Why there is belief in an afterlife

You mean scary.

You mean do I take risks, where homely shut-ins don’t?
Yes. All men do. Even boys.
I don’t know what you are.

No, I mean degenerate.

Making decisions based on what is unlikely is gambling.
Gambling isn’t courage, gambling is foolishness.
You’re confusing the two.

Sure, Maggie.

Some people stake bets on values, no matter how unlikely they seem to be. Other people simple coast through life following the “safe” path, never “gambling” on anything because they’re too afraid of losing.

In nature, males take risks, females are risk averse.
Largely because they are preparing for the huge risk of childbirth.

You are a suicidal retard who does not know how to distinguish between courage and recklessness.
Courage does not mean absence of caution.
Without caution, no goal can be attained.
Without caution, a father cannot save his child by risking his life.
Without caution, a stuntman cannot perform his stunts.
Without caution, no soldier can complete his mission.
Without caution, you cannot even posture that you’re courageous.
Without caution, you do nothing but set yourself up for failure.
There is no courage in dismissing reality.
Only comfort. And a pretense that you’re courageous.

The point is to attain your goals.
And in order to do that, you need to be realistic, which means, you need to wisely choose your goals, based on what you can do and not merely based on what you want to do.
Otherwise, if you choose based on what is unrealistic, the only thing you’re going to do is make a fool out of yourself.
Which is what you’re already doing.

The approach to life that you describe that can simply be referred to as gambling is for losers who want to “get rich overnight”. Basically, these are people who want to get out of their skin, which they find to be very tight, as soon as possible. If you think that greatness is born through sheer luck and not through laborious and meticuluous process that spans over many generations then . . . what does that say about you and Mr. Mixed Cross’ philosophy?

Fixed wrote:

.

Bad childbirth stories can overshadow the good ones and this often produces a fearful reaction in others. A lot depends on pain tolerance and anxiousness, as to why some women deliver easier than others, we just don’t hear about it as often.

Its the ground to most psychology. Only psychology of pure genius can be separate of this primordial female power.

The quintessential thing that is too weighty to speak out in general context.
Like on the masculine side what is common knowledge in military or finance will never be known to the public even without secrecy being enforced - the pubic doesn’t want to know. It makes life more serious and involved.

Haha.

So you see all risk-taking as gambling on the Lotto?

Fair enough. I won’t even bother mentioning what that says about you.

This sex/gender difference also manifests itself genetically in the fact that males have much more variability of IQ whereas women tend to cluster around the mean IQ. Nature genetically experiments with males in a way it doesn’t with females.

You would do well to avoid vague terms such as “risk-taking” if you want to faciliate successful communication.
There is a difference between a father trading his life in order to save his child (which you can call risk-taking if you will) and a moron who denies reality and sides with a plan that is unlikely to succeed (which you can call risk-taking just as well.)
You and your friend are reality deniers i.e. you belong to the second group of risk-takers.

Let me remind you what your friend said:

Basically, he’s telling you that you should set for yourself unrealistically high goals.
Because otherwise, he believes, you can’t become anything great.
And he calls it risk-taking and compares it to what, say, soldiers do for their people.

Soldiers don’t set unrealistically high goals.
They don’t suffer from self-hatred and megalomania.
They do what is realistic, i.e. safe, in order to achieve their ends – protect their people.
Even if that means trading their lives.

Soldiers must be realistic – they must follow the safe, tried and proven, path – if they want to be successful.
In other words, if they want to attain their goals – protect their people.
Without that, they can never be successful.

Neither you nor your friend have anything close to what soldiers have.
You are average braggarts who brag about imaginary possessions, abilities and success.

You are self-hating, over-compensating, morons.
You can’t stand the reality of your situation.
You have to blindly hope that you will become something way beyond your ability.
And that’s why your friend thinks you can never become anything great without aiming for greatness.
Because it’s true: if he were to accept reality of his situation as it is he would have to accept that he would never become anything great.
The only thing he does not realize is that strong desire and motivation won’t help him either.

Hahaha.

All I can really manage is to laugh at this. It requires much more misanthropy in me to assume you’re being serious, rather than merely trolling.

Ok, a bit of fun, then.

At least the American pragmatists were useful. What do you suppose is the utility of English pragmatism? Ever wonder from where the true motive of “utilitarianism” comes? Even the theory itself is couched in petty, inhuman moralizing.

There is practical action, and then there is practical impracticality. We all know which of those you prefer.

There is nothing more truly pragmatic than taking risks for values, positing High Values as supreme law over mere circumstance, convenience, habit, or laziness. Life itself is nothing less than value-positing, the gradual systematizing of risk taking and all that it impies… and requires.

Absolutely - Hobbes and Locke are the absolute bitches of philosophy. Outspoken “subs”.

American pragmatists lived under a mutable regime guided by letters, reason. Their praxis consisted of working with these letters so as to secure that rule stayed mutable and standards stayed fixed.
In England the opposite - standards mutable so as for regime to stay fixed. This produces the quasi-standards of “polite society” which must stand in for aristocracy, which is always lacking in pragmatic company.

The mistake is made when pragmatism becomes an end. Praxis is of course a means. Protestantism is the worst of those mistakes. It is what killed god, as religion can not be pragmatic for the sake of being pragmatic and still relate to God, the miracle-bringer.

Once again, a German invention. These people just like making life as hard as possible.

You’re a word juggler. You aren’t saying anything at all. When you say “value-positing” what you mean is “goal-setting”. You’re using complicated words in order to appear deep hoping that by doing so you will hide the fact that you’re extremely shallow.
Everything about you is hollow.
There is no meat, no blood, nothing alive in you. Just empty words.
You’re nothing more than empty hype.

When you choose goals that are unrealistic (which is what you mean by “risk taking”) that’s a guarantee that you will fail.
Which you already do. Over and over again.

I one heard a saying that makes some sense.

Small people talk about people
medium people talk about events
great people talk about ideas

for a change, try to keep up. Please. It is exasperating to have to constantly be aware of your petty girly gossipy relationship with your pride. The issue is risk. A goal is a value, yes, you don’t need to pretend that anyone doesn’t known this.

For once in your life take a risk, and directly address the statements that the other guy made.
Which would simply mean admitting that he is right. You may earn some respect - from yourself.

Sexual, lustful energy. lol