I have been enslaving myself to debate with hostile and cruel people who can't be reasoned with. I think I get what you really mean now by real freedom is the freedom to not be right.
After you advised me to stop or try the real time thing I gave up.
As for the rest of the podcast, why is it that I don't critique and nitpick your work as skeptically as Greg does despite having come from such similar family backgrounds?
Why is it that instead of doing that, I accept it, understand it, then sort of completely ignore it, the brilliant advise based on it, and everything? What I mean by that, for instance, is enslaving myself to debate with hostile people who understand but simply reject it, create straw men and justify their rejection by attacking the strawmen.
It's like in action I either think you are wrong, or I am testing your theory empirically (or a little of both) wheras Greg tests your theory in the abstract of critique.
It's like he's testing it abstractly, I'm testing it empirically which is like testing gravity by jumping out of a plane without a parachute or at best testing whether fire is hot by burning my finger.
What is wrong with me?