zurew

Another instance, where d2sage making claims that he hasn't verified yet. Why are you so confident in your claims and spend little to no time in verifying anything before you utter your statements?

"let me show everyone here , how smart I am in saying, that morality is subjective". What you don't realize, is that going with that logic and using it as a defense - there is nothing objectively wrong or bad about imprisoning Andrew Tate even if he is proven to be innocent. His logic is that the "end justify the means", which is obviously one of the worst kind of defenses in this case and if we were to test the consistency of his logic, he would either realize ,that he doesn't really believe in it, or he would come off as a completely unhinged sociopath .

whats the evidence for him donating 6 figures, let alone 7 or 8 figures?

@Carl-Richard We need your pushback here.

Your ignorance and the irony of your sentence is fascinating.

Tell them, that they should educate themselves, before they confidently utter the most surface level things about a subject they know nothing about. You should also tell them, that everything they care about is using or building from philosophy (even being obsessed about being pragmatic is a philosophical approach and foundations of science was set up by philosophers doing philosophy). Two very easy things that you can mention about philosophy is logic and morals. Both of them are big sections in philosophy and both are very important to our social and to our every day life. The most tangible and probably the most important for them would be logic, which is a core element to science ,so they should appreciate philosophy just for that alone (and then obviously a lot more things could be added why one should appreciate philosophy) that being said, regarding your relationship with your friends - if you want to keep them, and if their behaviour deeply bother you, then you should express that and make your boundaries clear about where you draw the line, and if they consistently won't respect your boundaries, then you should cut them off.

The problem (that AI will replace jobs) will eventually affect everyone, not just art, so this is an issue that worth thinking about deeply.I assume you don't just worry about money, but also about being/feeling useful. I havent thought about it deeply yet, but my surface level thoughts on this topic is this:There are 2 main things that comes to my mind regarding this "AI will replace everything" problem: 1) I havent seen or heard any good argument yet that would actually prove / demonstrate that AI will definitely replace most jobs in the next 10-20 years in a way, where there will be no value or need for any human thinking or input. There is a fuckton of speculation and a lot of built in assumption around this topic, and speculation alone is far from actually giving a good reason for something or different from actually proving something. 2) Regardless if my 1st point is true or not, I think there are unique things to us, that wont be completely replaceable. For example , just mentioning 2 from the top of my head 1) - your living experience and 2) The uniqueness and power of distributed cognition or in other words our collaboration with each other and with the machines . I can't tap into your living experience. I might be able to gather data about it in various ways, but that wont fully capture the experience itself and because you have a unique history and a unique living experience, you can provide a unique input and take on certain things and that in and of itself is valuable and makes you valuable. For the "being useful" part, the answer is unfortunately this: we have to adapt, there is no way around it. we have to let go of our attachments to certain jobs/activities and focus on either merging with AI or collaborating with AI and with each other even more, because that will create unique synergistic effects.

That girl is consistent with her brain rot posts.

???? Who claimed here that the vaccine doesn't have any side effect?? As I told you, you need to compare the effects of covid19 with the pfizer vaccine. Thats how you get a good picture about how bad or good it is.

@D2sage Next time actually try to do research and dont just read the titles that seemingly agree with you. This looks extremely bad for you. You grabbed for everything you could, without properly reading or conceptualizing anything.

@D2sage Your own linked "papers" debunks themselves . Good job, Im not surprised you didn't read them yourself ? : the analysis link in your 1. link: 2. link: This second link don't even talk about myocarditis or cardiac problems. Also this is just a preprint far from being a study, let alone being a peer-reviewed one. Regarding your 3. link . Lmao,this is not just not a study, but this is just an exceptionally dogshit article that has 0 references for their main claims. Regarding your 4. link. This is another dogshit article that has 0 references for their claim. But even if I take their claim for granted, that still doesnt establish what you want. This would only establish that there was a women who got hospitalized after getting the vaxx (no causal link demonstrated in the article btw, just making the claim, without any evidence.) - but even taken for granted - this is not a very strong case , when your original goal was to establish how the effects of the pfizer vaccine is much worse than the effects of covid19 . 5. link. Good job again, this is just an old article, that only talks about pfizer data being released, but doesnt establish your original point about myocarditis or cardiac problems. 6. link. Good job again, your own link debunked you : Tldr: your own links debunked you ; most of your links don't even talk about cardiac problems or myocarditis, therefore the overall case you presented is not just weak, but it was counter-productive for you, because most of them literally went against your conclusion and narrative.

@D2sage show a study - how the effects of pfizer is worse when it comes to myocarditis compared to the effects of covid19 (a study that compares the two) then after all that, tell us how long lasting that myocarditis is. then after all that, check the overall negative effects of covid19 and the pfizer vaccine (show a comparative study, where you can establish that the vaccine will cause overall more negative effects than the virus itself).

I don't get it how you guys can think, that pointing out that a company is making profit - is a good argument. You guys would be 10x more suspicious if a company would virtue signal and would try to give all these vaccines for free.

Areas such as? - I have seen you guys talking about IQ, but do you guys have anything that would explain how predictive or necessary high IQ (of course high IQ need to be defined here) to become a GM? So for example if there is a chess player with 120 IQ and a different one with 140 IQ is that difference significant in the context of playing chess against each other or not? - or what about player 1: with 150IQ and player2: with 170IQ? On the upper levels IQ matters more or less and how much does IQ correlate exactly with being successful in chess? Also whats your position here for the explanation for the gap? Biological differences explaining 90%? or 70% of the gap or how much? @Danioover9000 There is no problem here, I just try to elevate the standard for what it means to strongly prove a point (of course this goes both for the nurture or the nature side of the argument).

You are the one who is very confident in your position and you are the one who seem to imply , that you have done deep research on this topic, so you should cite your sources and then make your arguments alongside your cited sources. "do your research" is not an argument. I already told you that so far I only have my intuition on this based on the surface level research I have done on this topic, thats exactly why I can be moved on this and thats why I don't have a confident position on this. But its on you to showcase why your stance is strong and why your stance is correct (because you have made a lot of positive claims on this topic, and each of those claims require justifications). This is not about being myopic , this is about being able to see and being able to demonstrate which variable is more relevant compared to the other. For example, making a claim about testosterone when in reality it might just be the 20th most relevant in the context of one being good at chess could be just a waste of time. List your variables in an ascendant order where the lowest one will have the most impact on someone becoming a GM in chess. And of course it will be on you to justify each weight signed to each listed variable. Thats equivalent to saying "everything is just biology bro and that explains everything all the time". Its just a bad strawman that wont progress the debate further. You are already begging the question there - assuming your position is correct and studies that go against it all have to be biased or incorrect.

So do you have a position , where beating one's self with a stick 8 hours a day vs doing 8 hour meditation every day continuously for 40 years vs watching a film on netflix - all have one thing in common: They are completely useless when it comes to enlightenment (or in other words they all have the same amount of utility in the context of enlightenment), because nothing will get you to enlightenment and nothing in the relative domain (no thought process or method or activity or drug) will get you any closer to enlightenment (not even 1 step closer).

Also guys who have strong and confident opinions on this issue. Can you list the top 5 variables (1st having the most weight) that relates to one becoming a GM in chess? And of course if you can, give an argument and a source that will justify each of those claims/variables. If you cant do that, then dont be confident regarding your chess beliefs

@Bobby_2021 The research I have seen on this (regarding testosterone) only demonstrated that winning can have a positive effect on your testosterone level, but that doesn't mean that winners on average before winning the game had significantly more amount of testosterone. So would you say that if a player does TRT , he/she will become a significantly greater player at chess? Like how predictive are we talking about here? Like could an average player using a fuckload amount of Testosterone rise to be a GM (if we assume that he trains a significant amount of chess like any other GM)

Do you think that those chess nerds have high testosterone? ?

Whats that reasoning? Any group of people can have different kind of opinion about what would be equivalent to what (based on their unique subjective standards), but that doesn't mean, that just because of that they can now exclusively dictate how the free speech laws should be managed in a country. Do you have a problem with free speech that allows burning holy books? If not, and you only have a problem regarding burning the Quran, because you have some kind of a bias towards Islam, then what do you think where is more free speech? 1) in a muslim country 2) In sweden

I don't see this to be rampant anywhere. I think you got caught up in the selective youtube/facebook/tiktok algorithm and now you think that something that is an extremely niche and rare type of thinking to be common or more than common. Cool so that is your main reason above why you feel the way you are. Suddenly this became more of a personal psychology issue, rather than a societal issue.

what ideology

Your answer is tangential to Leo's question. You are not just against legalization, you are also against decriminalization. According to your logic and theory Portugal's results should be much worse ,so what is your explanation? Where is the evidence that demonstrates a casual relationship between the drug war and the maintained levels? How can you contain, moderate or regulate, when you give all the power to the black market? - and thanks to that its much harder to track who buys what kind of drugs in what quality and in what quantity and from whom.

You can build that by using Electrolysis : But at the end of the day, this in my view would still be considered an electric car, because this kind of system still necessitates the use of electricity.

The argument of "there were many different kind of suggestions that the world is going to end in the next 10-20 years and none of them became true, therefore the same applies to the current situation as well" is logically fallacious.