zurew

Thats exactly the problem that it is very costly. Not totally. If we can find physical aspects and characteristics that defines and correlates with certain genders, than discovering those aspects in a child can sort of justify the transitioning and you wouldn't need to trust the young child why he/she want to transition. So basically, if gender has biological 'footprints' to it, then i think tranisiton can be justified, but if we can only rely on some child's subjective experience about themselves, then yeah i agree with you, that transitioning isn't really an adequate solution. Maybe its purely and ego thing but maybe it has physical characteristics to it. If it has physical characteristics to it, then transcending it is a much harder process. Also, just think about it, even if you realise yourself as God, you don't live your everday experience from that level of consciousness. We are not talking about just a brief moment of experiencing your true self, but we are talking about someone's everyday experience of him/herself. So even if these people could transcend their ego-s totally, i don't think that would have that ordinary effect on their every day subjective experience of themselves, but it might. I don't think that you can fully transcend your identity about gender, when we are talking about your everyday life. Would you be able to fluidly be a woman for 3 month, then be a man for 3 month an hop around with it, just by doing spiritual work? Sexuality is also part of your identity, would you be able to just randomly be attracted to animals or other creatures or items or anything? I don't think that you can just transcend those aspects either. If a very high level consciousness could be maintained it might be possible to do, but i don't think we can expect from these people to just transcend these aspects deeply rooted to their identity. Your solution might be good in the future though.

You are right, i can't decouple value systems from the things that you mentioned above. To be fair, i didn't say that those arent factors in the value system equation, but i think i mostly focused on the cultural part. When we are talking about upgradeing value systems we are talking mostly about younger, new upcoming generations. There is a small amount of conservative people who are willing to change their beliefs and views on problems, those can be targeted also. I think these two targets requires different strategies. For the younger generations, what you wrote above like higher level of education, better economy, better infrastructure are all important factors. especially the educational part. I think the education is the part that needs to get the most focus, because if you get exposed to certain ideas at a young age, that could transform your whole life down the road. To break it down further i think the most important parts are the kindergarten and also the primary school. Teaching kids: about sexuality, about how the world is always changing never in a static state, so everything constantly need to be upgraded about the value of self-development and how it can pay you dividends about basic economics Teaching about the dynamics of being evil Teaching about introspection about the importance of system thinking and being multiperspectival, about actively seeking different perspectives, and trying to steelman positions the importance of openmindedness, teaching about spiral dynamics especially during history classes (it could be connected), teaching them methods so they can climb the spiral dynamics stages, teaching them how important it is to first try to understand then you can expect to be understood and concepts like that teaching them about human realtionships (not only talking about sexual ones, but mostly about how to collaborate, and how important it is to collaborate with people to be able to solve complex problems), teaching them about philosophy maybe this would be in the secondary school, but i think it has a huge value, to know basic pholosophical concepts (especially about the importance of epistemology) etc etc There are some other factors that you and i haven't mentioned, but i can put my finger on them. Why is that when you have a big family you have for example lets say 10 siblings, you all go to the same school, you all grow up in the same town etcetc. and at the end of the day there are some cases, where some of you become a liberal but others become conservatives. Why is that, how is that possible if the main factors are the things that you mentioned above? Maybe if i had to guess we can add friends here and also the relevance of browsing on the internet, and also the personality type as well. Friends can have a very large impact on us, especially when we are still very young. About the internet part: browsing the internet, and getting exposed to certain rabbitholes and ideologies at a young age can radically determine what we will value when we will be grown ups imo. Especially when we know, that kids nowadays are much more prone to be antisocial so they spend more and more time on the internet. I can't exclude the family either about being an important factor to the value system equation. So basically, we can say that culture is a huge factor on us, how we will think about ourselves and the world, and how we will think about the relationship between those two. About the 'changing the open minded conservatives' part, i think we need better arguments, more patience, and more scientific evidence and a lot of tangible examples for our arguments to show why our arguments make more sense. I think the 'showing a lot of tangible example for our arguments' part is really important, so the open minded conservatives can relate more to out arguments. Raising our standards higher, not being toxic not engaging in name calling, not strawmanning the other side, but rationally breaking down their arguments, and then argueing back ( making a constantly shrinking surface what they can attack )

Have you ever done psychedelics? Have you ever heard of actualized.org? What is one thing that could radically improve humanity?

With good amount of surgeries almost anyone can be made an attractive male or female. You could, but most of these people are hating their bodies. I believe the cause for most suicides on this area is that these people cannot afford surgery and hormon therapy, so they would rather kill themselves than to live in a body that feels alien to them. I think it is much easier to change your body than to change you gender identity. I don't believe most people are capable changing their identity, and i wouldn't expect them to do so. With that being said, i think there is some validity to your argument, because i don't believe that transness only exclusively comes from biological factors, but i think there could be some cases where transness comes from social factors. I would put much more weight on the biological factors though. The reason why i think about social factors as well, is because of the question around destransitioning. I think there are some cases, where some people tried being trans because they felt it is cool or because they were curious about it, and after they experienced, they decided to rather detransition because it didn't feel right for them.(In this last sentence, i talked about people who didn't have trans indentity, they just tried to be one)

Its a paradox and Its the question of perspective. It always comes down to the question of 'from what consciousness you are looking at a certain problem' There will be always a paradox between the relative and the absolute, when you are looking at it from a relative perspective. Paradoxically the synthesis between the relative and the absolute is in the absolute. The synthesis is the recognition, that there is no ultimate difference between the two. I don't think there could be a mechanical breakdown of the relationship between the relative and the absolute. Because it would require an infinite mind to understand it (I assume).

Interesting, thanks for this information. Sweden is one of the most developed countries in Europe,most countries should follow sweden's example, not the 'immigrants are necessarily bad' example.

Kali muscle is one of the OG-s. Bodybuilding in an of itself is not bad for your health or for your mental state. The problem comes when you want to do it on a certain level. The other problem is that there is still a lot of dishonesty among these 'bodybuilding gurus'. They are telling you that they are natural and you can achieve their body level without using any PEDS or steroids. A lot of instagram pictures are full of editing and filters and they have the best angle and lightning makes you think that your body looks like shit, and you don't go hard enough. Also there is a lot of insecurity among these extremist bodybuilders. The solution is to educate everyone about the side effects and show these extreme examples that you will lose a lot, if you are doing the sport extremely obsessively. Now if you want to still do it on a top level, then go for it, but you need to know what you sacrifice for what, and you need to know how you will break down yourself and potentially kill yourself. That being said doing bodybuilding naturally, being a little bit more focused on your diet and daily routine don't have negative effects its the opposite.

To answer your title: Its not necessarily about education, however it can be a factor. It is more about the value system. Do you only value a very narrow and finite amount of things (like nationalism) or do you have a much more larger value system that is including everything (It cares about the whole Earth or the whole galaxy or the whole Universe). The problem with valueing only a very narrow,finite amount of things, is that there will be a lot of things left out, and it will cause a lot of harm (that you don't see beforehand, because you excluding a lot of variables from you calculations, because you focus on a very narrow set of values) and in the end, it will bite you in the ass. With good amount of consciousness work, when you realise that you are not just this finite human being, you will automatically have a bigger value-system, simpy because you will experience reality as part of yourself, and why would you want to left parts of yourself out, or why would you want to hurt parts of yourself? But to say something more gounded, we don't want to be necessarily very radical on either side, because practically and simplistically speaking, liberalism is about the notion that you realise that our finite model of politics is not sufficient anymore so we need to upgrade those political models to keep up and to try to adjust to this infinite reality. We need dynamic models not static models. We need to constantly upgrade parts of our model ----> and here is the important part, that we shouldn't immediately drop things from out model, unless we fully understand why we want to drop that particular part and we also need to understand before we drop it that was the purpose of that thing being in our model.

Here you can see some CIA and FBI documents related to alien/ufo topic. You can decide how much validity these documents are holding for you. https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO Part 1 of 16/view -->link for one of the documents (its on the 22nd page) 2nd link https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp90-00806r000100200074-7 3rd link https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0001107974 4th link https://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy Hottel Part 1 of 1/view --> talking about 3 feet tall creatures https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2021/06/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf 144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4792306/user-clip-secretary-richard-blumenthals-fully-prepared-questions&cliptool= this is a video about U.S. SPACE FORCE PROPOSAL here you can hear things like :"The american people have no idea, really no idea, about the immensity of threat in space" of course this doesn't automatically means it is ufo/alien related, but it is interesting how Richard Blumenthal is talking about it.

1) 'Why don't you wake up already, stop being lost in your illusions, realise that you are ignorant' ---> "Ohh, thanks dude, i haven't thought about that, now you helped me a lot!" 2) 'Why don't you wake up already, stop being lost in your illusions, realise that you are ignorant' ---> "Dude, shut the hell up and don't talk to me ever again, you are boring, and provoking. Also i don't know Who tf asked?" Which one is more likely, the first or the second one?

We can cherrypick some bad cases of course. Do you think that you have the same level of opportunity to get out of povertyhood as in the past? Do you think that the farmers who lived in medieval age had a better life compared to the people you are mentioning above? Most poor people don't even know what to do with the money they have. Most of them have really bad money managing habits and even if they win some money they end up being poor. Unless you are living in a very very bad place you have your basic needs met. The only problem here, that you can constantly elevate your basic needs so now you need the newest iphone laptop etc. Of course there are some people who don't really have a chance because they were born in a very bad place. But most people are willingly staying slaves, because they don't want to put extra work into improving their lifes, they have no vision and no plan what they want to do, and they also have no skills. The normal slavery definition is about you are forced to do things you don't want to and you have no choice to get out of it and you basically have no free time(where you can do what you want). Nowadays in most of the cases you aren't forced to do anything but you choose to remain a slave. You have a lot more freetime nowadays compared to the past. Now, what you do with that free time is another question. I don't know if you have noticed, but most people are suffering because they have so much things to choose from, people can't decide what they want to become because they have soo many choices to make and so many opportunities to choose from. The reason why you can think a lot more about your life abot what decisions you want to make is because you are less of a slave. Again being a slave - lack of choice and freedom. Interestingly, most people have a lot of time complaining, but don't have time for improving their life and improving skills. You are visiting this forum, you have healthcare,you have cops and laws protecting you ,you have internet, you have time to write messages back and to contemplate and to watch youtube ,you have a phone, a computer a shelter and a whole lot of other items and gadgets that are on your name, and not on any other organisation's or person's name. You have a lot, and we still call all that slavery because you need to pay some taxes? Again not denying that there are some people who don't have almost any choice, but to say that nowadays people are more slaves and have worse lives compared to the past is a huge stretch imo.

@Blackhawk So do you suggest universal basic income everywhere in order to destroy slavery? I think that world is far from now, maybe in a few countries we will see it happen in slight forms, but to really happen we will need an AI to take care for most jobs. That world seems far from now, but even if we would grant for you that universal basic income world, do you think you would be more happy? Streching the slavery definition so far makes it lose its meaning. Basically, we can replace your slavery definition with survival. We can complain all about how bad and tough the world is, but we can use our options to make the best out of them. The irony is that the world is nowhere near as tough and hard compared to the past. Even most normal people live a better life than kings lived in the past. Now everyone wants more and complaining about everything, without making any effort to make the world or their life better.

The only problem is, when the rules are blurry, so you don't know where you cross them and when. Topics where there is a lot of disagreement will always trigger some people lets be it progressive or conservative. We can't totally avoid trigerring people, because anyone can get offended by anything. The question is, do we care more about discussing hard, heavy topics or do we care about people's feelings so much so, that we are afraid to talk about some stuff, because we are afraid that it will trigger some people. We can always get behind the 'i got offended curtain' and use it as a weapon to deal with ideologies and ideas that we don't agree with, so we don't need to argue against them. People can get offended if we are talking about ideas that they don't agree with. Why not use arguments to deal with people we don't agree with? Labeling everyone as low conscious is a lazy way to deal with ideas. Tear down their ideas with your arguments, so everyone can see that you have a more nuanced view on that particular problem compared to the other person. Of course there are some lines that have practical and moral usage, but those lines should be very precise and tangible. If the lines are not exact , the lines can be weaponised. Do we want to ban based on intention? Who decides how can we evaluate who had what intention. There are some very clear cases, where we can see the bad intention and ad hominem but there are some other cases, where you can evaluate sentences in 10 different ways.

But gender isn't the problem though, but sex is. Gender is an inner image of yourself. That is why, it can become a mess if we are only focusing on gender and not sex. Social constructions have their own practical consequences. Just because something is a social construct that does not mean, that it need to be abandoned immediately. For example, our whole economic system is a social construct. We made a system that we all play along with. Sex has its own practical categorizational usage, for example when you go to a doctor you won't be treated based on your gender(inner image of yourself) but based on your sex(biological traits). Sports are based on biology and not on self image. The reason for categorising based on sex was to create a more equal playingfield for women. We can abandon all these categories but then we will need to be aware of some consequences: There won't be any natural competitions (because anyone can use anything for their transition) Women will probably compete a lot less because they won't have any chance to be anywhere near the top, they will lose a lot of their sponsors, most women who have had a career as a professional before, will lose her job Now, i think we can all agree that it will mostly cause damage for biological women. We can say that sports are tough , reality is unfair so realise that and stay with that. But we are not really consistent with that statement when we are talking about other systems. For example, if we are talking about economics, in the past you could make a lot of money using your physical strength so men dominated. We didn't stay with that we created new jobs and tools to make physical differences matter a lot less. Right now intellectual difference is a factor, but most intellectual differences can be evened out too in the far future, because of Artificial intelligence and DNA changing. So most of the time, we won't just stay with the raw facts of reality, but we want to make reality more equal with creating new systems and tools. I don't think its good to stay with this black and white thinking that sports are either totally equal or not. Just because no one plays on a totally equal ground that does not automatically mean, that all the factors that are made to make a field more equal should be abandoned. Most of the arguments about this sport topic is around opportunity vs outcome. I think most of you guys are focusing on the outcome more and not really paying that much attention for the opportunity. ( sports are about winning so who cares who wins and with what tools - focus on outcome vs sports are mostly about winning , but if we make certain categorizations we can give opportunity for people more people to be able to win and more people will feel the need and motivation to compete, because they can think that they have some chance - focusing on the opportunity part)

I think his main target with this is cancelling cancel culture. People are so sensitive nowadays, that you can't share certain opinions and ideas. Allowing diversity of opinions can be valuable, echo chambers aren't practical - only feeds the ego.

For you it might be , but for me its not only about winning. I think the effort part is a really key element here. What make people interested watching sports? Only the performance, or knowing the real hard work behind the performance? I think its both, for me the hard work behind the scenes is more important. Of course i wouldnt know every detail, but i can assume it, especially if no performance enhancing drugs are involved at a certain event. I think its important to keep certain categories for fairness, so athletes with different talents and intention can compete for the best place. You could argue, that even if someone is taking PEDS or steroids they need to work hard etc etc. Yes, but your judging and assumption about how hard they had to work to achieve what they achieved will be really hard. Its much more harder to create a more even field, when you can take every substance under the sun imo. For example, if there are some bodybuilders who wants to know totally their full natural potential, i don't want to rob them from the possibility to compete at a natural event. With more options more desires and goals can be fulfilled. But if i mix up the whole field ,then natural athletes won't have any attention, and they won't have any more reason the compete. They can have some reason to compete but only if they go all in and willing to take the risks that steroid taking involves. I think we should think about athletes that are doing sports because it provides them the money that they need. if we mix everything up without any categories, then a lot of people will be forced to take PED and steroids or to do something else.Most of those wouldn't take the unnatural way of doing sports but they are forced now if they want to continue their career.

I think this got more heated than it supposed to. To be clear i didn't even think that you consider yourself as a conservative and when i wrote my criticisms about them i did not include you there. I didn't even have the intention to just debate but it may came off that way. I saw that you had a different position than me, so i was curious why you took that position thats it. What my intention is to see all the cons and pros around this topic. If you don't want to justify your position thats all good, i won't expect you to do so if you don't want to. I don't think less of you just because you don't want to justify your position. I am open minded about this topic as well, so i am open to change my position. Also i want to clarify, that when i attack or question a position i don't attack you, but only the positions that you hold. This doesn't even directed to you but for everyone. This is a heated topic, so i understand why it got so heated so quickly. But it want to clarify that i don't attack you as a person but only questioning the position that you hold. This way if i get some feedback and some arguments i might change my position that i hold, and everyone can decide and see all the pro and contra arguments regarding this topic. But if you don't want to continue interacting with me or answering my questions thats all good, i respect that, i won't violate that. Take care bro, and have a good day/night.

Yes thats true. But i want to believe that there are some conservatives out there ,that are openminded enough to change their views on things, when they get the sufficient amount of evidence.

I don't think he will attack Sweden. He is losing the Ukraine war he lost a lof of resources and money, i don't think he can manage to attack Sweden too. Sweden would be much harder to wrap around in lies and justifications to attack.

goodone bro

How big of an inflation do you expect for the next 2-3 years?

Their parents are impulsive and their parents are the ones, who are having stage red and blue values, however a young kid can be educated and we can help those kids to be less likely to be homophobic or transphobic when they become an adult. Their parents wouldn't like the idea, however it would be a net benefit for society overall if we are talking about the big picture and the next generations. If the education part won't be done, then more generations will be brought up who will more likely to become transphobe or homophobe. But thats just my opionion. Your question about how we should teach this to certain cultures is valid though. Thats a tough question, but in some kind of way it must be done imo. But maybe you are right about that it can have a negative impact on them, but i can't see the exact negative impact right now.

So do you think overall educating kids around 12 13 years old about sexuality and attraction and about gayness and about transness is good? Can you think of any exact example where this could be negative on any culture?

They just assume, that being gay or trans is not true, but its a cultural delusion and its coming from society and not from biology. I think if we can do more research about sexual attraction, and we find characteristics such that we can show exactly, biologically speaking where gayness or trans-ness is coming from, then most conservative people who is earnest will drop their demonizing beliefs about gay and trans people.But such research need to be done, until then there will be a lot of transphobe and homophobe people and they will stay that way. I saw some people change their beliefs about trans people thanks to the male and female brain research. And thanks to the education about the distinction between sex and gender. The not earnest conservatives are irrelevant, cause their mind can't be changed they will be replaced by younger more progressive generations. Or i don't really know what could be done using the spiral dynamics model, to further their development.