"I see myself as a person fighting for survival, that is all I see myself as."
Person who thinks this way, is his ego big or small?
Does your earning power define your ego?
Quote from: Piotr on May 18, 2016, 01:08:41 PM
"I see myself as a person fighting for survival, that is all I see myself as."
Person who thinks this way, is his ego big or small?
I'm going to be the devils advocate and go with big
Seeing their self as a description (person fighting for survival) they attempt to set a humbleness with the latter part of the sentence. "I am a person fighting for survival" has less ego attached to seeing and defining ones self.
I'm confused ;]
Quote from: Themugz on May 19, 2016, 03:55:11 AM
Quote from: Piotr on May 18, 2016, 01:08:41 PM
"I see myself as a person fighting for survival, that is all I see myself as."
Person who thinks this way, is his ego big or small?
I'm going to be the devils advocate and go with big
Seeing their self as a description (person fighting for survival) they attempt to set a humbleness with the latter part of the sentence. "I am a person fighting for survival" has less ego attached to seeing and defining ones self.
As the person adds the last "that is all", the person tries to belittle the prior statement. That could be in an attempt to make himself be seen as having less of an ego.
However, if a person has a big ego, it follows that his self confidence is such that he does not feel the need to belittle himself to others. This is what I do, this is who I am. Look at me in awe (if the ego is big enough).
The self-brlittlement will sooner stem from a misguided sense of modesty, coming from a small ego. You could be proud of what you do, yet don't want to enlarge it because, well, it's just what you do..
I say big from the angle they acknowledge the self and their ego
The one who makes this statement does not operate from a a a place of id
So would this quote fit Hillary or Trump more likely?
Quote from: Piotr on May 20, 2016, 04:19:43 PM
So would this quote fit Hillary or Trump more likely?
I doubt either of them would be foolish enough to be heard saying that. No matter how, "I'm just fighting for survival" makes for a poor politician, since those should be worrying about the nation, not their own survival.
Quote from: Piotr on May 20, 2016, 04:19:43 PM
So would this quote fit Hillary or Trump more likely?
Ross Perot
Quote from: Noblellama on May 20, 2016, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 20, 2016, 04:19:43 PM
So would this quote fit Hillary or Trump more likely?
Got political
I'm out guys
Lol have a great life, it was good having you on my forum, the entirety of which is a political experiment. Have fun otherwise, ROFL!
Quote from: Kaylesh on May 20, 2016, 06:36:21 PMNo matter how, "I'm just fighting for survival" makes for a poor politician, since those should be worrying about the nation, not their own survival.
White should be black and 0 should be 1. How? Are you for real? Have you ever found a politician or a human being who will prefer nation over their survival? *sigh*
Small wonder when liberals elect politicians the whole show turns into a total .loving. disaster. The naivety of your thought processing is unbelievable.
/rant over.
The key to making progress in this discussion is understanding what kind of human brain can prefer nation over their own survival. Suicidal only.
To the people who get confused by liberal definition of ego: replace it with 'will to live' or 'free will' and perhaps a number of cognitive dissonances in your brain will decrease.
Quote from: Piotr on May 21, 2016, 12:50:08 AM
Quote from: Noblellama on May 20, 2016, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 20, 2016, 04:19:43 PM
So would this quote fit Hillary or Trump more likely?
Got political
I'm out guys
Lol have a great life, it was good having you on my forum, the entirety of which is a political experiment. Have fun otherwise, ROFL!
Quote from: Kaylesh on May 20, 2016, 06:36:21 PMNo matter how, "I'm just fighting for survival" makes for a poor politician, since those should be worrying about the nation, not their own survival.
White should be black and 0 should be 1. How? Are you for real? Have you ever found a politician or a human being who will prefer nation over their survival? *sigh*
Small wonder when liberals elect politicians the whole show turns into a total .loving. disaster. The naivety of your thought processing is unbelievable.
/rant over.
The key to making progress in this discussion is understanding what kind of human brain can prefer nation over their own survival. Suicidal only.
To the people who get confused by liberal definition of ego: replace it with 'will to live' or 'free will' and perhaps a number of cognitive dissonances in your brain will decrease.
I never said they would choose nation over survival. I said they wouldn't SAY it.
You decided to take the sentence in which I explain WHY it would be viewed poorly by general populace and take that as my statement. The question I answered was
Quote from: Piotr on May 20, 2016, 04:19:43 PM
So would this quote fit Hillary or Trump more likely?
in the sense of who would be saying it. The answer to that is that no politician will ever admit, though it is true that self-preservation will have a higher priority then nationalism in a human's mind.
Regarding your definition of ego as "will to live", by the time all you do is fight for survival and caught saying that, I'd argue that your will to live is lessened, according to Maslov. http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
I'd dare to state that your degree of 'will to live' gets greater functioning at the top of the pyramid, rather then at the bottom.
I see. The reason people relate so strongly to Trump is because he speaks the truth, unlike typical politician you describe.
Lol
Quote from: Piotr on May 21, 2016, 03:25:16 PM
I see. The reason people relate so strongly to Trump is because he speaks the truth, unlike typical politician you describe.
He doesn't *always* speak the *full* truth, as proven by
Quote
"Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment," Trump said May 7 at a rally in Washington. "Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away, and she wants to abolish the Second Amendment."
among others.
Unless you have confirmation of the opposite, the facts as mentioned on the site seem to check out rather well. If desired I could do a review paper on it..
Quote from: Kaylesh on May 22, 2016, 03:48:27 AMIf desired I could do a review paper on it..
I for one think that would be splendid.
A lot of people agree that behaviour displayed by Hillary over many many years in regards to gun control can be explained by her wanting to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
{Donald Trump} said {Hillary Clinton} wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment, but I see it as example of him using the same weapon liberals used for years. He claims to know what the intent of the other party is, and he reveals this intent to be malicious. Lots of people agree, but it cannot be proven or disproven.
Quote from: Rass on May 21, 2016, 04:11:47 PM
Lol
The reason I said this about Donald is because I noticed that he only says things which are true objectively (for example, illegal emigrant murdered lady in California, ISIS terrorists murdered lots of people in Paris and Brussels), or which cannot be disproven (Hillary wants to abolish 2nd amendment) or jokes (blood coming out of her wherever). With the media repetition, over time people notice that things Trump says actually are never lies which can be proven by scientific method. Not all recognise this consciously, but the trick works.
I told you at the beginning of this, people do themselves great disservice underestimating the man, he does things on purpose and not by accident.
Quote
"A Polish convicted criminal yesterday admitted kidnapping and murdering a 9 years old girl who squirted him with a water pistol as he drank beer in Calais while waiting for a ferry to Britain."
Polish person kills someone lets keep them out of the United States.
Quote"Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' But Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His Properties, Staff Says"
Trump likes free guns except at his hotels.
Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2016, 10:03:38 AM
Quote from: Kaylesh on May 22, 2016, 03:48:27 AMIf desired I could do a review paper on it..
I for one think that would be splendid.
A lot of people agree that behaviour displayed by Hillary over many many years in regards to gun control can be explained by her wanting to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
{Donald Trump} said {Hillary Clinton} wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment, but I see it as example of him using the same weapon liberals used for years. He claims to know what the intent of the other party is, and he reveals this intent to be malicious. Lots of people agree, but it cannot be proven or disproven.
The point of me quoting the source I did, was not for the sake of what Trump said, but for the fact checking behind it.
The fact checking did not support the fact he claims as truth. That was the point I was making.
This leads me to a question of myself:
If false is the opposite of true, an argument which is not true is by definition false, am I right?
With a lie being defined as a false statement, that would constitute that any argument that cannot be proven to be true is a lie, by Imtg law. As such, when Trump makes a statement he cannot prove, does he not lie?
I'm asking this to check my logic, not in order to provoke any attack.
Quote from: Rass on May 22, 2016, 11:42:20 AM
Quote
"A Polish convicted criminal yesterday admitted kidnapping and murdering a 9 years old girl who squirted him with a water pistol as he drank beer in Calais while waiting for a ferry to Britain."
Polish person kills someone lets keep them out of the United States.
This does not sound right. The logical punishment for murdering little children is half an hour in a room full of nitrogen and nothing else. Death penalty is fair for children murderers.
If you can prove to yourself with objective math and logic that Polish people have significantly higher rate of murderers and terrorists among themselves than other nations, I can understand why would you keep the Poles out of your property or at least prioritise the migration. It is cheaper this way than vetting every single Pole, and you have limited local resources, but it is not ideal. Patterns exist.
Quote from: Rass on May 22, 2016, 11:42:20 AM
Quote"Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' But Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His Properties, Staff Says"
Trump likes free guns except at his hotels.
He has the right to do this as it is his property. Fair enough. We retain the right to stay clear of Trump's properties, we are free to do so if we do not feel safe there.
Quote from: Kaylesh on May 22, 2016, 01:16:42 PM
The point of me quoting the source I did, was not for the sake of what Trump said, but for the fact checking behind it.
The fact checking did not support the fact he claims as truth. That was the point I was making.
Fact is something which is objective, like Hillary voting record when she was a Senator. You 'making a point' is not fact checking.
Did she or did she not vote as if he intended to remove 2nd Amendment from the Constitution of the USA altogether? Did she at any point abstain from a vote reducing the access to self defence tools to American people? I bet that your fact checking would reveal, that she believes in removing 2nd Amendment from the constitution, as her friends do.
Quote from: Kaylesh on May 22, 2016, 01:30:58 PM
With a lie being defined as a false statement, that would constitute that any argument that cannot be proven to be true is a lie, by Imtg law.
No, it is undefined according to logic of reality. For the convoluted explanation, consider the cat in poisonous box. Or simply try to divide something by zero. It cannot be done so we don't know what would be if we did it.
For the woman in you , it is a 'maybe' ;]
Proof by lack of evidence is a fallacy. A fact "science" seems to so commonly ignore. I say "science" because using the proof by lack of evidence fallacy is hardly scientific.
Quote from: Piotr on May 21, 2016, 03:25:16 PM
I see. The reason people relate so strongly to Trump is because he speaks the truth, unlike typical politician you describe.
What is truth really? One persons truth may not be lined up with another.