zurew

So you are telling me , that when it comes to your other claims you have nothing to backed them up and your just made them the fuck up? If you go with that "I can't show evidence or studies, because they have all been censored in the past 3 years" - the only thing you are communicating to me with that, is that you are making up numbers without being able to ground them.

"I am really smart guys, thankfully i am not a sheep like those dumb vaxxed guys, i have my own unique opinions and I do my own research on youtube. All my thinking process can be boiled down to anything that is anti mainstream"

So you want to dig into these things? Let me see first your cited studies about your claims.

"ohh dude look around you, more people are dying nowadays than in the past - therefore vaccines are bad". Really smart my dude, your epistemic process is shit and there is nothing more to say about it.

"observant person" - makes light year steps in logic. This brain rot has to stop. I guess before the covid vaccine people have never died or fall to the ground.

*brain rot take.

Sneako is such a bot. His mind is so rotten from the anti mainstream - anti matrix bullshit narrative.

All of this talk is grounded in subjective valuesystems, you have no upperhand.

More people can earn more money collectively and because they have more money, they can have more freedom in deciding how they want to spend their time, so basically they can manage their relationship better. So you agree , that for some (even if the number is really low,) but for some people this type of relationship can work. Again, the logical extenstion to this logic is that it eventually leads to not having a family, children and abandoning every friendship, because then you can maximize your time with your one partner. I assume, you wouldn't advocate for that, so we can recognize that it is all about where you draw your line. You are talking about power dynamics and every relationship has its own power dynamics, and that alone is not a net negative or negative. I will ask the question again: If there is an individual who is okay with higher chance of cathing stds and is okay with not having kids, why shouldn't he pursue a poly relationship?

Thats totally depends on how it is set up, and on the dynamics that are in that relationship. Again depending on the situation it could be argued that people in a poly relatonship can distribute more than in a monogamous relationship in other cases they can't, but again it totally depends and not a question of polyamory or monogamous relationship.

I already addressed this point if you read further. If you have a problem with time , wealth and emotional distribution and cost, then you essentially making an argument against having a big family and having friends, because you spend your time, money, and emotional faculties in those cases as well.

You can have distributed wealth if you want to and you can build more and bigger things if all of you are working together because you can accumulate more resources. Don't have to source things, but it would be good if you could list thing at least on an abstract level, I don't think it too much to ask for, when you claimed that you have things. I saw you mentioned STD-s but if a person is okay with catching certain std-s and if that person has safe sex whats your argument against that? Most std-s can be cured anyway. Also to be clear, I wouldn't be in a poly relationship, or wouldn't suggest it to most people, but that doesn't mean that its impossible to make it work or that everyone should follow one rule and one type of relationship, when it might not fit to every person What do you mean by you won't get deep, do you mean that you can't have multiple meaningful realtionships, because of the lack of time? If thats your point I don't think thats true.Iif that would be true,then you wouldn't have time to create meaningful relationship with other parts of your family because of the lack of time, and you basically would make an argument with that point against creating a big family. Your point applies exactly the same to polyamorous relationships as well. "it doesn't matter if you think that or not as long as you figure the relationship out and stay there or brake up if it doesn't work at all." So whats is your argument when it comes to individuals? What If there is a person who is okay with an increased chance of catching std-s and this person doesn't want a family? Also your reasoning about poly relationship couldn't raise kids is not necessarily true. You mentioned lack of time, but time can be managed in different ways and to suggest that its impossible to manage time to focus on kids is not true. In a monogamous relationship parents can work all day without focusing on their kids or without paying much attention to their kids. Its a question of how much attention you pay to the kids regardless of polyamory or monogamous relationship. So that point is not exclusive to polyamory either. The golden rule sometimes counterproductive to people and can make them miserable. There is no one fits for all system all of that is naive and eventually fails and can create more problems than solutions. If you want to go with the logic of "you might signal something that is harmful and people would try it regardless of how harmful it is" you would have to apply that to everything and that is not stable, I don't think you believe in that logic. Also harmful can be defined is multiple ways, and when people and society make choices we don't only look at the negatives (and that alone can change depending on from what pov you make you analysis), but we look at the benefits as well.

Why? Would be curious about the evidence. almost none of your points is exclusive to polyamory and could be applied to monogamous people as well. The concept of selfishness is a question of pov. It could be argued that if you are into monogamous relationships you are more selfish because you want to own your partner and want to lock your partner to your own values and desires. Most people don't want to be in a polyamorous relationship so the 'scaling it to a global level' is not a problem. What if a random individual wants to be in a poly relationship?

Why do you assume that vaccination has anything to do with this incident?

If thats the case, God should be capable to give you free will.

I didn't say that it is evidence, i just gave a response to your narrative, where you implied that even entertaining the possibility that he would do something like that makes no sense at all, or that it is almost completely out of reach.

Is it impossible to imagine that there are people in the world, who don't act in a perfectly rational way all the time and their narcissism sometimes can overwrite their rationality, and sometimes they will do and say some shit that won't lead to the best calculated outcome(s)?

What about the part where he said that he did some shady shit in the past, and he flushed his phone down the toilet when the police came, and what about the part where he said that he didn't let his women to go out anywhere? This is of course is not evidence, but it seems that top g did his own self snitching by being vaguely vocal about his shady past.

I guess the most genius and intelligent way to tackle with any question or problem is to invoke the absolute, and then virtue signal that we are so wise and spiritual.

Those two things is not necessarily mutually exclusive. There are stepping stones here, that need to be recognized. Its clear that rules can work at some places and rules are the best we have at some places.

I like the "make teachers be transparent by their own code of ethics. I don't agree with the 'as many code as you like'. I think there should be a minimum number that must cover certain things like teacher-student realtionship. It would make it so that teachers could be hold accountable to standards that they have given to themselves.

When I say "the alternative is worse" I mean the alternative when we don't do shit, if you have better ideas, then say them.