Comments by "eclipse" (@eclipse5393) on "Academy of Ideas" channel.

  1. 347
  2. 341
  3. 299
  4. 177
  5. 143
  6. 112
  7. 110
  8. 96
  9. 69
  10. 49
  11. 39
  12. 37
  13. 37
  14. 37
  15. 28
  16. 21
  17. 20
  18. 20
  19. 19
  20. 18
  21. 14
  22. 11
  23. 10
  24. 10
  25. 10
  26. 10
  27. 10
  28. 10
  29. 9
  30. 8
  31. 8
  32. 7
  33. 7
  34. 7
  35. 7
  36. 7
  37. 7
  38. 7
  39. 6
  40. 6
  41. 6
  42. 6
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 5
  49. 5
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. Joshua Thomas I didn't "miss" what you were saying. I answered the question as it was literally written. That is what you said. Anything more is additional on your part. You like to soften reality for your sake but softening makes it further from the truth. You haven't read much philosophy have you, let alone Nietzsche? Why did I say that? Because writers use aggressive language for a purpose as well. No, my tone has not been "automatic" if you really analyzed my responses. If it really didn't bother you, you wouldn't spend so much time on it and interpret it with such colorful descriptions. Also, you could have asked "why do you have that tone?" to begin with. Yes, you are wrong for having suspicions based on tone. That's a stupid way of approaching information since it's not based on the merits of substance or truth. I brought up that I predicted people would accuse of projecting because it does mean something. It means I was conscious about it while writing therefore it would be stupid to be hypocritical. I don't care if you're suspicious or not especially when you haven't even clarified what it is I'm supposedly projecting. "How sure are you that you're not projecting?" That is an accusation, and no, that's not what I was doing in my OP. None of that is "evidence" of projection because I haven't projected that "evidence" onto anyone else. Do you get what projection is even after the video explained? Yes, none of it proves projection which cements the stupidity of your concerns and suspicion. Like projection, attacking tone is just a weak tactic that avoids the actual content. The lack of intelligence and pertinent responses is irritating, but that isn't reason for my hostility either. First of all, I don't have the expectation of sympathy or geniality that you and others seem to have. The people who interest me wouldn't be resistant to hostility let alone my tone, which I consider neutral for the most part so long as it's accurate. I prefer hostile truth over your childishness and fake collegiality. You said beliefs and values were a bit of semantics and then deleted your comment. That's evidence of your character and intelligence. As I said earlier, plenty of polite people and well-meaning people do harm with their stupidity. People should value truth more than comfort.
    1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1