past (while it was legal) into an act that is illegal. (nothing wrong with that).

and then charging you for breaking the law i just made retroactively, by commitying the act back when it was legal for you to do so. (theres the bullshit).

also "just following orders" should 100% be a valid defense, making it invalid completely invalidates the concept of military hierarchies.

the leaders get to give orders with the assurance theyd be followed, and in turn the soldiers follow their orders with the assurance that the leaders would take the responsibility.

thats how its supposed to work.

saying that a soldier has the responsibility of knowing what an "unconscienable order" is when their primary job duty is killing people on command (ie, being a soldier during a war is yhe yextbook example of working within morally ambigious circumstances) is bullshit.

it just translates to "whatever side wins gets to convict the soldiers of the losing side of warcrimes".

because no way in hell would any competant commander allow it to mean "following any of my orders is now completely optional so long as the soldier refusing can make some sentimental plea about why its just too mean".

it was an altogether insane postwar situation that didnt actually need to make any sense, it boiled down to show trials, the summary execution of enemies that could otherwise live to contradict the accusations we were about to fabricate against them posthumously.

I really like the dance mixes kandi krewe makes!