🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Eris

You really need to see someone about that borderline personality disorder you got going there buddy.. I already said I didnt even necessarily disagree iwth you. I said neither way if i agreed or not. Only that I give 0 fucks about the discussion, which you continue to react to like a toddler in the heat of a tantrum and frankly its just boring

@waltercool

@Eris

I never said my opinion or the topic overall is uninteresting to me to discuss. What I find uninteresting to debate is if if votes are counted accurate or not. I've had that debate thousands of times already and its one of like 3 things a certain large class of people constantly like to do their best to turn into an argument or discuss. After so many times hearing the same worn out nonsense I really cant be arsed to discuss that yet again.

@waltercool

@Eris

Because I know waltercool well enough that his replies have some interesting @waltercool points to make that I enjoy discussing when he does, even if i often disagree. You on the other hand did not make a point I find at all interesting discuss or present any new or insightful perspectives on it, so I tried multiple times to avoid discussing it, which you seem to take personally.

@Eris

Sure lots of things. Would be happy to discuss advanced mathematics with you, or classical literature, poetry is nice, optics, software/programming, electrical engineering. Tons of things Id be more than happy to discuss and would find interesting.

@waltercool

@Cosmic Not really, I think it is pretty straight forward to anyone who has studied the historic/literary ideas of virtues. They are by definition elementary/atomic/fundemental properties. For example the 7 virtues from the literature of knights and nobles from the middle ages.

@Eris

> It's obviously a false assumption.

Ok I really dont care that your opinion is that it is both obvious and false. Again stop being a child, I dont care about your opinions on if that is true or not. If you dont think its true, then great, you dont think my statement is true, move along.. if you do, then also fine. Either way I dont care and the less I care abotu you disagreeing the more you throw a bigger and bigger fit and keep going on... not sure how many ways I need to hint at not caring about what you want to discuss.

> So you agree that you are deliberately avoiding the contradiction.

I agree that I am avoiding the contradiction that arises from your opinion. Other that that I have 0 interest in discussing if I agree with that opinion or not.

> Thank you for admitting you are uninterested in being contradicted in any way.

You are welcome, yes you are corrrect I am not interested in your opinion that arises in this being a contradiction. I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you, I am simply telling you it is a topic I really dont care about as it is always boring, pointless, and largely just ends in a pile of shit.

@waltercool

@Cosmic You are both making and missing the point here.

The love spectrum is not saying enablement is "a lot of love", it is a scale of how much you "give" to a person without expecting anything in return... if you do very little giving no matter how much they "earn" it then it is selfish. If you give someone a lot even when they dont "earn" it, or worse yet have acted poorly, that is enablement. However if you give just the right amount, when it is appropriate, then this is love.

As you point out toughness is a **type** of love, it isnt a quantity of virtue. a person who gives "tough love" could be giving any amount of love. You may give very little but do so in a "tough" way without coddling and its a little bit or much.

@Eris

You are either trolling or worse. My original statement assumed votes were counted, this is obvious. Yes I know you want to start some debate about democracy and I'm sure it will end in a shit show, so no, I really coudl care about that tangent. I pointed out yes it is an assumed axiom of my statement, take it or leave it.. here you are still throwing a hissy fit.. sorry but the crings is all you, let it go or debate that point with someone who is interested in that topic.

@waltercool

@Eris

I dont really care that you are trying to troll and all, but at least be good at trolling if you are going to bother.

@waltercool

@Eris

Ok, so your saying I DID make the assumption. Therefore my statement that it was assumed was correct afterall. Glad you are all caught up now.

@waltercool

@Eris

So my original statement did not make the assumption that votes were counted?

If that isnt a correct statement and I wasnt implying that, then why would you even bother pointing it out? Clearly you misread what I said, more than once now.

@waltercool

Have you ever been to a play or movie with an intermission?

@Cosmic I wouldnt put it anywhere on the chart, tough love is a type of love, not a quantity of love.

So really your talking about two different properties, one is love, which is already represented, the other would be toughness.

@mrman There hasnt been a "reasonable middle" anywhere in america since at least 911.

@Parienve

The problem here is with your axiom:

" Integrity is not whether you follow rules other people made"

While this is true, that is **not** what legalism is. Legalism is the strict adherent to an ethical "formula", it need not be another persons rules, if you have a strict set of personal rules and follow them without adapting for the situation in a formulaic way, that is legalism.

Yes you can have too much "consistency" in your application of internal moral rules. A healthy level of integrity is one where you **do** change your ethics (not formulaic) for the situation in an attempt to improve your morality.

You might have a rule "never kill someone".. But then if you refuse to kill someone even though they are about to kill 1000 people, then that would be "too much integrity" or legalism, following your personal moral code too strictly without situational awareness.

@trinsec This is before the part in the opera/play where she commits suicide, that happens later.

@Cosmic tough love doesnt even appear on the chart, so not sure how you implied that.

@trinsec She is a nun in a convent and the song is about her son who died seven years ago. In the play she believes her son is calling her to heaven to be with him. In the end she commits suicide but because she committed a mortal sin goes to hell instead never to see her son.

@DavidBond As long as facebook burns I dont think most people would even care if mastodon goes down with it.