Blackhawk

@trenton Other examples are cleaners, construction workers, berry pickers.

@trenton Yeah, so yes buying and selling sex should be legal. I think the law is there only because many people look down on people who buy and sell sex. They think it's disgusting. And I don't believe in the human trafficking thing. Trafficking exists in many many jobs, so why aren't those jobs illegal then? And why aren't porn illegal then? I don't think human trafficking would increase if buying/selling sex would be legal.

Either make it legal, or make all porn illegal too, because otherwise it's inconsistent. It makes no sense that having sex for money is legal as long as there's a camera recording it (porn).

People are so paranoid. Who cares. Just take the vaccine and stop caring and thinking about it. There's so much bigger things to worry about than potential microscopic risks with a vaccine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism "Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is the ethical view that negatively values coming into existence and procreation, and judges procreation as morally wrong. Antinatalists argue that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally wrong (some also recognize the procreation of other sentient beings as morally wrong). In scholarly and in literary writings, various ethical foundations have been presented for antinatalism. Some of the earliest surviving formulations of the idea that it would be better not to have been born come from ancient Greece." https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5670/anti-natalism-is-global-and-growing "The decision to not have kids on ethical grounds is no longer a fringe, Western trend. "Life is full of suffering” is a sentiment that resonates with many. The doctrines of most of the major religions of the world concede or assert it. But if life is full of suffering, and suffering is avoidable, a simple syllogistic conclusion that follows is “life is avoidable”. Obviously, this stand has few takers. But that is changing, all over the world. The idea is often seen as a trait of highly-developed societies who have achieved relative stability and prosperity in terms of living standards, and can focus on finer ethical and lifestyle issues and concerns. Google Trends Analytics indicates that “antinatalism” as a search term has steadily grown in search volume in this decade." For example Arthur Schopenhauer was a antinatalist. This guy sued his parents for giving birth to him without his consent: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/anti-natalists-childfree-population-climate-change Another thing is that without humans also the environment would be saved. I think Buddhism is a form of antinatalism, since it recognizes that life is suffering and it advocates celibacy and it's about stopping the cycle of rebirth (Samsara) https://www.quora.com/Does-Buddhism-have-antinatalism-ideas David Benatar has written a book about this subject, titled "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence". https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence-ebook/dp/B000TODSCY/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 I found this somewhere on the internet: "If a being exists, suffering is bad and pleasure is good. However, if a being does not exist, missing out on pleasure isn't bad, however missing out on suffering is good. In other words, life is suffering. Suffering is bad. Therefore, it's better to not be born, so that we never experience suffering." A more extreme version of antinatalism is efilism. Which says that all sentient life should be exterminated in a humane and painless way. This person has a idea with self-replicating nanobots which could euthanize all life on earth, and they would also make sure that life can't re-emerge: https://www.theantinatalist.com/frontpage/on-efilism-1 I know everyone in this forum will be against antinatalism, because you are invested survival, so you will immediately violently attack this. I will try to not argue for antinatalism, at least not without getting a permission from Leo first, because I would probably get banned if I would argue for antinatalism. I just wanted to bring up this topic and ask you all: what is your thoughts about this whole antinatalism thing?

@Emerald Yes, you're sharp and beautiful like a emerald/diamond/crystal.

@TheDao Ok I'm done with this discussion. There is no point in talking with someone who denies both experience and scientific evidence.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html "New technologies have generated a growing pile of evidence that there are inherent differences in how men’s and women’s brains are wired and how they work."

No those aren't socially programmed. Our brains are since birth hardwired with differences.

Women are more emotional, they cry much more, they are physically less violent, they get turned on by different things than men do, they value social stuff more, etc.

I disagree. Not only their bodies are obviously different, also their minds works differently. Men and women will always be different. I don't understand why some people in this forum don't want to accept this obvious fact. I seriously do not understand it. Even a 3 year old knows there's a difference. Probably even animals notice the difference.

"I am holding you all in my heart, you who find yourselves in this same strange place as I. Now, say it with me: 'Namaste. F**k this sh*t!'" That's a good one. Actually I will use the last sentence as my signature.

So now you are taking suffering seriously? Sometimes I think some "spiritual gurus" are sitting on high horses, so they need suffering to become humble and realize how important it is to end suffering for as many beings as possible, and how cruel God is and how powerless we are...

I have never understood how it's possible that a book is able to change someone's life. I have read many books but no book has ever changed my life. Actually nothing has changed my life, not videos, not relationships.. nothing. Or hm, my job has changed my life, since it steals my spare time and it gives me money so I can buy stuff. That's the only thing I can think of.

What would the benefits be of being a organ donor? Having money inside the coffin so you can trade with the worms? Why wouldn't you want to be a organ donor? I registered myself as a organ donor early in my life. It's a no-brainer, literally.

@trenton Thanks. Yeah.

Argument #1: The fact is that since Nato is a intergovernmental organization Sweden wouldn't be forced to do anything at all. All 30 (it would be 31 with Sweden) member countries must agree on that article 5 should be activated. But sure, the pressure would be big that Sweden should say yes for activating article 5. Argument #2: Even when article 5 gets activated, it's up to the member country to decide how it will help. Argument #3: It would be selfish (morally wrong) to not help your friends who you share democratic values with. To not defend the free world/the good side. Argument #4: Since Nato is so powerful, the sheer power of it would eliminate most threats anyway. So what is the big deal even if Sweden would go into war together with Nato? The exception is nuclear war, then we would all get annihilated, but that leads to argument #5: We have already chosen side, we aren't neutral anyway. We would assist Nato and the western world even when we aren't members of Nato. In the "solidaritetsförklaringen" (declaration of solidarity) which I mentioned before Sweden has officially promised to assist Nordic countries and EU countries. Sweden is so close with Nato that in case of a war the attacker would treat us pretty much as a Nato member. But since we aren't a official member we lose out on the 3 main benefits (there's more) which only a real membership can give: defense guarantees from Nato, decision power in Nato, and a pre-planned defense planning with Nato. Sweden haven't really ever been neutral. In WW2 we managed to stay outside of the war because we helped Hitler (if you don't believe me: google it). That's not really neutral. And it shows that "neutrality" forces you to do ugly things. And in the cold war we weren't really neutral. Our "neutrality" was a lie because we had secret agreements with USA, we were a secret ally with USA (again, if you don't believe me: google it.) Article 5 in Nato has only been activated one time: when the 9/11 attacks happened. Sweden went into Afghanistan despite our lack of membership. About the 2% of GDP thing: It's not a requirement. So you can just ignore that 2% recommendation. Very few Nato countries spend 2% or more anyway.

If someone starts a thread here where the person says that God is evil and a murderer, then none of you would respond with stuff like "YES." And the thread would get locked and that person would probably get warning points or get banned.

So then God is evil and a murderer?

This constant thing with attributing human qualities to God... While you are at it, why not also say that he is a man with white beard?

A interesting question is: why would God delude himself? Maybe because he or you don't want to know the truth? That would make seeking for truth a bad thing. Just some thoughts. I don't know the answer.

There are books written about this subject.. which I have read. Nato reminds me of the holism thing which Leo has talked about. Because all member countries goes together for the greater good. It acts as one. It prevents wars because attacking a Nato member would be suicide. Together is strong. The former Sovjetunion states Georgia and Ukraine aren't Nato members, and they have been attacked by Russia. While the Baltic states (former Sovjetunion states Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) are Nato members, and they haven't been attacked by Russia. It's their Nato membership which has saved them. Ukraine is now begging for a Nato membership, but unfortunately they can't join Nato right now because that would instantly trigger a war with Russia. A country should join Nato before war starts, to prevent a war from starting, that's why I want Sweden and Finland to join Nato now while we still have peace. NATO is a international intergovernmental political organization in which the decisions are made by consensus between all 30 sovereign member states, and every member has veto right, so everyone benefit. But hostile aggressive countries do not benefit because they can't attack members. "These organizations bring member states together to cooperate on a particular theme or issues that have global impacts and implications such as human rights, trade, development, poverty, gender or migration." https://libguides.lub.lu.se/c.php?g=489859&p=3938549 "Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked." https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm Basically every swede who is against a Nato membership is against it because they believe in some myth about Nato, or have misconceptions about it. Every argument against a membership can be killed by pure facts. Most swedes don't really know what Nato even is, they just have prejudices and wrong notions. And they also don't know that Sweden isn't neutral anymore, because we are EU members, and we have a thing called "solidaritetsförklaringen" in which we promise to help other Nordic and EU countries if they are attacked. If a war happens in our proximity then Sweden will be dragged into the war even if we aren't members in Nato. And if Russia attacks Sweden it will be because it needs Gotland (a swedish island) and maybe southern Sweden because of strategic reasons if Russia attacks the Baltic states. Because Russia can then cut off Nato from helping the Baltic states, by putting air and sea missile systems on Gotland and southern Sweden, so Nato can't come from west to assist the Baltics. In case of a war Sweden will assist Nato anyway (despite our lack of membership). And Russia knows it. And Russia will act accordingly. So there is no reason for Sweden to not join Nato. Sweden is a close partner with Nato. A Nato membership would definitely increase the safety not only for Sweden, but also for the Baltics. The Baltics have repeatedly said that a swedish membership would increase their safety. It's also morally important to be on the good side and defend the free world, our shared western values, human rights and democracy, by being a member of Nato. For example Belgium don't have any foes, they are surrounded by friendly democratic countries, they are cocooned in safety, but they are still members of Nato because of moral reasons. They want to contribute to a good cause. Almost all the good guys are members of Nato. This should be enough to understand that Nato is good and that Sweden and Finland should join it: Trump didn't like Nato and other international cooperations, while Biden loves them.

That Sweden isn't a member of Nato. The politicians don't do the right thing and join the defense alliance of the free world mainly because they are too afraid of Russia. Which means they let a foreign country rule over our security politics. I'm doing my best to convince the swedes that we should join Nato.. But it doesn't look promising.

"Look within, There is no difference between yourself, Self and Guru. You are always Free. There is no teacher, there is no student, there is no teaching." - Papaji Of course this would be a contradiction... but whatever.