Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Asmongold TV "
channel.
-
60
-
58
-
36
-
23
-
22
-
17
-
14
-
The Abortion opinion he touted is how you can tell asmon doesn't know anything about the facts regarding politics. Yes there are people who do get late term elective abortions asmon, also Planed Parenthood encourages late term abortions, some going as far as 8 months. Not that it resolves the issue at all, its an excuse to take no moral responsibility, but can't even be rationally consistent on the issue.
Also asmon doesn't understand how legal argumentation works, the expectation is that a moral a righteous doctor will desire the best of his patient in disregard to law, that's the Hippocratic Oath, any who won't fulfill that shouldn't be doctors and should be legally charged over it instead. Else if the law impacts the decision, then there is no law you can impart on a doctor that can either prevent or encourage positive outcomes, permissive and prohibitive laws will both create negative outcomes, in which case there is no reason to have a government, if you're reasoning is to claim reason, you are lacking any reason to have government period. Doesn't understand the rational conclusion of his position, its a nonsense and stupid one, we don't take that dumb outlook in any other case, but when its abortion all of sudden its "we can decide" as if we don't do so in every other case. All law is imposed morality, its just a matter of what god you serve.
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@C.S.Martin
"The monetary value of is currently defined by supply and demand,"
First off no, fiat currencies are not really defined by supply and demand at all.
And this is a fallacious claim by someone that doesn't know the reason behind economics, if that were true then you could buy bread anywhere you go by simple trade, that would mean all things stay the same value in relation to each other and there be no inflation in anything but money. (which is false, gold and precious metals inflate all the time, look up the platinum dumps of South America during the Spanish colonization, or the overmining of gold that happened constantly even when it wasn't a currency, non-currencies inflate too) That doesn't happen, in the desert a bottle of water is not the same value as a bottle of water in a temperate forest. This is what we refer to as subjective value, you could trade me anything you want in a desert, I would not accept anything that wasn't water, but you do the same in a temperate forest and you'll find I don't so much care about a bottle of water. If value is defined intrinsically, tell me the objective value of gold in comparison to bread, how is that enforced? If intrinsic value exists, you can always define bread by gold and gold by bread, and thus all gold weight would have a ratio to that bread in every case. Can you show me anywhere in history where this has happened? I can give you plenty where that hasn't, including very recent history, or even ancient history, but I have not once seen a case in history where anything even has stable relative values to each other. Nor have I seen a case where demand is capable to be treated as objective. You want what you want, if you wanted a painting, that's your defined subjective desire, you have a demand to acquire it, but not everyone shares the valuation of that subjective desire, that's subjective demand. You'd be willing to pay a certain amount for a painting that others would not, if intrinsic value was found, you would find that both the uninterested and interested party would be willing to buy the painting at the same price, but we know that isn't the case, its one of the many reasons auctions exist.
"but that's only because it has intrinsic value."
It doesn't thought, let me ask you, what defines value? As in how do you define intrinsic value that can evaluated in disregard to wealth and currency? And how do you apply that in such a way that every single person to every exist in reality would perfectly agree with that value definition that they'd all be willing to partake of the thing being valuated? And that goes for everything in the market that has ever or will ever exist. How do you perfectly decide every single bit of this?
"Not sure I understand the second part of your demonstration ("intrinsic value would mean everything would be priced the same in accordance to wealth"); why you talkin' bout wealth?"
Because its correcting for wealth, its easier to treat value as a stable concept in your worldview if we control for wealth. But that case demonstrates the fallacy in that worldview hence why doing such throws you off, for we know that no matter the control had value is not static for anything, if we control for wealth of a market and individual, the individual still decides what is and is not valuable and thus devises demand which deviates from another's individual demand which means its subjective. It is required to demonstrate that value is objective in order to demonstrate it is intrinsic which you can not do is demand is relative to those participating in the market, such that demand is subjective, making the value subjective which in turn makes the price also subjective, but the price isn't subjective because of the currency, the currency needs to objective in order for it to be used, the logical argument (and as required by occam's razor) has to say that price is an approximation of the subjective value for the objective currency.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@shinHis3 Its not that its not a big deal, what he did is a big deal, the problem is he's done very little since and nothing relating to the field they pulled him in on, and he's not the only 14 year old to contribute to the field at that era. The problem in that era of computing, if you understood anything about a computer, you had to be a wizard, everyone with any experience with computers had to be that good or else they wouldn't be capable to work with the computers, (it was a period where if you didn't know how your computer kernel worked you literally weren't touching the computer, it would do nothing for you quite literally, or worse you'd break a million dollar machine, and yeah that's a bit of an hyperbole, it was usually less then that, but it was still expensive if you screwed up a rig in the 70s or early 80s, which was when personal computing was only starting to pick up, you caused a lot of problems and costed a company a lot of money, and those early PCs were still easily screwed up by the user if they didn't know what they were doing, before PCs you had to manage or write every single program manually) in that time what he did was a litmus test for computing.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@TreasureJanasia That's not how it works, they can let him being totally unqualified, the reason they do that is because its up to the jury at that point, they tried to set him as qualified there but he's, what qualifications did he have for statistical analysis or social media analysis? And the judge has been super bad at ruling out crap, she's hyper-conservative on anything that would give Amber possibility of an appeal, (and similar for Johnny, but at this point he's unlikely to appeal) throwing him out wouldn't have but she doesn't feel confident saying that. (said by the lawyers that were on RekietaLaw, most especially by Nick Rekieta) So no, he's not qualified, the court will rarely ever throw out unqualified expert witnesses unless they clearly demonstrate they aren't smart enough to argue that they can do anything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Emil still seems a like a pathetic loser, and he may not be the entire problem, but he definitely is a source of many problems at Bethesda, all writing decisions literally had to go through Emil. Also it doesn't matter what he claims, they clearly lacked a company dedicated design document for Starfield, that's why as a game design piece its complete nonsense, its all over the place, every game that Emil had a major hand in controlling has the exact same problem with no central vision, which is the whole purpose of a design document, and the story constantly contradicts itself, something that a design document explicitly solves, if one of the common factors of a story being bad is that the lead writer who controls the story, the lead writer is most certainly a problem. And when you act so petty and pathetic, and now the company is acting petty and pathetic in the steam reviews, that just demonstrates that there is clearly a massive problem and Emil is a major part of it.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pokey013 Yeah, its not that I hate him personally or what he's done or that I'm jealous that he is way superior to me in a specific field (or perhaps in other computing fields which he might be, but I don't know cause I've not seen much of his work outside the one he claims expertise in) he's definitely very knowledgeable on, (I don't exactly care to be experienced in kernel development and I recognize its importance even when it doesn't much interest me) nor that I think he's done nothing of note, its that he acted and referred to himself as an expert in a field, which is fair because he has a lot of knowledge and experience on it, in a fairly arrogant manner as though he's some prolific member of the community. (which I get as a Linux nut myself, but even so there is a modesty you should have for that) And that's not to say he wasn't at some point (though he is definitely not one involved in devising say the Unix model of software, which is one of the most important things Unix gave the world) but he hasn't been for a long time. This is what kinda pisses me off about him, the arrogance of expertise. And thing is I can sweep that under the rug under conventional circumstance, but his knowledge and experience is completely irrelevant to the case and he doesn't know anything about statistical analysis most especially. I wouldn't really say anything about him, most especially not disparage his accomplishments (which I don't doubt are many legitimate ones) if he didn't make claims he couldn't possibly make in regards to a field he seems to know nothing about. (and I mean accomplishment in the past 3 decades, not the ones going back to say Unix, AIX, and Solaris)
2
-
2
-
2
-
Keep in mind, public trade is hyper-regulated regulated by the government and ESG is owned and operated by economic NGOs with WEF and US subsidiary backing, Bungie made every Halo up to Halo Reach with passion and drive, Nintendo and many Japanese and Korea companies do not have this problem and are none of them are publicly traded in the US (most studios in Japan and Korea aren't publicly traded at all) and do not fall under US public trade regulations nor are even eligible for ESG even if they did follow through. And keep in mind, when Japanese businessmen noticeably fail a business, they don't go into government, NGOs, the WEF, or often even another big name business, they are shamed out of the industry almost entirely, so if they fail they are punished for it. Japan and Korea (ignoring half of Sony as they are publicly traded in the US) don't make good products off the backs of being better people, their incentives inherently align with the consumer base so egregious investments are discouraged else they will not only lose money but their job that makes them that money. This is not a capitalism problem remotely, like aside from historically good and bad games always existing then and now, the Far East does not suffer at all from the Western gamedev problem despite being just as if not more capitalist, notice in fact how much regulation and government intervention public trade (specifically American public trade) has and how the companies that have since started to succeed the most and are the most consumer considerate have absolutely no public trade fueling them, a lot of the issue is not just a government issue but it is a massive part, look at manga/manhwa and anime, or even the new indie comic scene, compare it to the comic and media scene in propagated exclusively in Hollywood? The only somewhat big name alternative of late has been the Daily Wire, which in the least you can say has put out a lot better stuff regardless of whether you agree with them or not. All the big name companies in Hollywood are publicly traded in the US from Disney to Universal to Warner Brothers, that's not a capitalism problem, in fact if anything I'd argue its an anti-capitalism problem driven by incentives that require satisfying the board over the customer which only happens specifically because the business is required by law to do so else the government will come after them, even if stockholders got mad nothing happens unless those with all the money were to sue over fiduciary responsibility. You can even see this with Disney right now, did you not see the latest shareholder meeting from Disney? It was literally nothing but politics, people asking when they'll get out of it and complaining about taking positions in politics they shouldn't, or say not paying for de-transition surgery when one regrets it despite paying for transition surgery, and then Bob Iger just accused everyone are not knowing what "Woke" even is, that it doesn't exist, and that Disney is not woke. This all costed him massive in stock, but who is gonna sue over fiduciary responsibility? The board voted him for another year with 94% approval despite shareholder disapproval. I say it should be fairly obvious the problem is especially evident that its American intervention and regulation that most caused this issue and public trade is the biggest problem of it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iezdubz Well the argument that there's a middle man that takes money and thus jacks prices is a Marxist argument, not a free market argument, (in fact it spits in the face of the American Founders who agreed with John Locke, which requires a rejection of free market opposition) its anti-market and demonstrates that he doesn't understand anything about basic economics. First off insurance companies aren't allowed to compete, foremost they sparsely are allowed to compete across state lines (only under permission of the state) but also because the Federal government regulates and controls the very existent capability for an insurance company to exist, they can decide on a whim to reject the development of a new insurance company, which drives down competition and supply, which both drive up prices thanks to the basics of supply and demand. The monopolies exist off the back of the government restricting and regulating the companies, and the more regulations you put, the more red tape you introduce, which drives up the price of developing a company thus raising the barrier to more competition, as red tape costs a lot more money (bureaucratically and legally) to get around. Now this aside the New Deal also outright banned mutual aid organizations, especially at the community, neighborhood, and regional level, as well as between friends and family. It used to be that mutual aids would help each other voluntarily, you pay in to a community thing with no real middle man and it was the mutual aid members that decided your coverage, some mutual aids, like fraternity societies, would also require you to assist them in certain task, volunteering, or fundraising in order to keep coverage. And everyone voluntarily joined these, it was especially common among churches. Insurance should be allowed to freely compete under free association, which is implicit in the 1st Amendment, but because people are simpletons they reject the basic responsibilities of free association while wanting all the privileges. Free association means the government is not involved in the deals you decide to make, and when you do charity and community becomes the biggest factor. A moral society relies on charity, an immoral society relies on legal oversight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iezdubz Now this aside the New Deal also outright banned mutual aid organizations, especially at the community, neighborhood, and regional level, as well as between friends and family. It used to be that mutual aids would help each other voluntarily, you pay in to a community thing with no real middle man and it was the mutual aid members that decided your coverage, some mutual aids, like fraternity societies, would also require you to assist them in certain task, volunteering, or fundraising in order to keep coverage. And everyone voluntarily joined these, it was especially common among churches. Insurance should be allowed to freely compete under free association, which is implicit in the 1st Amendment, but because people are simpletons they reject the basic responsibilities of free association while wanting all the privileges.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What is it called the dark ages, its because of religion"
Uh no, literally every historian I can recall would call this take stupid, I can name at least 5 off the top of my head right now from all political sides that have called that take stupid outright. The dark ages is a false moniker, in fact in many cases the people of the "dark ages" were more ingenious and innovative then those found during the renaissance where the term "dark ages" spawned from, during the "dark ages" more people bathed then for centuries following it. During the "dark ages" lots of old Roman infrastructure was routinely maintained where after them much of the infrastructure collapsed. All modern philosophy and law spawns from the "dark ages", absolutely dumb propaganda at work, Asmon view of history has, as once again proven by his trash NA education, to be dumb and wrong. Also if Asmon really knew anything about the Crusades, it would be pretty hard to claim what he has.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Monopolies only happen because a monopoly came in to enforce the monopoly by force, the government is that monopoly, without the government getting involved, there is no monopoly and any business that detriments the interests of those in the market would immediately die. The solution is not more government intervention, its less, big companies die quick, small companies die slow. Basic economics.
Also Asmon is objectively wrong, government doesn't exist for your safety, its there to punish those who would violate justice, not for the sake of those who would follow it but only for the sake of those who don't, anyone who doesn't understand this justifies authoritarianism and tyranny, there is no way to ensure the safety of the public without totalitarianism and socialism, that which are already living under in the US, (for the US government is a syndicalist government, it already owns the means of production as do all modern states) which means you do not own your home, you do not own your children, you don't own your labor, and you don't own your own body, everything is decided by the state and only the state and nothing shall be against the state. For the state is the society, the market, the nation, the people, and the community, it should not be such but that's what you've made it as, when one says any of these words or synonyms, know that you are saying state/government and not any reflection of individuals or groups outside that metric, and using it to deflect the wrongness of your terms is fallacious and foolish. No if we lived without this government tyranny, we would be free to own that which we labored for, that's private property, if you pay rent on a property you do not own it, a tax on property is rent, not even a property may be owned hence why they tax it, neither your labor for income tax is owed to the state. You want to know how to ensure people stay safe without government intervention into everything?
Simple: If one devises a product or service they are held in responsibility for in which the subject buyer is unable to know of the damages presented by the product or service to their existence and for which they used properly and appropriately and they end up dead, every single contributor to the creation and sale of that product or service should be executed. If it merely harms them, they are punished in a manner to avenge the harmed sevenfold, finances should be under provision in accordance to all their costs accrued as a result of the harm including medical bills, job loss, and beyond. If the damage is so extreme as to mangle a survivor than the execution of the producers and sellers is still on the table. There need be no protection laws, for even the mere risk of infringement will potentially open you up to execution, and yet confident knowledge of avoidance will keep things at the right balance. Extraordinary circumstance that the producers and sellers did not have capacity to account for means also they aren't always held responsible, but are dealt with fairly just as the subject buyer is dealt with fairly. Justice must never be partial to a side before the evidence of guilt is presented to the accused for which the accused can not refute.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Asmon doesn't understand the involvement of Vanguard and Blackrock in this, this is the ESG score crap, the more ESG and DEI you make your products, and the more you act ESG and DEI, the better your stock price will become, the better loan interests you get, the better your office mortgages can be, the more credit you will have, the more government money you can be paid to you, the reason this is happening is because the underground government subsidizes Vanguard and Blackrock to who own majority of the banking, real estate, and financial industry, and with this ownership they then rank companies based on ESG metrics and the better your ESG metrics are, the more advantages these industries will pay out to you and the higher your market cap can go. Also look up Social Impact Bridge 2.0.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just to point out no commodity, including gold and other precious metals, have no intrinsic value, let me give you a demonstration of this case: (and no I'm not defending UST or Luna, I'm just pointing out that is a fallacious assumption, that doesn't mean you don't act smart in regard to value, value is determined by subjective demand and the supply, that's what subjective value is, else you argue everything has an objective cost, in which case how do you define an objective cost that doesn't kill a few million Jews, 50+ million Chinese, hundreds of thousands of Indians, millions of Congolese, and a few million Cossacks and Ukrainians?)
Imaging you are in the desert of a day, what are you gonna want? Water right? So if the only other person in the desert offers you gold and nothing else, what would say them? Probably something on the lines of "no, that's just gonna make my problem worse, I can't carry this gold when I can't even sustain myself", the value of water in the desert is higher then even gold because gold would service you nothing. Now lets do this again but this time you're in a temperate forest, finding fairly clean water to drink wouldn't be hard obviously, so now water is not a precious commodity and gold may be seen as more valuable then water. So long as it is perceived to have value to others that is. This is a pretty basic demonstration that value is neither intrinsic nor inherent but selective to each individual in accordance to their needs. Another simple case: If someone is well off, they're living comfortably without issue and are serviced well, they can afford to spend a lot of money on entertainment, but if he has none of this, most people would reserve their money and entertainment will tank.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Man Asmon is so out of it, everyone who was in the capital got arrested for J6, even those who weren't even at the capitol building were arrested, the cops let them in, the cop show at them with rubber bullets out of nowhere, the Summer of Love had nobody arrested in Portland, LA, San Fran, New York City, Philadelphia, Detroit, Seattle, Baltimore, Boston, or any other city, the only arrests you saw were in republican states. The J6 guys who entered the building were 99% non-violent and yet they all got at least 6 months of solitary without trial, some of them got at much as 3 years of solitary without trial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CrypticApathy All of them, the US is the country of negative rights and its not remotely close, the Constitution established a standard both to enshrine negative rights and to expand negative rights, (positive rights are produced from the instatement of negative rights, the rate of economic growth is based around negative rights) the problem is that its still crap at negative rights because people are fools and have been convinced to give up rights to mooch off the government. Negative rights means keep the government out of my business except when I violate someone's rights, the CRA still violates that, the NFA still violates that, the New Deal violates that, but despite those every other country is way worse as a whole on that front, Japan and Korea may not have the CRA but they're worse then the NFA and New Deal, and all other western nations have something just as bad if not worse then the CRA alongside something worse then the NFA and New Deal and have had it for longer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xaina222 Yes because in the desert, food and water will become more valuable in gold but in a temperate forest gold can be more valuable because you'd already have water and food. If one person is starving or dehydrated, they will value food or water more then other resources, but if they aren't starving or dehydrated, their evaluations will care less about food and water. This is subjective demand, people want what they want in accordance to their circumstance and desires, you can't tell them those desires are wrong under market standards, as a result they'd be willing to pay more for the things they want and less for the things they don't want. This goes for every single commodity and service in the market. This is what we call subjective value, for you can not define what people should need or want, and if you want a demonstration of what happens when you do that, look at Venezuela, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Communist China. How many did each of these regimes kill? If you believe something has intrinsic value, let me ask you, how much should a piece of bread cost in gold in a thousand years? You must evaluate that for every economic circumstance in all nations and of all peoples and it must be reliably be irrefutable. But you can't do that, for it something had intrinsic value, it could mean it is defined by an objective standard that doesn't fluctuate. But food, gold, water, resources, services, all these things fluctuate both in accordance to each other and through the wider markets and lower markets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Asmon doesn't understand her argument at all, it has nothing to do with consent, also consent is subjective, you can't make an objective statement regarding consent, everything we claim of consent has been built off the backs of making certain presumptions of reality. Presumptions I might that is robbing from the Christian worldview already.
If Asmon thinks Christians want Sharia law, he should be put in a mental institution, dear Lord is he a brainlet, anyone gonna tell him that the US was made originally as a Christian theocratic republic? What did John Adams say about this?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
You know what moral and religious people he was referring to? Christians. There is no Constitution, Bill of Rights, there is no concept of rights at all without the Christian worldview, most especially the Protestants following the Reformation, Blackstone's ratio is a Christian ideal based on Genesis 19 explicitly, and expanded further by the founding fathers from 10 guilty should be let go for 1 innocent to 100 guilty should be let go for 1 innocent. The US is a Christian country, it is wholly incapable of supporting anything else. English Common Law, the foundation for American Constitutional Law, is based explicitly on the Levitical Law in the Old Testament, specifically Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. (Genesis is more implied) Precedent in law is a Godly standard from the Ancient Hebrew and Christian view of the world, it was not a concept shared by other societies, any precedent set in those societies can be ignored at the whim of the ruler, only the Ancient Hebrews and then the Christians said this was unacceptable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Simple refutation against Asmon's economic claim at around 37:00 is that WoW's economy is a zero-sum game, real world economics is not a zero-sum game, you cannot generate wealth in WoW, as a result rigging the market is trivial because anyone who does not have has to approach someone who does have, competition cannot exist in these economies, the only wealth generation in WoW are finite and devised by the the developers, there is no independent innovation in products and services. And player services don't really exist as a mass market system in WoW at all, you don't contract people out, also there is no concept of reputation in most MMORPGs nor are you punished by social ostracization for bad market practices, in a real world free market, if you do something wrong in the market, you become a social pariah which means even just buying food becomes difficult, you very well could starve in a free market this way. Also economic interactions are also regulated foremost by the game, systems of trade and markets are not managed completely by players either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I wouldn't ask for someone to be barred from it entirely because you can't regulate morality by any other metric beyond social, but women who do porn and reveal themselves to people publicly have a bunch of psychological, emotional, and social problems that were caused by doing so, even if they don't recognize these problems. It absolutely is true that women hurt themselves by partaking even in solo porn, many women do get psychologically addicted to it and it ruins their relationships constantly, they're behavior become completely unhinged, they often look down on the guy, or the guy gets jealous despite knowing this, it ruins him as well even if he doesn't recognize it, everyone suffers when a women does such things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tzaphkielconficturus7136
"You can shake your fist at God, and complain about that however much you want, but what "should be" and what "is" are not necessarily related."
Its not a shaking of a fist at God, its a demand by God that you behave in such that way, else you are inherently immoral. In fact those who can't get past their trauma are constantly condemned throughout Scripture of their responsibility to get past it. Trauma does not matter. (for example, trauma over adultery is the reason for divorce, but should you marry again you are committing adultery and thus are condemned even by the Word of Jesus)
"There isn't a way to not let trauma "influence your actions."
Yes there is, this is an excuse. We are not the result of trauma, we are its master, you choose how you respond to everything, like I know I should have trauma, it does not effect my decisions and I have ensured such, you are responsible for everything, you are not a victim, you are a perpetrator, all of mankind are perpetrators, there are no victims.
"You can "rise above it," but you don't do that by not letting the trauma influence you; you do that by learning from it."
No, if you are above it, it does not afflict your actions, a wise man acts not in regards to trauma but has wisdom over all knowledge, the once existence of trauma becomes irrelevant. Trauma does not afflict you unless you make yourself a slave to it, thus you are victim. This is victimhood mentality. It is inexcusable and condemned. Those who commit it cannot have redemption.
"The trauma is then still influencing you, but positively."
No, it marks it as irrelevant. For my case, I have many things which should mark me with trauma, and at one time they had done so, but I have given up this entirely, and have since only recalled them as part of knowledge for which coincides with the rest of my knowledge that I use with wisdom, and for which I have never responded again in any regard differently. This is trivial to do, but not from a slave.
"You can become a better person than you were before the trauma, but not the same person, except by retreating from it into your old patterns."
Or you simply change as a person as you would without the trauma, this is a completely nonsense claim, people change regardless of the existence of trauma. There is no thing as being the same person on the simple basis that there is no repeating who you were yesterday, that has never required trauma and it never will, this is a complete nonargument and is thus completely irrelevant.
"You say only "weak" men allow trauma to influence their actions, but how are you meant to escape weakness except by trauma?"
Submission to faith and thus wisdom.
"Some of the greatest people in history have been driven almost entirely by their trauma."
And they were weak and condemned for it, those driven are very likely to be residing in Hell over it. For they did not make themselves servants to the right path, they made themselves slaves to evil, as most men do, searching for excuses to justify their actions instead of needing none. I need no justification, for it has already been given to me that what I do is just not because of myself but by what I have received. I am already counted justified, I have submitted to Jesus and so I am liberated from things such as trauma, from sin, and from the corruption for which spawn such things, as it frees me from the Fall. Just as I be free from addictions and immoral behaviors, I have changed not in regards to trauma, but that it has become irrelevant, all knowledge and wisdom are in service to me for it was service of my master. This is true strength, all other paths are weakness and excuses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1