Reciprocality

If you are a materialist then paradoxes follows by neccesity, i think Nietszche actually wrote some deadly extentions of that conclusion in BGE. Like the world only has to 'comply' to our intelectual faculties. The only paradox is that there are no paradox if ever there were one, or rather that there can not be KNOWN one. You can in a roundabout way get to epistemological non-dualism (if one would dare call it that considering what we are discussing, hehe) by means of no spiritual sensation if the prior points are embodied. For how paradoxical is it not, that 'nothing' can both be before life aswell as after life, AS WELL as within the universe and without it? AS WELL as before the big bang as well as within it and after it? To the degree one finds those paradoxical is to the degree one can induce if not deduce non duality AS WELL as the limits of reason (yes another paradox), but will be yet to embody that which goes beyond it. Now one have used paradoxical means to conclude something of relative certainty (a certainty confined within the limits of the asserted scope), which i find hillarious.

I like how he defines solipsism as epistemological idealism, nice one. edit: Then making hypotetical scenarious 'plausible', then making plausible assertions ''matter-of-fact'' conclusions (by means of no connection btw), then calling himself a 'critical thinker'. Well, those were the first four minutes, and i love it already. Now, knowing that Leo indeed is by those definitions of modern logic "delusional" i think he would not mind the least bit seeing how that is both the premise AND the conclusion for why he reigned a war on it in the first place. He have, it seems now found a second musketeer. : D

free speech and progressivism is kind of synonymous to those feeling a little bit confused

Alex Jones is a hillarious character, he probably nay most definitley causes the world a lot of harm yet here we are capable of seperating "evil" from art. Just as we can enjoy Hitlers beautiful paintings. Alex jones is insane, insanity is absurd, absurdity is comedy and comedy most definitley is art. I love it : )

It may not be that you ought not kill another, but.. and here i am lost. I can not reason my way to this conclusion as you see, that would actually be by its own standard unreasonable, as the condition for such action is itself the apeal to ethics. Yet STILL i do what i oughtn't do, now where does that put me? unreasonable, and that i am, yet i can reason that i weren't. Well so it goes these rabbit holes, and believe you me those aren't known for being kind to those jumping in. You ask why not kill another, yet you know the BEING of not killing another, and for all the flaws and shortages of reason you may indeed see BEING as a proper constittution; its own means ultimately begging no further question. Or you wont, a life of such avoidance, a philosophical ineptitude may indeed be a blessing. To the first self contention above: one can find reason to kill, its just that the premise follows the conclusion. Well if this is true than one could argue ALL rational thought are structured irrationaly, and neccesarily never followed by its own rules. But than you have a meta rule which if followed supposedly remedies the prior 'inadequacies' which indeed just beggs the next question and the next, and so it will go on. Kill everyone and everyone only whose precence give you SENSATIONS of extreme hatred, beneath and beyond all deducements and higher faculties of the insanity that is the mind. Maybe here inlies the answer, asuming you're not of the irascible type. edit: Which in turn avoids the premise before it, the evasion of those 'higher faculties'.

That so high a number one starts worrying about inflation

Not to be harsh but this wording of the underlying question were unclear, i could guess my way to your question but i'd rather you try again so you may enjoy my idea of an answer. : )

I do not feel much for the implications due to those numbers. If i encounter a someone without dignity or serious issues i will sense empathy, but for those millions i know being in dire need i feel zero, and i never did.

What if the desire is to be worse, so to in the very least have a ladder to climb, having something to win, seeing better days? Only hiding from that desire so to loose all those responsebilities which would follow? Ultimatly projecting superiority? Perhaps THAT is desire.

Looking past the obvious theme of spiritual awakening, which may be one of many answers to your problem i would meet you were you actually are. The desire to be the one desired, the singular desired is a material NEED, a non-'self sustainable' craving. For some it grows and for others it even dissapears, you may work towards either or, but i think those will be unattainable in a short term. For that one may be better of accepting those energies as they may come. With regards to a relationship dynamic i think there is prospects in honesty, to admit how ill you feel seeing her with friends and your own thoughts on those EMOTIONS. More often than not i believe, a women will be glad that you told her. She may find you 'beta' for it, but if honesty is not appriciated then on which basis can a relationship ever have any hope?

Understandable i will say.

Great. I wonder if you saw my point earlier, you were asked to where the desire for proving the imaginary theory comes from, and then you answered with appeal to the forums standards and an appeal to the understanding of the imaginary itself. An appeal do not by definition have any negative connotations, i meant it neither as such. Circular argumentation and begging of questions is also utterly okay, and hardly escaped anyway, i were only qurious. : )

I would rather hope that the identity came as a result and not as the incentive itself.

You were only conforming to the forum to the degree you thought the answer you gave prior were an actual answer. Were not meant any further.

Begging the question, why do you conform to a forum, and why do a forum want to prove reality as imaginary?

So lets cut right to the chase, how afraid are you of actually dying? How fast would your heart pump if i stood in front of you with a gun right now? Would you be 'ready' for it? We have each our own beliefs of what happens thereafter, Gura and all of us can not but BELIEVE when we are in our normal states *conceptualizing beyond sensation, so i ask you: if your belief is that everything you know will diminish, how do you feel about that? That everything will diminish and your new state of being has no sensation to it, nothing to contrast you privious life against, 'eternaly'? Presumably your heart starts raising BECAUSE that is the belief? Is is but a bodily insitinct on premordial premises, thus seperate to a higher self? If so you conclude; then may i ask, is it not YOU who made distinctions, and separated yourself from other enteties? In the spirit of dualism? *conceptualizing beyond sensation as in imagining within and not actualy SEEING with your eyes, TO THE DEGREE you can know they are different. I know my heart would skyrocket due to existential fear.

Hatred and resent do not match, there is no winning denying the resentment one feels for leaders whose actions devestate ones neighbours and country.

If you do not know those details how can you be sure "the bigger picture" is naught but fantasy? Like literally impossible to aquire, just like a million dollar from thin air. Or rather, for simplicity's sake, how detailed must a "bigger picture" be before it can beforehand be know to represent the actual? The other version of the same question would be: how diffuse will the 'bigger picture' be before it no longer represent what it claims to, beforehand?

Well, existence is the one never agreed upon word so to even use it is to beg the question as to how one defines it. If phenomenology is the ground upon which all which exist may do so, and phenomena is to be defined as the known sensation, then by neccesity there were no existence before you had your first one, and as your memory may be flawed you can cut of many, many years. But if phenonmenology is assumed secondary, then maybe. (not even here you can say yes, because you would then reference phenomena as a first principle to try negating phenomena as a first principle. The above is a deduction for how CERTAINTY of independent materialism is absurd, and can be done by you long before a non-dual experience, it does not however say anything at all about what IS real, and thus distinguishing itself from metaphysics as epistemological theory. (if you would find interest in how that distinction works)

Taxes ought be a communal good, in many countries that is its standard perception. In the US taxation is considered theft, maybe to some extent understandable seeing what it funds. But who will pay for alternatives to oil and gas in the coming years so it is NOT the bottom who needs to do it? The government, which neccesitates a plan, a plan for proportionate taxation. This is an inevitable ideology called social democracy, and Americans are next in line. Healthcare, complete education, a green new deal, a judiciary, Police departments.. the list goes on, and workers have already made themselves worthy of it, there will come a day when these are your American rights, to adequate degrees. edit: As Forestluv alludes to, these numbers of 62% or the likes are by themselves uninteligable.

If gold were the absolute, it would not need the relation to a non-existent neckless, neither the forms to which it could be melted for a proven point. It could be of no difference to a neckless neither, which were your point of the second quoted statement.

Selfishness could be assigned as a cause for meat eating, then again so can the avoidance. Is a cat selfish for eating a rat? Well sure, but the meaning of the word selfish certaintly do not fit the bullseye of utility within the conversation regarding the cat's survival, nor does it a man's survival. For it is categoricaly different to hunt a deer in hunger, and another time for profit in a place where food is all but scarce. Aswell is it not the same to hunt a deer with a knife, as it is shooting it from a thousand jards. To shoot a wild cow for gambling money from afar is disasterous, but would you say the same for a man killing his well fed and well seen to housecow so to feed his starving child? That would be a claim, and naught but a claim.

Great and hillarious! Could do with some acting lessons though but all fine, haha. : )

The United States of America.

Maybe its lazyness which needs beating you,for that, seeing the nature of indolence, may take a while.