Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Tristan

  • Rank
    Veteran Member


  • MBTI
  • Brain Dominance


  • Biography
    This page gets occasional visits, it seems, so I'll write a few things about myself!
  • Location
    Currently in VA
  • Occupation
    Securities Trader
  • Interests
    Anime, pc games, art, books, books, piano, and books
  • Gender
  1. I'll never, ever get tired of Star Wars battles. I'm sure the original trilogy suffers from corniness, the prequel trilogy from a bad script, and the new Disney movies from something yet-to-be-defined by the literary elite. Screw it. As long as they have Star Wars battles, they have me.
  2. Ben-To a violent, sexually-explicit show about grocery stores marking down their box lunches to half price at the end of each day
  3. If you want something cheaper than Spam you could just buy fresh 80% lean ground beef, grill it, and give it to your dog. I'm not joking. I read this as the slang for smegma but it had trouble fitting in context
  4. Voted option 3 to nudge the poll towards being at least superficially honest
  5. 1) If yes, why? One theme I noticed was the arbitrary choices several of the qt's in the books made, namely Fleur, Tonks, and Hermione, so it fits as far as good storytelling goes. That is not a common-sense explanation, but... the fact that so many readers felt good about the choice suggests that there is something excellent about Ron's character that is difficult to articulate. I won't even try. I like an excuse to talk about Harry Potter or pop philosophy but this subject is not my forte. 3) Let's say, canon (books 1 - 7, minus epilogue), how would Hermione's relationship with Ron have developed further in your headcanon? Probably Ron being possessive but genuinely respectful. That can work, I think. 4) What was your reaction during reading the books when it became imminent that Hermione would most likely end up with Ron? I gave the relationship 80 delta in book 4 when Ron said "Hey Hermione, you're a girl! Go to the ball with me!" or something like that. I had not given an instant's thought to who would end up with whom prior to this, and my reaction was Eh, noted. Like I would care about that shit, honestly. When I was their age, my mom dropped me off at a school dance and I headed straight to the store and read the first 9 books of the Illiad. 5) Luna Lovegood would have been a far more interesting match for Harry. Harry has many good qualities, but he does not deserve that goddess.
  6. Hm. I've never considered comparing it to Anglican church music, even though I'm equally nuts about both genres. Trance is joyous and frenzied, hymns are joyous and dignified? Paul Oakenfold mixes!
  7. If I were subjected to injustice, such as you describe in your narration as either the victim or some bereaved third party, and the judgement put an end to my life as I knew it, I would want vengeance. It's a pretty compelling story. One of the best novels ever written, The Count of Monte Cristo has a set-up very much like the one you've written down. There is a twist in your story, or at least its conclusions, that in some sense justifies the death penalty rather than weakens the case. You have described word-for-word what it feels like to be the victim of a crime. To be the victim of crime/injustice/corruption/whatever creates a feeling of being violated, exactly as you have told: the outrage that in your case was directed at the state, the prosecution, and the heartless community is, for victims of crime, directed towards the perpetrator. But it is the same fundamental situation with the same feelings at work. For your argument to hold, you have to discount real crimes and dehumanize legitimate victims. You have to disregard the gravity of crime and dehumanize its victims, in order to imagine that injustice is the only source of the type of injuries described in your story. Well... unlike lesser punishments, the death penalty does not dehumanize the victim. For the other 999,999 horror stories, it is the most exacting type of vengeance that can be offered to a victim by the state.
  8. Hey there. Thanks for your message. :) I agree we come from very different perspectives historically, though perhaps may have more in common in terms of current affairs than you may think. Either way, I fully agree with you, we are living through history. The people of the world are rejecting globalism and reasserting the authority of the nation state. That can only be good.

  9. I noticed your threads about Hillary's various goings-on and was thinking about dropping you a line on election night regardless of the outcome.  Ideologically I think we have nothing in common so it's interesting to point these things out:  I think we can take mutual heart in the idea that people everywhere are disgruntled about powerful families and hereditary rule.  The media and money now suddenly seem somewhat in awe of the silent, bitter, middle-class nobodies they've either been ignoring or fucking over for ages.  I have serious misgivings about who the US put in Hillary's "destined" place (as you probably do) but between the Brexit and this new surprise, there's some interesting times ahead.

  10. "Leader" as you define it here is a more retrospective evaluation, to a person who inspires converts to his cause. I think that is a tiny subset of elected officials, and unfortunately, a decided minority of presidents. They are elected to a position where there is potential for leadership and dering-do. What you are describing is possible, but exceptional, and certainly no refutation "on the contrary" of the fact that elected officials resemble their supporters. That's where they came from, after all. They are not bred in tanks. Doubtless, organized crime votes for idealists who can't be bent, and thieves and murderers fall in line with the middle class and vote for tight law enforcement. You can look at most of the big cities in the United States to see how unconvicted criminals run things. Adding convicted criminals to their voting blocs is unlikely to be very productive. Yes, principles. This is one of the aforementioned high-minded, principled reasons I alluded to, against which I have no argument. I really don't. You're right. The problem with some principles, though, is that they are useless. Allowing felons to vote confers no benefit whatsoever. I likened this sort of thing to gay marriage. You can proclaim that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but the notion does nothing to strengthen modern society at this time.
  11. A bit pedantic, but okay: the more interesting and precise question to me would be "Should convicted felons regain the right to vote?" You might have missed my post on the previous page where I list the US states that bar convicted felons from voting indefinitely. Though they all have a process for obtaining pardons from the courts or the governor and having their rights restored— that is where your "ancient history" cases would come into effect. Not a problem. I understand the concept that convicted felons are not necessarily corrupt or vicious or even guilty people, and that people with no record are not invariably saints; I also touched on that on the first page. The weight of probabilities is still against them, character-wise. You're inviting in the people most likely to trample on others' rights. That is just too perverse to be a benefit. If you give the abusive the right to vote, that is also asking for abuse. You guys are talking about abuse and illegal/questionable activity in politics and using that to argue that convicts should vote? All. My. What. These posts are not giving enough credit or responsibility to voters in a democracy. Even with a strong document like the US constitution, you need honest citizens for an honest government. The voters are simultaneously the only thing that makes the system work, and its weakest link. If the voters are (as a group) too stupid, greedy, or outright criminal to uphold the constitution, then the system will decay. The situation in real life bears that out completely: Trump versus Hillary for president.
  12. People vote their ideals and interests, and elected officials resemble those who put them in office. Therefore, if criminals vote, politicians will come to both represent and resemble criminals more in the long term. That's a net loss. Even if there are smart, good, or wrongfully-convicted felons, these are outliers from the salient features of the group. Did you have some sensible reason for allowing criminals to vote? So far the responses are completely substance-free.
  13. I checked this out because it's sort of a controversy right now in my home state. These US States allow felons to vote even while in prison: Maine Vermont States in which felons lose voting rights indefinitely (can be restored by court or executive order): Alabama Arizona Florida Iowa Kentucky Mississippi Nevada Virginia Wyoming All other states restore voting rights at end of incarceration or punishment period. Philosophically, I think I favor the needs of society rather than morality, which in terms of this argument would be consequentialism over retributivism. I've done about .000029% of the homework Foucault has on the topic, but retributivism (punishment on moral grounds regardless of social good) seems to me to put the cart before the horse. The moral case for punishment seems to, or can, rely ultimately on the social good that emerges from punishment. Which would make it a circular argument. The alternative is to posit (or imagine) moral imperatives standing high above our society. Deus vult. Ultimately I'm squarely in the camp of the nine states that disenfranchise felons. It's about as benign a form of voter discrimination as you can get- probably even less objectionable than the age discrimination (18+) already in place. This issue puts me in mind of a sort of reverse-image of the gay marriage debate. I can sense a few pieces of flowery, high-minded BS in favor of giving criminals the right to vote, and a lot of practical, let's-not-shoot-ourselves-in-the-foot reasons why it's a stupid idea.
  14. Sigh. Obama is almost as subtle a diplomat as Bush.

  15. He's like the Terminator: He'll be back...