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

@freemo where would you put it?

@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.

@freemo my point is:

Enablement and Tough Love are both types of love.

Someone’s love can be at the 100% mark. That could be expressed as enablement, tough love, or any other type of love.

This chart implies that 100% love is enablement. It is not. If anything, enablement is often too similar to selfishness.

@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.

@freemo maybe there needs to be a new diagram with 10 paragraphs of explanatory text

@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.

@freemo so instead of reading 10 paragraphs I need to read 10 books? 😜

@Cosmic hahaha I see what you did there :)

@freemo Similarly to @Cosmic I'm confused by some triples. The one most obviously weird to me is the one that implies that diligence is opposite of laziness: I can very easily imagine a lazy (doesn't want to do work) but diligent (only does work in a very correct fashion) person: in fact, I think that a lazy diligent person appears more lazy by virtue of being diligent.

@robryk

I think youa re using a different (though valid) definition than the author.

I think the definition the author is using here for diligence is "characterized by steady, earnest, and energetic effort"

In other words its better to work at a steady pace with a healthy amount of effort "diligence) then it is to constantly work to excess all the time (workahlism) or to not work at all (slothful).

The definition of diligence you were using however is more this one, which is a separate but equally correct one: "having or showing care and conscientiousness in one's work or duties." Which isnt really about effort or pace but rather the quality of the work.

@Cosmic

@freemo
It is what you are doing when choosing to promote mRNA vaccinations. Not healthy even deadly, but a healthy amount of effort. It is safe to be a piece of shit, right?


@robryk @Cosmic

@123abceng @freemo @robryk wait how did mRNA become relevant here… get JnJab, Jabson and Jabson, one poke and you’re done (until it’s two pokes but at least it’s not three).

So, "Do not get shot" - this is not an option anymore? ha ha!!!

@123abceng definitely not an option when you’re on a movie set with Alec Baldwin.

@Cosmic
Thank you for being smarter, than @freemo. The sense of humor also was deeply appreciated... Really. Thanks, man.

@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.

@ChristiJunior @freemo
Ironically when you apply Social Darwinism, you end up with more centrists, not less.

@ChristiJunior @freemo We have to allow moderate amounts of tranny bathroom rape. Can't be a bigoted extremist!

@ArdanianRight @freemo Also moderate amounts of White Genocide, moderate amounts of Stalinist censorship and moderate amounts of Muslim terrorism.

@ArdanianRight @ChristiJunior @freemo Loudon County intensifies !

@TheMadPirate @ArdanianRight @freemo Oh yeah, how could I forget - moderate amounts of election fraud!

@freemo
>too few niggers is a bad thing

@Eris @freemo He's literally worshipping mediocrity here.

@Spaghettimon Or as more accurately described the pro-extremism crowd.

@Spaghettimon @freemo except that particular pic is pretty alright

@Borbo @freemo I know, I was just joking

@Spaghettimon

Well you were half-joking, as was I :)

@Borbo

@PakkonenCT I dont agree, it hasnt been moved left, it has been polarized outward in both extremes. The right has become as idiotic and extremist as the left and the middle as a whole is quite thin lately.

@freemo You don't agree. Would you like me to prove you wrong? Or will you cling to your POV no matter what I show you?

@PakkonenCT I have changed my mind on issues such as this countless times in my life.

Though considering your own statement seems to think you have an absolutly provable stance and that others are to be proven wrong without any indication of yourself being mallable to other ideas or the possiblity of being wrong, then no.. I dont really have much interest in debating it with you.

I welcome people with a difference of opinion to share it, but when presented with certainty and a nearly dogmatic introduction from the get go, then I have little interest in such a discussion.

Let someone prove me wrong who actually has the ability to question their own stance as part of the conversation. If that doesnt go both ways then the conversation will almost certainly be a shit show.

@freemo It's not that I think I'm right, it's just that I've seen the evidence prior to making the statement.

enjoy. There is more evidence out there if you care to look.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-center-study-shows-that-democrats-have-shifted-to-the-extreme-left/

While I have no interest in discussing this with someone who already made up their mind, I will leave my response here before muting the thread.

Funny thing is, you havent apparently seen the evidence. Here is the actual complete image of the one you posted, which shows even the evidence you seem to have claimed contradicts you.

Notice that the image you posted is in fact from the sections on polling people who are not particularly interested in politics. In other words, of the people who dont have a strong opinion on politics they do learn slightly more to the democrat side. However when you poll people who take a strong political stance and more extremely commit to one side or the other it shows that republicans are, in fact, more polarized than democrats. Overall this difference is small though and for the most part both sides have diverged away from center.

I have muted @PakkonenCT as I have no wish to discuss this with someone who already made up their mind, but others are welcome to discuss.

@freemo From Pew Research

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-center-study-shows-that-democrats-have-shifted-to-the-extreme-left/

There has been rather mild polarization on the right

Left and center have moved leftward

@PakkonenCT

I already said I have no interest in discussing it with you. Come back to me when you wish to actually have a two way conversation where you actually consider the possiblity of being wrong. Until that time, good day.

@freemo I presented you with evidence of my claim and you have nothing. Blocked.

@PakkonenCT Thanks, you saved me the trouble.

@freemo @PakkonenCT

> Come back to me when you wish to actually have a two way conversation where you actually consider the possiblity of being wrong

@deesenaughts @freemo you sound as if you like feeling hips hit you from behind :-/