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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Doob

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign
  • Personal DNA
    Considerate Inventor
  • Brain Dominance


Recent Profile Visitors

19,889 profile views
  1. I don't understand why they did not centre the images in the frames.
  2. There is an entire website dedicated to compiling arguments for and against circumcision in boys/men, comments of doctors and lawyers, consequences of circumcision, history of circumcision and a whole bunch of other information, as well as citing, discussing and critiquing the corresponding research. It's in German, but you can scroll through the sections and follow the links to the studies, which are largely in English. https://www.beschneidung-von-jungen.de/home/maennliche-beschneidung.html Unless there is an absolutely pressing medical necessity that cannot be mediated by other, less invasive, less irreversible means, circumcision in babies and children is not ethically defensible. It's already illegal for girls and for good reason. The research in favour of generally performing circumcision to 'reduce infection rates', 'penile cancer', 'HIV' is poorly constructed and the way it has been used to judtify circumcision is an utter sham.
  3. It's always better to cut off a body part instead of just washing it properly.
  4. There is a difference between understanding why a person did X and X being a good, appropriate or reasonably justified action. I can understand that some people have such poor emotional control that they turn to vindictive, immature actions, but that does not make those actions any less vindictive and immature. Neither does refusing to criticise vindictive, immature behaviour help them to realise that they are behaving vindictively and immaturely and to overcome said behaviour by learning to handle their emotions. Two wrongs also don't make one right. This is a general statement. I do not know who Ed Sheeran is and don't care.
  5. 18
  6. I'm aware how 'actually' (or 'considering') can be used in backhanded, condescending ways, but I do think there is a sufficient number of situations where it isn't that I don't think it should be the default/automatic interpretation. It's better to make that judgement when you are present and can directly observe the context as well as the tone/body language. It isn't just about logical possibilities either but real life examples I have encountered. For example, in a society where it's expected to give praise for stuff even when it's essentially a 'white' lie and not sincere, A might often find themselves in situations where they give praise to people who made the horrible whatevers. When A encounters B actually nice whatever, they say so, emphasising that they do indeed like it and don't just say so. That they use 'That's (actually) good/nice/impressive' instead of 'I like that' does not have to mean anything. Saying 'That's nice/...' can be used to express that you like something after all. Yes, I'm aware that it can also be used to avoid having to say 'I like it' because you really don't but don't want to hurt their feelings but nevertheless try to get some distance between yourself and the statement, even when it's just linguistically, which might be precisely why A usually says it that way and now slips in the 'actually' to emphasise that in this instance they really think it's nice and do like it. You may or may not agree with 'white' lies, I don't, but that would not make A's compliment of B's whatever insincere or backhanded in this example (which is not inconsistent with the context OP gave). (It could also be that A is not in the habit of giving insincere praise, but that A assumes that B is aware that it happens in their society, and since they don't know each other well, uses 'actually' to emphasise that it is meant as an actual praise and not a 'white' lie.)
  7. Could also be a comment that compares B's work to that of others, for example, when A gets to see lots of horrible self-made whatevers, then encounters B's whatever and actually likes it, making it a positive expression of relief/surprise/... . To me the interpretation of these statements would depend on both the context and the tone/body language. My mind didn't immediately zero in on negative, possible interpretations when reading them.
  8. I do actually. It wasn't accidentally anti-federalist (or in the times of countries being kingdoms and federations being empires, accidentally anti-empire-ist). Nor are many objections to the EU striving to become a federation only accidentally anti-federalist. Nor does it help your argument of equating the US and the EU. There are also non-anti-federalist US Americans who consider themselves to be patriotic. No, wealth redistribution is not the key mechanism of social development I'm referring to. Social development encompasses a lot more mechanisms than wealth redistribution. Having mentioned things like the prison system yourself that shouldn't come as a surprise to you. I do actually understand how some of you view various European systems, and even how some of the misconceptions you are also demonstrating here came to be. I'm not arguing that the US should copy European systems or that if it did it would go over without a hitch, precisely because I'm well aware that too many of you are culturally or ideologically opposed. Nor have I argued that size does not have a potential effect, nor that the US or Germany are exactly the same. I am arguing that you cannot use the EU as a means of comparison for estimating the size effect, that the EU and USA are not equivalent concepts and that many of the things you have listed so far are not unique to the US. None of these things are incompatible with understanding your culture. Presently, the Euro isn't an EU-wide currency. Same currency =/= same economic system. Some people and politicians have dreamt of unity. Some people dreaming of unity =/= having achieved it in the present. Even the question what unity is supposed to mean for Europe is not settled. No, the difficulty is not mainly distance or scale. It's cultural, political and economical differences, despite of and often precisely because of physical proximity causing friction. Germany's relationship with Poland is more difficult and strained than the relationship with more distant countries that we trust a lot more, some of which are not even on the same continent. Then I do not understand how you keep misusing concepts such as socialism and federations or cite basic core features of federal republics to distinguish the US, because you really should know better. Does your parents being immigrants, temporarily having been in Europe and living in other countries mean you speak German, have plaid very close attention to our history, domestics politics and internal cultural differences, and read huge amounts of source material? I don't speak Polish and neither do I have much in-depth knowledge about Polish history, domestic politics and their internal cultural differences. Living in Europe in a neighbour country of Poland and having been there on vacation does not give me magical insight into these things and therefore you won't find me commenting and making wild claims and statements about them. I have addressed each of your arguments, therefore the last comment is hardly in lieu of arguments. You have indeed erroneously applied these basic concepts multiple times in this thread and you have also demonstrated a good amount of ignorance when it comes to Germany, the EU and European countries in general, so my statements were hardly in error, nor were they insults. It was a comment that this discussion is becoming pointless in my eyes because we're going in circles. If you want to have the last word, feel free.
  9. The argument was not "X is complicated => part of X must also be complicated". The comment (not argument) was "there are more possibilities than the 2 you listed and from that perspective, you seeing the nuances in some parts of it but completely missing them in the other is ironic". Different people place different degrees of importance on different values regarding relationships. For some people, true love is sufficient for a relationship, even when faced with something extreme like severe abuse. Others might truly love someone, but will nevertheless not be willing to enter a relationship with that person, e.g. because they don't think the love justifies being abused. For some, cheating will be hurtful but not violate them and their values sufficiently enough to end the relationship. Others consider it to be something that destroys the entire basis for a relationship, .e.g. honesty, trust and respect, regardless of any degree of love. Or using your bank account analogy: For some people, cheating is worth -1000 [insert currency], making it somewhat painful but still manageable. Other people consider cheating to be worth -5 trillion [insert currency], instantly pushing the balance so far into the negative that any bank would close the account. Or, the bank account contract states that any cheating will lead to immediate termination of the account. In your assessment, you are essentially projecting your own relationship values as well as emotional landscape on other people, which might share neither of them. For instance, I'm an NT without trouble processing and handling my emotions and it is precisely because of my emotional and general self-awareness, as well as some experiences, that I know what I am willing to tolerate and what I am not. A relationship without honesty, trust and respect is not something I want regardless of love, and I communicate and discuss that very clearly before entering a relationship. If you do not consider these things tantamount to your relationships, that's fine, but it does not follow that other people who do automatically either don't love the other person sufficiently or have trouble handling emotions.
  10. When not controlling for society's attitude, research like that is frequently used to justify the following circle: Society's reaction to X causes negative consequences for people exhibiting X ---> without addressing society's role in it, study shows people exhibiting X are worse off than people not exhibiting X ---> society and professionals take the study as justification to make life hard on people exhibiting X ---> next study finds people exhibiting X are worse off ---> ... People of groups that have suffered from this cycle, like Rickster, are rightly wary. In this thread, some users have already cited studies with poor controls and comparisons to that effect. It is true that we currently cannot study humans without the impact of some society or another, but it is possible to study the impact of different societies while holding the other parameters constant. If it turns out that it's society that is causing negative consequences, it might be worthwhile to discuss changing those attitudes instead of essentially telling the affected people to just suck it up.
  11. That's not the argument I made.
  12. I have no interest in being in a relationship without honesty and trust. If I felt something was not working in the relationship, I would talk about it with my partner. If we don't manage to make it work for both of us, I would end the relationship, not cheat. As mentioned above, I wouldn't cheat in the first place. However, I do think that if you do end up crossing your partner's boundaries, it is best to address it sooner rather than later. Trying to hide it adds another level of lies and abuse of trust to the initial offence, getting worse the longer the lie is maintained. For someone who just talked at length about how complicated love and relationships are, that is quite an ironically oversimplified, black and white view.
  13. In contrast to you, my proficiency in your language is higher than a good number of native speakers, and I looked closely at your history, interact regularly with people from different states, pay close attention to your domestic and foreign politics as well as your culture. You on the other hand have demonstrated that you know little to nothing about most of these things with regard to Germany. If one of us does not have a feel for the history or culture of the other, it ain't me. German tribes and later kingdoms fought against each other, sometimes in wars lasting decades, for several thousand years, long before and after Europeans knew there was a continent called America. Prussia only managed to unite all states into the German Empire after your civil war was over, and the Southern states only joined after Prussia defeated them and their Austrian allies in our last civil war. No, I said social development contributed to a higher standard of living in various countries compared to the US. Social development =/= socialism. Even if the EU was a comparable concept to the US, which it clearly isn't, you nevertheless could not use it as a parallel to see what effect "(European) socialism" would have on the scale of the US because a) there is no such thing as European socialism as the EU member states are capitalist. b) the EU does not have a single, EU-wide economic system. Thus, you cannot observe the effect of a single system on the entire EU. Anyway, we have come full circle now with the only result being that you got the opportunity to show that you struggle with various basic economic and political concepts and are fairly ignorant when it comes to the history and culture of other countries. There is little point in going for another round.
  14. No. Both the German and US state and federal governments are elected by the people. The EU is mainly an economic association of quite different countries that is not particularly democratic. One is definitely more distasteful than the other. I can go outside right now and hear some Saarländer bitch about a Rheinland-Pfälzer, or Schwaben bitch about Berliner, which really don't like if Schwaben move there, or the rest of Germany bitch about Bayern, who really don't speak German, while Western states and the Bayern bitch about those lazy Eastern states (Dunkeldeutschland, Dark Germany), and Southern people complain about the cold Northeners and especially those arrogant, clipped speaking Hamburger who really can't stand the Braunschweiger, and maybe ask an Ostfriesen what he thinks about those greedy Borkumer and what on earth is the brown smut called Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,... I could continue this for hours. Just because you are absolutely ignorant of our internal cultural differences, state-state and state-federation dynamics or our domestic politics in general, does not mean they don't exist. Again referring to your civil war? If so, consider me utterly unimpressed. Not because I do not understand the impact of a civil war but because the US is not the only country or federal republic that had one, even around the same time. It does not help your argument one bit. Edit: In case the point was not clear, your current interactions/relationships with foreign countries differ substantially from interactions/relationships between your federal states. No, our domestic state-state and state-federation interactions are quite different from our country-country and country-EU interactions/relationships. The EU is not a federation. European countries are capitalist, not socialist. It's not just not a perfect parallel, it's not a parallel at all.