Vishra aka Time4fun

[Murrandii]

She deserves her own topic

CONTEXT:

Before starting, let me state this. I'm VERY left wing guy. In Canada, you know, we got this province, francophone, that is colonized by the evil English people and we're desperately trying to become independant. I value social net for all poors, I value free education, I value equity in ALL situations. I have 2 daughters (and 1 boy but I need to emphasis the female part) and I raised them to be STRONG, independant, hard headed yet able to fold when necessary. My kids will all enjoy superior educations and my wife and I are trying our best to NEVER EVER have them giving excuses cause they're women.

Left wing in Canada:

We, in canada, are almost all left sided or close to it (everyone or so agrees for social nets, free education, healthcare et cetera).

1) agressive left wingers that wanna all people to be equal (but them, they must be above since they know the real deal) and want everyone to fall in ranks. They are, of course, always in contradiction. They are, for example, VERY pro woman yet defend the burqa and niqab. They want quotas for females in pre-disposed men jobs yet don't want the reserve for pre-disposed women job.

2) progressive left wingers that want equity and progressive (slow) changes. Those are the most dominant I'd say. They were for legalization of weed, pro gay marriage, against guns, et cetera.

3) center-left wingers. They are mostly conservateur, don't want to change stuff but as explained, they're mostly for social nets and some liberal ideas but the rest must be statu quo. Some old ideas may also pop out.

4) center-right: Marginal, they're mostly racist pro-white anti-everything.

FONDAMENTAL IDEA HERE: Left wing is to bring benefits to the greatest amount of people possible vs individual. In canada, we STRONGLY believe in the benefits for the majority over individuals.


Vishra:

Why all the context and explanation before? Cause I'm more left wing then her. Why the need to say that? Cause virtue is a key element here.

Vishra is for the virtue. In all her years I've seen her "debate", I noticed that her agenda is about equity and freedom of choice . Those are virtuous, very human topics.

1) My freedom of choosing my gender. It's only mine to decide if it is a choice. If it is biologically forced per my "reality" vs my body, it is still my freedom to obtain my desired gender.

2) My choice of mating with any other kind of person is mine to decide.

The State must also provides support (aka social nets) to the people

1) I should be able to educate myself

2) I should be able to be healed if sick either mentally or physically

3) I shouldn't be harshly punished for crimes but rather be reformed (I'm sure she's for that).


QUESTION: WHO IS AGAINST THE VIRTUE? (AKA understanding Vishra)

1) Who is for nationalwide education as a conceptual idea ?
a) Any sane person would say the higher the education of a country, the better its citizen, the lesser the crime, et cetera.
b) It's virtuous to bring ANY individual to an high standard of education.
c) Anyone against the idea of raising the population to higher standard is against the virtue

2) Who is for nationalwide healthcare as a conceptual idea ?
a) Any sane person would say the higher the heatlhcare a country, the better livelyhood of its citizen, lesser impact on negative productivity, et cetera
b) It's virtuous to bring HEALTH to any individual.
c) Anyone against the idea of raising the population to higher standard is against the virtue

3) Who is for the democratization of genders?
a) Any sane person would say anyone can be whatever they FEEL they are
b) It's virtuous to allow anyone to be what they are
c) Anyone against the idea is anti-human as it's in their CORE definition, they aren't binary

4) Who is for the "elimination" of racism?
a) Any sane EDUCATED person would say racism has no place in 2020.
b) It's virtuous to allow any human of "color" to be exactly like "white" and have the same privileges (and not having any kind of negative behaviors)
c) Anyone against the idea is racist


I could continue on and on. The pattern is obvious. She defines her idea on the virtue associated with. It's not bad per se, on the contrary but ends in the same trap as everyone or so noticed: You're absolutely agreeing with her or you're against the virtue therefore lesser human than her.

So Vishra is 100% for virtue and will completely go rampage on people against it.

?

FOOD FOR THOUGHTS:

1) Have you noticed she rarely speaks with people she agrees with?

2) Have you noticed she plays the victimization card fast when she has no argument?

3) Have you noticed she bullies herself into conversations she wasn't part of in the first place and completely derail it from its original course?

4) Paradoxally, have you noticed how often she is AGREEING with SIMU on related ingame stuff, whatever they are?
a) Even if it's about inequity ingame for the people in power (GM having privileges over players, for example)
b) Even if it's about inequity ingame for the player (p2w events that prey on the gambling addictions of the weakest)



Conclusion:

My personnal thought on her haven't changed much: She is a great person, with a strong beliefs in virtue but contradicted herself over and over as she's emotional into it (so it starts good, it develops well until it becomes "her against the world".
Emotions = something you lived and you associate yourself.
Why? It's a classical way to fight your passed demons ( think of your pass alcoholic that becomes zealous against alcohol). Abandonning at this point is to allow your demons to win and for the "survival", it's something that isn't permitted to do as it's allowing yourself to succombe back to them.

[Gelston]

ok boomer

[Merzbow]

There used to be a guy on the anti-Scientology Usenet forums a long time ago who was a former Scientologist, and quite screwy. He would mentally "audit" people "remotely" and psychoanalyze them in detail, even recounting his conversations with them. People like Michael Jackson even (sadly it didn't help The King Of Pop). Everyone told him that what he was doing didn't quite add up but he blazed ahead anyways. You're beginning to remind me of that guy bro.

[Taernath]

OP is just as crazy as the person in question, tbh

[Shaps]

Read through it and I only see one underlying issue to the whole concept -

You use the term "the state must provide" - and this is false in my opinion (again this is my opinion).

The "State" or government should only act as an umpire to ensure that equal OPPORTUNITY is provided to ALL people regardless of their personal choices. It is not there to provide for a person. It is there to ensure that the person who invests their time and energy in an endeavor is not discriminated against due to racism, sexism, etc. Most importantly it is there to provide security services to ensure peace in the communities so such individuals can operate in a safe environment.

The "State" is simply a collection of humans operating within a system. It's resources are not magically created. It is created by the PEOPLE that choose, or are forced, to work in it. How those resources (ie. taxes, tariffs, subsidies) are distributed and managed is open for debate most assuredly, and because many humans are generous and empathetic means we have chosen to work with certain support systems in place. That does not mean all systems should be free or subsidized.

Being virtuous is a noble concept, it is possible the majority of the time in our PERSONAL lives.. but remember, "virtuous" concepts as a system of GOVERNMENT are built on the backs of those that must work to provide it.

[Tisket]

Someone needs to nuke Xcalibur's keyboard. What a profligate waste of words.

[Tgo01]

I thought I had too much time on my hands.

[Elgrim]

TLDR

[Methais]

She deserves her own topic

CONTEXT:

Before starting, let me state this. I'm VERY left wing guy. In Canada, you know, we got this province, francophone, that is colonized by the evil English people and we're desperately trying to become independant. I value social net for all poors, I value free education, I value equity in ALL situations. I have 2 daughters (and 1 boy but I need to emphasis the female part) and I raised them to be STRONG, independant, hard headed yet able to fold when necessary. My kids will all enjoy superior educations and my wife and I are trying our best to NEVER EVER have them giving excuses cause they're women.

Left wing in Canada:

We, in canada, are almost all left sided or close to it (everyone or so agrees for social nets, free education, healthcare et cetera).

1) agressive left wingers that wanna all people to be equal (but them, they must be above since they know the real deal) and want everyone to fall in ranks. They are, of course, always in contradiction. They are, for example, VERY pro woman yet defend the burqa and niqab. They want quotas for females in pre-disposed men jobs yet don't want the reserve for pre-disposed women job.

2) progressive left wingers that want equity and progressive (slow) changes. Those are the most dominant I'd say. They were for legalization of weed, pro gay marriage, against guns, et cetera.

3) center-left wingers. They are mostly conservateur, don't want to change stuff but as explained, they're mostly for social nets and some liberal ideas but the rest must be statu quo. Some old ideas may also pop out.

4) center-right: Marginal, they're mostly racist pro-white anti-everything.

FONDAMENTAL IDEA HERE: Left wing is to bring benefits to the greatest amount of people possible vs individual. In canada, we STRONGLY believe in the benefits for the majority over individuals.


Vishra:

Why all the context and explanation before? Cause I'm more left wing then her. Why the need to say that? Cause virtue is a key element here.

Vishra is for the virtue. In all her years I've seen her "debate", I noticed that her agenda is about equity and freedom of choice . Those are virtuous, very human topics.

1) My freedom of choosing my gender. It's only mine to decide if it is a choice. If it is biologically forced per my "reality" vs my body, it is still my freedom to obtain my desired gender.

2) My choice of mating with any other kind of person is mine to decide.

The State must also provides support (aka social nets) to the people

1) I should be able to educate myself

2) I should be able to be healed if sick either mentally or physically

3) I shouldn't be harshly punished for crimes but rather be reformed (I'm sure she's for that).


QUESTION: WHO IS AGAINST THE VIRTUE? (AKA understanding Vishra)

1) Who is for nationalwide education as a conceptual idea ?
a) Any sane person would say the higher the education of a country, the better its citizen, the lesser the crime, et cetera.
b) It's virtuous to bring ANY individual to an high standard of education.
c) Anyone against the idea of raising the population to higher standard is against the virtue

2) Who is for nationalwide healthcare as a conceptual idea ?
a) Any sane person would say the higher the heatlhcare a country, the better livelyhood of its citizen, lesser impact on negative productivity, et cetera
b) It's virtuous to bring HEALTH to any individual.
c) Anyone against the idea of raising the population to higher standard is against the virtue

3) Who is for the democratization of genders?
a) Any sane person would say anyone can be whatever they FEEL they are
b) It's virtuous to allow anyone to be what they are
c) Anyone against the idea is anti-human as it's in their CORE definition, they aren't binary

4) Who is for the "elimination" of racism?
a) Any sane EDUCATED person would say racism has no place in 2020.
b) It's virtuous to allow any human of "color" to be exactly like "white" and have the same privileges (and not having any kind of negative behaviors)
c) Anyone against the idea is racist


I could continue on and on. The pattern is obvious. She defines her idea on the virtue associated with. It's not bad per se, on the contrary but ends in the same trap as everyone or so noticed: You're absolutely agreeing with her or you're against the virtue therefore lesser human than her.

So Vishra is 100% for virtue and will completely go rampage on people against it.

?

FOOD FOR THOUGHTS:

1) Have you noticed she rarely speaks with people she agrees with?

2) Have you noticed she plays the victimization card fast when she has no argument?

3) Have you noticed she bullies herself into conversations she wasn't part of in the first place and completely derail it from its original course?

4) Paradoxally, have you noticed how often she is AGREEING with SIMU on related ingame stuff, whatever they are?
a) Even if it's about inequity ingame for the people in power (GM having privileges over players, for example)
b) Even if it's about inequity ingame for the player (p2w events that prey on the gambling addictions of the weakest)



Conclusion:

My personnal thought on her haven't changed much: She is a great person, with a strong beliefs in virtue but contradicted herself over and over as she's emotional into it (so it starts good, it develops well until it becomes "her against the world".
Emotions = something you lived and you associate yourself.
Why? It's a classical way to fight your passed demons ( think of your pass alcoholic that becomes zealous against alcohol). Abandonning at this point is to allow your demons to win and for the "survival", it's something that isn't permitted to do as it's allowing yourself to succombe back to them.

[Vishnell]

What's your obsession with shitting all over other people? Show me on the doll where they hurt you.

Give it a rest.