Aetherous

Where's 9th?

It's always the case that what we think and say about others applies primarily to ourselves. Takes a rare person to see this about themselves.

All that I can contribute is to say that there are different Martinist groups today, and one should look through them all if they're interested in Martinism. This one is interesting to me but because of not living near them I can't share any experience.

Time will tell!

I really question that. Hillary was the big money candidate. Appointing people who worked at Goldman Sachs, being a businessman, having an Exxon CEO doesn't mean you're going to operate a big money (in politics and economy) administration.

I think of it more like this: every once in a while, the body gets a paper cut or a small draw of blood (cases of genuine racism or sexism, rather than cases where that accusation is made). In the past, there was a very large wound, which we collectively healed, leaving a scar (representing our knowledge that there used to be genuine racism or sexism on a large scale...for instance, there used to be slaves of another race, women used to not be allowed to vote, etc). One group currently screams about there being an enormous wound, while the other group knows it's just a small cut (that it's the rare individual doing the wrong thing, who is justly dealt with). Of course the wound no longer exists. The screaming group points the finger way too often, at nearly everyone who doesn't think like them. For instance, disagreeing with the concept of white privilege making a person a racist. Or pointing out that in your experience women earn just as much if not more than men, despite what random statistics claim, makes you a misogynist. Furthermore, name calling is a sign of a weak mind. Lump someone into a box that conveniently makes it easy to disregard them, rather than understand or listen to them. While I personally almost didn't vote for Trump due to the 10 year old private comment, I also understand that there's much more to a Presidential election than a popularity contest. It's not about who can speak the most polite and smile the best...it's about policy related to more important things like global terrorism, the national economy, education, attempting to get known corruption out of politics, etc. What I've seen in this election...SLANDER. Where someone says that Trump said something he didn't...for instance, people thinking he's racist against Mexicans or Muslims (which isn't a race, btw). The left created a straw man argument there, and anyone with half a brain saw through it.

Most of the time yes.

Nah they wear these.

https://youtu.be/XG5hXNgsV3A?t=20m52s

Sounds good...in my experience, you don't have to agree with anyone to be a Daobum. It's a forum of diverse people and ideas. I'm personally not part of a single clique here.

During the Orlando thank you tour speech, he spoke of the crowd as being vicious and violent prior to winning the election. It could have been sarcasm, mocking the abusive language of the left...or he really could have been trying to pacify the crowd.

I think the entire idea of Facebook censoring certain news sources (going beyond merely flagging them) is a dark conspiracy. I prefer to think for myself and have access to many varying sources.

Good question. IFCN/Poynter (partly funded by Soros as seen here where it says Open Society Foundations) has established a code of principles in fact checking, which Facebook is using as a minimum guideline. Poynter's fine print is that Facebook isn't using IFCN as a fact checker, because it's "an alliance of fact checkers" and not one organization...but it's using the "fact checkers" who are IFCN signatories. Who IFCN approves. In other words, it's using IFCN, funded by Soros.

It's not too basic of a question... One method: inhale with the feeling that you're drawing in fresh qi...that feeling will physically modify the way that you take the inhale, which will lead to increasing the qi taken in from nature. Another method: gentle to moderate movements can increase the qi, as well as its flow throughout the body. Third method: always chew your food so much that it becomes liquid, and don't ever stuff yourself...that will cause the body to create good qi. Food is from nature. Fourth method that I almost forgot: being out in nature (away from civilization) means that you pay attention to it naturally...anything we pay attention to becomes part of us and there's an exchange of qi between us and it...so that way you can get nature's qi. By being in it.

That was Orlando. Not a good move to turn on your crowd, but I think he might be a bit frightened in realizing that the movement wasn't about him and is now trying to control how it goes.

I deal with relatively a lot of people calling themselves warriors where I live. I don't consider them warriors...that's just 100% self-aggrandizement. Warriors fight for peace in the real world, not in their minds. If you aspire to be a warrior, ask yourself what you do for the world in a concrete way. For instance, being a good person and having intentions for world peace is not enough to be called a warrior. If I were to be the person giving out the title (rather than people giving it to themselves), it'd be rare if someone got it who didn't serve their country in an actual way. Not necessarily the military, despite that being the definition of a warrior...but one of the organizations that serve. Like DHS. Others might get awarded the title, as civilians who did something great for society that took guts. Just because you're in a serving organization wouldn't be grounds for having the title, just like being a soldier doesn't mean you're a warrior. Practicing martial arts is not enough, unless you use it to defend others.

I've personally referred to them as the "Russian school", but it wasn't intended to be in a culturally denigrating way. That's just a convenient means of referring to them, because they represent primarily Wuliupai, but secondarily Yuxianpai. Wuliupai is closed to those West of Russia, so calling them by what they are primarily is misleading for many forum members (they represent a tradition you can't train in). Furthermore, they are a Russian sub-branch of these Chinese schools, so calling them by the Chinese names would be misleading...and there aren't other Russian schools that we know about here on the forum...so to refer to them collectively in a simple way that anyone can understand - the Russian school. Daobums is quite open to other cultures.

In terms of Alex Jones, he's sensationalist and will say things in the moment...knowing that, it's very easy to find any truth in what he's saying because it's easy to see what's not true. Of course, anything you think is fact needs to be checked from other sources...preferably your own eyes, rather than what someone tells you to think. That's the case with this current narrative about Russians hacking the election by Putin's order...no evidence provided. With the mainstream media it's more challenging to discern what's true or false. Most people take all official news to be truth...in actuality, its purpose is not to inform but to guide what people focus on and believe. It's often slanted heavily, and without constantly having your face in multiple news sources over years, it's hard to debunk. But it's more often possible to do so.

I've found the opposite to be true, actually.

That went over my head.

There is no credible news source, only true or false information. Either can come from anywhere.

Critical Thinking or being rational = making sure we have good reasons for our beliefs. "Good" reasons = more probable, or certainly true. "Bad" reasons = less probable, or absolutely untrue. Argument = a set of statements called premises, which together comprise a reason for believing a conclusion. Arguments can be called good or bad. Good argument = premises support the conclusion. Bad argument = premises don't support the conclusion. Deductive argument = where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. "If the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true". But if the conclusion turns out to be false, then it was a bad argument (and therefore not a deductive argument), most likely due to the premises somehow being false. Ampliative argument = Where the truth of the premises makes the conclusion probable, but not guaranteed. Ampliative can be a "good argument", despite its conclusion sometimes being false. A conclusion being probable can still be a good reason for believing it.

I

They can try to limit free expression, but it will only make a dent. Perhaps this is finally the time for the mass exodus from Facebook to begin. We've started to see that happen with Twitter users moving to gab.ai

Pal? Welcome to the forum.