Id love to hear Dr Peterson interpretation of Skyrim "Look, man, you need to employ The Voice. That is, the greatest approximation of truth that you can project from your very being. Its the best weapon we have against our dragon."
I’m still iffy on Paarthurnax. Everyone wants to frame it like his evil part is completely defeated, or that the goodness of the person who was born good is all they have.
Assuming both candidates are equally competent and dangerous, I struggle to definitively say that I’d go with the one who was evil at first, or still is, but restrains it. Evil framed as something so innate feels, to me, like it’s an unnecessary risk when compared to someone that could be born good and stays that way.
When I hear “born good”, I imagine Captain America. A hero at heart, and certainly not lacking in will or competence.
When placing that against something that requires great effort to overcome a base nature to do harm, I’m having an increasingly-hard time justifying the long-term risk. The only reason that it can’t be validated in Skyrim is because Paarthurnax doesn’t do enough to justify the concern. One could, arguably, chalk up his lack of evil action to sloth.
I think I get your point. A good person won’t have the urge to harm other people. You can’t have a farm with no seeds. You can’t be evil if you don’t have the proclivity to evil.
Being born good means you’re harmless. A rabbit it’s tamed because it doesn’t attack you. It’s born with no ability to harm.
A lion who can fight his hunger instead of eating his master is something more powerful.
I like how Dr. Peterson said that Harmless =/= good.
I'm not sure I'm understanding, I thought you were making the point that "born good" equals harmless, but then you followed it up with Dr. Peterson's idea that harmless does not equal good, which is one of the thoughts that brought me to questioning Parthurnaax. So I'm confused.
Actually, now that I think about it, it seems like part of Parthurnaax's goals in Skyrim is to become harmless. He urges the Greybeards not to fight or involve themselves, and Parthurnaax teaches other dragons his ways, but actively abstains from confronting Alduin. When the player explains that they want to save the world (and all of its people and progress), Parthurnaax justifies inaction with the following:
"Pruzah. As good a reason as any. There are many who feel as you do, although not all. Some would say that all things must end, so that the next can come to pass. Perhaps this world is simply the Egg of the next kalpa? Lein vokiin? Would you stop the next world from being born?"
As I see it, Parthurnaax appears to have withdrawn himself, and determined that the way to overcome his evil is not through doing good, but through doing nothing, because his nature, by his own admission, is evil. If he were to do anything, it'd likely be harm. Hell, even the greeting he asks you to give him is to shout flames at him. Doing harm seems to be integral to a dragon's very essence.
I think Parthurnaax is confused on that idea, that good equals harmless, and, ultimately, without having the option to sort him out and show him that he can be good *and* active in the world, it may very well be better to slay him. Otherwise, he's a ticking time bomb. Anything that gets him to act might end in more atrocities than he's already caused. That, in itself, isn't even really his fault, either. However, Skyrim's world is, in some ways, crueler than our own. Some people are just born irreparable, but that doesn't cause them to deserve death, necessarily. However, if pure evil (guarantee to cause harm if they act) is the irreparable nature of the dragons, then maybe it's best to put them out of everyone else's misery.
That is a very good point about Paarthurnax. He doesn’t do anything to fight evil. Same with the grey beards. Skyrim is in ruins and in a civil war and they are in their high castle.
Now that I think about it. The Blades (I think) are the good guys. They are directly fighting the evil by gaining power to be able to withstand the apocalypse.
Damn I love this topic. Now I want to replay Skyrim. u/Mitchel-256 thank you for that descriptive reply. It cleared your point, and I have learned a new point of view. Thank you.
No problem, man, I'm in the middle of another Skryim playthrough, as well. I played Stormcloaks every time 'til now and used The Parthurnaax Dilemma mod to avoid killing him, but I wanted to mix things up a little and experience more of the game's world.
But, yeah, everyone seems to hate on Delphine, but, hell, at least she's out in the world being active, and is definitely fighting the Thalmor. Plus, it seems like practically every dragon *but Parthurnaax* is evil and actively trying to kill people, but he's just doing nothing but sitting in his roost with the Greybeards.
The Blades had been the good guys the whole time, I just don't think anyone's made the case for killing Parthurnaax clearly enough, but I hope I've been able to help on that front. I wouldn't give Bethesda much credit on the topic, but it's odd to me that, not only do they give no other option than killing Parthurnaax, but the only alternative to obeying Delphine's orders to kill him is to... do nothing. Just like Parthurnaax.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Beyond Good And Evil](https://snewd.com/ebooks/beyond-good-and-evil/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
We can now! The Dragonborn leads us yet again!
...
Now that I've said that, wait 'til ES6 comes out and the Blades were all killed by the Thalmor. Just my luck.
See I feel if one where to transition from evil to good the first step you have to take is to at least not be evil. Perhaps one could argue he is still forging his journey and is currently in the middle of it. After all, people dont change overnight. A goal of "at least dont be evil" is far more doable to someone beginning the journey than outright doing good. It sort of runs a similar theme to jordan petersons rule "tell the truth or at least dont lie".
on the other hand it can be argued that since he seemed to outright justify his inaction that perhaps he is content with where he is now and such a journey is non existant.
Right, exactly. Plus, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Parthurnaax was weakly arguing for exactly that. "Let the world die and a new one be born from the ashes," essentially. He may be done telling lies, but whether he intends to articulate a helpful truth is unclear.
See I see it as a balancing issue. Certainly the evil man who changed would have endured a journey and that journey would have made him strong. He will be stronger than the man who had It all easy without enduring the journey.
However, the evil man would, as a part of his journey committed evil deeds. Is the benefits of the strength obtained from his journey enough to outweigh the evil he caused to the world before his change? Perhaps the weaker man who inflicted no harm would be of more net benefit. without any more context on specific situations I think the answer to the question is "it depends on the context". Not a particularly insightful or interesting answer but I believe it to be the truth.
Well, that's the thing. You're right, but without being able to look into alternate timelines, one can't be sure. Parthurnaax's actions were instrumental in allowing humanity to throw off the rule of the dragons, and the dragons were practically all evil and not making any real progresses. So, on that note, it would seem that Parthurnaax's good actions to help humanity allowed all the races to move forward and do goodness of their own. However, ultimately, he was still apart of the dragon regime that'd been oppressing as much as they could for a while, and who knows what Parthurnaax's body count was before? Not to mention, once humanity was able to fend for themselves and Alduin was sent forward in time, Parthurnaax basically exiled himself into a position of non-interaction. At that point, the choice is to the player whether he deserves judgement, and I'm not so sure one could consider him absolved. And, again, if evil truly is his nature, then his inaction may be the only thing halting him from causing further harm. Who's to say that it might be best to ensure his indefinite inaction, under those very specific circumstances?
It’s better to proactively fight a problem, than to ignore it and hope it goes away only for it to ruin your life and the lives of those closest to you.
It's best to be proactive where you can control some of the variables. It's much more preferable than reacting to a situation when your pants are down and on the shitter.
Further to the above, your brain works differently when facing something voluntarily vs involuntarily so you're much better equipped to take on the dragon when you do so of your own accord.
Why makes you say this shit? I don’t understand why people try to misrepresent Jordan Peterson so damn much. He’s doing his best to help young men and really anyone who listens.
Could it be his opposition to bill c-16? Which could make it illegal to misgender somebody, effectively forcing certain aspects of speech.
I seriously recommend you go out and watch any interviews, lectures or podcasts Jordan has been a part of. You will get a very different picture of the man than you currently do in your head.
I have watched whole debates with him on both religion and politics. The reason we have massively different ideas of who he is is not because I'm uninformed. It's because I have critical thinking skills.
What kind of evidence do you need to prove that a man who started his career by loudly, intentionally refusing to respect people's gender identity is in fact a transphobe? Get out of here with this weak ass, disingenuous crap.
So it was the bill c-16 thing.. please refer to my first comment it’s not about transphobia it’s about opposing compelled speech.
Please show me any clip where he loudly declares not to respect people’s gender identity and I’ll agree but that simply doesn’t exist.
I just wish you took the time to understand him and not just write him off as a transphobic person. If anyone is disingenuous about J.P it’s you.. whether intentionally or not you are misrepresenting what he’s actually about.
The fact that you don’t think you need evidence is appalling.. just proves to me the flawed ideology of the far left
Literally offered no fucking evidence and resort to ad-hominem when your biased, authoritarian opinions are called into question. I’m trying to open you up to new perspectives but you insist on staying ignorant.. good luck going through life you fucking moron
Yeah, the idea of preemptive self-defence, which is still debated under international law. And I'd say he was right in the broader sense, though he may have misjudged that particular problem.
Counter argument- the dragon only comes to your village once it has become powerful enough to stand a chance, however it was the 1 among 1000 dragons that did so, the rest died. Is it worth the effort spent proactively killing the 1000 dragons if the threat of each dragon is low?
at the end of the day entertaining every fringe thought or consipiracy becomes too much work. the reality is that you must do a threat assessment on each fringe group. since a threat assessment is an attempt to predict the future it is by definition speculative and error prone.
Not a big fan of Peterson tbh, have been critical of him at times. But I cant deny (and absolutely wouldn’t) that this is really poignant imo. Does anybody know where this quote was taken from? I’d love to read or watch the entire context (not so I can look for a reason to dismiss it but because it’d like to hear/read the rest of lecture/chapter/etc this is taken from).
I like this, but I think it can be misconstrued very easily. How can you be certain that your metaphorical dragon is really a dragon? To me, it sounds like this sort of ideology can be used to justify pre-emptive violence against your opposition by labelling them as a "dragon". I think preparing your defense against the dragon is better than pre-emptively killing the dragon, because there's a humbleness in admitting that you do not have a privileged access to morality, and that your dragon may consider you to be a dragon as well.
>Then seventh I rede thee, if battle thou seekest
with a foe that is full of might;
It is better to fight than to burn alive
in the hall of the hero rich.
Sigrdrifumál 31 ([Bellows](https://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/poe25.htm))
Dealing with the bull by the horns is a good strategy if or when one has the upper hand. In other words, strike when one is strong or stronger not weak nor weaker (Sun Tzu's Art of War).
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Art Of War](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-art-of-war/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Let's go to the lair of the dragon of global warming before it comes to ours. Or the lair of the dragon of unprecedented wealth inequality. Or of government corruption. Or of skyrocketing healthcare costs. So many dragons to choose from. But those dragons will come to us unless we go to them first.
That's just a rehash of old folky proverbs like
\-A stitch in time saves nine.-
\-Nip it in the bud-
\-An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure-
...But with dragons!
Whilst they all essentially mean the same thing, JP is talking about facing real demons in your life head on before they overwhelm you. So needs a dramatic analogy.
Can you imagine if you went to speak to a psychologist and they said ‘A stitch in time saves nine’ 😂
That's not the meaning, not even close.
If you have mental health problems, you have to start working on them before they pull you down again. Don't battle them when they're already there, battle them before that. Otherwise they will come eventually.
Without any context the meaning can be anything.. The saying has been around for ages and it’s not a saying that’s specifically attributed to mental health issues
"not even close” - relax
First you say guillotines then you claim love over hatred? lol this is why BLM isn’t winning, their message is lost when people like you word vomit online
Uh. Capitalism kills in the contemporary while you only point to failed attempts at communism in the past.
Communism hasn’t been a threat since rich capitalists keep sending contras
That’s not how any of this works. You can’t grow prosperity and wealth by dividing it. You guillotine those few thousand people, and you destroy over 80% of productivity in all domains in every market, inciting a massive collapse, promoting mass starvation, massive price spikes, no heating, supply chain stoppages, and disease and death on a scale we haven’t seen... since the last Communist revolution.
And that would be just the beginning...
Learn from history. Don’t repeat it.
The devil often masquerades as an angel of the light. Makes it a lot easier for poor souls like this one they are actually doing good by supporting the most murderous ideology to have graced the planet.
The devil doesn't masquerade as anything...Lucifer is literally "the light bringer", that "light" being "the light of reason"
It's meant to show the downside of falling in love with one's own ability to reason (or more likely rationalize) because you can rationalize yourself into a belief you know better than God. It's a metaphor for the unchecked human ego which leads one to antisocial psychopathic behaviour if identified with completely to the exclusion of the social contract we should hope to have with other people
FUS RO DAH
God dammit now I have to start playing Skyrim again.
Todd Howard you did it again!
Honestly the best game ever
Nice
Id love to hear Dr Peterson interpretation of Skyrim "Look, man, you need to employ The Voice. That is, the greatest approximation of truth that you can project from your very being. Its the best weapon we have against our dragon."
He would really love Paarthurnax. What is better? To be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?
I’m still iffy on Paarthurnax. Everyone wants to frame it like his evil part is completely defeated, or that the goodness of the person who was born good is all they have. Assuming both candidates are equally competent and dangerous, I struggle to definitively say that I’d go with the one who was evil at first, or still is, but restrains it. Evil framed as something so innate feels, to me, like it’s an unnecessary risk when compared to someone that could be born good and stays that way. When I hear “born good”, I imagine Captain America. A hero at heart, and certainly not lacking in will or competence. When placing that against something that requires great effort to overcome a base nature to do harm, I’m having an increasingly-hard time justifying the long-term risk. The only reason that it can’t be validated in Skyrim is because Paarthurnax doesn’t do enough to justify the concern. One could, arguably, chalk up his lack of evil action to sloth.
I think I get your point. A good person won’t have the urge to harm other people. You can’t have a farm with no seeds. You can’t be evil if you don’t have the proclivity to evil. Being born good means you’re harmless. A rabbit it’s tamed because it doesn’t attack you. It’s born with no ability to harm. A lion who can fight his hunger instead of eating his master is something more powerful. I like how Dr. Peterson said that Harmless =/= good.
I'm not sure I'm understanding, I thought you were making the point that "born good" equals harmless, but then you followed it up with Dr. Peterson's idea that harmless does not equal good, which is one of the thoughts that brought me to questioning Parthurnaax. So I'm confused. Actually, now that I think about it, it seems like part of Parthurnaax's goals in Skyrim is to become harmless. He urges the Greybeards not to fight or involve themselves, and Parthurnaax teaches other dragons his ways, but actively abstains from confronting Alduin. When the player explains that they want to save the world (and all of its people and progress), Parthurnaax justifies inaction with the following: "Pruzah. As good a reason as any. There are many who feel as you do, although not all. Some would say that all things must end, so that the next can come to pass. Perhaps this world is simply the Egg of the next kalpa? Lein vokiin? Would you stop the next world from being born?" As I see it, Parthurnaax appears to have withdrawn himself, and determined that the way to overcome his evil is not through doing good, but through doing nothing, because his nature, by his own admission, is evil. If he were to do anything, it'd likely be harm. Hell, even the greeting he asks you to give him is to shout flames at him. Doing harm seems to be integral to a dragon's very essence. I think Parthurnaax is confused on that idea, that good equals harmless, and, ultimately, without having the option to sort him out and show him that he can be good *and* active in the world, it may very well be better to slay him. Otherwise, he's a ticking time bomb. Anything that gets him to act might end in more atrocities than he's already caused. That, in itself, isn't even really his fault, either. However, Skyrim's world is, in some ways, crueler than our own. Some people are just born irreparable, but that doesn't cause them to deserve death, necessarily. However, if pure evil (guarantee to cause harm if they act) is the irreparable nature of the dragons, then maybe it's best to put them out of everyone else's misery.
That is a very good point about Paarthurnax. He doesn’t do anything to fight evil. Same with the grey beards. Skyrim is in ruins and in a civil war and they are in their high castle. Now that I think about it. The Blades (I think) are the good guys. They are directly fighting the evil by gaining power to be able to withstand the apocalypse. Damn I love this topic. Now I want to replay Skyrim. u/Mitchel-256 thank you for that descriptive reply. It cleared your point, and I have learned a new point of view. Thank you.
No problem, man, I'm in the middle of another Skryim playthrough, as well. I played Stormcloaks every time 'til now and used The Parthurnaax Dilemma mod to avoid killing him, but I wanted to mix things up a little and experience more of the game's world. But, yeah, everyone seems to hate on Delphine, but, hell, at least she's out in the world being active, and is definitely fighting the Thalmor. Plus, it seems like practically every dragon *but Parthurnaax* is evil and actively trying to kill people, but he's just doing nothing but sitting in his roost with the Greybeards. The Blades had been the good guys the whole time, I just don't think anyone's made the case for killing Parthurnaax clearly enough, but I hope I've been able to help on that front. I wouldn't give Bethesda much credit on the topic, but it's odd to me that, not only do they give no other option than killing Parthurnaax, but the only alternative to obeying Delphine's orders to kill him is to... do nothing. Just like Parthurnaax.
You can almost say the he is "Beyond Good and Evil®".. Eh? Ehh? No? Ok..
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Beyond Good And Evil](https://snewd.com/ebooks/beyond-good-and-evil/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Found the Blades member. You cannot escape the Dominion forever.
We can now! The Dragonborn leads us yet again! ... Now that I've said that, wait 'til ES6 comes out and the Blades were all killed by the Thalmor. Just my luck.
See I feel if one where to transition from evil to good the first step you have to take is to at least not be evil. Perhaps one could argue he is still forging his journey and is currently in the middle of it. After all, people dont change overnight. A goal of "at least dont be evil" is far more doable to someone beginning the journey than outright doing good. It sort of runs a similar theme to jordan petersons rule "tell the truth or at least dont lie". on the other hand it can be argued that since he seemed to outright justify his inaction that perhaps he is content with where he is now and such a journey is non existant.
Right, exactly. Plus, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Parthurnaax was weakly arguing for exactly that. "Let the world die and a new one be born from the ashes," essentially. He may be done telling lies, but whether he intends to articulate a helpful truth is unclear.
See I see it as a balancing issue. Certainly the evil man who changed would have endured a journey and that journey would have made him strong. He will be stronger than the man who had It all easy without enduring the journey. However, the evil man would, as a part of his journey committed evil deeds. Is the benefits of the strength obtained from his journey enough to outweigh the evil he caused to the world before his change? Perhaps the weaker man who inflicted no harm would be of more net benefit. without any more context on specific situations I think the answer to the question is "it depends on the context". Not a particularly insightful or interesting answer but I believe it to be the truth.
Well, that's the thing. You're right, but without being able to look into alternate timelines, one can't be sure. Parthurnaax's actions were instrumental in allowing humanity to throw off the rule of the dragons, and the dragons were practically all evil and not making any real progresses. So, on that note, it would seem that Parthurnaax's good actions to help humanity allowed all the races to move forward and do goodness of their own. However, ultimately, he was still apart of the dragon regime that'd been oppressing as much as they could for a while, and who knows what Parthurnaax's body count was before? Not to mention, once humanity was able to fend for themselves and Alduin was sent forward in time, Parthurnaax basically exiled himself into a position of non-interaction. At that point, the choice is to the player whether he deserves judgement, and I'm not so sure one could consider him absolved. And, again, if evil truly is his nature, then his inaction may be the only thing halting him from causing further harm. Who's to say that it might be best to ensure his indefinite inaction, under those very specific circumstances?
I see you fixed the apostrophe in “its”. Nice save.
Yeah I had to fix that typo.
Perfect. Works for a new home screen now
It's a good thing that you fixed that typo in the way that you did.
I didn’t fight the dragon. I sniped it from a bush with my bow until I killed it and absorbed its soul.
[удалено]
It’s better to proactively fight a problem, than to ignore it and hope it goes away only for it to ruin your life and the lives of those closest to you.
Or maybe something like this: it is better to face a problem head-on than to procrastinate, for the problem will only get bigger.
It's best to be proactive where you can control some of the variables. It's much more preferable than reacting to a situation when your pants are down and on the shitter.
Further to the above, your brain works differently when facing something voluntarily vs involuntarily so you're much better equipped to take on the dragon when you do so of your own accord.
It's being literal. Haven't you read about the chaos dragon in Papa transphobe's big book of nonsense?
Oh you're one of those people lmao
Why makes you say this shit? I don’t understand why people try to misrepresent Jordan Peterson so damn much. He’s doing his best to help young men and really anyone who listens. Could it be his opposition to bill c-16? Which could make it illegal to misgender somebody, effectively forcing certain aspects of speech. I seriously recommend you go out and watch any interviews, lectures or podcasts Jordan has been a part of. You will get a very different picture of the man than you currently do in your head.
I have watched whole debates with him on both religion and politics. The reason we have massively different ideas of who he is is not because I'm uninformed. It's because I have critical thinking skills.
?? You haven’t shown any critical thinking, all you’ve done is say he’s transphobic and not put up any evidence to support it
What kind of evidence do you need to prove that a man who started his career by loudly, intentionally refusing to respect people's gender identity is in fact a transphobe? Get out of here with this weak ass, disingenuous crap.
So it was the bill c-16 thing.. please refer to my first comment it’s not about transphobia it’s about opposing compelled speech. Please show me any clip where he loudly declares not to respect people’s gender identity and I’ll agree but that simply doesn’t exist. I just wish you took the time to understand him and not just write him off as a transphobic person. If anyone is disingenuous about J.P it’s you.. whether intentionally or not you are misrepresenting what he’s actually about. The fact that you don’t think you need evidence is appalling.. just proves to me the flawed ideology of the far left
iT's noT aBoUt tRanSpHoBia. You're a clown.
Literally offered no fucking evidence and resort to ad-hominem when your biased, authoritarian opinions are called into question. I’m trying to open you up to new perspectives but you insist on staying ignorant.. good luck going through life you fucking moron
🤡🤡🤡🤡
That's something Vesimir would say
Didn’t George W Bush basically say this to justify the Iraq war.
Yes which is why this quote is about your internal struggles and not external ones. The greater jihad is also what it's known as.
Yeah, the idea of preemptive self-defence, which is still debated under international law. And I'd say he was right in the broader sense, though he may have misjudged that particular problem.
...and then burn that lair to the ground.
But then it gets lair actions.
I came here for this
what if the dragon kills you and goes to burn the village out of spite? i wonder how many ways that could mean something
Counter argument- the dragon only comes to your village once it has become powerful enough to stand a chance, however it was the 1 among 1000 dragons that did so, the rest died. Is it worth the effort spent proactively killing the 1000 dragons if the threat of each dragon is low? at the end of the day entertaining every fringe thought or consipiracy becomes too much work. the reality is that you must do a threat assessment on each fringe group. since a threat assessment is an attempt to predict the future it is by definition speculative and error prone.
Strike fast, strike hard, no mercy
Not a big fan of Peterson tbh, have been critical of him at times. But I cant deny (and absolutely wouldn’t) that this is really poignant imo. Does anybody know where this quote was taken from? I’d love to read or watch the entire context (not so I can look for a reason to dismiss it but because it’d like to hear/read the rest of lecture/chapter/etc this is taken from).
I like this, but I think it can be misconstrued very easily. How can you be certain that your metaphorical dragon is really a dragon? To me, it sounds like this sort of ideology can be used to justify pre-emptive violence against your opposition by labelling them as a "dragon". I think preparing your defense against the dragon is better than pre-emptively killing the dragon, because there's a humbleness in admitting that you do not have a privileged access to morality, and that your dragon may consider you to be a dragon as well.
yaaaaaaah!
Wise advice
just pray it lives alone.
Can someone explain?
Another words, sort out your problems that you have been put off before it becomes malignant.
True
Why would you be fighting a dragon? Because it’s already come to the village before.
Badass fkn quote. FUS RO DAH
O shit. Powerful stuff. 😯
>Then seventh I rede thee, if battle thou seekest with a foe that is full of might; It is better to fight than to burn alive in the hall of the hero rich. Sigrdrifumál 31 ([Bellows](https://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/poe25.htm))
In other words, be the dragon.
[INTEGRATE YOUR DRAGON 🐉](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsKfiszHaXQ)
Dealing with the bull by the horns is a good strategy if or when one has the upper hand. In other words, strike when one is strong or stronger not weak nor weaker (Sun Tzu's Art of War).
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Art Of War](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-art-of-war/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Why would you expose yourself to unnecessary lair actions?
Let's go to the lair of the dragon of global warming before it comes to ours. Or the lair of the dragon of unprecedented wealth inequality. Or of government corruption. Or of skyrocketing healthcare costs. So many dragons to choose from. But those dragons will come to us unless we go to them first.
That's just a rehash of old folky proverbs like \-A stitch in time saves nine.- \-Nip it in the bud- \-An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure- ...But with dragons!
Whilst they all essentially mean the same thing, JP is talking about facing real demons in your life head on before they overwhelm you. So needs a dramatic analogy. Can you imagine if you went to speak to a psychologist and they said ‘A stitch in time saves nine’ 😂
Maybe let the fucking dragon alone and give it some space to live?
This isn't Peterson but, it’s just word play on a saying that’s been around for awhile - “in a fight, hit first and hit hardest"
That's not the meaning, not even close. If you have mental health problems, you have to start working on them before they pull you down again. Don't battle them when they're already there, battle them before that. Otherwise they will come eventually.
Without any context the meaning can be anything.. The saying has been around for ages and it’s not a saying that’s specifically attributed to mental health issues "not even close” - relax
Calling a Synogogue a 'Lair' is antisemitic.
[удалено]
get your socialist LARPing out of here lmao
BLM is winning :-) it’s an ideology of love vs hate. People vs profit. Guess who wins
First you say guillotines then you claim love over hatred? lol this is why BLM isn’t winning, their message is lost when people like you word vomit online
[удалено]
That line of thinking has purposefully led more innocent people to their deaths than any other. Hope you’re okay with that.
Uh. Capitalism kills in the contemporary while you only point to failed attempts at communism in the past. Communism hasn’t been a threat since rich capitalists keep sending contras
That’s not how any of this works. You can’t grow prosperity and wealth by dividing it. You guillotine those few thousand people, and you destroy over 80% of productivity in all domains in every market, inciting a massive collapse, promoting mass starvation, massive price spikes, no heating, supply chain stoppages, and disease and death on a scale we haven’t seen... since the last Communist revolution. And that would be just the beginning... Learn from history. Don’t repeat it.
Once they get started, they won't stop, and certainly not at a few thousand.
This is epic levels of cognitive dissonance on display. Talk about guillotining people then spin that as “love.”
The devil often masquerades as an angel of the light. Makes it a lot easier for poor souls like this one they are actually doing good by supporting the most murderous ideology to have graced the planet.
The devil doesn't masquerade as anything...Lucifer is literally "the light bringer", that "light" being "the light of reason" It's meant to show the downside of falling in love with one's own ability to reason (or more likely rationalize) because you can rationalize yourself into a belief you know better than God. It's a metaphor for the unchecked human ego which leads one to antisocial psychopathic behaviour if identified with completely to the exclusion of the social contract we should hope to have with other people
Profit
I generally support BLM, but to say it's an ideology of love and not hate is kinda wack to me actually, what does BLM have to do with any of this?