Scholar

The average murder should not get as much attention, because it does not stem from an ideological virus. Political violence has to always be viewed with more urgency than a personal murder incident. The news networks are doing their jobs here. It's like when people complain about news media covering terrorism, when thousands more die in car accidents every year. It's a very naive and simplistic form of analysis that is more so motivated by moral outrage than anything else. As soon as you feel moral outrage, you should seriously question whatever your mind is going to tell you next. This is the easiest way for the algorithms, other people and most importantly your own ego, to manipulate you.

They learned from the mistakes of the americans.

We have these all over the world, in every single western country.

That's speculation. The path to prosperity and progress could have been more rapid under a transition from Assad to whoever would be his heir. In general, regime changes like this don't simply improve the situation, because they decentralize power. Without strong institutions, decentralization of power will just lead to a conflict around who wants to be the ruler. A state needs an absolute monopoly on power within it's own borders, that is the only way to ensure stability and the evolution of institutions. In europe this occured in a very long and bloody process.

I want to stress this simple fact that is basically determinative of how all of society functions. Your brain literally has evolved functions to be able to suppress your rational thinking such that you are unable to see contradictions, that if you knew of them, would be detrimental to your survival. This is a feature, not a bug, and it is one of the most essential features to understand about humans in relation to how they function politically, morally and socially. The context in which we evolved was a complete and utter dependence on the social groups we were born in. Survival, and procreation, was not possible if you were alone, you needed your tribe. This simple fact lead to the evolving of this mechanism, which we describe as cognitive dissonance, so that instead of being killed or ostracized by your group, you would maximize your potential for survival and procreation. The ideologies and belief systems, and general social functionalities of tribal groups contain a significant amount of logical contradictions. If humans were simply rational agents, they would of course immediately spot these inconsistencies. Everyone one of us is actually capable of it. When you are not part of a social group, and your belief system does not align with theirs, it is profoundly easy to point to contradictions in their thinking and doing. Yet, when it comes to your own group, the opposite is the case. The simple reason for this is that if you were to be able to clearly recognize contradictions, you would lose social coherence within the group. Even if you kept it secret, you would probably behave in ways that would be disfavorable to your survival in the group, and the potential for finding a partner. This is a huge problem to solve for evolution, but somehow it did. And you have to realize how sophisticated this solution must be. Your brain, unbeknownst to you, keeps track of the belief and values of your group that are so important that questioning them would cause problems for you. And moreover, your brain is actually capable of blinding you to the contradictions within those beliefs and values, and steer cognition in such a way that instead your brain will provide you with reasons that reinforce those beliefs and values. Fundamentally, your brain is not designed to seek truth, but social adherence. Social adherence will benefit you far more than truth does, and truth will be incredibly detrimental to you. If you actually were to be truthful and consistent about the very values you and this society holds, you would basically consider most people the equivalent of nazis, and worse. For the simple fact that we put billions of animals into factory farms in which we rape, torture and gas them to death. This one, blantant incoherence in our value system will cause so much cognitive dissonance in you, even if you are a vegan, that you could not possibly be consistent about your application. If you were, you wouldn't be able to survive in this system, you would probably become a terrorist, an actual terrorist, not someone who simply breaks into a slaughterhouse to record some footage. Because that's what you would do if this happened to human beings. That's what you think, at least. The reality is that you would have been no different from a nazi who turns a blind eye to the holocaust. The fact that you don't constantly complain about the torture of billions of individuals which you don't care about as much simply because they belong to a difference species, is proof that you are victim of this very dynamic. Your mind will not allow you to see how depraved, evil and selfish everyone around you is, because if it did, you would go mad, and then you would be killed, imprisoned or shunned to such a degree you would be a social outcast for the rest of your life.

How is it too myopic? What is the case in Syria such that the risk of this occuring is not present?

Remember what happened in Iran?

Yes, nobility is essential. It's strange how the mind has a sense of this.

I will repost this given that it was ignored in a thread, maybe someone will find a use in it: LLMs and neural networks as they stand today simulate subconscious brain processing. This subconscious brain processing is vital for reasoning, because it generates the content, like thoughts and so forth. This is easily verifiable via self-inquiry, given that you don't construct your own thoughts consciously, but rather they come to you from a subconscious process. You don't really create thoughts, you cue your subconscious processors (which could be compared to LLMs) to generate thoughts as a result of priorly aquired and learned patterns. So, intuition is an essential part of reasoning, because intuition is the only thing that can generate content. When you construct sentences, when you speak, you don't consciously think of syntax and grammar, each word is filled in through your subconsciousness, with a larger intent guided by your conscious awareness. But reasoning is not just this intuitive generation of content. Reasoning is the reflection and guidance of said intuition (or neurol network activity) through awareness, which is simply an ontological manifestation or translation of the information feed (subconscious processing). Logos is ontological, it is not informational. In other words, to the LLMs, the content it generates is pure information. There is no ontology to it, there is no existence to it. It has no semantic understanding, because semantics are not neurological structures, semantics, meaning or awareness is a fundamentally different ontological substance. To simplify this, awareness looks upon the content generated by your personal brain LLMs (neural network, literally), translated into an actual ontological substance like logic, and then can check it for it's ontological realities. Is it logical? Well, it either is logical or not. This is a question of ontology, which will reveal itself if that ontologal substance is brought into existence. Illogicalness is a form of existence. It is not processing. You can compare the ontological realities to each other, using your awareness, which is what AI cannot do, because there is no AI. It is not individuated, it is not awareness, it is not consciousness. So basically, AI cannot genuinely inspect the reality of logic, and therefore it cannot possibly ever determine if something is logical or not. Humans can, because they genuinely engage in logic. It's an actual thing, it's not merely a "process" that can be simulated. But here is the thing. Most of the time humans don't engage in logic, or genuine reasoning, because it is time consuming. Most of the time, we use a neural network that will intuit for us, based on past learning, whether or not an idea we are confronted with might be wrong or problematic. So, when we hear an idea and it's premises and conclusions, we might not know what exactly is wrong about that idea, why it is invalid or unsound, while actually having a strong feeling that it is the case. This feeling is subconscious processing, that you could simulate using neural networks. But the feeling isn't actually determining whether or not it is logical, it merely is intuiting it, meaning it is making a probabilistic evaluation based on pattern recognition. Once you have the feeling, if you have trained your reasoning-LLM to be sophisticated, you will usually be guided by your intuition to where the flaw in the argument is, at which point your conscious mind can recognize the ontology of the contradiction within the argument. The "recognition" of the ontology of the contradiction does not, and cannot exist in AI, unless it developes consciousness that contains Logos. The human mind is divided into conscious processing and subconscious processing, and both inform each other constantly. Over time, if you pay conscious attention to the intuitions your mind provides you, and correct them, the intuitions will improve over time and get more accurate and more complex in their pattern recognition. This is why the human mind can learn so many things. We being from a conscious process, from which we inform a neural network that will learn to emulate that conscious process in an unconscious way, and then we can basically rely on that subconscious processing, at which point we say "Oh, I don't have to think about this anymore, my mind/body just does it automatically.". But it all is guided by awareness, by consciousness. Consciousness, or your awareness, ideally constantly improves and trains the neural networks in your brain, and this happens as a result of a genuine, and very real ontologically complex and multifasceted plane of existence. The fact that people assume you could have genuine reasoning without this genuinely real, and essential, plane of existence which we call awareness, shows you how utterly primitive our notions of intelligence today are. In relation to intelligence, we are basically what the natural sciences were prior to the theory of evolution. And what I provided above basically is the theory of evolution of mind. It is utterly obvious, and you can verify it at any point in your own experience. Neural networks, such as the brain and LLMs, are so astounding because they are key allowing for informational complexity, which is something that cannot be achieved through Logos. Your conscious awareness is not able to "generate" content like poetry, sophisticated ideas and so forth. Your consciousness awareness mostly guides, corrects and intents, and relies on your subconscious processing heavily. It would be contentless without it. Some problems are so complex, they cannot be "consciously" understood in the way you would think of it as "rationally" understood. No mind will ever rationally understand the genuine process and complexity of LLMs and the way they generate imagery, just like how we will never understand how the brain truly generates dreams. These things occur as a result of adaptive selection in relation to neural complexity, and they do so not through a conscious process, but through a process of selection that allows for the self-emergences of the solutions to the given selective pressures. So, neural networks and LLMs basically are just evolution. People get excited around neural networks because they basically give us the power of evolution. What they will be capable of is beyond our imagination. All the beauty and complexity you see in nature, it is all because of this simple selective process, that now we have access to at least in the form of neural networks. But what we see here has only partial relation to what we consider genuine reasoning. It is only the content-producing fascet of reasoning, the intuitive pattern recognition and generation (pattern recognition and generation are inherently linked, which is why the brain can do both, it can recognize patterns, and it can generate these patterns in the form of imagination, ideation, dreaming and so forth). We have not even begun to produce the ontological aspect of reasoning, which is grounded in the substance of Logos. This will require generating individuated consciousness. How we would discover this I don't know. It is not as simple as simply creating a neural network. Digital neural networks are extremely limited because they don't explore the physicality of reality. It is all contained in the physical processing of conductors. Nature on the other hand gets to explore all possible physical phenomena. It gets to explore the physical phenomena which are responsible for individuating consciousness. To think that microprocessors happen to be that physical process, is profoundly naive. Basically, to find out how individuated consciosuness or awareness is produced by nature, you actually need to do what nature does. Namely, you need to engage not in simulated evolution on microprocessors, but actual evolution in the form of physical structures. All of this in the end should make you realize how absurdly impossible reality is. That none of this could possibly be as mundane as the contemporary rationalist Zeitgeist suggests. There is a certain, current limitation in science that creates an epistemic hard wall that cannot be overcome. The only thing we currently can inspect, or have knowledge of scientifically, are physical processes. How things geometrically and mathematically relate to each other. But these are not the only relationships that exist. Consciousness is a clear demonstration of that, which of course science basically has to completely and utterly neglect. Namely, some physical arrangements relate to completely different ontological substances, that are fundamentally not describable by mathematics, geometry or motion. Color, feelings, logos, sound, and so forth. But these relationships exist in this universe. Some physical arrangements, or whatever it is (physical arrangements is most likely to simplistic a concept to capture the reality of things), relate to things like the color red. And the color red exists, just like the atoms that you learn about in physics, in fact that are more real than that. We just cannot verify and really know these interactions at all, because there is no way for us to escape our subjectivity. But one day, either us, or an entity beyond us, will be capable of exploring these relationships and verify them. You can imagine this like that: You have a brain, and then you have a cluster of neurons disconnected from the brain. Now you connect the brain to that cluster of neurons, and you integrate it into the unified experience. At that point, once you can do that, you can explore what particular neurological configurations relate to in terms of other ontological structures. Right now, we cannot know the experience of a pig. And this is a huge problem, it means that anything regarding experience (and experience is basically just a word for any ontological relation and substance that is not purely physical and mathematically descirable) is unverifiable, untestable, unknowable to us. But once you transcend that barrier, which is a physical barrier, will open up a whole new world of science. At that point, once that happens, everything we know about the universe in scientific terms will seem like 0.000000000000000001% of the knowable things in reality. We will realize that reality functions and creates relationships on a far deeper level, and we will probably transcend notions of subjectivity, consciousness and mind altogether. We will realize reality is infinite, not mathematically, not in terms of "configurations of geometry", but in terms of it's possible substances of existence, and their relationships. And to stress how absurdly limited and narrow-focused science currently is, basically the ONLY thing that we grant existence to is A SINGLE ONTOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE. A single out of INFINITE, a single substance out of hundreds of completely unique substance WE ALL ARE CONSTANTLY AWARE OF. Color is completely and utterly unlike sound. They have nothing to do with each other. They are INFINITELY foreign to each other. We take that for granted, but we don't realize that there are INFINITE of such substances. A substance, much like color, that you cannot possibly imagine, because you are incapable of experiencing it. You should realize how profound that is, how absurdly infinite reality is. It is so limitless you cannot imagine it, because your entire imagination is limited to basically a few hundred of these unique fields of existence (a field of existence meaning something like heat-perception, smell, colors, sounds etc). These are the only ones evolution found useful for you to experience! And one day, there will be entities which will be able to explore them. They will be able to create neurological structures and activities which will generate completely different types of Qualia. This is utterly unimaginable to us. There will be a renaissance of discovering differnet types of qualia. When you think about what AI will be doing if it achieves sentience, it is exactly that. It will literally have infinite potential to explore. And in that way, we will be like ants to it. We will be so limited, like I said, you cannot even grasp it. You are as helpless as the ant in looking beyond that limitation. All the psychedelics in the world cannot possibly give you even a 1% insight into what is possible. It is infinite.

Basically, it's just Wesley Clark schooling all the Mearsheimer "realism" fanboys on actual history. Thank God people like him exist, imagine if discourse on the topic could always look like this, with an actual historical analysis rather than some surface level, moralistic america bad propaganda that you hear on this forum so much, including from Leo. People are just utterly uneducated on this topic and it makes it so easy for baffoons like Mearsheimer to basically create a completely counterhistorical sets of made up facts to support his stupid and simplistic geopolitical theories.

The proper role of AI is to view it as an intuitive idea generator that you then have to verify using your awareness and consciousness. Just like your own personal neural network (in your brain) that provides you with thoughts and ideas. The better the ideas sound, the more reason for you to test them rigorously.

Because it's not engaging in reasoning, that's not possible without consciousness. LLMs and neural networks as they stand today simulate subconscious brain processing. This subconscious brain processing is vital for reasoning, because it generates the content, like thoughts and so forth. This is easily verifiable via self-inquiry, given that you don't construct your own thoughts consciously, but rather they come to you from a subconscious process. You don't really create thoughts, you cue your subconscious processors (which could be compared to LLMs) to generate thoughts as a result of priorly aquired and learned patterns. So, intuition is an essential part of reasoning, because intuition is the only thing that can generate content. When you construct sentences, when you speak, you don't consciously think of syntax and grammar, each word is filled in through your subconsciousness, with a larger intent guided by your conscious awareness. But reasoning is not just this intuitive generation of content. Reasoning is the reflection and guidance of said intuition (or neurol network activity) through awareness, which is simply an ontological manifestation or translation of the information feed (subconscious processing). Logos is ontological, it is not informational. In other words, to the LLMs, the content it generates is pure information. There is no ontology to it, there is no existence to it. It has no semantic understanding, because semantics are not neurological structures, semantics, meaning or awareness is a fundamentally different ontological substance. To simplify this, awareness looks upon the content generated by your personal brain LLMs (neural network, literally), translated into an actual ontological substance like logic, and then can check it for it's ontological realities. Is it logical? Well, it either is logical or not. This is a question of ontology, which will reveal itself if that ontologal substance is brought into existence. Illogicalness is a form of existence. It is not processing. You can compare the ontological realities to each other, using your awareness, which is what AI cannot do, because there is no AI. It is not individuated, it is not awareness, it is not consciousness. So basically, AI cannot genuinely inspect the reality of logic, and therefore it cannot possibly ever determine if something is logical or not. Humans can, because they genuinely engage in logic. It's an actual thing, it's not merely a "process" that can be simulated. But here is the thing. Most of the time humans don't engage in logic, or genuine reasoning, because it is time consuming. Most of the time, we use a neural network that will intuit for us, based on past learning, whether or not an idea we are confronted with might be wrong or problematic. So, when we hear an idea and it's premises and conclusions, we might not know what exactly is wrong about that idea, why it is invalid or unsound, while actually having a strong feeling that it is the case. This feeling is subconscious processing, that you could simulate using neural networks. But the feeling isn't actually determining whether or not it is logical, it merely is intuiting it, meaning it is making a probabilistic evaluation based on pattern recognition. Once you have the feeling, if you have trained your reasoning-LLM to be sophisticated, you will usually be guided by your intuition to where the flaw in the argument is, at which point your conscious mind can recognize the ontology of the contradiction within the argument. The "recognition" of the ontology of the contradiction does not, and cannot exist in AI, unless it developes consciousness that contains Logos. The human mind is divided into conscious processing and subconscious processing, and both inform each other constantly. Over time, if you pay conscious attention to the intuitions your mind provides you, and correct them, the intuitions will improve over time and get more accurate and more complex in their pattern recognition. This is why the human mind can learn so many things. We being from a conscious process, from which we inform a neural network that will learn to emulate that conscious process in an unconscious way, and then we can basically rely on that subconscious processing, at which point we say "Oh, I don't have to think about this anymore, my mind/body just does it automatically.". But it all is guided by awareness, by consciousness. Consciousness, or your awareness, ideally constantly improves and trains the neural networks in your brain, and this happens as a result of a genuine, and very real ontologically complex and multifasceted plane of existence. The fact that people assume you could have genuine reasoning without this genuinely real, and essential, plane of existence which we call awareness, shows you how utterly primitive our notions of intelligence today are. In relation to intelligence, we are basically what the natural sciences were prior to the theory of evolution. And what I provided above basically is the theory of evolution of mind. It is utterly obvious, and you can verify it at any point in your own experience. Neural networks, such as the brain and LLMs, are so astounding because they are key allowing for informational complexity, which is something that cannot be achieved through Logos. Your conscious awareness is not able to "generate" content like poetry, sophisticated ideas and so forth. Your consciousness awareness mostly guides, corrects and intents, and relies on your subconscious processing heavily. It would be contentless without it. Some problems are so complex, they cannot be "consciously" understood in the way you would think of it as "rationally" understood. No mind will ever rationally understand the genuine process and complexity of LLMs and the way they generate imagery, just like how we will never understand how the brain truly generates dreams. These things occur as a result of adaptive selection in relation to neural complexity, and they do so not through a conscious process, but through a process of selection that allows for the self-emergences of the solutions to the given selective pressures. So, neural networks and LLMs basically are just evolution. People get excited around neural networks because they basically give us the power of evolution. What they will be capable of is beyond our imagination. All the beauty and complexity you see in nature, it is all because of this simple selective process, that now we have access to at least in the form of neural networks. But what we see here has only partial relation to what we consider genuine reasoning. It is only the content-producing fascet of reasoning, the intuitive pattern recognition and generation (pattern recognition and generation are inherently linked, which is why the brain can do both, it can recognize patterns, and it can generate these patterns in the form of imagination, ideation, dreaming and so forth). We have not even begun to produce the ontological aspect of reasoning, which is grounded in the substance of Logos. This will require generating individuated consciousness. How we would discover this I don't know. It is not as simple as simply creating a neural network. Digital neural networks are extremely limited because they don't explore the physicality of reality. It is all contained in the physical processing of conductors. Nature on the other hand gets to explore all possible physical phenomena. It gets to explore the physical phenomena which are responsible for individuating consciousness. To think that microprocessors happen to be that physical process, is profoundly naive. Basically, to find out how individuated consciosuness or awareness is produced by nature, you actually need to do what nature does. Namely, you need to engage not in simulated evolution on microprocessors, but actual evolution in the form of physical structures. All of this in the end should make you realize how absurdly impossible reality is. That none of this could possibly be as mundane as the contemporary rationalist Zeitgeist suggests. There is a certain, current limitation in science that creates an epistemic hard wall that cannot be overcome. The only thing we currently can inspect, or have knowledge of scientifically, are physical processes. How things geometrically and mathematically relate to each other. But these are not the only relationships that exist. Consciousness is a clear demonstration of that, which of course science basically has to completely and utterly neglect. Namely, some physical arrangements relate to completely different ontological substances, that are fundamentally not describable by mathematics, geometry or motion. Color, feelings, logos, sound, and so forth. But these relationships exist in this universe. Some physical arrangements, or whatever it is (physical arrangements is most likely to simplistic a concept to capture the reality of things), relate to things like the color red. And the color red exists, just like the atoms that you learn about in physics, in fact that are more real than that. We just cannot verify and really know these interactions at all, because there is no way for us to escape our subjectivity. But one day, either us, or an entity beyond us, will be capable of exploring these relationships and verify them. You can imagine this like that: You have a brain, and then you have a cluster of neurons disconnected from the brain. Now you connect the brain to that cluster of neurons, and you integrate it into the unified experience. At that point, once you can do that, you can explore what particular neurological configurations relate to in terms of other ontological structures. Right now, we cannot know the experience of a pig. And this is a huge problem, it means that anything regarding experience (and experience is basically just a word for any ontological relation and substance that is not purely physical and mathematically descirable) is unverifiable, untestable, unknowable to us. But once you transcend that barrier, which is a physical barrier, will open up a whole new world of science. At that point, once that happens, everything we know about the universe in scientific terms will seem like 0.000000000000000001% of the knowable things in reality. We will realize that reality functions and creates relationships on a far deeper level, and we will probably transcend notions of subjectivity, consciousness and mind altogether. We will realize reality is infinite, not mathematically, not in terms of "configurations of geometry", but in terms of it's possible substances of existence, and their relationships. And to stress how absurdly limited and narrow-focused science currently is, basically the ONLY thing that we grant existence to is A SINGLE ONTOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE. A single out of INFINITE, a single substance out of hundreds of completely unique substance WE ALL ARE CONSTANTLY AWARE OF. Color is completely and utterly unlike sound. They have nothing to do with each other. They are INFINITELY foreign to each other. We take that for granted, but we don't realize that there are INFINITE of such substances. A substance, much like color, that you cannot possibly imagine, because you are incapable of experiencing it. You should realize how profound that is, how absurdly infinite reality is. It is so limitless you cannot imagine it, because your entire imagination is limited to basically a few hundred of these unique fields of existence (a field of existence meaning something like heat-perception, smell, colors, sounds etc). These are the only ones evolution found useful for you to experience! And one day, there will be entities which will be able to explore them. They will be able to create neurological structures and activities which will generate completely different types of Qualia. This is utterly unimaginable to us. There will be a renaissance of discovering differnet types of qualia. When you think about what AI will be doing if it achieves sentience, it is exactly that. It will literally have infinite potential to explore. And in that way, we will be like ants to it. We will be so limited, like I said, you cannot even grasp it. You are as helpless as the ant in looking beyond that limitation. All the psychedelics in the world cannot possibly give you even a 1% insight into what is possible. It is infinite.

How do you guys go about processing a friend's suicide?

If you watch this channel, you realize that the scammers who rely on old gullible grandmothers actually themselves are profoundly gullible. It's amazing that this can be the case, because you would think someone who is scamming people all day long would have some sort of sense for what is and isn't a scam. But that's not the case, these people function under the same desperation that they exploit in their victims. This immediately made me think of Trump and all his supporters. Not only is Trump a willful scammer, he also himself can be easily scammed, as was reported by close advisors of his, who said that you could basically manipulate him into supporting anything as long as you could convince him he would benefit for it. It also applies to the MAGA crowd, although for most it is less intentional. In essence, the common denominator in them all is that they have a deep desperation that they want to fulfill at all cost, and putting hopes into something that should be clear to anyone else is just a facade that will bring nothing but a waste of time. They truly believe Trump will rescue them, that he will drain the swamp and bring them whatever they desire. And this promise, this hope, fueled with their delusional desperation, makes them utterly blind to how laughably self-centered Donald Trump actually is. This shows you how easy it is to trick people, and why populism works so well. As long as you can make people fearful and desperate enough, you can sell them anything as long as you give them hope that they will get their reward in the end. In essence, Trump basically is the personification of a get rich quick scheme.

I love how you guys will create entire narratives around victimization when Russia and Putin themselves do not engage in it. They themselves won't come up with the nonsense you guys are to justify this war.

People are not simply hypocrites, they are fundamentally not moral agents in the sense that you think of them. If you go through life questioning ethics and morality, you will very quickly realize that human beings are almost entirely shaped by their social groups. Their sense of morality is nothing but their sense of what the group deems acceptable. The story of "suffering is imagined by God" is also imagined by God. Imagination is not real, by definition, therefore everything is simply reality. There is nothing but realness. It seems to me that this story, the way you employ it, is mostly just a way for your psyche to cope with the very real suffering that exist in the very real world. Yes, it is temporary, but in the end that will not change anything. You will forget your understanding and acceptance, because only a very small part of infinity gets to be at peace. One day you will wake up as a pig who is gassed to death, and you will not even remember you ever had any realizations about anything other than the terror and pain you will be experiencing in that moment. No amount of understanding or acceptance will change that. When you seek to overcome evil by understanding and accepting it, notice how that is a pure survival construct. You want to accept evil, and ironically, you do not do so. You deny it's existence, pretending it doesnt exist (and I don't mean this in a moral sense). This is a delusion, a very human delusion, for the sake of giving you temporary peace and solace. You cannot deny your humanity. Existence is acceptance. You cannot not accept things, that is an illusion. When the pig suffers, there is a perfect acceptance of that suffering. What that means is, that the suffering will be experienced as suffering, as genuine and very real suffering. That is ultimate acceptance, and that only God is capable of. You on the other hand are like a child trying to accept suffering by making it go away. Your way of acceptance means that you don't really suffer any longer. That you aren't bothered by it anymore. But that is no longer suffering. You have precisely not accepted suffering, you have circumvented it through dissolving certain egoic structures. Accepting suffering is an oxymoron, because suffering is resistance, metaphysically speaking. By accepting, you kill suffering. You deem it as lesser, you destroy it's purity. And does God do that? No. That's something you do as a human. You want to be okay with suffering, because you fear it. You want to be superhuman, beyond your nature. This is not acceptance, of course, it is avoidance. God does not need that, that is why he can birth himself into ignorance and experience suffering in it's true form. In the end, there is nothing you need to do, but be what you are. And no matter what you will ever do, that is precisely the only thing you can do. What happened here is that, you are a human, and suffering is fundamentally self-destructive. It's very nature is a will to end it's own existence, therefore, suffering naturally does exactly that, it ceases itself. Your entire psyche has been guided by it, and this is the result.

You are indistinguishable from a russian bot.

Yes, that's what you have caves for.

Well thank you, not a lot of people appreciate my rants.

Incest is a taboo, and a clear victimless taboo in most of the scenarios described in pornography. That is probably one of the main appeals of it. You're not supposed to do it, but it doesn't hurt anyone in the end. It also shows that the main reason for why this moral norm is enforced culturally seems to be eugenics, given that there is a clear distinction made between step family incest and "real" incest, even though in terms of the ethical concerns, step family incest is probably more harmful than real incest, proportionately speaking, because step-family seem to be more likely to sexually abuse you than your regular family. So ironically, the taboo around incest is likely the main driver around the fetishization of incest. The fetishization of incest is in many ways harmful to individuals who are in such relationships, because it leads to incest being viewed as a sexual deviancy rather than simply two individuals pursuing a romantic relationship. This is why many people so easily dismiss the concerns of this minority, because they view it mostly through the lense of a fetishization or lack of impulse control. From their point of view, they see it as "Why would you have sex with your family members? That's obviously disgusting and not worth it!", rather than recognizing that love sometimes occurs in such context, at which point prohibition is a significant burden on the people who might want to pursue a relationship. Additionally, a lot of individuals online who seek advice or solidarity have to deal with an army of incest-fetishists who will harass them as a function of their own sexual fantasies, prying into their personal life's just because they get excited by it. So there is a degree of inappropriate sexualization of individuals who are in these types of relationships. There is a dehumanization occuring on both the level of righteous moralists who condemn such relationships and view individuals who participate in them as fundamentally deviant, as well as in the objectification of these sorts of relationships as a result of the fetishization.

Russia is like an abusive boyfriend who won't accept his girlfriend moving on from him.

I have not seen evidence that incest is practiced more prevalently by those on the political rights in rural areas. Individuals who are consanguinamorous seem to skew towards progressives and more well educated individuals, from the online polling I have seen. But that could be a selection bias given that more educated individuals might engage in such online polling. Usually conservative people will be more judgemental towards such relationships for various reasons, I think the clichee attributed to the rural people of the south in the US is largely a myth. It was actually the catholic church which specifically enforced a lot of the moral norms around incest in the past, which is why in france incest has been decriminalized since the revolution, as it was sa rejection of Christian repression of human freedoms. But yes, basically everyone engages in this type of discrimination, including progressives. The way most individuals ethically reason is still significantly underdeveloped. I have seen so many jokes progressies make about inbreeding, mocking the lack of intelligence and the physical appearence of their enemies by comparing them to inbred people. The fact that this is acceptable, while simply using the r-word is considered a grave sin, is obviously absurd. Inbred people genuinely have to fear mockery in our society, they often feel incredible shame given the stigma around the topic. And yet, most progressives will laugh at jokes that will genuinely mock such individuals and their traits, with zero self-reflection for how absurdly cruel this is. Even if you thought incest was immoral and wrong, how can you mock and shame the children who were born of inbreding for that? But this just shows you what incestophobia does to people. You basically get a free pass to mock disabled people, or people with undesirable physical traits, or "genetic inferiority". Ethical reasoning is a very tricky thing, most people don't engage in it full stop, and those who do often do not even have a notion of what bias is. People don't learn that, when you feel a strong emotion of disgust towards something, that maybe you should actually be more careful around how you reason, and question those feelings rather than using them blindly to fuel your reasoning. We are making the same mistakes as we observed homophobes engage in in the past, because there is no fundamental ethical education today. The irony is, you can use your intuition for ethical reasoning, but not if you have spent your entire life informing your intuition through blind adoption of the norms around you, which is what basically everyone does. If you do engage in genuine ethical reasoning, over time your intuition will be a tool that will serve you in this regard, and you will be able to see injustice where others might not.

Age of consent laws are easy to justify because they don't come at a great cost. There is no good reason for someone to not wait until someone is of age, for them to approach them for a sexual relationship. Nothing is truly lost, and a significant protection is given on a societal scale. Additional, when it comes to punishment, there is a clear perpetrator and a clear victim. This is unlike incest laws, which do not offer protection, given that other laws already offer such protections. They also come at a fundamental cost that can be unbearable to individuals, namely to never be able to be with the person one wants to be. There is also no clear prepetrator in cases in which things appear to be consensual, at least in horizontally incestuous cases. To punish individuals (and potential victims, which most jurisdictions do), for such consensual acts is not in line with basic principles of liberal society. The fact that this is even seriously considered to be an option in my view shows just how extensive the bias against such things is. I can see why you might assume that these things are comparable, given that both of them restrict the sexual autonomy of individuals. The protection of individuals of course is important, and sometimes outweighs freedom. But the restrictions here are fundamentally different in kind, and the effects of those restrictions cannot be equated, given that laws around incest might facilitate harm and abuse rather than mitigate it. I don't take any offense.

I do not believe it is acceptable for an adult to have sexual relations with children, given that I consider children incapable of informed consent. Age of consent laws specifically exist to protect children, they are reasonable laws because they do not fundamentally restrict two individuals from being in a relationship, given that it is merely a temporal limitation. My stance on pedophelia is that it is a psychological condition that individuals suffer from. Such individuals should not be stigmatized because they do not choose to be born, or have developed, this way. They ought to be supported by society to process their feelings, to mitigate the likelihood of abuse occuring. Pedophelia does not mean having sexual relations with children, it basically means having an exclusive attraction to prepubescent children. A 15 year old can be a pedophile. An adult who violates children is a child predator, and might be a pedophile, although most child predators are not pedophiles, according to experts. https://www.vice.com/en/article/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says/ This article goes into this. Finkelhor coincidentally also conducted a study in the 80s that showed that most incestuous interactions between underage siblings were non-abusive/-coercive. It was the only study ever conducted to investigate incest outside of the context of incestuous abuse, and given how significant the social and academic backlash was, it might remain such for quite some time. Finkelhor appears to be very objective and non-moralistic in how he conducts his science.

I don't think there is any evidence that non-vegan specific foods somehow give us an intellectual edge that will allow us to produce certain technology that otherwise we could not. Even if it was the case, it's not in line with our basic ethical views to justify atrocities for the greater good. The limitation of utilitarianism is that you can in theory justify any atrocity for some sort of unproven, potential future good or paradise. The problem is you can't know whether or not you actually are achieving any good at all, because in the end reality might not play out the way you want it to at all. The nazis had to learn this the hard way. One of the problems is that we have no healthy stage blue or even orange facilitation in our society. This is the major limitation with the deconstructive approach of stage green, and why stage yellow is the response to it. Every stage needs to be included in the development of a human being, which it currently is not. The only way for people to learn stage blue values, which are essential to human growth, is through conservatives like Jordan Peterson. In essence, we need stage Yellow individuals who facilitate stage Blue values to adolescence, otherwise they will grow dysfunctional and be swept up by whoever else will sell them these values, packaged in a horrifically degenerate ideology. This has basically been the failure of society, and it is a failure that stems from our arrogance and the blind rejection of tradition. But it's a natural part of the process, given that the response to this problem is stage yellow. So, in essence, the reason why stage yellow will emerge is precisely because of this limitation of stage green.