• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Deus last won the day on March 7

Deus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

648 Excellent


About Deus

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/08/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

879 profile views
  1. DEBATER(ENTP-A) DEBATER PERSONALITY (ENTP, -A/-T) The Debater personality type is the ultimate devil’s advocate, thriving on the process of shredding arguments and beliefs and letting the ribbons drift in the wind for all to see. Debaters don’t do this because they are trying to achieve some deeper purpose or strategic goal, but for the simple reason that it’s fun. No one loves the process of mental sparring more than Debaters, as it gives them a chance to exercise their effortlessly quick wit, broad accumulated knowledge base, and capacity for connecting disparate ideas to prove their points. An odd juxtaposition arises with Debaters, as they are uncompromisingly honest, but will argue tirelessly for something they don’t actually believe in, stepping into another’s shoes to argue a truth from another perspective. Playing the devil’s advocate helps people with the Debater personality type to not only develop a better sense of others’ reasoning, but a better understanding of opposing ideas – since Debaters are the ones arguing them. This tactic shouldn’t be confused with the sort of mutual understanding Diplomat personalities seek – Debaters, like all Analyst personality types, are on a constant quest for knowledge, and what better way to gain it than to attack and defend an idea, from every angle, from every side? There Are no Rules Here – We’re Trying to Accomplish Something! Taking a certain pleasure in being the underdog, Debaters enjoy the mental exercise found in questioning the prevailing mode of thought, making them irreplaceable in reworking existing systems or shaking things up and pushing them in clever new directions. However, they’ll be miserable managing the day-to-day mechanics of actually implementing their suggestions. Debater personalities love to brainstorm and think big, but they will avoid getting caught doing the “grunt work” at all costs. Debaters only make up about three percent of the population, which is just right, as it lets them create original ideas, then step back to let more numerous and fastidious personalities handle the logistics of implementation and maintenance. Debaters’ capacity for debate can be a vexing one – while often appreciated when it’s called for, it can fall painfully flat when they step on others’ toes by say, openly questioning their boss in a meeting, or picking apart everything their significant other says. This is further complicated by Debaters’ unyielding honesty, as this type doesn’t mince words and cares little about being seen as sensitive or compassionate. Likeminded types get along well enough with people with the Debater personality type, but more sensitive types, and society in general, are often conflict-averse, preferring feelings, comfort, and even white lies over unpleasant truths and hard rationality. This frustrates Debaters, and they find that their quarrelsome fun burns many bridges, oftentimes inadvertently, as they plow through others’ thresholds for having their beliefs questioned and their feelings brushed aside. Treating others as they’d be treated, Debaters have little tolerance for being coddled, and dislike when people beat around the bush, especially when asking a favor. Debater personalities find themselves respected for their vision, confidence, knowledge, and keen sense of humor, but often struggle to utilize these qualities as the basis for deeper friendships and romantic relationships. Opportunity Is Missed Because It Looks Like Hard Work Debaters have a longer road than most in harnessing their natural abilities – their intellectual independence and free-form vision are tremendously valuable when they’re in charge, or at least have the ear of someone who is, but getting there can take a level of follow-through that Debaters struggle with. Once they’ve secured such a position, Debaters need to remember that for their ideas to come to fruition, they will always depend on others to assemble the pieces – if they’ve spent more time “winning” arguments than they have building consensus, many Debaters will find they simply don’t have the support necessary to be successful. Playing devil’s advocate so well, people with this personality type may find that the most complex and rewarding intellectual challenge is to understand a more sentimental perspective, and to argue consideration and compromise alongside logic and progress.
  2. 1. Option A - We must Secure Borneo; Not only will the Germans be severely weakened we will gain resources from the Island. 2. Option C - Both India and NA; but send both cavalry armies to NA and both infantry armies to India. 3. Option A - Securing the seas is vital for the security of the Entente as a whole. We decided to become a part of it and we should commit to the fullest. Anarcho-Syndicalism and German Imperialism is a threat to Japan too.
  3. Hit the soft underbelly of China.
  4. Option A. No appeasement, no trying to control the elephant.
  5. B and B Germany is too dangerous a foe to take on without a strong platform to stand on. Liberals.
  6. Option B and Option A
  7. I'm an Estonian learnt Finnish by watching TV as a child. Finnish TV was our hole in the Iron Curtain.
  8. Yes. But to as an answer to the original question, there would be no winners.
  9. Estonian, English, Finnish, a tad of Russian and a bit of German.
  10. I said it goes against human nature. Plus I stand by my statement that Communism wouldn't work in a democracy, because there will always be enough people opposing it, plus in a communist system there is no private property, so the state is responsible of the means of production. There is too much uncertainty in a state planned economy for it to work. What you are talking about is socialism or social equality.
  11. Well I was 9 years old when SU collapsed, but what I remember is that everything was scarce - shops were empty, because of planned economy and theft all along the production chain. People didn't actually use the term buy, but rather procure. People were poor and repressed. Communism ca work in a very small community where all the members agree with it and feel responsible, but in a big system where the state owns everything and the workers "own" the state, you end up owning nothing. If that's the case then who cares? Also dictatorship of the proletariat can't end up well. But then again I had a nice childhood. Lot's of being outside, building of tree houses, swimming in the sea, no to little parental supervision (because it was a lot safer). For a kid it was super, but for an adult (with opinions) not so much.
  12. You know as a person born in the CCCP I support this message though the poll needs the right answer as well, which is that Communism fails to take basic human nature into account. Something that goes against basic human nature is a failure at conception.
  13. I don't have a nickname.