Danioover9000

Even though it's part of my bias and preference, I don't like atheism and this skeptic debunk culture, it's stupid, as stupid as the religious fundamentalists. One positions and believes in a concept of god, gods, or something other, and the other positions related to secularists, materialists, rationalists and atheists, is the belief in a god that doesn't exist, or new age is bullshit. It's this deep hypocrisy that's annoying, because the arguments in principle are no that different, they're the same, except in complexity and justifications arguments from science and rationalism are more lines than from fundamentalists.

@Consept I'm a gal, not bro. No homo incest. I'm just saying 50 ads in a podcast is too much, slash it by 50.

It's irritating to see people like these get away with BS they spout. Decent teacher, and okay YouTuber, but the delusion is unreal: And stop plagiarizing Bruce Lee, it's annoying.

@Inliytened1 Exactly, it's in a damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

@Mikesinfinity Very interesting debate you had. What's your take on this video?

Take this video for example: While the YouTuber is passing judgments onto this scam situation between the coach and fighter, notice the hypocrisy of his position, that he also simultaneously denies he himself is also a cult of the debunking skeptics as well, based on general ignorance of developmental factors. While I partly agree that most should watch out for scammers and cons on almost every human field, even in MMA and fake martial arts, I highly disagree that the rationalist and skeptic position isn't also a cult in and of itself, even going as far as throwing the baby out with the bath water. By judging and demonizing this guy as a self help guru conman, he slanders that field and it's potential of actually helping people, thereby influencing and manipulating the general public that isn't as well informed of self help to not take self help seriously and personal development seriously, which creates problems and maintains problems of people in a cognitive, psychological and moral standpoint, hindering their personal development. Sometimes in the long run the skeptics themselves are the worst for most people, all they do is judge and be in this hubris thinking they're right, when in fact they are mostly wrong, and pass on their ideological thinking. Skepticism gone wrong, especially considering the far reach of these types in society and in politics and in current events of other fields, yet most people take them seriously because they can make appeals of ethos, pathos and logos, and string together fallacies to make themselves look great and above the very skepticism and critique they do onto others.

@The Redeemer On the relative level, we then would know that group is more hateful towards another group. Without freedom of speech, we literally couldn't find out, in a safe way, if that group is more hateful. Plus, freedom of speech is also tricky, as it's integral to a democracy that all groups have the right to express, vocally or written, their opinions about anything, even if that may seem like hate speech. It's a tactic governments used at the time to get people talking, so they then could refine laws around what was actually said and done, at least on the public areas. the governments would know, based on what was said, done and expressed, which groups are more or less dangerous, therefore they get to refine laws accordingly. If all democracies changed freedom of speech into something like authoritarian regimes do, then we'd be pushing these hate groups outside of public awareness and public consciousness, therefore making preventative actions state wide much more harder, pushing these hate groups into hiding and into the black markets. In private areas of your life, actually letting yourself express negativity is cathartic and can release trapped emotions within your psyche, AKA doing consciousness streaming exercises, journaling, diary, meditation technics, contemplating, exercising and so on.

@Ajax Partly agree here, yes Bruce Lee did take the best parts of martial arts he was studying, and philosophy, and made his JKD. The original intent that Bruce Lee wanted in his JKD though, was to reflect the streets, the violence, and actually fight like that, express yourself fully in that violence. The problem was when capitalism, pragmatism, and skepticism invaded into that framework, and JKD started becoming like the other business types of Dojos in America, and unfortunately because of Bruce Lee's early death, the few that survived him, took JKD and made it into something else that corrupted the original intent of JKD, that plus the many other students that then some opened their own schools and Dojos, and claimed they were affiliated with Bruce Lee for profits and credibility stealing. Of course, Dan Inosanto was a good student and philosopher and intellectual of martial arts, but he's not a violent fighter out there in the streets, defending himself violently. Paul Vunek is actually a really good example of doing JKD correctly, as intended. Dan Lok is a terrible example.

@Danioover9000 Karma has a funny effect with me. Even when I just praised this guy a bit, not the gay looking samurai on the right screw him, the old guy on the left, even when I said I liked him a bit, he damn near MADE ME SPIT! At 11:00 when they're talking about Osho and the Rajneesh community, I strongly disagree with his disingenuous framing, it's bad faith and uncharitable because Osho was a decent leader of that community, just that Osho the troll Guru, who makes fun of other Gurus and other leaders and legends BTW, he spent too much time reading and spiritual practices himself like his laughing meditation, that he obfuscated parts of his leadership role to his second lieutenant, and that crazy chick is the one that perpetrated those 'biological terrorism' acts, poisoning the salad bars and other restaurants in the Oregon country places, THAT CHICK, not Osho, is solely responsible for those terrorists acts. However, because the American culture that time was more racist, xenophobic, and it also was the war on drugs, the authorities used that as an excuse to legally charge Osho and to disband the Rajneesh community, not just crazy chick. Thinking back on that event now, it kind of makes me sad. He would have been a good leader if he took his leadership role seriously. My god, that would have been a great community, if only he took it seriously and weeded out the crazies. He actually is a decent and funny Guru. Damn, missed opportunity, but ego backlash is ego backlash, on the collective level..

@Ajax My views are similar to JKD, Jeet Kune Do, a little bit from Taoism, Baguazhang, and Hsing.

@sholomar I generally agree. Even this podcast here is decent, don't like the fanbase or following, too ideological, but still okay even if these men are generally ignorant of developmental factors: Obviously, I'm biased and preferential here, had bad experiences with atheists and skeptics when I had my haunting experience and needed help when their help was just inadequate. Didn't go into full detail, omitted parts in that thread I did before, but those experiences were enough that despite my protectant background and Christian background, experiencing different spiritual techniques to help me, even being part rationalist, I don't like those communities because they don't feel like good communities to begin with, if that makes any sense? Too judgmental and this superiority complex that is obnoxious to me. I'm using this martial arts example, there are so many out there.

Two good body language analysis videos of Spiky guy: and I'm not one of those that speculated what she saw was a shape shifter/alien/ghost or what have you, but because of my life experiences, and other developmental factors, and spiritual/metaphysical experiences with the paranormal, which could bias my answer here, I do believe that she may have saw something that others just are not perceiving, or she may have had a mental break down. I generally agree with his analysis of her behaviors here, and the apology is mostly genuine. The big question still remains though, and that is what did she see to make her so fearful of her life? Note, and disclaimer, that even when I said I believe, I actually don't believe in the supernatural or paranormal, I just happened to have survived a haunting experience in my childhood, survived here meant I nearly died from that experience, which then made my mind create justifications, which overtime plus energy and attention developed attachments that made spiritual, paranormal and topics related part of my belief system. Just as it may seem silly to ask if you believe or don't believe in bears existing or sharks existing which also makes bear/shark attacks possible because bears and sharks are nowadays self evident in nature and documentaries/movies and general public consciousness, those events can occur regardless of your believes in bears and sharks and the possibility of attack. Same in my case, despite the disparaging differences in metaphysics and epistemic frameworks that explains a ghost/spirit attacking versus a bear/shark attack. In this case, this body language expert is good in his field, but I do intuit that his meta programming, or his worldview/paradigm is similar to objectivists, scientists, rationalists, that he is simply making appeals to pathos/logos/ethos, and stringing fallacies to appeal to those identities and egos so as to not ruthful feathers, and to dodge the mental breakdown route to explain, or the spiritual route which he has to also explain, so he's dodging fields that are not familiar to him and wants to keep in his expertise which is fine.

This is a good example of testing your martial arts like this, this is a good balance, more direct experience and less skeptic talk: Although yes, a bit predominantly stage red and some stage blue, there's no BS skeptic debunkers allowed here. You test with direct experience how to handle bare knuckles, palms, elbows, knees, feet, and headbutts. However, no offense to Lei Wei, my Jeet Kune Do is superior, similar to Paul Venuk's:

@Scholar Mainly it would be bad because if you're a woman, in a biological female body, you're stuck in that body LITERALLY. This ain't Alternate Carbon yet, where you can switch your consciousness disk onto another body.

@Princess Arabia The ratio isn't even balanced as in context chess is known to be more a male type of game, AKA the emphasis on logical thinking and sequences in a chess game, recording and logically understanding blunders or inaccuracies. Pretty male centric view, so common sense being that the average will be men more than women competing. I'd also like to see more women play as @integral suggests, would love to see more intuitive play styles in chess as I play mainly from feeling the chess moves and the images in my mind. Like literally if I'm in a bad move my rating goes down, and when I'm feeling happy and creative, my rating goes up. I'd like to see more that play style.

@Scholar Would open tournaments be a good solution to this trans playing chess problem then? Especially considering the very low numbers of trans in a sport, to consider making a category where just trans compete with trans is difficult because of the very low numbers, so wouldn't it be good if there's an open tournament like in chess, or any other game board events? It's not like in combat sports, it's just mental games being played.

@integral I just don't understand why the FIDE just now ban trans from playing chess. What's the argument? That because trans are taking drugs that somehow enhances cognitive performance, therefore cheating, therefore we must ban trans from chess? Please help me find a convincing argument for why FIDE did this? It's just bizarre...

On top of that, there's also specialized and general intelligences.

@Raze Obviously there's like millions of types of intelligences out there, we have about 9 main types of intelligence namely: Existential, philosophical, nature, intrapersonal, interpersonal, kinesthetic, auditory, visual, mathematical, and linguistic.

@integral I have a stellar rating of...1350-1400, although in time of recording it's dipping towards 1300.

I did some body language analysis, as well as verbal, discourse and statement analysis on her and that interview she linked with just the audio. It's low probability that she's lying when speaking about this, and more possible that she's likely distressed recounting her times of activism of the Iraq War, and her bias against military and trafficking. I don't know, as this requires harder evidence to prove Justin is actually guilty, but given how that interview went, and after I did some statement and verbal analysis it's likely something went down that Justin is withholding. Big red flag, per statement analysis, was when the interviewer asked a leading question(I don't like when some do this) but in that leading question the interviewer asked him, Justin(the fifth column beau guy) answered "That wasn't anything I had direct involvement in.", yet the interviewer didn't question him, directly or even in the leading, of Beau's 'direct involvement.', and in the context of statement analysis, that's called an embedded confession/admittance of guilt, because you answered more than what was asked of you, and usually liars and deceivers tend to sell more a story rather than state facts, and truth tellers tell facts and what happened. Can't be fully certain in this analysis because, thanks to the leading question that the interviewer was injecting his bias with, beau's was basically unsure how to answer as well(Also evident in the tonal inflection of his voice, that answer sounded more a question and that typically means a verbal 'I don't know'.).

Nevermind Andrew Tate and the Tate brothers trafficking, I didn't know Beau of the fifth column might have been one during the Iraq war:

@Hardkill The world and the earth doesn't need saving from humans. Stop, it's insulting to the planet.

This woman has much worse takes than me, and manages to make me look more reasonable with my post: Also good lessons on developmental factors like values, cognition, morality, personality types/traits, especially ego attachments, and ideology.

@rnd I don't know why.