zurew

Yeah , if there is something to be found MrGirl will definitely dig it up, hopefully his video will be uploaded before Christmas.

I don't think you can be a political streamer and be a normal person psychologically. Even if you don't have an agressive personality you still get a lot of harrassment, especially if you are a big political streamer, especially if you have your own opinions with your own thoughtprocess where you get attacked from both the left and the right heavily. Even if you are a normal streamer and when you become big, you still get a lot of attacks, and I think almost all streamers who are not narcissist or sociopaths or psychopaths and big have a lot of mental problems because they can't handle that much pressure. This is true, but being a political streamer still brings a ton of hate and attack that normal people couldn't handle. I think this analogy is not good, because the damage is nowhere near the same as in the case of a child rapist. Imo, Destiny mostly causing damage to Melina (just for clarification, of course he cause damage to others, however that damage is not greater than a regular fuckboy's damage imo) so at the end of the day, I can imagine him participating in society in a normal way if we ignore Melina. Regarding to Melina, I think Destiny being a big political streamer and them being in an open relationship causing more psychological damage to Melina compared to the damage Destiny cause with being cold and a narcissist. I think if you want to argue about damage causation, then you should force him to stop being a political streamer, because as I earlier mentioned that brings more damage to their relationship imo, than his bad traits.

Yeah, I generally agree with this message, but in this instance him being sociopathic is greatly beneficial to him as far as his career goes (Imagine a normal person psychologically enduring the stuff he went through and what he goes through [including multiple death threats, multiple FBI investigations, multiple hate threads, DDOS attacks , getting a lot of false accusations(Im not including the mr girl one, because we don't know if he is right or not) and so on]). I know, we could argue that the reason why he had to and has to go trough stuff like that, is because him being aggressive etc etc, but I don't think much would change after his healing. It seems to me, that he has an aggressive personality, he likes to argue a lot, he likes the attention and he likes to be controversial, I don't think those aspects would dissappear after therapy or after a healing process. Maybe you could argue that after healing he would dial these things down a little bit and I think I would agree with that. There are 2 branches that I see with his healing process: If he is genuinly a psycho or a sociopath then real healing is not possible as far as I know, but he can become better with therapy and with certain meds so he is not as damaging to society and to his friends and to his close relationships.(In this case, I don't really see how this would be negative for him, because he would still have his thick skin, so in this case this would be a good choice without a doubt) If he is not a sociopath nor a psychopath, but an unconsciously highly repressed person with a lot of traumas, then healing could do a lot of damage to him as far as his career goes (assuming his current 'mode' couldn't be turned on ever again), if his current mode could be turned on and off(I think Dr K mentioned, that it is possible), then healing would be the best option for him and for everyone else. Now, assuming that if he goes through a healing process his current thick skin would dissappear forever and because of that probably his current streaming career would be destroyed, would you say that its still justified to demand from him to heal? So in this instance he would have a destroyed career on one hand and if he choose the other path, he would have the never ending creation of psychological damage on the other hand to mostly Melina (unless he has a partner who is also highly into drama and who is also an almost complete sociopath). If this assumption is false then the choice is obvious (heal up because everyone benefits from it and there is no career loss).

Its interesting to see Daniel and John to have a convo from 1:41:21 (never saw them having a convo before).

Its fucking mindblowing what these things capable of doing. You can learn the most advanced manipulation and mind control techniques from parasites.

In that case not just open relationships, but don't pursue any relationship where those things are applied. If your potential partner is very different to you in those things, your relationship won't work.

I probably agree, but a 1000 different examples could be given where the same logic could be applied, where one person in a relationship is valueing something that hurts the other person, and even though this person could change that behaviour, he won't, because he value doing that particular thing over the relationship (regardless of what he values, the same logic is applied). This kind of double-bind problem could rise in a lot of relationships because almost no one will tell every bad thing about themselves on the first date and sometimes you couldn't even evaulate certain values as objectively wrong, because some people like it , others don't. That being said, I agree that his instance is kind of unique, because he has a lot of sociopathic tendencies, just that combined with 'I won't negotiate' could be very damaging for any person, who has a romantic relationship with him or even a close friend relationship. At the end of the day, the question is, where do we want to draw the line, when it comes to the causation of stress and suffering to your partner by doing things that are highly valuable to you. At what point you can say, that there is no negotiation when it comes to this particular thing, because its just essential to your life. I'm sure almost everyone has his/her own thing that is not really negotiable even if it causes suffering to your social life/relationships.

Would you say that it is a trap or manipulation, when you get told from the beginning how everything is going to go down (that he is self centered, he is very cold, he mostly cares about himself, and that he won't change etc)? - or in other words, lets say you have the same qualities Destiny has, and then you want to get into a new relationship. Given, that you don't want to change and that you won't change (and you told that to her from the beggining), how can you be less manipulative about it? Btw just to be clear, I don't agree with this behaviour, because it can be very damaging for the other party.

That was his position from the beginning if I remember correctly. People always doubt what he says about himself in the beginning of a relationship (about being super cold, not caring, being self centered, focusing on his own goals and work ) etc, and then after some time they realize that he was right all along.

I think almost everyone is attracted to narcissists (including myself), because they are so confident and unshakable confidence is very attractive (not just sexually, but on a social level).

So just because you know how to have sex, you suddenly know what the ramification of sex? Just because you have a nose and you know how to use your nose, you know what the ramification is, if for instance you snort coke? What does that mean, that animals can understand sex? They know from their instinct how to have sex, but thats far from understanding the ramifications. Speaking of religions, earlier in this thread you said, that being a pedo was considered okay back then, because people could marry with underaged children. Thats not true, thats only true when it comes to certain religions like Islam. I don't think you believe that we should derive our collective morals from a holybook. Its sort of arbitrary, but not totally. Do you think that generally speaking a 10-12 year old child has the same level of maturity, brain development, has the same level of knowledge about relationship dynamics as an 18 year old? The argument is not necessarily about trauma, although I think we should take into account that aspect as well, the real problem is ,that children can't properly consent to have sex with an adult, because of huge power differences including physical and mental as well and because in the vast majority of the cases, children are immature and don't know the ramifications of most of their actions, thats why their parents are responsible for their kid's action. One thing we know for sure, is that as time goes by you have the potientiality to mature, and that can't be denied. Thats a dynamic that can be observed everywhere.

Unnecessary white knighting.

Give it three month and we will see whether Randall's claim about that tech leak is true or not. Yeah, they didn't show any evidence plus the narrative is weak as well. If what they say is true, then they need to do a better job at presenting these ideas . They already don't have a good reputation when it comes to academia and mainstream science, so they shouldn't destroy it even more, with teasing without no evidence. If they want more attention on this and if they want more people to work on this, then they should do a better job at leaking it in a way where it is more believable for scientists and academics. At the end of the day, if what he says is true, then it shouldn't be hard to show tangible evidence, because so far its just teasing with nothing behind it.

When you play a videogame, and there are human characters in it and they imitate real human behaviour perfectly, do you say that they actually have an identity or no?

If you say that everything is conscious, then the conversation should be about the levels (of how concious that particular thing is). I assume you wouldn't say, that a rock is as conscious as a human or would you? Just because everything is consciousness, that doesn't tell us anything about how conscious that particular 'piece' of consciousness is. It doesn't tell you how conscious a rock is vs a human. I don't think assuming or knowing the nature of Everything or Reality is helpful to answer this thread's question. Even if a human and a cheetah is consciousness in their nature, in their essence, they still have different capabilities and possibilities in the relative world and this thread's question aims to ask a question regarding to the relative domain.

The other study isn't relevant, because we aren't talking about skeletal muscle, we are talking about intelligence and brain, unless you can magically connect the two. When it comes to sample size, of course they don't need to measure 7 billion people, but having less than 100 people participating in your experiment is very problematic, especially, when it comes to a subject like this, where you are talking about neurology and intelligence and both fields are extremely complicated. Trying to confidently isolate certain variables with a sample size like this is impossible. Also your study talking about environmental factors having effects on the brain and on the development of the brain, but when it comes to this experiment results, the methodology don't accounts any of that. These people were self reporting their ethnicity, we don't know anything else about them. This study doesn't controll for any of the environmental factors that are known and that could affect these results. This point is still remained to be demonstrated between whites and blacks.

If someone wants to look up the study about brain structures, here is a link to it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/ I guess you purposefully didn't give us the link to that study, because it would have made your point look worse. If you read the methodology you find this: We are talking about an incredibly small sample size, and I don't think you can grab that and then use that to correctly represent the difference(s) between whole groups and races. Even if we were to take all this for granted, you are still very far away from proving your original point. Your study talking about African Americans having smaller total cerebral volume than Caucasians. However, even if that is all true and this study is representative of the races, here is a thing you have to consider: You have to demonstrate how the difference in certain brain structure would manifest in reality when it comes to intelligence and how would it manifest when it comes to IQ. Find a study that contains more than 77 individuals because that sample size is like a drop of water from the ocean. This is from your study and I guess you didn't read these parts:

I honestly can't tell anymore, whether you are actually serious or you are just a massive troll.

What embarassing is, that since you started this thread you haven't been able to provide one evidence that would support your point. Throwing around statistics that shows IQ gap between races and groups says nothing about causality and causes - I am suprised that you still don't understand this point, even though this is obvious. Im sorry my guy, no one will make the arguments for you. You were the one who made big claims on this topic, you are the one with a conclusion and you are the one who is 100% certain in his position, so lets see at least 1 evidence that support your claim(s).

You still haven't provided anything that would suggest that there would still be significant differences. Words like 'extremely likely' and 'obvious' are doing the heavylifting for you without being anything tangible behind them.

You still haven't proven anything, but If your assumption on this topic would be true, what would you do with that information? What would it change?

Its interesting, that you tried to paint a picture about yourself as being "objective" and "scientific", and it seems like that your position can't be moved at all, because you just refute anything that goes against your narrative and you have a defensive response to anything that doesn't agree with you. Notice, that you haven't done any significant research about this topic, and you try to justify your position afterwards you already made up your mind about it (this is not just an assumption, because if you would have done significant research, you would have changed your position or you would have provided your strongest evidence already). You didn't reason your way to arrive at your position, you just assumed your position of being true, and now you trying to backfill it with rationalization.

Its interesting to see how normal people react to tier 2 ideas. Btw, brilliant video.