"Conflict may be painful, but the painless solution does

putting your head in the sand like an ostrich. refusing to face your problems because the solution could be painful, preferring instead to skulk away in your cocoon where life is void of problems but also very unfulfilling and pointless.

>>8086650
the real question is, Why must we aspire to be anything but ostriches?

>>8086665
Because it's easy, in the abstract, to gravitate towards an aesthetically pleasing ideal of bravery, but in reality it's best to just de-spook yourself and choose comfort.

>>8086687
>in reality it's best to just de-spook yourself and choose comfort.

It's crazy to me how deadbeats use the word "spook" to justify their leeching.

>>8086693
I'm not sure what you think I'm specifically referring to, I'm just saying that it's unlikely Christopher Hitchens would have been willing to put his money where his mouth was with respect to whatever ideals he professed to care about so much.

As for the topic you're desperately trying to start a fight about, it rests upon a lot of assumptions which you should probably reconsider.

>>8086716
Christopher Hitchens always put his money where his mouth was in respect to his ideals....

>>8086724
How so?

>>8086716
I get triggered whenever someone references Stirner, my apologies.

>>8086724
Christopher Hitchens had no ideals. He was a decent prose stylist, though.

>>8086733
Sounds like a symptom of spooks, anon. Some people have to work, some don't. Some people get hit by lightning, some don't. Life isn't fair.

Did Hitchens deserve to die early because he enjoyed a nice fag? Probably not, but that's the way it happened.

>>8086716
>I'm just saying that it's unlikely Christopher Hitchens would have been willing to put his money where his mouth was with respect to whatever ideals he professed to care about so much
Is that relevant, though? Nobody's proposing to canonize Hitchens. The question is whether his principles are right—not whether he lived up to them.

>>8086774
I mean, delaying gratification almost always gives better results in a simply material sense (if you study hard in school, you get a better job, etc.), but I think he's talking about it in more of a moralizing sense, resting on the assumption that there is a problem to be solved or a point to be made.

So his methodology is right, to a certain extent, but it's much better to use it pragmatically than in service of whatever bullshit ideology he's referring to.