Consept

This is the thing im not trying to come across as a gender war type discussion, my point is more its understandable that women might want more emotional connections with more people as they are more inclined to want that. Men are more inclined to want more variety with sexual partners, im not saying either is wrong or bad, im just saying both should be more acceptable if it works for people. The double standards dont necessarily annoy me or anything like that, i just think we should find a way to get everyones needs met without deomonising, in this case, men. The other thing is that ive probably not defined emotional 'cheating'. Im not saying every friendship will be that, but there are certain friendships that women have that can be seen as closer than a normal friendship and within this friendship they get things that they would do in a traditional relationship. The example is used with my friend who has a male 'friend' that she only bothers with in between relationships, this is obviously not a normal friendship relationship. I also feel a lot of friendships between men and women, the woman knows that the man might have feelings for them but also knows they can get validation and attention from them. As i said this isnt to say that purely plutonic relationships cant exist but im not talking about them in this instance

Fair points and im sure they are valid reasons toward the tribal occurrence. Its also interesting to note that most other primate species, in fact all but one, operate in the same sexual way tribally. Which would be to say that if we take wholesale that this had to change because of larger populations, it still wouldnt be 'natural' to our species, evidenced by the fact that there has always been a high level of infidelity despite these social restrictions. The other thing is that marriage say before modern times, was really about 'owning' women, so it was more in the mans favour and was rarely to do with love. It meant the man could guarantee his line with his wife but then also be able to sleep with other women, thats where we get terms like bastard from. It also meant that women could not exercise these options and which is why theres been such a negative connotation put on female sexuality through the years. The modern western idea of marrying for love and marrying the one, is fairly new and only dates back around 150 years ago through writings and poetry. Previously 'love' wouldve most likely been that affair someone had that was too risky so they had to go back their partner. This is really the crux of it. When women say they dont want their partner cheating emotionally it doesnt mean they have sex with someone else, it means that they form an emotional connection with someone else (sharing feelings, spending time together etc). As i said women see this as worse than actual physical cheating, reason being once you make an emotional connection with someone else its hard to hold more than one at a time. So women are of course worried about the guy leaving them. Im sure they wouldnt be happy if he had sex with someone else but it may not end the relationship. My point is that women by their own standards of whats the worse way of cheating for them, often 'cheat' emotionally with other men although they may not have sex with them. Potentially this could be because they have more emotional needs and can have these relationships without it turning to sex, usually however the 'friend' would have sex if given the chance. On the other side of the coin, men can have sexual relationships without connecting emotionally, although the 'sex partner' might want a more emotional connection. These are just core differences in men and womens operating systems. The thing is one side is completely accepted by society but the other side is seen as almost evil. You mentioned spiral dynamics as well and this tribal thing as a lower aspect, however, when you look forward green and above monogamy kind of goes out the window as people tend to accept these desires and find a way to embrace them, although it is very difficult to come to a solution. If you notice strict monogamy is really a staple of blue and it comes into orange but more for appearances as many cheat or push the boundaries of it if they can.

I think a talent can be a couple of factors, one is that you have a natural body type that is perfectly suited to whatever the pursuit is, for example height is gonna help you with basketball, Usain Bolt is almost the perfect shape to give him an advantage in 100m, maybe you could have longer fingers to play piano etc. Second is belief, passion and love for the activity, I think this is what sets people apart. Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson loved what they did so much that they practiced from a very young age and become experts in their field. They were willing to practice and learn more than anyone else which is what made them better than anyone else. Without the passion they wouldn't have become what they became and no would've said they were 'talented'.

Checkout coffeezilla on YouTube

No problem bro, haha what happened in here?? Ill break it down a little more for you though, lets say you get into an argument with your partner, you want to win that argument, she says something like 'you dont spend enough time with me' you straw man her and say 'oh so youre saying i dont love you?'. So youve deliberately misinterpreted her point because its easier to make that argument rather than deal with her actual point. If you were steel man her point youd look at it more objectively and try and really understand why shes saying that. Youll notice this in debates where people are particularly tied to their perspectives Vegans and meat eaters, conservatives and liberals, feminist and mgtow. These all end up being very binary positions usually because they dont tend to argue the other sides strongest points. There are other ad hominems that are used but strawmanning is quite prominent

Straw man = the persons weakest argument or even an almost deliberate misunderstanding of the other person's argument. For example a Conservative might say a progressive wants communism and start arguing from that perspective. Steelman = taking the other person's strongest argument and debating that.

In my opinion it seems like you want to be understood, maybe you thought this could be with someone youre sexually attracted to but it hasnt happened and so possibly something in you thinks that maybe someone of your own gender would be able to understand you. We all have this craving to be understood btw, but it just doesnt happen most of the time, its hard enough understanding yourself let alone someone else. It also can be a completely separate thing so you can be sexually attracted to someone and have a great relationship and not feel that youre understood and in theory you could be understood and not have a sexual relationship with that person. But in general i dont think you should set that criteria for relationships, i just dont think youll ever get that feeling of being understood, maybe you think men will do a better job but it still most likely, wont be what you expect.

Firstly respect for starting so early, I was think I wish I could've started so early but fba didn't even exist back then lol. I've sold an amazon and eBay for the last 10 years and it's been my main income. Here's my advice though, fba and generally all business especially Internet ones, are a lot to do with trial and error, I've changed my strategy and adapted so many times I cant count. It's a constantly changing landscape so you have to be resilient and adaptable. If your first idea for a product worked and you started making money from it I would've been shocked, but at the same time the learning experience you've had is still very valuable. This is the route to any type of success whether it's fba or life purpose or whatever. So you are going to come up against adversity and you need to find a way to push through. Life purpose is obviously important but right now you have very little experience of anything, it feels like you're trying to bypass a lot of stuff. If you enjoy fba then just go for it set out a length of time, a year or two, and see where you are after that, if there's been progress, if you feel you're learning. If it's not fba choose something else but the point is get some experience somewhere. In the meantime just be open to your life purpose, see what piques your interest and what comes along, you dont need to be in a rush

How do you mean explain them? Florida is a good example because as youre suggesting the lockdown wasnt really enforced but you can put it up against other states as its in the same country. So Florida has the 3rd highest cases, the 4th highest deaths and is just short of New York for the most cases per 100k - https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s?t=1620328559579. Sweden is also interesting as its the only country in Europe that didnt lockdown officially, although a lot of people did voluntarily but either way if you compare them with their Scandinavian neighbors, Denmark, Finland and Norway they actually have treble the amount of deaths of those countries combined. Brazil is also another country with a lot of problems due to the relaxed covid restrictions. Of course there are possible other factors for this but its just interesting to note the comparisons. These things are of course serious problems but it would be unfair to say that there isnt an effort made to sort them out - “More than 40 years after the war on cancer was declared, we have spent billions fighting the good fight. The National Cancer Institute has spent some $90 billion on research and treatment during that time. Some 260 nonprofit organizations in the United States have dedicated themselves to cancer — more than the number established for heart disease, AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke combined. Together, these 260 organizations have budgets that top $2.2 billion.” However there is criticism that there should be more effort into prevention which as i said is very important. But this is more a policy issue rather than choosing not to work on it. Also just because youre working on one thing and trying to prevent it, it wouldnt mean you cant work on an immediate danger. But in general i think it would be a very strong decision lets say if you were the leader of a country, to say that there shouldnt be any lockdowns, also keep in mind when Boris Johnson said that here in the UK, a lot of people did think that he just didnt care about people and the public outcry led to him changing his mind. Ultimately it would be a gamble as a leader to go against expert opinion and say no lockdowns, the issue its a gamble with peoples lives.

Just to pick up on a couple points, the things you mentioned there arent contagious which means that the numbers per year would be stable and the healthcare system can handle them. If something is contagious it would mean if it was left alone then the numbers would be worse. I would assume the numbers for covid would be worse if we didnt have lockdowns or hospital treatment etc. This is another misunderstanding i see, on average for any death there are between on average 3 and 4 causes listed on the death certificate. In practice it would be something like, someone has cancer that cancer causes pneumonia which leads to cardiac arrest and then death. Ultimately if they didnt have cancer they wouldnt have had the other conditions, so when reporting it wouldnt be logical to say this person didnt die from cancer or that the number of cancer deaths arent valid because there were underlying symptoms, because then no cause of death would be valid from the death certificate. I will say that there probably are deaths where the person died and covid wasnt really anything to do with it, but this could also happen with other conditions, so they would all have to be reworked as well. Its an opinion and probably partially true in that people could be healthier and take care of themselves and by not doing so they become more susceptible to being sick. This is something that definitely needs to be worked on and is a preventative measure, but in the case of a contagious virus there would need to be more immediate curative measures otherwise it will continue to get worse. But anyway you said the numbers are not enough for you, would you think it was serious if it killed more people than cancer or alcohol for example? Also what would be your overall solution, do you think no precautions should be taken and no vaccine produced and just leave everyone to it?

OK thanks for your reply and i get where you coming from. So essentially you seem to be saying you dont believe this to be a truly dangerous virus, can i ask what would constitute a dangerous virus for you? So the current total death number is 3.24 million people as well as quite a lot with long covid and various other symptoms which clog up the healthcare systems, i know youll argue that not all of them were covid deaths but for the sake of not going down another tangent lets just say those numbers are legit. So considering this is the number with sever precautions in place, in your opinion how many deaths or illnesses would there need to be for it to be considered a truly dangerous virus? The other part is that you dont trust the pharma industry which i also agree with to some extent. The issue is that you seem to be saying that you want a vaccine or medicine created completely independent of any links to the pharma industry. You also say you want all the experts to say the same thing and for there to be completely independent safety studies. There are safety studies currently but are you saying that they cant have any link to the scientific community or to the pharma industry? If these concerns were addressed, would you then trust the vaccine?

Listening to this now and it touches on a lot of what has been said on the forum and also in my head. What do you guys think of the new age spiritual movement and what do you think has happened to them during this pandemic?

@BadHippie Not gonna pull apart your points but im just curious, what would you consider an actual good reason look like? As in would there ever be a good reason to take a vaccine for a contagious virus, and if so what could that reason be?

Well maybe, i hope you find the answer you were looking for

Great!! So i think for you it would be better to accept that no one on here or anywhere else will come up with a reason that will convince you, then you can conclude your investigation. Maybe just check every now and then if new reasons pop up, but in general you dont need to spend too much time on it

OK so what i hear you saying is you havent heard any reasons so far that you deem valid, but if you heard one you would consider it as valid, however you cant currently think of a reason that possibly could be valid. But you accept that youre not completely right. Does this sum it up?

No bro im not saying that because you dont agree with the CDC youre not open or youre completely right. I said that if you dont deem any reasons to be valid (which is what you confirmed) then there are only two possibilities, one is that you are completely right and there are no valid reasons or two there are valid reasons but you are not open to them. You rejected the idea that youre not open so therefore the only other option is that youre completely right. The CDC list was used to cover multiple reasons that you would hear or that might be brought up in the thread.

Yeah i suspected as much, no worries glad we sorted it out. The list was from the CDC btw so i couldnt give you better reasons than that and if you think theyre all wrong I dont think id be able to convince you otherwise. As i said either youre either completely right or youre not open, so im taking it as you consider yourself the former, so well done on that.

OK well my point is that there wont be a reason that you deem good enough, but we can experiment, i found this list online, let me know which you deem good enough, if there arent any then i think it would be pointless extending the thread - COVID-19 vaccination will help keep you from getting COVID-19 All COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the United States have been shown to be safe and effective at preventing COVID-19. Learn more about the different COVID-19 vaccines. All COVID-19 vaccines that are in development are being carefully evaluated in clinical trials and will be authorized or approved only if they make it substantially less likely you will get COVID-19. Learn more about how federal partners are ensuring COVID-19 vaccines work. Based on what we know about vaccines for other diseases and early data from clinical trials, experts believe that getting a COVID-19 vaccine also helps keep you from getting seriously ill even if you do get COVID-19. Getting vaccinated yourself may also protect people around you, particularly people at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Experts continue to conduct studies to learn more about how COVID-19 vaccination may reduce spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. Once you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing more After you are fully vaccinated for COVID-19, you may be able to start doing some things that you stopped doing because of the pandemic. For example, you can gather indoors without masks with other people who are fully vaccinated. We are still learning how vaccines will affect the spread of COVID-19. Until we know more about how vaccines will affect the spread of COVID-19, people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 should keep taking precautions in public places like wearing a mask, staying 6 feet apart from others, avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces, and washing your hands often. People are not considered fully vaccinated until two weeks after their second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, or two weeks after a single-dose Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. You should keep using all the tools available to protect yourself and others until you are fully vaccinated. COVID-19 vaccination is a safer way to help build protection COVID-19 can have serious, life-threatening complications, and there is no way to know how COVID-19 will affect you. And if you get sick, you could spread the disease to friends, family, and others around you. Clinical trials for all vaccines must first show they are safe and effective before any vaccine can be authorized or approved for use, including COVID-19 vaccines. The known and potential benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine must outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine before it is used under what is known as an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Watch a video explaining an EUA. Getting COVID-19 may offer some protection, known as natural immunity. Current evidence suggests that reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19 is uncommon in the months after initial infection, but may increase with time. The risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 far outweighs any benefits of natural immunity. COVID-19 vaccination will help protect you by creating an antibody (immune system) response without having to experience sickness. Both natural immunity and immunity produced by a vaccine are important parts of COVID-19 disease that experts are trying to learn more about, and CDC will keep the public informed as new evidence becomes available. COVID-19 vaccination will be an important tool to help stop the pandemic Wearing masks and staying 6 feet apart from others help reduce your chance of being exposed to the virus or spreading it to others, but these measures are not enough. Vaccines will work with your immune system so it will be ready to fight the virus if you are exposed. A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to be infected without showing symptoms (called an asymptomatic infection) and potentially less likely to spread the virus that causes COVID-19 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing. Stopping a pandemic requires using all the tools we have available. As experts learn more about how COVID-19 vaccination may help reduce spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, CDC will continue to update its recommendations to protect communities using the latest science. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective We understand that some people may be concerned about getting vaccinated now that COVID-19 vaccines are available in the United States. While more COVID-19 vaccines are being developed as quickly as possible, routine processes and procedures remain in place to ensure the safety of any vaccine that is authorized or approved for use. Safety is a top priority, and there are many reasons to get vaccinated. None of the COVID-19 vaccines can make you sick with COVID-19 None of the COVID-19 vaccines contain the live virus that causes COVID-19 so a COVID-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with COVID-19. Learn more

Well lets just play a game of perspectives, if you had to make the argument for the vaccine, what would your reasons be? Im asking because there have been several reasons that you havent deemed good enough, so its important to know what could be a good reason. If you yourself cant think of any then its either there arent any, in which case, well done you win, or that youre not open to any, one of the two

Well why dont we do it this way, what would you consider good reasons to take a vaccine that helps stop the spread of a contagious disease?

OK so what do you want out of this thread, what would helpful information look like to you?

@Forestluv Excellent breakdown my friend, if anyone is trying to genuinely open their mind and realise what it is to take on new perspectives they should definitely read that. I would just add for @Mannyb that these arguments seemingly against you are not necessarily saying youre wrong, its more theyre just looking at the whole picture and trying to let you know that theres more to the topic than you realise. If you think about it taking any strong position doesnt really make sense, right and wrong opinions are arbitrary, meaning that there can be some truth in everything but nothing is 100% true. So when you take a strong position what youre doing basically is dismissing anything that isnt that position and creating a polarity of right and wrong. Many people have this type of thinking, religion, politics, social issues, favourite music whatever. if you notice a lot of the way youve framed your arguments could be interchanged with another completely different position. For example a religious person might say "Why is it wrong to trust in people's track record and to question the same record of these big institutions who have all come out with shitty “research” for decades?" when talking about trusting religious leaders track records and questioning atheists or scientists. What makes the research 'shitty' is that it goes against the core belief of the religious person. However a meta view could see where religion makes sense but also why it doesnt make sense to believe it in a fundamental way.

It's basically because he has no attachment to outcome. The only reason why we get so nervous is because we go into the interaction only thinking its a success if we get a desired outcome, number etc. If you go into it just to have fun you'll actually get better outcomes. I once did speed dating and what I noticed is, after a few 'dates' you start not caring at all about the outcome, you realise some girls will like you and some just won't, so I started having fun and just saying the first thing that came to mind. I'd try ones where I'd purposefully make it awkward by not talking for the first minute. Basically without attachment to outcome you're completely free just to have fun.

In my opinion it's a survival mechanism, everything you have in life, as far as your part of your brain is concerned, has contributed to your survival so far. If something is lost that could affect your survival. Notice this is also the case with change, even if that change could ultimately be positive, for example there could be fear over applying for a new job that is better than your current one. It's almost like there's a mechanism that aims to keep as at a certain point and not improve. Of course this has its uses but it also needs to be overridden for us to get anywhere. The other thing is you could switch how you see things from scared of loss to gratefulness of abundance. Personally I've found this to be a great way of looking at things. So if you look at it like you could have had any experience as a human, you could be dirt poor, you could have health issues, all your family could've died, literally anything, but you happened to have your experience and I think you can be grateful and feel lucky for anything you do have. It's like when someone dies people are upset that they don't get more time with that person, but you can look at it like you didn't have to get anytime with that person. But in general we mostly live in scarcity and need to shift to abundance.