zurew

What was her bodycount?

Sounds good and interesting. I will be particularly interested in this part: "INTELLECT SERVES INTUITION" -- my intuition told me, that this is definitely correct .

Thats probably one of the hardest questions ever and it is a very hard problem (maybe impossible to solve in the case of adults). It requires a very long deliberate process where you need to demonstrate through a lot of arguments and hypotheticals why their thoughtprocess will predict a lot less things accurately than your epistemic process and why your epistemic process more reliable in general. One of the hardest part is that you need to be extremely patient about it and you need to be extremely careful about your rhetoric (you need to present it and approach it in a way ,where the person feels safe in your presence and won't feel like they will get gotcha'd or that they will get trapped or that they will feel dumb). That kind of thing (that I described above) takes a lot of practice and intelligence to figure out how to go about it and even then it is not guaranteed that you will change people's thoughtprocess/epistemic process. Regarding a more healthy informational ecosystem (where even if we assume that the epistemic process is the same, we still need things to stop the deliberate information poisioning), we need certain incentives that are non-existent right now: For example lets just think - what reward do you get if you seriously try to analyze everything as objectively as you possible can? You will get almost no reward, and not just that, but you will get punishment from whatever group you are in, therefore you are incentivised to get stuck in a group think as much as possible. What is the reward for not taking strong position on something that you are not so sure about? You get no reward and not just that, but again, you will get punishment from almost everyone. What is the reward for arguing with the group that you are deeply invested in (and where people maybe depended on you or where you are depended on them)? What is the reward and incentive for stopping in a middle of a debate and acknowledgeing that the person you debate with knows more about the topic than you, or that you seriously don't know the answers to his questions - in other words - whats the reward for epistemic humility? Just to be clear: when I say incentives - in this context I mostly refer to social reward or punishment, but of course it could be financial or any other incentive as well.

Whats your argument against amateur porn and what your argument against onlyfans?

A new era is coming with AI creating realistic porn and with AI creating realistic human avatars with realistic persona. That (if left unregulated) will probably make it so that most pornstars and onlyfanscreators will lose their jobs, but we will see.

What about amateur porn? Do you have the same thoughts about it? Or what about doing onlyfans?

What does RFK even think? If he really believes that there is a matrix where a bunch of powerful people from all around the world can work and are working together in a malicious way against humanity (creating dangerous vaccines, 5G) etc, then why the fuck he thinks that he will be the one to do anything about it? - Like what does he think - he will singlehandedly destroy the evil elites? -how fucking deluded you would have to be , if you take his foundational beliefs (about the malicious matrix) as a fact.

You are not depdended on it, you just recognize whats in your toolbox and then utilize it to the best of your ability. Thats like saying there is a needle and you have a hammer "don't be too attached to the hammer, when you can just use a big rock to do the same work" -sure you can use the rock if you want to, but if your goal is to be as efficient , and as good as possible in what you do, then you learn how to utilize all the tools in and around you. You should have asked her, why she is spending so much time doing spiritual work rather than any other work (why is she so attached to spiritual work)? - Maybe because she think it is important and meaningful and she is passionate about it?

I don't, thats why I gave many other examples about how you can become good at something without a reason for 'talent'. I just said, you have to find a good reason before you start doing anything, because if you literally have no reason to do that particular thing over another, then you efforts and willpower probably won't last long. Read back you will see that I included (philosophical or psychological or pragmatic) reasons as well. Also here is an important point: You and the guy in the video make it look like as if going after your passion is easy - no it isn't. Thats one of the reasons why you see so many people abandoning their dream careers, because it is extremely hard to be courageous and authetic enough to really go after it and in some cases there is no good market for it , therefore you need find ways to fit your work in to the market or to literally create a market for your work. I don't think its that easy to recognize which one is more important comapred to the other one + you can always ask yourself the question of 'how could I use my skills to be the best service of others?' Doing or finding your passion doesn't exclude you from the ability to be service of others or from the ability to master a skill, in fact it might make you better at contributing to others. Also, I still think, that it is worth trying to explore yourself by trying out many different things before you really hop into someting and spend thousands of time doing that job/activity.

Passion != motivation. Finding your passion is just finding a path where you can strive hard and express yourself and your given abilities really well. Part of finding your passion means trying out a lot of different things to see what clicks and what doesn't - and through that process you also go through a kind of character development and self-exploration. if you could know where you could strive extremely well at, the answer is that you obviously would like to know the area or the place. Given the answer to that question, we might as well try our very best to find that. That does not mean never comitting to anything , it means committing a few month or maybe a year to something and then explore more and more until you learn enough about yourself that you find out where you could excel at your very best. Imagine this: You are born with exceptionally good art abilities, but you tell yourself "fuck it , I am going to become a lawyer", then you commit yourself to spend thousands of hours into becoming a lawyer and your never really discover your true potential what you could have become and you also provide nowhere near as much value to humanity as you would have with your art abilities. That all being said, sure sometimes you can bruteforce yourself and become good at something that you were literally horrible at, however the path choosing is never random in my opinion (especially in cases ,where people become exceptionally good at something). Often times these people feel a really deep and hard reason to do something. That really deep or hard reason could be a philosophical one, a psychological one or simply a talent one where you recognize you have almost an obligation to use your talent to help humanity and not waste your time doing anything else. A psychological reason could be this: for instance: your mother died because of a heart disease and now you have a really really strong drive to help humanity in that area, because you had a direct traumatic experience related to it, and you recognize how important that area really is. So the idea is to first find or to recognize a really good reason why you want to start doing something and then why you want to become exceptionally good at it (again that could be finding your talent, or a philosophical reason or a psychological one or simply pragmatic one [where you deliberately try to become a useful part of society].

Pre-existing linguistic community argument:

Ohh yeah it is comparable for sure and I think the antivaxx side is even more concerning, because thats one thing that on the blind provaxx side people will take any kind of vaccine without any look at the data, but on the antivaxx side people are willing to eat shit ,drink urine , even drink cum or do literally whatever they are told by an alternative media source. @VoidJumper What is your exact position on the vaccines and what process did you use to reach your conclusion on the matter? I will also ask for the evidence that you have mentioned that will back up your position/claims.

My argument that it is extremely unlikely to have a global scale case where everyone is willingly participating in the lie and can hold back info at such an extent that nothing tangible leaks out (especially given that there are colliding incentives on a multinational scale). When it comes to other subjects leaks have already happened (where the information hiding have happened on a much smaller case), and in those cases hiding information is much much easier because a lot less people is involved, so why is it that in this case there are no big leaks (or if there are such leaks, I would like to see them) even though we are talking about global scale. But ,lets start with you clarifiying what is the claim that you are trying to make and then go ahead and back that claim up with evidence. If your claim is that you know with a high confidence that these vaccines are much more dangerous than what the mainstream made them out to be , then show me what evidence you have for that. If your claim is the above, then you have to know that by taking that position you have to imply that all the dozen amount of papers that proves the safetiness and efficacy of these vaccines are have to be either made up or simply wrong compared to the bombshell document or paper that you have. You know that this is applicable to both provaxx and antivaxx people? If you are in an antivaxx crowd you suggesting or defending information about the vaccines will end up in you getting a massive backlash from the group or you will even end up getting dropped from the group. They have already dragged each others vaccine down to the mud: what do you think what happened with Astrazeneca or with the Sinopharm vaccine? So what is the reason for those companies to still hold back bombshell information about other vaccines, if their company have already lost the vaccine competition and if the credit and prestige of some of these companies have already been dragged to the mud? Yes I have, but I haven't seen any big leaks about the vaccine that would prove the point that they are as dangerous as some of these claim them to be. If there is a big hiding of information of the vaccines I would expect that information to be leaked. If you would try to make the claim that it is indeed possbile to hide that information without any leaks on a global scale, then I would like you to walk me through all the steps how is that possible, when leaks are happenning on a much smaller scale when it comes to others stuff, wherethe hiding of the information should have been much easier. But none of these arguments are productive because it won't move anyone anywhere, the only relevant thing here is for you guys to bring those bombshell leaks regarding the dangerousness of the vaccines.

Kennedy is making a bunch of claims without any sign of serious investigation. Its embarassing how much info he pulls out of his ass that he is overly confident about, without proving any of his big claims. He has an overly confident conspiratorial attitude and that makes him not a good candidate to do any kind of investigation or thinking about any kind of problem. Again we are talking about multinational scale, why arent any institution or country expose anything? We have literally seen in front of our eyes the vaccine race to develop the best vaccine in order to take over the whole market and to earn billions of dollars. Why is that certain vaccines ended up proven to be less effective or to be more dangerous than other ones? - that is proof that there is incentive in the system to expose each other , so why didn't they expose the level of danger or harm that the antivaxx people or what Kennedy is suggesting? *Sometimes they happen and in most cases just assumed to be true, because that way it seems to be a lot easier to simplify the whole world down to the bad guys. Yeah with a bunch of different countries with different agenda and plans. Why do you think is most cases the best point an anti establishment person can bring is just to talk about the incentives without actually showing any tangible evidence that would prove a very specific claim that they try to make? Why is it so hard to make an actual strong case for a specific claim without always only referring to vague points? Why do you think that most people need to use the fucking VAERS database as one of their main arguments against the vaccines? Why is it so impossible to show a causal chain that proves how incredibly dangerous these vaccines are without referring to a system that only collect reports without any further investigation to prove any relational connection let alone a causal chain? Be careful not to be tangled up in specific thoughts that you have not verified yet and just only project malice behind it. Again this talk about incentives is very far from proving any specific point, you guys will have to work more than to just stay on that level of abstraction. Also again the idea or the implication that people who are working at these institutions will just shut their mouth and will do anything and everything as long as they paid is start to get more and more ridiculous if we start to increase the scale and if we mention the fact that money is only one motivatior of human decisionmaking and behaviour and once we start to talk about the incompetency of humans (how we will unintentionall leak stuff or say stuff that we shouldn't) then we realize how mass scale any collaboration is just ridiculous.

Institutions don't exist in a vacuum - they are in a system where there are parts and other institutions that are incentivised to expose if other institutions are doing something fishy especially if we start to talk about an international scale. Just only from a market perspective, if they can shit on other companies or institutions they will be able to dominate the market more and earn more trust from people, so they have all the incentive to do so. The idea that institutions will collaborate on an international scale (where they hide things or mislead with things) is unlikely based on how incapable people are at keeping secrets and doing their job without leaks and mistakes. Have to understand here, that there are a bunch of regular people working at institutions and in the government who are not special and they are very prone to make mistakes and to leak stuff (just look at the bar what you need to become a president or just talk to people who have a job inside an insititution or inside the government), so the idea that none of these people would actually expose any mass scale lie or collaboration is basically impossible. Suggesting that certain parts of the government or certain institutions that can lie or hide things for some time is one thing, suggesting that it is likely that it has been happening on a multinational scale (especially if you add a timeline that is multiple year long) is a completely different claim that requires insane level of work, collaboration, expertise without anyone leaking anything tangible about the collaborative process. So for you to distrust the studies and the data about the vaccines you would have to suggest that there has been happening a mass scale conspiracy against people where all nations are collaborating and injecting people with vaccines just to earn money, and not even one country or institutions will expose the others with a well conducted study. If you don't think that there is a mass scale conspiracy and or collaboration when it comes to covid vaccines ,then how do you explain why haven't China or Russia exposed the extreme dangers of the vaccines that came from the US? and also besides all of that, pointing out that someone or something has certain incentives to do something is very far from proving how they are lieing when it comes to specific questions or claims. There are others things that just surface level incentives that drive human decisionmaking and behaviour (ie politics, morals, ideology). So making an analysis or decision just purely looking at the incentives imo is not wise, you have to look at whatever claim or suggestion is made and deeply investigate independently each and every one of them. You need to provide evidence for the specific lies or dishonesty or specific corruption regarding specific questions and claims, you can't just assume that what they suggest or say is automatically wrong or dishonest.

No way. Starting from a position where there is a mass scale conspiracy against people ,where all institutions on a multinational scale can collaborate in an organized, mallicious way - thats a position where its impossible to move that person even 1mm - its like saying you are in a matrix where everyone is against you.

If you seriously think that institutions are corrupt to the core (like there is a mass scale maliciousness towards people and or you can't trust any data that comes from any institution lets be it scientific or anything else), then I have no idea how to begin to have a productive conversation with you or how to ground any conversation with you or how to move you even a little from that position.

I don't know if he has a claim that hits that level (maybe his claims about 5G ), the point was to demonsrate how hard it is to debate people, who have different epistemic standards compared to you and he in fact has and had a different epistemic standard comapred to the scientific consensus based on the claims he provided for instance: If you read those through above you will find claims, that are contradictory to the scientific consensus and conspiratiorial or at the very best is not suggested to be true by the scientific consensus - which means he used an epistemic method that doesn't involve the scientific consensus to reach his conclusions - which also means that you can't convince him using scientific studies, therefore the debate is either impossible because you can't use studies to move his position on those matters or you will be debating with anecdotes which is a waste of time. When you check one of his claims about covid19 vaccines that "the vaccine clearly killed x thousand number of people" and if you investigate what epistemic process he used to make that claim, you will see how dishonest he is: He used the VAERS database to make that claim, and if you look up the VAERS database, there they will tell you that the reports there shouldn't be taken as fact. Now if your own source tells you how unreliable the data is and you still use that for your arguments - that shows either that you haven't done any serious reading on the subject and haven't even read even on a surface level your own data (which also shows a lack of commitment and standard to try to be as true as possbile) or it shows that you are dishonest or it shows that you are so far removed epistemically from reality that you need to paint big pictures in order to hold up your delusional reality. If you look at the LondonReal video that I sent you above you will see that he hits almost all the points that a conspiratorial nut says and how a conspiratorial nut thinks - always assuming some mass conspiracy and malice towards people. Now the question becomes how the fuck can you even start having a conversation let alone a debate with a person like that?

1) Its clear that you have never had a debate with a person who has completely different epistemic standards and axioms compared to you. Lets see you debunk a claim like this: Lizard people are running the world from behind the scenes. Good luck having an easy debunk! 2) Many people have offered to debate RFK, but Joe is yet to choose from one of them.

This was a painful debate. The amount of rambling and lack of engagement the two women displayed was fascinating. Those 200 dollar donations where they said "77777777777777777" were also fascinating. Who the fuck spends 200$ to say that? ? this edit ? : https://streamable.com/7rrqvb

Dont worry, Im out. Enjoy your thread.

What Tate doing anything wrong???? Are you out of your mind?? Our God - that we should all devote our whole life to defend and follow and of course worship - cannot do anything wrong , and even if he could, who cares bro, he speaks the truth. Who cares if he does any unlawful or immoral thing - he is our God therefore he is the one who defines what is moral, and he is the one who tell us what we should think and how we should think about things Bless and follow our lord top G -and if you didnt know - G stands for God with a capital G

Sure, lets see how others will interpret your message.

@Carl-Richard You are a treadmill guy aren't you? (and this whole thread is just a rationalization so that you don't need to go outside for a run) just jking

If you think the above is just a regular follower behaviour, then I don't know what to tell you.