Scholar

From what I understand they exploit parasocial relationships, similar to how Cam-Workers (you know what i mean) do. So that is the appeal of it, it's not just entertainment, it has a social aspect to it. I think the bigger creators on onlyfans even hire people to do their DM's for them. And don't forget, it's usually not just OnlyFans, the parasocial relationships go beyond onlyfans, on platforms like twitch for example. Guys get so attached because they are lonely, or have certain sexuals needs. I think for most human sexuality has a big social aspect to it. We value the interactions with other human beings, knowing that there is another experiencer on the other side. That's my take on it atleast, there are probably more dynamics at play. Maybe give this a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction There is basically a certain psychological phenomena that is somewhat unique to having a relationship with a streamer or similar. It probably is a bit different from cam-workers, but who knows. I guess we would need people in here who use these platforms and have enough self-awareness to report on this phenomena.

That's the Self-help mentality that I do not like, when someone is suicidal, clearly they are not thinking in terms of "good reason". With that logic, any doctor giving bad advice can just say "Well my patient shouldn't have been so stupid and listen to me lol, what does he expect?". The entire issue is that people cannot use their head, and when they do they end up being conspiracy theorists most of the time. They didn't spend their entire life studying philosophy like you did Leo. From what I heard what in the end caused Reckful to jump was that he thought he would get institutionalized again when a friend or something knocked on his door, thinking it was mental health workers, as he made threats to kill himself the days before that. Clearly such an individual is not rational and cannot be held responsible for his actions. Sometimes you do remind me of people like Tony Robbins with your logic and attitudes.

Another discussion, with Destiny, MrGirl and Dr Avi:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence-is-a-red-flag?utm_source=url

You are still doing it. This isn't a debate, this isn't about onus of anything. You failed to conceive of any other possibility outside of him having something to hide for why he avoids open/non-scripted conversation about this. What I am pointing out here is not whether or not Dr K is doing something wrong, or why he is or isn't wrong, what I am doing is pointing our that you are clearly biased. This bias will, like I said, make it difficult for you to see any of this objectively. As long as you are biased, no amount of evidence will convince you. Once you are unbiased you can still come to conclude that Dr K is evil or wrong, but the fact that you could not come up with a simple possibility tells me you are not engaging in this rationally, and therefore there is no point engaging with you rationally. Rational engagement only works if both parties are unbiased. This is why debates fundamentally do not work in convincing people, unless both are good faith and lack bias, atleast enough so they can think and see clearly what is going on.

I say it again, because it is the most important dynamic here: Why were you unable to conceive of a possibility outside of this: You are justifying your bias, my point is your bias is literally making you unable to reason.

Yes, I was assuming that you were making a point outside of just saying "Look there are security aspects to this too!". Well, that doesn't get us anywhere, because the interesting part is how we establish when the security aspect outweighs the individual autonomy. To just say that security aspects are a factor does not really tell us anything about how to evaluate this situation in particular. I did not read all of your posts in this thread so I did not understand your position fully. I perceived your position, similar to the positions of others in this thread, to be dismissive of the truckers and attempting to justify the actions that were taken, and then I provided my reasoning why I think that is unhelpful.

Well, it's understandable that he would respond in a scripted manner considering how serious the allegations are and the fact that everything he says can be used against him in court, his lawyers probably discouraged him from saying anything at all about this. I think the framing of "Who is in the right" is fundamentally wrong, and it is a framing that is encouraged by people like Mr Girl. While Dr K might have acted irresponsibly and made mistakes (that might even justify to take away his license), I think people go a bit far with their bad faith. Just because the guy makes mistake, or has different ethical believes, or even is deluded in some manner, doesn't mean he holds bad intention or consciously goes against "ethics". You want Dr K to be bad, this is why you can't imagine a reason why he would refuse an open conversation about this. Someone who is unbiased will probably come up with a reason in a few seconds (remember, your cognition will only give you answers towards the bias you hold), for example like I said that everything he says, or maybe even refuses to say in a conversation, could be used against him in a serious manner in the future, legally speaking. Or he just doesn't want to have a conversation like this knowing that he is not very confrontational and wouldn't really be able to handle it. There could be many reasons why he does not hae an open conversation, and not all of them entail that he consciously is trying to hide something because he is a genius manipulator. Again, an unbiased person will come to this within seconds. You did not, which is how you know you have a bias here, which if resolved will help you to see things more objectively.

lol, sorry I meant Mr Girl not Dr K That doesn't really justify the backlash and demonization. And the jump from "There are no studies porving ayurveda therefore it's all bullshit", is simply irrational.

I don't think you did so successfully, because abstractions are irrelevant in this discussion, we have to talk about the actual laws in place. Also, I think the article your promoted was in regards to the rights of individuals, so that individuals must be provided with the ability to prevent disease to themselves. There is a reason why we have medical ethics, of which autonomy is viewed as essential. Give this a read: https://www.themedicportal.com/application-guide/medical-school-interview/medical-ethics/medical-ethics-autonomy/ I feel like sometimes people tend to just throw everything out the window without considering why we have certain things in place. Forcing people to take vaccines might do irreparable damage to society, as it completely undermines trust in both institutions and the medical system for a substantial portion of the population, leading them to be more radicalized and reject current institutions. Faith in institutions is essential to upholding civility and social cohesion. We as a society have completely failed in unifying our perspectives, because we did not take responsibility for the trajectory of the evolution of worldviews. Our childishness is what caused people to be paranoid, and because we have not done anything to address the root issues, I think we can prepare for a future that might be far less stable than we currently think it is. It's not a good idea to just let everyone form their own worldview without giving them the tools to navigate a basically infinite information landscape, as we can see, the tendency for humans is to fall into fear, paranoia, victimhood and fractured identities. Your lack of empathy for these people, which makes you fundamentally blind to the reasons why they are radicalized and fearful in the first place, is actually a far greater problem than the entire pandemic was. That is the root issue. Without resolving this issue, you are playing whack-a-mole, and you'll wonder why more and more moles come popping out of the holes the more you whack them.

I think Mr Girl has handled this in a bit of an immature way, he seems to be very emotionally invested in this rather than approach it from a perspective that I think even he would view as more helpful. There are valid critiques to make but the way he is making them are not really effective or healthy. I'm also seeing other streamers jumping on this and having a kind of typical Stage Orange reaction against Dr K, basically making him out to be a manipulator only out for the money. You can see the mentality of "meditation is bullshit" and "he is promoting pseudescience with ayurveda". It is kind of unfortunate because Dr K was doing a really good job getting people from Orange to Green in some aspects atleast. They view him as exceptionally inauthentic. Just skip through this:

That's precisely my point.

I would say this is a different kind of right than what you quoted in your post. If someone had the right to not get infected, they could sue anyone who infects them, whether it is a flu or any other kind of disease, in the same way you could if someone drove into your car.

Yes, and this needs to change. There are ethical way to achieve progress, and many researchers argue that the high frequency of animal testing is detrimental to the science rather than helpful, especially regulations that require animal testing even if we know the data will be basically useless. But either way, if you think it's okay to use animals as test subjects for the greater good, do you think you can justify this outside of human supremacy? And more importantly, when you say for the sake of humanity, what exactly are you referring to? To me, doing this is the opposite of serving humanity, because to me humanity means to have compassion, mercy and love beyond the restrictions of animalistic desires. This kind of testing and attitude based on survival and fear is what kills our humanity, it makes us beings that instead of deserving the progress we achieve through the torture we inflict on others, are the last ones who should benefit from it. Avoiding and prohibiting the torture of innocent, child-like individuals for the greater good is not difficult.

No of course not, that's not how rights work. You don't have a right not to get cancer.

And this is exactly why the kind of advice given here can lead to extreme harm. Some people are just out of touch with how other people feel and they will not notice when they just push boundaries and make others feel uncomfortable. The attitude of "I have to just push and push until I get to have sex with her!" can very easily lead into the rape-territory, because women tend to want to avoid confrontation. The issue is that people might regret their choice afterwards. When you push someone until they are super horny, they might do things that they would otherwise not want to do, similar to when they are drunk. Instead of being so defensive about this I would recommend to self-reflect and adopt responsibility for possible harm you might cause.

I gave this a quick read and it seems like the backlash against the Aryan Invasion Theory has more to do with Indian Nationalism. https://scroll.in/article/936872/two-new-genetic-studies-upheld-aryan-migration-theory-so-why-did-indian-media-report-the-opposite I will not download the pdf you provided, maybe find a link to some website that has the pdf.

It's clearly hyperbole, but that is basically the attitude he is taking, and I think he knows it, and I think he thinks it's a good attitude to take, which I fundamentally disagree with.

Here is the difference between me and Leo for example: Me: "Everyone should read the guidelines but I know that many people won't, which is an issue because this means many people will be uninformed about the fact that there is no privacy on this website even though the expectation will be that there is. Because I think breaching privacy is a serious thing, I think I should find a way so that ensures that atleast people know about this one particular thing because of how important it is, after all I don't want people to think they have privacy on here, because even if they don't read the guidelines for whatever reason (which I know most people won't because that's just how the internet works, and I have no way of screening these people out anyways) their privacy is still important to me. Therefore, I will create a system that ensures that whenever someone sends a message, they are informed that it is not private. This way I have reduced harm, because after all, there is no free will, there is no such thing as people being ignorant, there is only reality taking place and therefore all I can do is use my compassion for the most loving outcome." Leo: "It's not my fault that they don't read the guidelines lol, fuck these idiots if they choose not to do it it's they fault their privacy gets breached. I'm not willing to do anything, they deserve it if they are this stupid."

I think your attitude is unhealthy. Clearly they are not. The issue is that it wouldn't be difficult whatsoever to ensure that everyone is informed, by simply having that warning as part of the PM system itself so even people who don't read the guidelines are aware. The issue is that Leo expects things from people that they will not do, and he is too stubborn and incompassionate to ensure the safety of everyone. There is a reason why we made wearing a belt in a car required by law. He has a very typical self-help attitude and it's toxic imo.

@Leo Gura I think this is the reason why it should be made much more clear that there is no privacy on this forum. The fact that Leo can read everyone's PM's goes against the expectations of pretty much everyone who uses the internet and other forums. Sure it is written in the Guidelines, but I think it is the responsibility of the owner of the website that this is made clear, and knowing that many people choose not to read guidelines just causes unnecessary harm and violations of privacy. For the same reason that you can't just sneak into your TOS some sort of absurd clause that says using this website costs 1000€ and then sueing people for not having paid it. A similar thing happened to me as am kid and it turned out it was illegal to do that. Aside from the law and whether this is some sort of breach, morally speaking I think it should be obvious that in such a situation it is on the owner of the website to ensure that everyone using it will be informed by this. Much like websites like Facebook should be informing Users how their information is being used and not just sneak it into the TOS. I was also surprised by the fact that Leo could read PMs, so were many others, that alone should tell you that you are doing a really bad job at informing people, independent of the expectations you put upon them. You should want them to be informed and make it your responsibility, precisely because you are the more conscious one and you are aware that there will be completely unnecessary negative consequences by you not doing so. And I remember that I read the Guidelines when I registered.

People who do carnivore diet report worsening of autoimmune reactions, the longer you are on it, the worse your micro-biome will get, not the better. The reason for this seems to be a pretty simple. The bacteria that are responsible for breaking down plant matter will starve if you don't feed them planet matter, while other bacteria will prosper and take over, making it conversly harder for you to reestablish a healthy microbiome.

Yes, this is akin to having cancer in your leg and then saying "Bro, I cut off my leg and I feel so much better! Cutting legs off is healthy!".

Have you even read the study? It undermines it's very findings in the Limitations. Self-report surveys is one of the lowest quality data you could have. The fact that you guys jump on these like it was a holy grail just makes it clear how biased you are. Imagine a survey like this for a banana-only diet. You'd immediately see why it would be an issue to have such a survey. We have excellent data on health-outcomes of vegan diets, which is why consensus of professionals and institutions tends towards reducing consumption of animal products and increasing consumption of healthy plant foods.