Scholar

Considering people are animals, that's not a surprise.

There is a sense of nationalism in every country, but China is basically, for no good reason other than because the CCP wants to use this as a political tool, sowing hatred amongst the entire population for human beings of other nations. China is actually on a very bad trajectory at the moment, and regressing starkly from where it was heading even a decade ago, so it is not actually certain whether or not China will be able to sustain itself as a powerful entity in the long term, especially with regional competitors like India. Although China does have the potential, the corruption is so deep that it might take decades just to heal the damage that was done over the past few years.

Well, age of consent is not to prevent underage individuals from having sex, but rather to prevent already developed humans to engage with underdeveloped humans sexually. Part of the development of humans, as well as developing and learn a proper model of consent, is to actually engage in sexual activity. This is why teenagers are given more leeway for mistakes than adult individuals, or at least this ought to be the case in theory. So this is the paradox: To learn consent, one must engage in sexual activity, as that is part of how you learn to consent. A 25 year old who has no sexual experience most likely has a less developed ability to consent than a 16 year old who is very experienced. In that sense, the age of consent is a line we draw in the sand so that we prevent as much of an inbalance between individuals to occur in society as possible, while restricting individuals who can consent as little as possible. That's basically the challenge.

For context, a woman murdered her step father. In court, she claimed her father had nude images on his computer(the story is that he had a nude picture of her breasts as the background for his unlock screen, which she claims is the reason she investigated the computer), and that it was the reason she murdered him. Now, from what I understand, there is actually no evidence that any nude pictures of her ever existed on the computer. She claims she destroyed the hardware on which the images were located. These claims were made after the position that she did not commit the murder seemed untenable, and the prosecution gladly accepted the stated claims as fact as she basically confessed to first degree murder. Now, if you google the case, you will get countless of headlines that "Jade Janks murdered her father after finding nude photos of herself on his computer". This seems to be completely unsubstantiated. If you look through the comments in the video above, you will see people will basically call the father a child predator, and the consensus more or less is that he deserved to be killed, but that maybe she had to go to jail for a little because it's the law and you can't be a vigilante. Many of them are glad that the father is dead. People are so hypersensitive in this area that they will completely abandon all reason as a result of their knee-jerk outrage. I want this thread to showcase more examples of PDS (Pedophile Derangement Syndrome), because it is actually becoming a relevant social phenomenon. People will call 21 year olds who are attracted to 17 year olds pedophiles, which is just bonkers. We also have hypersensitivity around sexual crimes in general. Where sexual assault or harassment will basically be morally equivocated with forced rape. Now, to be fair, this hypersensitivity is a reaction to a hyposensitivity that prevails certain subsections of the society. However, a lot of these crimes are more due to people being dysfunctional, stupid and ignorant, rather than outright malicious actors. But increasingly, we have less room for nuance and actual, healthy discussions around these topics. We have a kind of strange moralization of crime going on that is not healthy. On the one side, for minority groups we will make excuses based on arguments of environmental predeterminism, but for any group that is not viewed as underprivileged, suddenly all environmental factors are irrelevant and the actors are literal evil that deserve no consideration. The sexist-racist phenomena of "Karen"s is actually a good example of this. It's all part of the same, tribalistic social media moralosphere that is not grounded in anything but perceived moral outraged.

Right, it is not really meaningful to say "First person subjective experience is all that exists", because then, it wouldn't be subjective, nor first person, it would simply be all that exists.

The Tates are like business men who thought they discovered pyramid schemes but didn't realize it was already a thing while being fraudulent and illegal.

According to british intelligence, his family was threatened to be executed.

For the very same reason why the same is true for birds. And yes, in the 1900s strict monogamy was culturally and legally more enforced, so the more natural human dynamics were avoided. Go and watch some nature documentaries, none of this is very complicated to understand.

Love pill is and always has been the answer.

I reject those views because we can see racial superiority as a feature of nationalism itself. China today is a good example. There is historic and evolutionary revisionism currently taking place, in which the han chinese race is actually viewed as the race which gave birth to all other races, as well as ideas of it's superiority. Similar things are happening in India, and obviously history is ripe with examples throughout the entire world, for example Imperial Japan. Nationalism is a natural and necessary step in the development of higher civilization, and racial conscience tends to develop as a result of developing an imperialistic identity. An imperialistic identity is the attempt to universalize the ingroup identity onto the whole world, and to justify that, it requires superiority. So, racism and nationalism in the end are a means to an end in regards to a process of identity expansion. Racism especially in those times is not really surprising at all. You have to consider, you went to another continent, you had some basic ideas of evolution, and you find other human beings who look completely different from you and seemingly behave in what you consider uncivilized behaviour, and that is seemingly universally true. Of course, with how ignorant people were back then, they would develop notions of racial superiority. From their perspective it's a reasonable conclusion. One of the problems with historians is that they tend to want to attribute historical developments to historic events, because that's basically what the study of history is trying to achieve. However, historical developments can simply be a result of socio-evolutionary dynamics, and then the historic events in their particularity are just the context in which those take place. So, historians will claims "Well, this historic event in the past is what motivated this historic event further down the line, because clearly we can see the influence of the prior event!", but this misses that the dynamic simply functions in such a way that it will be couched in whatever the given historic context is. So, of course the japanese will use japanese history to justify their nationalism and superiority, and so will the chinese, the germans, the french, the romans and so forth.

Possibly shot down by Russian Air Defense: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/15zaa3p/breaking_a_private_jet_owned_by_prigozhin_was/ That's what you call a convenient oopsie.

Oxymoron.

Nationalism doesn't have it's roots in the Crusades, rather, Nationalism will use the history of any given civilization as a nationalistic mythos.

Non-existence has to exist for it to exist, and therefore it would be part of existence. You cannot negate existence, because negation is a form of existence. I am not saying that saying reality is mind necessitates duality. I am saying that the very concept of mind stems from duality, and without it, the concept is utterly meaningless. When you say all of reality is mind, you are really just saying: "This here, what I have referred to as mind for my whole life, this is all reality is and could possibly be!". You call it mind because you have been delusional for your entire life and somehow made a distinction between actual reality and "your mind", which is nothing but a fantasy. Once that distinction collapses, the notion of mind ought to be thrown out the window as well. This here, it simply is reality, no mind, no perceiver. The fact that reality is relative in terms of how it relates to itself is just a feature of reality, which previously you attributed to minds, which do not actually exist.

Non-existence has to exist for it to exist, and therefore it would be part of existence. You cannot negate existence, because negation is a form of existence.

I'm not talking about just contemporary materialism. I am talking about the very notion of perceptions in relationship to an external reality. This idea is actually part of default human cognition, even part of egoic structures. Every idealists that talks about minds is basically reacting to that. I'm not discounting it. I just think the way the framework works is just reactionary and it is unnecessarily confusing to materialists because it kind of engages in the same assumptions by using the same language. Existence is absolute. You are not quite grasping what I am saying. I don't think "Oh reality is not like what you call a mind!". Redness is existence, but redness is not mind. It literally is just existance, and it exists in and of itself, without anyone perceiving it. What you call perceiving redness is just redness existing. Really, we are referring to the same thing, and it is limitless either way. I just call it existence, because calling it mind implies outdated dualistic notions. There is no perceiver that is fundamental to existence, there is just existence. The perceiver as a sense of self is just a form of existence.

For me, Hashimoto's is definitely related to my gut micro-biome. There are studies that indicate the two are related. Especially if you consume iodine (which you have to be careful on with Hashimoto's) I found that my thyroid reacts really badly when I do not actively take probiotics and prebiotics. And actual pills with probiotics, not food. Food does not actually help that much as it requires way more bacteria. But depending on what is going on with your gut, probiotics will not be sufficient. You have to know specifically what strains of bacteria you have that might be harmful and what types you need to resupply, and all of that has to happen in the right order and with the right diet for it to work. So it actually requires a specialist.

No, you need a more advanced notion of existence. What would mind or imagination even mean, if not existence? God is just existence, you wouldn't be calling it a mind if you didn't grow up in a materialistic, dualistic society. So you're just a reactionary in the way you use your terms. What you actually mean when you say this is: "Reality actually has qualities that I previously attributed to the notion of minds, which was a notion I was indoctrinated into through materialist dualist culture." Minds don't exist outside of the idea of them.

Whether or not it's new doesn't change the terrible consequences of those dynamics. These dynamics are what allowed higher class individuals to watch the poor class starve to death before the poor class would have enough and kill all the rich people. I don't see how that is a trajectory that we want to be on. I think this is just relativizing the problem. And it does not work because people in the past did not have nearly as much mobility as they do now. People couldn't even realistically leave their own country, they had to contend with what was there and if they wanted better life's, they would have to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve that life. And even within individual classes, people were stuck with each other locally, they had to be concerned with what their neighbours were doing, and it was in their best interest to support each other locally. This is not at all true anymore.

Life will end either way at some point, that is inevitable. But like I said, that's like saying bombing people is healthy for them because it gets overweight people to do more cardio. Life won't have to worry about whether or not it will go extinct in a hundred million years or more if we destroy it far before then. To pretend what we do now is helping is just silly.

This might mitigate the overall problem in terms of making it less risky, but it does not address the root issue, which I think is more a social issue. The lack of strong communities due to a transition away from healthy stage blue is something we have not yet found solutions to at all. Human beings get most of their meaning in life from communal living and orientation towards communal goals. One of the problems is that intelligent, educated people will move out of cities and problem areas because they do not have any sense of community in the first place. This means individuals who are dysfunctional will just be left by their own, and there is no potential for communities to heal. On a global scale this is true as well. Today, the most intelligent, talented and healthy individuals have the opportunity to leave their own countries if they grow to dysfunctional. Nobody is even motivated to change the systems if everyone is more concerned with leaving them. A challenge of the 21st century I think is that people will seperate themselves into the healthy groups and dysfunctional groups. In the past, people were forced to deal with their environment, and there was a mixture of dysfunctional and functional individuals within any given environment, allowing functional individuals to help dysfunctional ones, because they had no other choice. Today, they can just move somewhere else and let the people who stay behind deal with the problem.

Do we really want to give big pharma license to sell cocaine and heroine? They are already bad as is, and obviously they will have incentive to capture as many individuals in an addictive loop as possible.

Nature did just fine for hundreds of millions of years. This is like saying, war is healthy for humans because they have to run away from bombs all the time which is good for their cardiovascular health.

Have have you been smoking lately, lol. Except that we are literally destroying the all forests of the planet to grow crops for animal feed. We aren't restoring any balance, life can balance itself just fine. The problem is that higher temperatures are far from the only problem we are facing. It makes no sense to just analyse how bad things will be through the lense of temperature rise alone. We have soil erosion, we have ecosystem degradation and collapse, we have pollution and so forth. You are familiar with the concept of network effects, so apply this logic here. It's not an environmental problem to you because you are not the one suffering from the consequences, as you still have a contracted ego that does not actually view much outside of himself as the self. If that wasn't the case, you would already see that this is a problem even now, and that indeed humans are the least affected by the consequences of these problems. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/land-degradation-is-undermining-human-wellbeing-un-report-warns I really don't know when that idea of "Humanity will prevail because the Divine ordained it so!" has taken hold in your head, but it is toxic as hell. God doesn't give a shit if mankind, or infact all life on this planet perishes. That is a miniscule sacrifice for the greater picture of evolution. We are not guaranteed a future just because evolution says so, it's quite the opposite.

To only focus on CO2 emissions in terms of environmental distruction misses the bigger picture. One of the big issues is that we are degrading ecosystems which capture CO2 by using the land in the most inefficient way possible, generating calories and protein by means of animal agriculture rather than directly consuming plants. If we were to use land efficiently, we could reforest large parts of the planet and therefore capture more of the CO2 that we are emitting. And this seems to actually be something that we will need to do anyways, because it will not be sufficient to simply reduce our emissions at this point. We cannot continue to use land in the most irrational way possible because people want to eat bacon instead of lentils. China is currently adopting a more western diet, and the consequences are felt globally as massive portions of tropical ecosystems are destroyed to be replaced with monocrop fields for animal feed. As the trends are going at the moment, we will lose all major land-based ecosystems on the planet in a matter of decades, simply because people adopt western dietary habits. We will soon require multiple earths to be able to sustain the agricultural needs for the world, simply because we enjoy certain animal products, not at all because it is necessary for survival or economically more efficient.