Bump: Lauda is back on DT2!
Well, that didn't last long.
So much for my newfound
faith in unicorns, faeries, and the innate goodness of humanity grudging acceptance that the forum trust system may not be totally
broken.
i think Lauda no more wants to be in DT
because she can’t get orgasm ( may be another reason )
DT1 material: Bitcointalk.org edition. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Gratuitously lewd insults in a wildly inappropriate context are usually a sign that a person (a) is 12 years old; or, (b) is a classless leering brute of the level that would enjoy drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa...
...or, (c) is projecting frustrations caused by severe and incurable erectile dysfunction......or, (d) is what once upon a time would have been called a
moral imbecile. Or, (e) all of the above.
there is no bad people at all in the earth
Case in point: Moral imbecile. A superannuated child who insists on living in a Utopian fantasy world where all people are good, and who thus condemns as evil anybody who realizes that reality exists. Otherwise known as a “liberal”, by definition. Indeed:
the bad people only in your mind
so you must just fix your mind
That is a commonplace of extreme “liberal” propaganda, which twists and inverts reality: “If you dissent from my voluntary psychosis, then you are mentally ill.”
The vast majority of people are more bad than good; and even in the best societies, there exists a criminal element that consists of bad people as such. This is an accurate assessment of human nature as it is, not as one may wish it would be. The purpose of rules and laws is to bring out the good in the former, by suppressing the bad in them (as expressed in the horribly inaccurate cliché, “keeping honest people honest”)—and to destroy the latter altogether.
A mythical golden age where, “Needless was written law, where none opprest / The law of Man was written in his breast” (Ovid) is best left to poets.
Only a small minority of people are so principled that they “
would embrace death before the self-negation of dishonour—not as a sacrifice, but as a supreme act of pure selfishness” (nullius). It is no coincidence that they judge others, who have first most strictly judged themselves according to
economically irrational standards that are totally alien to the utilitarian worldview.
As such, for a person to be strict toward others is
necessary but insufficient for an observer to conclude that that person has trustworthy judgment; and a person who indulges a childish fantasy that “there is no bad people at all in the earth” (!) has not only untrustworthy judgment, but
malicious anti-standards of judgment.
I trust Lauda, because I am confident that she would keep my trust without regard to any calculation of utility—even in any case where it would be economically rational for her to act treacherously. I trust Lauda’s judgment, because I expect for her to apply the same standard to others as she has first applied to herself: Her conscience comes from within, and is not an externally enforced rule.
I categorically distrust anybody who pretends that bad people don’t exist. Only a bad person would say so; for it is the passive-aggressive endorsement of badness in a world where suffering is always and inevitably more abundant than joy, where bad always
outweighs good—where goodness oft equals hardship, and badness is the easy way out
(wherefore badness equals weakness as such)—a world in which “when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle” (
Burke).
