arguments [Theme]

We are all drowning in the mud. Whenever I talk to anyone or read someone's texts who have any personal biases, I see that intellectual honesty and balanced judgment have simply disappeared from the face of the earth. Everyone’s thought is prosecutorial, everyone only presents their own arguments, deliberately suppressing the opinion of their opponent and, moreover, with complete insensitivity to any suffering other than their own and their friends.

You can fight in two ways: arguments and force. The first is for people, the second for animals. One should not resort to the second while there is hope of achieving success with the first. One can wage war only in order to live in peace without fear of becoming a victim of injustice.

when you crack your foot.

Because I am a scorpion. This is my essence.

I cannot be mistaken without understanding the opponent, which means that he himself does not understand his arguments. He understands, I do not understand him - this is absurd, he does not understand and I do not understand - the latter is taken into consideration.

- As I remember, there is no need for a parachute in hell... It doesn't matter what happened and why. We are here. One question - how to get out?

The origins of fear in Freud coincide with the "scientific thesis" in 1 John. However, the diametrical difference is that the author of the message speaks of love in a spiritual sense, and Freud in its elementary, sexual meaning (libido). But is the chasm insurmountable? We do not want to narrow it down, but it is worth considering the following: it is indisputable that even the highest spiritual experiences do not pass in the mental life without bodily sensations, although they do not have to be sexual. Some psychologists, the same William James and Karl Lange, even went so far as to mistakenly believe that feelings are just the result of innervation of muscles and blood vessels ... higher intellectual functions. On the other hand, Freud, studying sex drive, over time expanded the concept of sexuality, admitting into it the Platonic idea of Eros and the German word "Liebe" - love. This terminology has led to endless confusion. But Freud emphasized more than once: by "sexuality" he means everything that includes the word "love" - and if you remember this, the objection that his theory is pansexual loses its validity. This view is supported by other arguments. And I do not know of a single psychologist who can argue against John, who brings fear out of love. Only in the Bible is fear perceived more spiritually and therefore not as widely as in modern psychology.

However, we must admit everything frankly: whether the nerve was upset, whether from new impressions in a new apartment, from the recent blues, but little by little and gradually, from the very onset of dusk, I began to fall into that state of mind that so often comes to me now, and which I call mystical horror. This is the most severe, painful fear of something that I myself cannot define, something incomprehensible and non-existent in the order of things, but which will certainly, perhaps, this very minute, come true, as if in a mockery of all the arguments of reason will come to it will appear before me as an irresistible fact, terrible, ugly and implacable. This fear usually grows stronger and stronger, in spite of any arguments of reason, so that finally the mind, in spite of the fact that at these moments, perhaps even greater clarity, nevertheless loses all possibility of opposing sensations. They do not obey him, he becomes useless, and this dichotomy further increases the fearful longing of expectation. It seems to me that this is partly the longing of people who are afraid of the dead. But in my anguish, the uncertainty of the danger further aggravates the torment.

Freedom of speech and thought matters, especially when it comes to reasoning and thinking that we disagree with. The moment the majority decides to destroy people for participating in a thought that they don't like, the crime of thought becomes a reality.

It is deeply erroneous to think that the products of programmers are the programs they write. The programmer is obliged to create trustworthy solutions and present them in the form of convincing arguments, and the text of the written program is only the accompanying material to which these proofs are applicable.

Everything that I have: a word, an argument - it will open the right doors and the wrong ones too.

Stubborn - denying our truths, although they are clearly in the glare of his own, and rejecting all our arguments.
A well-known example and sample of stubbornness, a mule, a reasonable of the animals.

Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.




Everything will be as we want.
In case of different troubles,
We have a machine gun "Maxim",
They have no Maxim.

The simplest explanation is usually the right one.
The simplest explanation is usually the right one.