The future of the Forex industry - page 38
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Here is an interesting (and manipulative in my opinion) parallel when one starts to link parents and country - for what reasons do you do so?
I feel the wildest cringe when the personification of Motherland is foisted on me, it is some kind of monstrous mental perversion, deceit and charlatanism.
Equally, when they start talking to me about the Duty, for example, I already know in advance that it's manipulation and an attempt to brainwash me.
As far as I understand it, children have the same debt before their parents, who gave birth to them, fed them, clothed them, educated them, and the same debt before the country. We were not born in a field, but in a particular place, which became our birthplace and provided certain benefits. We grew up in a particular culture and environment, which shaped us, because only language and knowledge make a person a human being. Gained a certain physical and mental constitution which is akin to the people of our ethnos. And these conditions are a gift to man, they are formed by the work and lives of previous generations. To get it and just bail out is like coming to a houseguest, having a quiet meal and leaving without even saying thank you. Can we do that? Well you can, but to consume outright without giving anything in return, not to acknowledge your debts and not to show gratitude for what you receive - behaviour is unruly, parasitic in essence.
As far as I am concerned, just like children have a duty to their parents, who gave them life, fed them, clothed them and educated them, so do they have a duty to their country. We were not born in a field, but in a particular place that became our home and provided certain benefits. We grew up in a particular culture and environment, which shaped us, because only language and knowledge make a person a human being. Gained a certain physical and mental constitution which is akin to the people of our ethnos. And these conditions are a gift to man, they are formed by the work and lives of previous generations. To get it and just bail out is like coming to a houseguest, having a quiet meal and leaving without even saying thank you. Can we do that? Well you can, but to consume at once, without giving anything in return, not to acknowledge your debts and not to show gratitude for what you receive - behavior is unruly, the essence of parasitic.
There is a big difference between people who directly surrounding you and giving you something and the whole country which consists of 99.999% of people whom you never learn in general in whole life and I consider that it is a great hypocrisy or simply a thoughtlessly learned pattern when a person says: I love country X, in fact he doesn't know and cannot know all this country, in a better case you can love your city for its atmosphere, your people with whom you are connected with some prehistory, well yes you can say that I love so-and-so culture, it can be said, but eh.
Considering that mankind is rushing headlong into globalism and multiculturalism, it simply does not make sense to limit oneself artificially to the frameworks of this or that territory or culture, and humanity is becoming a single community with the possibility of random mixing, I see no point in clinging to these patrimonial archaisms.
Moreover, the culture more and more acquires features of the universal culture, western in the first place, but it is only historically so, as Asia has been European, in some places even more European than Europe, and such a process had already been in the history when the western culture spread to the east under Alexander and formed a new quality of the universal Hellenistic culture, it is a very important process, as it results in a new format of life, when people can communicate between themselves regardless of their region of origin.
As far back as the 6th century B.C., the cosmopolitan maturity of Hellas was a crucial factor in its brutally rapid development. For a second, compared to Persia and Egypt, the Greeks were at first like sucking-up boys with little cultural capital; nevertheless, they turned the tide of history, and Greek and then Roman culture became more competitive than the deeply traditional Egyptian-Persian culture, and in the 5th century BC a philosophical concept of the priority of the individual over the state and its norms had already developed, showing the opposition between nature and law stripped of its ancient sanctitymoral and political norms had become relative, the newrationalism carried the seed of universalism, the self-sufficiency of the individual, indifference to traditional social values such as patriotism, and freedom from all prejudice.
While this may have led to the decline of individual polities, it alsothe awareness of a spiritual community of a higher order, a cosmic order, was growing, and by the time of Alexander the Hellenic idea of culture had developed to the point where it was possible to say that it was Hellenic not by descent but by upbringing, so that the barbarian born could become a true Hellenist and one began to speak of the Hellenic cultural way as a universal human one, it was important when the Stoics proclaimed thatfreedom is the highest good is exclusively an internal quality, not depending on external conditions, and therefore even a slave could be truly free if he was reasonable enough, and now everything that was done was determined by the mental position and the quality of performance, creative participation became possible for any reasonable subject, now man was placed by Plato and Aristotle not so much in polis, but in cosmos, to be a worthy citizen of cosmos - means the highest achievement of human morality and the key to getting this citizenship is the possession of Logos-mind
As for your debt, gratitude, etc.: each person, by the mere fact of prolonging human culture, has already paid for all previous investments in it, no matter where exactly he is now, and it does not matter in what country he pays this "debt" to civilization, no more is required, and if you think globally you will come to such a conclusion.
There is also a deep cynicism in saying that a person owes something to the country for the simple fact that he was born and fed and clothed ... as if the newborn had any choice? - he could refuse to be born? - Think about the very essence, the twisted logic and presumption of debt, you want to make the newborn your property and demand payment from him? - but he could not choose - he did not come to visit you (as you say) and this is a totally false analogy - a fundamentally perverted interpretation with the sole purpose of making the person dependent - and by doing so I show that your position actually declares existential serfdom and contradicts inalienable rights (principles of free choice).
I have briefly explained my position and I recommend everyone to discard archaisms and look and think globally 😉
25 last pages and probably 0 posts on the topic? Already on the 15th.
it's all very important for trading
Russia is not the best candidate for the homeland in any case.
The motherland is not loved because it is good or bad. A mother remains a mother, even if she is an alcoholic. And if children are generous, they try to help such a mother. If the homeland is not the best country, you should work for its good and do your best to make it better, and not to look for a warm place in another country and take advantage of the comfort of the country which its inhabitants have created and in which you have not participated. A better way is to take part in the creation of that comfort in your country and then you can proudly say - this is my country and I have done a lot to make it so comfortable, beautiful and prosperous. Then you will be respected as a true citizen of your country. And future generations will remember you with gratitude, as, for example, they remember Tretyakov, who gave Moscow a collection of valuable paintings that he collected for the benefit of his country throughout his life. But you have chosen a different path, you will die in a foreign land and no one will remember you. "...and no one will know where my grave is").
Just as workers cannot earn on their own without an entrepreneur, so the entrepreneur cannot earn without the state.
The state provides an important resource - the rules of the game, legal protection.
Without the state, the entrepreneur has to build and maintain his own army; he has to become "the biggest fish in the pond" in order not to be eaten, in fact - to replace the state. Whoever fails to do so "fails to fit into the market".
rather than look for a warm place in another country and use the comforts of that country, which the people of that country have created and you had no part in.Can you use the comforts of other countries that you were not involved in creating?
There is a big difference between the people who surround you and give you something and the whole country which consists of 99.999% of people whom you will never learn in general during all your life and I consider that it is great hypocrisy or simply a thoughtlessly learned pattern when a man says: I love country X, in fact he does not know and cannot know all this country, in a better case you may love your city for its atmosphere, its people with whom you are connected with some prehistory, well yes you may say that I love so-and-so culture, you may say so, but eh.
Considering that humanity is rushing headlong into globalism and multiculturalism, it simply makes no sense to limit oneself artificially to a particular territory or culture, and humanity is becoming a single community with the possibility of arbitrary mixing, I see no point in clinging to these patrimonial archaisms.
Of course there is a difference: near circle, far circle. But the point is that without the outer circle there would be no inner circle. But just imagine: a war is going on, and soldiers say something like: we are ready to fight for mum and dad, but they are warm here, and the front is still far away and there are strangers there, we don't know them and therefore we will not go anywhere. Some time passes and the cosmopolitans, who are above stupid traditions, nation and state, have their coat wrapped along with their illusory house. Maybe sometime in the future such identities will fall away and culture will become universal and the state will become one for the whole planet, well then we will talk. Right now, it's not even close to that, so it's stupid to ignore these categories and you end up with the same situation as with modern civilized countries which accept savages because "they are humans", and then have problems in the form of national criminal enclaves at home, for their own money. Guests are considered human beings, and they in return welcome hosts as fools and tolerants, who must be milked and not given a fuck. The savages simply do not know about human rights, law abidance, civic awareness, and similar stupidities. So what for? As soon as they find out, when they acquire some moral standards that are complimentary to the acceptors, then invite them in. Wait until firmware update to make the devices compatible, otherwise it is running ahead of the locomotive and catching knives, well, just inefficient and fraught. And it's a big question whose paradigm will be more effective, it's not sure that it will be globalism and not the opposite - maximum fragmentation and exuberant diversity of communities.
As for your debt, gratitude, etc.: Each person, by the mere fact of prolonging human culture, has already paid for all previous investments in it, no matter where exactly he is now, and absolutely no matter in what country he pays this "debt" to civilization, no more is required, and if you think globally you will come to such a conclusion.
We are not talking about civilization, but about a concrete country, ethnos, culture. If you have taken money from one person and you refuse to pay it back explaining that you gave it to another person and since all people are brothers, there is no debt, well... you will not be understood :) Neither the creditor nor outside observers.
There is also a deep cynicism in saying that a man owes something to the country for the simple fact that he was born-fed and clothed... as if the newborn had any choice? - he could refuse to be born? - Think about the very essence, the distorted logic and the presumption of debt, do you want to make the born person your property and demand payment from him? - but he could not choose - he did not come to visit you (as you write) and this is a totally false analogy - a fundamentally perverted interpretation for the sole purpose of making the human being born dependent - and by doing so I show that your position actually declares existential serfdom and is in conflict with inalienable rights (principles of free choice).
It is not a debt in the sense of a loan, it is an acknowledgement of a voluntary gift from third parties and structures and an expression of adequate gratitude to them for the benefits that have been provided. The analogy is correct in the sense that you have been given something useful, and as a decent human being you are grateful for it and try to repay it. It's not someone demanding it from you, it's you who should understand and demand it from yourself. It is simply a healthy norm of interaction: give and receive in return. You don't throw cigarettes past bins, though you could. It is unlikely that there will be consequences if you do, but you will feel bad about yourself.
That a baby does not choose where to be born, well, excuse me, this is the order, another has not been invented yet. A man is mortal, not always healthy and beautiful, but what can you do?) Maemo chto maemo. In any case he was given life and raised. You, lying unconscious, also do not give your informed consent to a heart massage that will bring you back to life, but you will probably be grateful to the person who did it to you :)
The motherland is not loved because it is good or bad. A mother remains a mother, even if she is an alcoholic. And if the children are generous, they try to help such a mother. If the homeland is not the best country, you should work for its good and do your best to make it better, and not to look for a warm place in another country and take advantage of the comfort of the country which its inhabitants have created and in which you have not participated. A better way is to take part in the creation of that comfort in your country and then you can proudly say - this is my country and I have done a lot to make it comfortable, beautiful and prosperous. Then you will be respected as a true citizen of your country. And future generations will remember you with gratitude, as, for example, they remember Tretyakov, who gave Moscow a collection of valuable paintings that he collected for the benefit of his country throughout his life. But you have chosen a different path, you will die in a foreign land and no one will remember you. "...and no one will know where my grave is.")
You are repeating again the old cognitive distortions and learned patterns, for there is no reason to compare the mother and the country, and this is the most disgusting manipulation, and realize that this is not your thought, but the installation instilled in you from childhood, and perhaps you actually understand this, but cannot admit it, maybe you are ashamed of such a thought, because along with the installation you have also implanted automatic mental censor, which inspects your thoughts for acceptability to the instilled external values.
Think aboutcui prodest? (Why do you have such a controlling structure in your mind and whose interests it serves?
Surely you are cautiously downloading apps to your computer/phone? - But you have allowed yourself to download the firmware, which does not serve you.
However, I am well aware that with my words I am likely to trigger the reddest alert of your inner mental controller, and obeying it, you will powerfully deny everything and override it with "correct" settings 😏
But believe me, I'm not writing this to offend you, I'm just expressing my opinion, on the contrary, I'm very grateful to you for the opportunity of a cultural dialogue, because usually such conversations descend into obscene rudeness...
Of course you have the right to choose the hard way and wait for a miracle in this or that backward region, or wait for gifts from the state, but I think that's just stupid.
By the way, how can you say "my country"? - If in fact you own nothing in this given country? 😁
And it's kind of weird to love a country that's consistently turning its back on you, no?
Will future generations remember? - Do you still hope to become known as Tretiakov/Tsiolkovsky/Lobachevsky/Euler/Chebyshev/Lomonosov/Kolmogorov? - Otherwise, who will remember you, really? - Not a valid argument again.
Is it scary to die in a foreign land? - You'd think you wouldn't die in your "homeland", wouldn't you?
No one will remember, no one will come to your grave? - Is that all you need to be a patriot for? 🤣 - it reminds me a lot of the arguments of mothers who furiously prove that children are mega important, the most important thing in life, the purpose of life, otherwise no one will give you a glass of water in your old age 😂 - this very cup of water and a grave is the reward 😆
I certainly understand that people involved in patriarchal values may experience some other spectrum of emotions, and for them it does seem all credible and super-valuable, I haven't had such illusions for a long time.
Life is one (conventionally speaking) and it's a pity to waste it on patrimonial nonsense.