** Faking sincerity gets you pretty far in life gangstr, it would almost seem that you are robbing yourself of many opportunities by sticking to some sort of arbitrary principles your upbringing or parents have impressed upon you. Perhaps the difference between us is the will to do what the other wouldn't - that reminds me of a certain scene of a certain movie about a certain character named Keyser Soze. **

You really don't actually read (or comprehend, not sure which) what's actually on the page do ya. I never said there wasn't gains to be made and actually agreed with you on that you thick little man. Please spare the need to re-iterate what's ALREADY been conveyed, it's horribly frustrating. Secondly, if you had actually read what was there, you'd know what I was referring to had little or nothing to do with your so called arbitrary principles obtained from parental upbringing but in fact referred to principles - developed - via.... direct experience. A less than minor issue I suspected you might miss and I was right in spite of my suggestion to wash, rinse and repeat which also proved necessary but alas futile nonetheless. No big surprise there either. The issue at hand falls to what methods a person is willing to apply and at what cost (or compromise) when it comes to what's commonly referred to as the personal integrity one has developed, specifically .... "over time." Without mentioning names I was privy to a proposed en devour by a well known publisher in the US, who built something of an empire and substantial fortune over the years (you'd know who this is) and really wanted to set up a casino in Vegas. Of course there were certain "concessions" to be had or more accurately certain "favors" expected in return for approval, rather "typical" stuff that's not all that uncommon or that big a deal. However, given this guys efforts in exposing both government and corporate corruption and the like through publication he had a certain standard of ethics he could call his own. It took nothing at all for him to make the snap decision... "not interested" and move onto other things. It was his model. The same model he used to build his empire. Did Hank Paulson and a few others have a different model? Sure. The point is both models got them there. The difference being this other cats method was absent any shit storm or need to defend it (like yourself) much less force him up in front a senate committee. Was Paulson's method "easier" in providing to him his rise ?.. Perhaps. I'd even say more profitable. The question, which is the more... preferable.

** I wholeheartedly disagree. There's people that live double lives, alla dr. jekyll and mr hyde. **

Again, "already" agreed. Those unable to recognize the meaning of "congruency in ALL systems" can be deceived easy enuf. (the part you missed) No argument there. This applies to a very high percentage (I'd say well over 90%) of the general population. Which offers those you've described a very wide range and selection of juicy targets. Faked sincerity can be sold. But faked sincerity and congruency in all systems are not at all the same thing and you confuse them. The latter I suggest once again, if one knows what to look for cannot be fabricated based upon a few virtually unavoidable obstacles. Granted, it's a complex area but you obviously no clue what I'm talking about..

Your methods bring you results, which I don't deny is true. Hence in your mind invalidates my argument. It doesn't. I've seen wht I'm referring to done by those almost infallible in this, where they could virtually tear down a persons beautifully constructed mo, who've they no history on, in like 15 minutes splat ! Break it down, dismantle it, throw a big wrench into it and then have that person try and re-engage. Then watch the frustration and bewilderment well up because every time they try to re adapt and come back in... door is closed. So they re calibrate. Same thing. Door closed. It's interesting stuff. They've no idea what just hit them and no defense to having a lifetime of what seemed like perfectly good strategy end up shot to shit by a more or less perfect stranger. Then of course the anger kicks in. All of the stages are very predictable. You'd think it was almost telepathic, but it's not.

** Yes you can have a conscience but if you can't discern when to listen to it and when not to then I would say you are at a severe disadvantage in this life. You think the highest echelons of society were reached by people that had your mindset gangstr? Probably not. But people with the same mindset as Nukky Thompson? Indubitably. **

ok sherlock, heh. Listen champ. You can defend the methods you've chosen to be married to hence plan on implementing in your quest for personal gain. You'll be in good company. Many others have gone before and succeeded in exactly the same way. The rarer case falls to others who chose to get there on sheer integrity. It's been done. It'll be done again. Being a cheat as you know well enuf can help you rise much faster than those who refuse to compromise their integrity and provide the "genuine article" as opposed to using bait and switch slipping the consumer a facsimile. Using your tiny sensory inputs you look out at the world and you see a tangled mess of maneuvering and the methods others have embraced to fight the war with. And what you're seeing isn't entirely wrong. But others have taken a different path and it's brought them unshakeable merit in their gains and how they got there in refusing to compromise their integrity. Then again, something has to exist prior to being able to do "anything to it". Maybe that's your problem. I dunno.

gangsterr you really need to learn concision

"You live a sheltered life of horse-blinder-esque thought. You aren't original, you are not a shining star, you are the product of American decay, and your very essence is a diluted version of originality."

I am Jack's inflamed sense of rejection.

Not to be rude but is second what boogy says, your last few posts have been a bit of a garbled stream of thought lately gangstr - not that I don't hold your posts here in high esteem.

As far as your tangent on integrity and arbitrary moral codes/ethics goes I want to remind you: those codes and guidelines are arbitrary. In reality there is no wrong or right - there is success and failure (especially in the predatory world we live in today). How you get there is irrelevant and frankly, as a fan of Nietzsche and my favorite of his books "Thus Spake Zarathustra" I believe some people are simply too weak to grasp the above and as such cannot bring themselves to readily appreciate it - at an intellectual level. I would discern between selfishness and existential conclusions like the above.

I'd like to note that the above view and humanism are not mutually exclusive either. I certainly have solidarity with humanity and likely more so than those that follow arbitrary creeds, codes or religions. Generally the latter are divisive while international solidarity recognizes we are all very much the same.

So no gangstr I do not follow a set of arbitrary rules or codes to live my life by - I am a strong atheist and as a consequence believe there is no ultimate defining morals - I do however discern between the just and unjust as Socrates and Plato before me did.

If you really believe in some ultimate ethics or moral code then I'll leave you with a quote from Earbest Hemmingway "every thinking man is an atheist."

Sent from my iPhone

Not to be rude but is second what boogy says, your last few posts have been a bit of a garbled stream of thought lately gangstr - not that I don't hold your posts here in high esteem.

As far as your tangent on integrity and arbitrary moral codes/ethics goes I want to remind you: those codes and guidelines are arbitrary. In reality there is no wrong or right - there is success and failure (especially in the predatory world we live in today). How you get there is irrelevant and frankly, as a fan of Nietzsche and my favorite of his books "Thus Spake Zarathustra" I believe some people are simply too weak to grasp the above and as such cannot bring themselves to readily appreciate it - at an intellectual level. I would discern between selfishness and existential conclusions like the above.

I'd like to note that the above view and humanism are not mutually exclusive either. I certainly have solidarity with humanity and likely more so than those that follow arbitrary creeds, codes or religions. Generally the latter are divisive while international solidarity recognizes we are all very much the same.

So no gangstr I do not follow a set of arbitrary rules or codes to live my life by - I am a strong atheist and as a consequence believe there is no ultimate defining morals - I do however discern between the just and unjust as Socrates and Plato before me did.

If you really believe in some ultimate ethics or moral code then I'll leave you with a quote from Ernest Hemmingway "every thinking man is an atheist."

Sent from my iPhone

awesome thread, makes me want to hang out more with kdicers

who's alt is nunes? or is it a main?

Veta: "If you really believe in some ultimate ethics or moral code then I'll leave you with a quote from Ernest Hemmingway "every thinking man is an atheist.""

This is where your argument ultimately breaks down. You link ethics and morals to religion and thus believe that having ethics and morals implies you believe in god.

Ethics and morals are not rooted in religion. They are rooted in logic. You should know this; seeing as you take to quoting Greek philosophers all the time. Well I believe you missed their most valuable lesson.

Aristotle describes the good life by saying that, "the happy person is one who expresses complete virtue in his activities, with an adequate supply of external goods, not just for any time but for a complete life."

So, the good life consists of moral and intellectual virtue, a certain measure of goods, and friendship.

You my friend are completely void of all moral virtue.

I am an atheist who strives for intellectual AND moral virtue. You will find that my accomplishments in life and happiness far exceed your current college situation.

It's funny because thread after thread after thread you talk others down. Yet you never attack my accomplishments. Why? Because I think it is undeniable that I am more accomplished.

So ask yourself; how is this possible while you possess the "enlightened" amoral philosophy; while I cling to my moral virtue?

Perhaps I'm just smarter? No. I believe your downfall will be your lack of moral virtue. You will fall at accomplishing happiness because you will not have any "true" friends. Friends will only be "friends" if you continue to pull the wool over their eyes. And their are no friends among thieves. You will also fail at love. Love is the mutual admiration of virtues. How many women do you know that love a morally bankrupt narcissist? Why would they want children with you? How will you protect them when you inevitably end up in jail or dead?

The truth is; there is a better way to play the game of life. One day you will learn when you reach the 5k tables.

2 things: you'll find most friends in life are superficial - the old adage is true "a good friend will bail you out of jail but a great friend will be right there with you.". I have my share of very close friends, they're few but I'm sure more than the average person. And when I say close I mean people than know me as well as I know myself - you don't know me and while you may get a hint of my personality or the flair in which I do things I don't think you can get to know me over the Internet and a message board.

Secondly: most girls love morally bankrupt assholes. I don't subscribe to Aristotle's philosophy - if I had to pick an ancient Greek philosopher to subscribe to it would be Plato's portrayal of Socrates - if I had to pick a roman one it would be Epicurus. Ultimately there is no right or wrong - only just and unjust. Your conscience evolved in such a way to make you discern between the two but the reality is both are constructs of each individual's mind. Is it right or wrong for a mother to steal for her starving child? Moral ambiguity is proof enough that right and wrong are simply in the eye of the beholder.

As far as this 101 philo shit is concerned, yes many of the ancients believed in virtues or "inherent" goods. I subscribe to Nietzsche in this regard and reject the entire notion. I want society to function as efficiently as possible and in order to do that it must be just (provide equal opportunity) not because I am an unselfish person but because my solidarity with the rest of humanity transcends my instinctual selfishness to all the rest of mankind - I want what's best for humanity like I want what's best for me or my kids if I have any. It's all narcissism at one level or another though. Of course the difference between you and me dead is through a vice I have more just and admirable aspirations for humanity and for all your talk of virtues and morality you'd still advocate a nation that doesn't take care of its poor - that has private healthcare - that has expensive education - and a society that advocates inequality from the beginning of life.

So maybe I am "morally bankrupt" but I still care more about others than you it seems. And frankly that's why I agreed with Nietzsche when I read Zarathustra say morality was simply a tool for manipulation of the masses.

Also I lold when dead implied he was at the 5k tables of life. What a lemming.

Unless you've got a huge fucking yacht or more money than you can spend in your lifetime I doubt you can say you're at the 5k tables of life.

#deadisfullofhimselflol