questionreality

Very great point! This is why it also comes down to weather you are more of an extrovert, ambivert or an introvert imo - how much of social engagement does your well being needs? I would imagine it would be a lot harder for an extrovert to be alone by themselves and be exploring abstract realms than it would be for an introvert for example.

That's a very difficult one to balance imo. I went super abstract for some years as I was genuinely curious about many things(and used a ton of psychedelics as well during that time period). When I burned a lot of that through and got the fulfilment in that, I understood that I missed the social aspect and needed to integrate it, and kind of come out of that bubble. Now I find that whenever I need to go abstract, it is available, but now I enjoy relating to people a lot more, it's just more fun. I am sure that they can be integrated, but I see it more as switching between the two - like diving into the water and then out of it. It is for sure possible - if you find a way to monetize your abstract skills. This will probably be not working for somebody, but creating something of your own, that you would find a way to monetize.

I have actually been in Spain (Barcelona) and there the locals now have really turned anti-immigrant. When I talked to the locals, they explained it for the same reason - due to skyrocketing of the housing costs. And most of the population in Barcelona is very left leaning. And to most Canadians that I talked to think that Justin Trudeau is the worst prime minister that Canada has ever seen. While I have considered my self a liberal for most of my life, I have came to understand how naive liberalism can be sometimes and that in some aspects conservative view points make sense.

It's very funny to observe this thread and see how the leftists who usually accuse the right of being judgmental, close-minded, and constantly virtue signal, actually behave exactly like the people they criticize. It's like a mask that they wear and once the person that they don't like crosses a certain threshold to trigger them, the mask comes off. I am referring to people who are quick to judge Elon, without actually taking the time to figure out who he actually is. But the fact remains, is that Elon has already done 100x more for the world than they will ever do in their lifetimes.

Frank yang. I know you have some differences and probably dislike for him, but I think the audience would win from it. Also, you don't have to talk about certain topics if you don't want to - there are many things to discuss.

Buddha actually denied the existence of soul, and that's how Hinduism/Buddhism has split. But you can also find this out by having a total breakthrough with psychedelics for example

Wow, now I can even understand a little bit what a person experiencing schizophrenia can feel like! Very great explanation as well, very clear and on the point. Amazing, glad that our conversation somehow could help you : )

I can relate a bit to what you are saying, as sometimes I am also exploring when it comes to discussing various topic/subjects (if my ego doesn't jump in for whatever reason), but people often perceive the idea to be rigid, and think that I hold a certain position, when I am just exploring. What I found to be the key, is the communication style, and feeling where the person is at - as certain things can be a trigger to an ego and change the discussion from exploratory to defending positions. Based on how you conduct yourself on a forum, I would say that your communication style certainly embodies what you say you are - very neutral, balanced, probably more than from anyone that I have seen. Thank you for sharing your perspective, I find you as a person very fascinating actually.

Do you find it difficult in communicating with people when they perceive your ideas to be rigid, when they are clearly not? I do find that sometimes to be an issue for me. Other than that, I totally understand now what you mean. I can totally relate, as I used to be a lot more abstract thinker myself in the past but decided that I didn't want to be "alone in the woods" as you say. So it's really a choice that one has to make - either to live alone in the woods or to be part of the society. Very good point and this is why politics is such a difficult field to navigate. It requires a lot of sacrifice and even the best choices will have some downsides.

Except that's not how it works a lot of the time in practice, especially in US. Sometimes a kid tells the parent that he wants to transition, and the parent just obliges, and goes with whatever the kid wants, without thinking twice. Take even a guy like Elon Musk, who just went along with it and now regrets it. This is why this shit should not be promoted or popularized - as kids can be easily influenced at a young age, and this is where conservatives have a valid point imo. Some kind of protections would need to be also put in place - so that a parent understands that they bear full responsibility and ultimately it is their choice, not the kid's.

My position was that I don't believe that kids should be making that decision, due to such young age. And that this idea should not be promoted and popularized. If their parents think it is best for them and are willing to take that responsibility, then obviously it is fine. I was not talking about placing a ban on transition treatment - don't confuse me with conservatives. When you mentioned that the right does not want to provide the free therapy for kids, my idea was to perhaps have a compromise - have them get free therapy until they are adults, and then allow them to make that decision to transition after they turn 18 or w/e the consensus would be. This was just an idea and I personally think that it would actually work.

I meant that what you perceive as "yellow" is relative, abstract, and subjective. So what you may perceive as "yellow", someone else may perceive as something else and vice versa. So your whole idea of what is yellow, and how one operates in it, is quite abstract and subjective to begin with. Would you say that yellow is fluid in a sense that it is able to see truths in multiple perspectives, and also doesn't hold a rigid opinion on a particular thing? And at the same time is detached from position, because of it's fluidity? Regarding this thread: That was exactly my argument. When we clearly define what a woman is, it gives society a lot more practical value, especially to society that is no near evolved towards yellow. And for me, if I want to live in a society and not alone in the woods, practical mindset clearly has more value than abstract one.

Where did you get that from? Like, we are reading the same thread here? Never did I say that parent's shouldn't have the ability to decide weather their kids could transition or not.

Haha, way to put words in my mouth and assume things that I didn't say! So conscious of you (oh the irony). You either don't want to understand what was my point or just too intellectually lazy to, I will not repeat myself again. And again, here because it is to your benefit you give the doctors the benefit of the doubt, yet in other times you would shit on scientists, doctors, etc.

Way to point the fingers at others and excusing your own behavior. JP is no near close to being arrogant, perhaps you don't know what arrogance means? Since you identify yourself as the progressive, what I said clearly applies to you. You virtue signal, and promote inclusion, compassion, and acceptance, but when it comes to people that you don't like, you throw it all away. Being compassionate and inclusive has no conditions - either you are, or you are not.

Even if what you say is true, it does not mean that giving them hormones and transitioning is the answer. Edit: by doing a quick google search, i see that there are some studies that show the increase risk of suicide. Which is not the same as what you are claiming to be: that gender dysphoria is leading to many kids committing suicide. Your position actually cannot be serious by default, because here you are claiming my position is unscientific, while dismissing science as myth in other cases. And no, you are not avoiding self-deception by cherry picking science, you are just as prone to it as anyone else. I have seen it time and time again from you.

@Something Funny What happened to your tolerance, compassion and being non-judgmental? You don't even know what JP went through over the last years, yet so quick to judge and to dismiss him. Funny how you expect others to have those traits and criticize them for it, yet yourself only have them for people/things that you like.

Haha, no it's not different. You cherrypick science that confirms your own biases, just like everyone else does. And if these same studies were to show otherwise, you would be the first one to dismiss them. You might think that you are different (or special), but you are not in this regard. The reason why I mentioned driving, alcohol, nicotine, serving in the army, etc is not to equate them, but to point out the seriousness of the decision. And if you don't trust your child to be left alone with adult supervision, to drink, to drive, etc, how can you trust them to make a sane decision that will impact their entire life in the future? So far there has not been evidence to show that children as committing suicide in significant numbers due to gender dysphoria, so not sure where are you even getting this from. Perhaps you should consider the amount of kids that regret later in life that they transitioned? Accusing me of not being interested in the substance of the issue, just shows your attachment to this ideology that you hold and wanting to defend it. Cherry picking science and then telling me that my approach is not scientific is also beyond funny. Until you start being consistent and non-contradictory yourself, you are in no position to tell anyone else when it comes to being empirical or not.

So when science does not support your biases, you dismiss it as myth, but when it does, you use it to support your position. How convenient? And no, choosing not to give hormones to kids has nothing to do with biases/prejudices about gender. The only bias/prejudice here would be against age, but we also have that when it comes to drinking, driving, smoking, etc.

Exactly right, and that is the big problem. The fact that it is being promoted as normal, and you have other kids seeing/wanting to try it is fucked up. What people fail to understand, is that a lot of the people on the left (who are not woke) also heavily oppose this.

US is a very strange place in that regard. Kids are not allowed to walk by themselves on the street to school (in Europe it's a normal thing to see) or be by themselves without adult supervision, yet they are allowed to take hormones and to transition!

They are still given access to hormone pills much easier than they should be able to get. And as kids, I don't think they should be making such life changing decisions either. (drinking, driving and going to army, among other things is not allowed for example) A good compromise between left-woke and right would be to not give them any hormones period, and actually provide them therapy/support until they are of legal age to make that decision.

I totally disagree that you can be fluent in such things as stage yellow, because it is too abstract, subjective, and also relative - in comparison to being fluent in language. And to understand and to relate to other modes of cognition requires a higher level of empathy, and total detachment from your own ideas/beliefs. It also helps to speak to different people with different perspectives, and to genuinely be interested in their perspectives, and fears. It's really not that complex, but as always, you are trying to over-intellectualize things

Why are people allowed to drink, drive a car and go to the army only at a certain age? Do you really believe that kids should just so easily be able to transition at such a young age? And how do you not see that a portion of the kids who are confused, are not really trans, and just need some therapy for example? Until you start to understand these concerns, you will not get much support from ordinary folks for your cause. So start to understand, because as I see it, you make no effort to, but expect others to understand your position. The numbers have doubled from 2020 to 2021. And 40,000 kids is still a lot overall, compared to when there was practically no kids transitioning, period. The numbers are only growing, and it is a concern for many people.

It's not that the puberty blockers are scary, it's the fact that they are kids and they are clearly not in position to make that decision that young. And the scariest part, is that they are even being encouraged to do so! Kids can be influenced in many different ways, and transitioning should be the last case scenario for them. Perhaps you can understand that many are outraged, not because they are transphobic (some are of course), but simply due to things like this.