zurew

One selfish calls the other one selfish,its a judgement coming from another ego. We can phrase selfishness in a different way though: We are not selfish, rather we are expressing God in our own unique ways. You are phrasing this in a way, where there is no room left for free fill. God is everything all the good and evil combined, there is nothing that is not God. Being in a certain way is not selfish its just Is. The value judgement can only come from a finite being (ego). Judgements can be practical sometimes but they aren't universal and you don't have to take them seriously even if they come from Leo. By definition having a finite ego, you can't live up to God's standards because you are limited to a certain structure and you can't express Absoluteness as a finite ego. You can work on being less selfish and getting closer to God, that would be the point of spirituality and this is what Leo is pointing to when he is calling you selfish. He is selfish as well, but he wants his viewers to do the work and to embody love and spirituality as much as they can. Although, on the other hand you can realize your True nature and understand yourself and the world fully, but at that point, there will be no one else to judge because you will realize that you are Everything.

I think the only other option we can speculate about is China. But if its not China then i don't see how most of those UFO-s could be explained rationally. If anyone have a better story that could explain any of the new UFO cases i would be curious about those takes. However, i am not really interested in takes where the arguments come from a very biased place and really hardly trying to ignore other possibilties. For instance (1)watching a video and assuming its a bird, then trying to cherrypick data and trying really hard to make your argument stronger ( I think this attitude is dishonest and biased) vs (2)Watching the video, collecting all the facts and then trying to explore all the possibilities. in the (1) that particular person immediately jumped to a biased position and was trying to backfill his claims with rationality (and didn't start from an unbiased position and tried to use rationality to arrive somewhere or to explore all the possibilities) in the (2) that particular person was coming from an unbiased positon and didn't come to any conclusions until he really explored all the possibilities he can, and he would not exclude any possibilities until he is proven otherwise. Saying that they are 100% not aliens with a very high confidence is really dishonest and biased just as saying they are 100% aliens. Just because aliens can't fit in your worldview that does not mean, that you are right. Reality doesn't revolve around your beliefs about reality.

https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/vasectomy-side-effects#shortterm-effects

Your description and the story sounds interesting. What are the top 5 anime in your opinion?

God still can't check outside himself. He can only check on himself.

Could you please describe, how that system works and looks like? Yes i sort of agree, but i wouldn't necessarily choose dictatorship over democracy. In a hypothetical i might choose a dictator if that dictator would be a highly conscious dictator, otherwise i would stay with democracy. But if we are talking about a hypothetical scenario where i could choose between good democracy vs good dictatorship, then i would choose good democracy for the reasons i gave @itachi uchiha.

I see, so you value efficiency over individual freedom? Good example for you would be China, i think.

Showing off the good genetics

Now we are talking, and yes you are totally right. If you want to use that to justify your position thats fine. But i am not convinced yet about your position. Right now our 'debate' is about this. You prefer individual freedom over another potential kids life , who will be miserable and will die young (who will have an incurable disease, and will live with it in his/her entire [short] life). ---> that is a position that you are fighting for right now. I gave a silly hypothetical to see if you draw your line somewhere, not necessarily to trap you. I know this is not necessarily going to happen in real life (however we can't know, but it is sure an unlikely example). The reason for the hypothetical to test your moral system in practice, and for me to see what your position is. If you would have asked me my own hypothetical my answer would have been ,that i would only regulate other people life in this instance, if i would knew 100% beforehand that their child will inherit a deadly disease that i know beforehand is incurable. In other cases i would not regulate anything about it.

Yeah i know that, i know the limits and the consequences of a democratic system where people are polarised and when corrupt people in power. However the question was, why would you prefer a 'good dictatorship' over a 'good democracy'? Lets say both systems outcome is the same, i would still prefer 'good democracy' for the reasons i mentioned above.

Basically the consequence of your moral system is that people can give birth to children who they know beforehand 100% they will have deadly diseases and they will suffer those consequences and will die young. That is okay in your moral world. If your are totally okay with that , thats fine.

We were talking about a moral system, you gave your justification. Using that justification to justify your moral system comes with consequences that you should be able to defend.

I see, so there is no line. So killing rapeing robbing torturing is allowed in your system, because everyone will die and suffer anyway.

I see, thanks. That was an informative video.

That looks rough. If i were a local car mechanic i would pay for the road builders not to repair any road, because more cars will be fucked up as time goes on and they will come to me and i could earn more money. But jokes aside, why those roads are not being repaired at all? (is it because those roads are not that freqently used, or for other reasons)?

Do you hold the same position as Rokazulu, or you can imagine a circumstance where you would say that it could be justified?

Not just that, but lets say you know 100% that they will die and suffer because of that inherited disease. Even in that case would you still say, that according to your morality that particular person should be allowed to have his/her own children? (testing where your line is, because you said, that there is no circumstance that could justify Eugenics.)

Its a moral question, would you be okay with a society where it is allowed for people to have children even though you and they know from the get go that that children will suffer and die from the disease This was a hypothetical and in this case there was no cure, to test your morality.

@TheWatcher It would depend on the context, but in the vast majority of the cases i would say that they should be allowed to reproduce, especially as we get more and more advanced medically. There would be a few exceptions, but they can't be justified because we don't have the ability to determine the % of the chances. For instance if we would be able to determine that your children will inherit a deadly disase (that we can't cure) from you with above 90% chance, then i would say you shouldn't have children.

Lets test this. If we could say that your children will inherit cancer 100% and we don't have any cure for cancer. Would you still say that that particular person can have his/her own children?

Why is good distatorship is better in your world than good democracy if the outcome is the same? The difference between good dictatorship and good democracy is that in good democracy all the good results are produced what you mentioned but there is a plus. The plus is that individuals have their freedom. Also, another big difference between the two is that a really good functioning, productive,happy society under democracy implies that, that particular society is highly developed, they are able to work with each other, they are able to agree on things, they aren't highly polarised, they are highly educated, they are intelligent and being able to make hard and difficult decisions for themselves without the need for and outsider 'mother' who will force them to be and do everything in 1 particular way. So in my world good democracy > good dictatorship for sure.

Not just you, this is a really fair critique. Always reducing everything just to "imagination" have its own limits, and sometimes doesn't really make any sense to bring it up in conversations, where the question doesn't necessarily points to anything absolute, but requires a relative answer. By reducing everything down to just imagination we are losing all the nuances , and the questioner won't be able to make sense of our answers. Asking for definitions or giving our own definitions from the get go can really help to make the conversations more fruiteful and productive. I think that most of the misunderstanding in this forum comes from the fact, that we don't use the same words the same way and we give different meanings to different words. The other big problem i see is the content vs structure problem. Some people ask about a problem or question that is related to a content, and the answer that will be given will be structure related. This is okay, when someone can give an advice to a person to find the root cause to a problem, but in most cases the advice won't be usable at all because that particular person either craving for attention and not for answer to solve the problem or that person craves for a usable productive answer that can be utilized, and not for answers like "you just imagining your problems" or "just wake up and you won't give any fucks anymore". A newbie who comes here, will use the word 'imagination' a lot differently than how we use it. Even when they hear the word 'consciousness' they don't necessarily refer to the same thing as we do. Most of our convos should start setting/clearing the foundation up , and then we can start to debate or have conversations but if we miss that, there is a high chance that we will misunderstand each other even though we might agree about everything or on most things.

Sure, but why the consideration matters, if given the right set of conditions they will always choose 1 thing over another.

Just because it would be harder to predict how animals would do in certain situations that does not mean it isn't possible to predict their behaviour 100%. This convo going to a determinism vs free will debate

How do you know that? How do you differentiate between a tree choosing to move to the sun vs an animals choosing what to eat?