>>803776>Nah, that theory has always been kind of a croc of shit in my own estimationits accurate
>because good and weak men are present in all times, good or bad.that's not what the quote says, it implies the majority. not some, like you're conflating.
in good times, majority of people become comfortable & hence weak. the quote doesnt try to argue if some are there.
now, based on how you try to generalize from outliers rather than putting outliers as outliers, it follows to the rest of your post. you cant seem to differentiate outliers with majority. you're trying to force the outlier to fit a norm which it isnt capable of & it doesnt work.
for example
>and the pain fades. But so too does the excitementyou contradict yourself & in-turn the original quote here where you say there are good and weak men in all times but now you're saying the excitement fades (basically you're repeating the actual quote here which you contradicted as "croc of shit"
next
>some people may even try and emulate the Pain in the hopes of bringing about Excitementthis, I agree with & its accelerationism theory where people are stuck in robotic-lives (comfortable times)
>but because it isn't Changedoesnt make sense, if the majority flips their position, it's change. by definition, its change. you cant change the definition of "change".
hence the good times create weak men & weak times create strong men.
its objectively a change but because its a change you dont like, you're conflating it with the majority (the outlier conflation which I explained earlier you're trying to do the same thing)
one thing you need to remember is, outliers exist not to adapt to them BUT to learn from it to NOT become it. trying to force the outlier to become "norm" is playing king/god & you wont succeed, leaving destruction.
