zurew

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.

What do you mean, he would just over-extend. He can use the same 'nuclear threat' as an excuse to achieve whatever he wants, even if he is severely damaged militarily. - This is why I say that this logic, that oh noo he is threatning with nukes, therefore we need to do whatever he says is not as smart as it first seems. A line has to be drawn.

You are assuming that Russia will stop at conquering Ukraine, but why would Putin stop there? If Putin can see, that he can do whatever he wants (he just need to threaten with nuclear war), then he can use that card whenever he wants to achieve whatever he wants, this is exactly why there are lines that needs to be drawn.

So again, all those statisitcs that I know of, are not strengthening your point, only proves that there is a difference, but that difference can be explained in many ways using many variables, so for you to prove that genetics is the main factor you would have to exclude many things.

But why do you assume, that thats the case? What reasons do you have to assume this?

Those doesn't prove your conclusion. Those things only prove that there are differences, but doesn't explain why those differences are occuring.

This is where most of your disagreement lies with people. People who disagreed with you are using the word 'value' in a totally different way than you. When they say value they refer to economic value. They don't use it "how it should be" , but "how it is" now. So most of the disagreement here was about description vs presciption.

Yeah lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. It might be somewhat true or 100% true what he is saying , but if thats the case - he is doing a poor job of exposing it. Regarding Leo's comment on Greer would have been dead if what he says is true, thats not necessarily the case. Assuming what Greer says or parts of what he says is true, I think it would counterintuitively bring more attention to this and people would think that this is indeed true, because they could say "look Greer died in weird circumstances after he made those big claims". I guess regarding my comment on keeping stuff secret, CIA can keep documents classified for a long period of time, so there are ways to do that, so it isn't impossible, but the problem is that even those cases I think some information is still leaked or some evidence. I don't know how to properly make sense of Greer's claims, but one thing is for sure, that because of the lack of evidence I don't see reasons to believe him, but this might change later.

Biggest problem with this, is the lack of evidence. According to his theory there are powerful elites and secret groups that are extremely powerful and powerful enough the hide all these things so much that there is not one tangible document or image or video evidence about any of these crafts or about these powerful tech or about any alien. So in one hand you have these extremely powerful groups and people that are able to keep all these things in secret, but these groups and elites are not powerful enough to prevent these narratives from coming out or from certain information leaking. So why is the case that information can be leaked in theory form but not in any image or video or document format? Also, how is that possible to keep these thing secret for so many years without anything tangible leaking? (We arent just talking about 10 or 20 years we are talking about probably 50-60+ years.)

@Danioover9000 I couldn't find it manually either, I had to use a chrome extension to find it. Its called YCS (youtube comment search)

There are many potential problems. Firstly, it would make the voting system less decentralized so it would be easier to make the system even more corrupt, because you wouldn't need to impact as many people to make the system in your favour, just a little fraction of it. With this change, you would probably give the rich even more option and a relatively easy option to optain more power and money. Secondly, why would those people would care about certain systemic issues, if those aren't directly affecting them? Just because those people would be more educated or open minded that doesn't necessarily mean ,that they would value the same things as others, so there is a possibility, that most of your most cared problems wouldn't be addressed at all or they would be addressed very poorly. - If people think that they don't have any chance to have an impact on things they value the most, then the next step will probably contain riots and violence. Thirdly, (I think one of the biggest problems) is how would you measure who is capable to vote and what test would you use to filter people? Because I don't think the biggest weight here is on education, but more on wisdom. The reason why I say that education probably wouldn't be the biggest weight in your equation, because there are intances of highly educated people having really out there political opinions, that are not necessarily aligned with reality. If you want to select for wise people, the problem is that you can't really measure wisdom, so the filtering process would be really hard or basically impossible. If you create any finite test to filter people , then its relatively easy to learn the necessary things to pass the test. But learning just the necessary things to get through that finite test won't guarantee, that the person who passed it will be actually educated or wise.

Leo's comment:

@Leo Gura So, what goal(s) could we achieve in your system, that would be unlikely or impossible in a system without death penalty? What thing(s) would be better statistically?

The thing is you don't know, and you have to accept that. It might be the case, that it would have much more upside than downside, or the opposite, but you don't know that, so you are committing yourself to the unknown. Maybe there is such a thing as reincarnation, maybe there isn't. Even if there is such a thing as reincarnation, why would it be guaranteed that your next life would contain less suffering than the previous one? There are many other assumption baked into your questions. Why would you assume, that if there is such a thing as reincarnation, that you would only reincarnate to Earth, or that you would only reincarnate as a human, or that your suicide won't have any karmic consequences?

There is a difference between assumed upsides and known upsides, where there is a direct causality between the action and the consequence. (in this case, the consequence is the upside) A lot of people are doing dumb stuff assuming they will get a certain upside from it. To prove this point, I can give an example related to making money, where a lot of people get lured in and they believe, that they can get rich easily by some get rich quick scheme.

I guess depeds on for what reason(s) you do it. If its for moral reasons, then there is not much to argue there. if you would only do it for health reasions, then yeah, you might not have so much reason to go for it, but that is different from the original claim, that veganism or vegetarianism is not healthy. I am not necessarily against supplementing, do you and if you are , why? what do you mean by not the rule? When you are talking about vegans or vegetarians you are already selecting from a small group of people, and if you combine that with the criteria of them being a bodybuilder then you narrow it down even more. So to compare those numbers is not the best way to do a comparison, I think you would get a more precise comparison if you would compare them by % and not by numbers.

So again, I agree with the point you wrote above, but that alone doesn't prove your argument. I can accept that piece of information above and say that "yes IQ can be defined, measured, tested, replicated but there are environmental factors that can affect IQ, so I am not sure if the reason why Jew's IQ is higher than other groups is mainly because of their genetics". Yes, and I say it again, that I am not married to the explanation that environment is the main reason why, there is a difference between Jews and other groups of people when it comes to IQ. So, again we can't argue on points if you don't accept certain underlying points. Most scientist agree, that the quality of study and how much you study can affect your level of IQ, but if you don't accept that, then we can't argue on further points. On this case, I don't see why can't you accept that piece of information, what I wrote above. Why is the case, that you blindly believe certain pieces of information (that the Jews IQ is 112) when you have never measured it yourself, you just take that for granted, and when I show you a different peice of information that is pretty much widely agreed upon, you can't accept it. In order for you to accept that the Jews actually have 112IQ you would have to take for granted many things, because you haven't validated any of these things yourself, so you just blindly believe in all these: That there is such a thing as IQ That IQ can be measured That IQ can be precisely measured That IQ actually correlates well with good grades and good performance in school That the study that you are using to inform you about Jews having 112 IQ measured their IQ correctly and that they didn't do any mistake intentionally or unintentionally That data that was used to conclude that an average Jew has 112IQ So lets get back to your "observation" regarding those points above and tell me: What did you observe about any of those? How can you possibly observe that there is such a thing as IQ? How can you observe on your own, that the reason why certain students will be good in school is because they probably have high IQ? How do you know, that an IQ can be measured in the firstplace, when you have never built an IQ test and you don't even know how it should be built and why, How can you observe what method(s) and test(s) need to be used to properly measure IQ? How can you observe that Jews really have 112 IQ or not, when you didn't do the measuring yourself, and you didn't collect the data yourself So this is not a good argument either. Yes, scientist changed their positions on many many topics, but that doesn't mean that there were other people who were doing better sensemaking and a more reliable epistemic process compared to them. Most people who didn't agree ,they didn't have a good reasioning why they didn't agree with those scientist and they couldn't prove their points they just believed in the opposite what the scientist said or they were just simply religious. So its not just about whether you are right or not at that time or in the current times, its about whether your epistemic process is more reliable than the scientific method when it comes to specific subjects. My claim is that your own observation is much more unreliable and problematic on many occasions and instances. There are several reasons why: Everyone has their own biases and those could be called blindspots because you can't see them in many cases. More people can see more things because most people have different biases, so why not let more people do an analysis compared to you doing just everything on your own with biases you can't see? In most of the cases, to get to your consclusion just on your own: you would have to have emourmous amount of knowledge in specific fields, you would have to have all the measurements, all the data, all the neccesary equipment to do the calculations and the measurements with. So if you don't have any of those, you have to accept the fact, that you need to rely on outside information and that you can't validate everything just on your own. Even if you have the first two parts in place, you would still need to validate a thousand more points on your own, so for istance, if you ever want to use any source to inform your reasoning, then you have to either validate every piece of information from that source, or you have to take certain pieces of information from that source for granted, that you have no way to validate or to measure. Now, that being said does that mean, that you have to hold in every instance the positions that most scientists hold? No, especially not, when it comes to philosophical and spiritual questions, but when it comes to scientific fields there will be information that you cannot possibly validate on your own, so you will have to take certain things for granted and you have to be aware of that and you have to accept that. You have never observed the Earth from space, so you can not be sure how it looks. You try to use the reason that the reason why you don't believe the Earth is flat is because you don't see the edge, but that doesn't prove your point. It could mean that you haven't been close to the edge, or "some models propose that the Earth’s edges are surrounded by a wall of ice holding in the oceans. Others suggest our flat planet and its atmosphere are encased in a huge, hemispherical snow globe from which nothing can fall off the edges" Good luck properly debunking with your layman knowledge all the flat earth claims. So to conclude the Earth is not flat because I can't see the edge is not as good of a reasoning as you think it is. Also you not being able to see the edge doesn't prove that the Earth shape have to be an ellipsoid, because there are many geometric forms that have round edges and just from your reasoning there is a possiblity that the Earth's shape could be any of those. So just to be clear, I am not a flat earther, I just wanted to show you, that debunking certain information is really hard, and sometimes you have to be an expert to properly debunk certain claims and information. In most cases, you would have to be a physics phd to be able to properly explain to a flat earther everything in a coherent way with no mistakes or inconsistencies. There is a difference between letting others to reason for you vs letting others to inform you. In this specific instance, I let scientist to inform me about this topic, and the "informing" in this case means me accepting that the environment has a significant impact when it comes to IQ. If I accept that information, then of course I won't automatically accept your reasoning that "it must be mainly because of their genetics" without you giving proof that the environment is not that significant or proof that even if we count most environment factors Jews still have higher IQ-s or proof that young Jew kids have higher IQ-s than other kids - thats 3 different ways to prove your point or to strengthen your point. In the case of you visiting doctors, why do you drop your observations and why let doctors to outsource your thinking?

The purpose of "ifs" and hypotheticals is to test whether you would be willing to change your position or not if certain aspects and criteria would be in place. Thats the first part that have to be in place, because its not reasonable to try to argue on a point if there is no way to change your mind. The second part would be about arguing on those points whether or not a vegan or a vegetarian diet would really meat your criteria(s). So we go from abstract to tangible. If you don't even agree on an abstract level (in principles, in certain criteria) you sure as hell won't agree on a tangible level.

Good share, thanks!

I am not a vegetarian or a vegan, but they are superior when it comes to morality. If I were to test the consistency of your moral system regarding this topic, more than likely you would either have to take a ridiculous position or your morality wouldn't be consistent. - So trying to dunk on their morality is stupid, imo. I don't think anyone is using the same logic you are suggesting here. If you try to point to contradictions in positions, then ask for positions and then point to contradicitions, don't make up hypothetical positions on your own, that no one takes.

Regarding to your wikipedia link, yes, there are and there were problems regarding to that, but its nowhere near as bad as you want to make it look like. If you want to compare the reliability of your own observations to scientific papers, then you must be incredibly narcissistic to always choose your own "observation" in scenarios, where basically most scientist are disagreeing with you and you have almost no data in your hand and you have no process to properly or reliably process any data. Regarding you trying to dunk on my reasoning is very funny, because you clearly don't see the logical jump that you are making ,when you try to "reason". "Jews have higher IQ than others, therefore it must be because of their genetics, because I just assume that the environment don't have any significant impact on IQ levels" --> "I assume that the environment don't have any significant impact on IQ, regardless of most scientist and expert not agreeing with me on this, but I don't care, because my observation is more reliable than the vast majority of research that was done by experts" You think this is a good or strong point, right? Let me test your epistemic process by asking you this question: Do think the Earth's shape is flat or that it is an ellipsoid? Will you tell me, that you proved and used mathematics on your own to prove , that the Earth shape is an ellipsoid, or will you tell me, that you are blindly believing scientist and organisations that are providing the knowledge, and the pictures to you about the Earth's shape? Or will you tell me, that regarding to every topic and every belief and opinion you hold ,none of those will ever be replaced by any outside opinion, or stats or hypothesis, but only by you testing everything on your own, and thats the only way that you will ever take an action or will trust anything? If the answer is no, because that must be the answer, then you can realise, that your attempt of trying to dunk on people (including me) when it comes to specific topics, just because we trust science on those topics, is not necessarily that dumb or bad, as you first suggested . That has little to do with the topic at hand. I don't know if its suprising to you or not, but even Leo is trusting science on many instances, where he doesn't have the time nor the capability nor the capacity nor enough knowledge to test everything on his own.

Why would betaing anyone at anything would have anything to do with health? I can use PEDs and I can beat you at most things, but that doesn't mean I am more healthy than you. Lets get into specifics, what a vegan or a vegetarian is missing when he/she is not eating meat?

Thanks for the share!

Yes. There are multiple reasons could be given why it will possibly happen. It seems others already gave the 'lab meat' reason. Other reason will be about the environment, because its less harsh on the environment. Other reason is the basic one (morality). From these, probably the lab meat and the environment will be the biggest motivating factors.