Scholar

I want to get a basic overview of what the community thinks about consensual incest. Specifically what I mean here is consensual incest between two adults or between two similarly aged minors. (referred to as consanguinamory) I want you to consider questions such as: Do you think consanguinamory can happen? Meaning, do you believe consent between family members can even occur? If not, why not? Do you think consanguinamory is immoral? If so, why? Do you think consanguinamory is disgusting? If so, why do you think you feel that way? Do you think consanguinamory is inherently dysfunctional or unhealthy? If so, why? Do you think, in regards to any of these questions, that it is not always the case, but most often the case? If so, what lead you to believe that? What do you think of individuals who participate in consanguinamory? Do you view them as dysfunctional, perverted or lacking options? Do you feel anger or hatred towards them? Do you pity them? Could you imagine that two individuals might engage in consanguinamory for the same reasons any normal person might, like wanting to spend their life with someone the person they love? If not, why not? Do you think most cases of consanguinamory will always be unhealthy, dysfunctional and so forth? If so, why? How prevalent do you think consanguinamory is? How prevalent do you think sexual interactions between consenting family members are? How often do you think those come with significant harm, even if they are of consensual nature? Explain why you evaluate it the way you do. Do you think inbreeding between close relatives has a high chance of birth defects? If so, how high would you estimate such risks to be? Do you believe this risk to be inherent to inbreeding? Do you think consanguinamory should be illegal? If so, why? Do you think consanguinamory should be socially stigmatized? If so, why? Do you think consanguinamory should be be discouraged? If so, why? Do you think inbreeding should be illegal? If so, why? Do you think inbreeding should be socially stigmatized? If so, why? How do you look at harm prevention in general? Do you seek to approach it through law, stigmatization or education?

This is a child talking. AI getting bored of us because we are too slow? How is that in any way insightful? And there is no evidence that neuralink will be able to do anything, it's all a hypothetical fantasy. And how will any of it make us be able to compute things faster?

Thank you for taking the time to respond, I have more questions. But why is it grooming? If they are an adult, and they consent to it, in what way would that constitute grooming, especially if they intiate it? But the same arguments you are making now can be made about homosexuality. Animals avoid it as well, and it seems humans inherently have a disgust reaction towards same-sex activity so as to maximize procreation. I certainly have overcome any disgust I feel towards incest, why do you believe that there is no component of nurture in this regard? Homosexuality is not something humans are driven towards, it is an abnormality in human sexual behavior, why would incest be any different? Why does something being unusual or unnormal make it dysfunctional in your eyes? How does that indicate dysfunction in any way? Homosexuality is not the norm, yet we would not classify it as a dysfunction. What makes the differentiation here? Many things in human sexuality are rare and yet you would probably not describe them as dysfunctional, or claim their abnormality was a indication of dysfunction? But if you have no idea, why do you have such a strong stance on incest being so muh more risky in regards to grooming and manipulation? What if the opposite were true? I have to correct you here. There is a phenomena described as "Genetic Sexual Attraction", and it relates to blood relatives who have not grown up with each other being more likely to have high sexual attraction when they meet as adults as a result of their genetic similarities. Why do you believe this is a malformed love? Where did you get this idea from? And why do you think it is in any shape or form dysfunctional or bad? I understood you to say that you would be in favor of basically punishing anyone for being in incestuous relationships independent if grooming occured or not, under the guise of wanting to prevent grooming. Is that not the case? Why do you feel comfortable pressuring two individuals who feel love for each other to not engage in it, given that there is no evidence of dysfunction occuring? Do you think there might be reasons why you only see unhealthy examples of this, given that society socially and legally persecutes individuals who engage in these types of relationships? Why do you believe it is apt to condemn or disallow individuals from engaging in mutual love, rather than educating them about things like consent and the risks of sexual relationships in general, such that risks are minimized? Do you believe it is important to make a distinction between vertical and horizontal consanguinamorous relationships, in regards to risk assessments and how we treat individuals who want to be in such relationships? Vertical means relationships between parent-child, uncle-niece etc, while horizontal means between siblings and cousins. So do you believe people who went to the same class together since early age, and eventually started dating in highschool, should not date each other because they knew each other when they were young? What if a boy and a girl grew up in the same apartment-floor, living right next to eah other, and their parents were very close such that the two households were basially like one. They basially were together since infancy and could always enter each others homes. If eventually, as the girl and boy grew older, they developed a romantic relationship, do you actually believe it was more likely to be dysfunctional or unhealthy? Would you not believe the opposite to be true, that they might actually share a far deeper connection and therefore be much less likely to be dysfunctional in their relationship? Why is it not a beautiful thing that these two souls, who grew up together and shared most of their life with each other, could find love for one another? Why is it so inappropriate to you, to share love with someone who you were close with when you were young? Why is that immoral to you? (I want to know what you think about this in regards to horizontal relationships, before we go into the more complicated vertical ones, so basically siblings, cousins, best friends who grew up really close, who are roughly the same age)

It's obvious that he is full of shit, given the Trump interview. His positions are entirely self-serving.

Why do you think an adult cannot make a choice once they are an adult? For example, if a niece grows up, why can she not be in a relationship with her uncle if she desires? Given that grooming did not occur, would you be against that? Do you think this disgust is inherent? For example, many people would argue they feel disgusted towards homosexuality for the same reason, as nature seems to be against it. Yet, I think today many people no longer feel as disgusted by it as they did in the past. Do you think it is possible that your views around incest influence how much disgust you feel towards it? Why do you think it indicates a dysfunction between the siblings? And given your answer, where do you think you got that idea in the first place? Do you think it is possible that siblings might be less likely to abuse and manipulate each other than the average couple? If not, why not? What do you mean by malformed platonic, sibling attraction? And why would that make it dysfunctional? So you believe consenting adults should be imprisoned to prevent grooming and manipulation? Why do you believe this is justified? How will you differentiate victims from perpetrators? Given it is illegal, you would punish both parties, so presumably you would be willing to imprison a potential grooming or manipulation victim if there is no evidence of such a thing occuring? In what other cases do you apply this standard, of imprisoning consenting adults because in other cases there might be grooming or manipulation occuring? Also, how high does the manipulation and grooming risk need to be for you to imprison innocent, consenting adults? Do you think we should apply the same standards to 25 year olds dating 18 year olds, given the risks of grooming and manipulation? Should have age gap laws in general, if it turns out it would reduce grooming and manipulation, and put people in prison for it?

I don't care about any of this, just tell me a single thing he said that you thought was insightful that didn't fall in his area of expertise. I know what Leo is saying, I have no idea what that has to do with anything I said.

Well I am speaking to his maturity as a person. Tell me a single insightful thing he said about something that does not fall in his area of expertise.

Just tell me a single insightful thing he said.

What comments? I never heard Elon say a smart thing.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1823254086126608862 Look at Elon. He has the cognitive development of a teenager.

Basically, Jordan Peterson is the demonstration for how intelligence can be completely subservient to bias and ignorance. Now, AI basially is a subservient intelligence. It has no agency, and therefore no wisdom. With the amount of damage someone like Peterson alone can do, beause of how convincing he can appear to the biased masses, imagine if everyone had a personal Jordan Peterson^10 inside their pockets. That's the world we speak of. People think that the major threats around humanities survival lie in external problems, in conflict between societies or nature. But the reality is, there is a far more sinister threat that is occuring on the informational level of society, that was always present. Due to the interconnectedness of the world, and the development of a sort of global digital mind, that basically rules the perception of our realities, these kinds of technologies introduce something that is equivalently dangerous as schizophrenia is to a tribesman. You can say the most dangerous things for a tribesman are the lions that lurk in the tall grass, or the threat of starvation or other tribes. But really, schizophrenia, such that you can no longer keep reality apart from your personal imagination, is far, far more dangerous, because it exponentiates every threat that exists and creates threats where there should no none. AI basially is like the introduction of a powerful form of imagination into the global digital mind, which could very easily lead to a sort of global psychosis. We don't realize just how bad things can get, before they get bad, and so we are not even aware of how significant the dangers here are. We had the luxury that technology was kind of ruled by more developed human beings. Social media was basically biased towards progress. But this is far from certain, and it seems to be changing now, as you can observe someone like Elon Musk taking over the space. He will amplify his own biases, just as the progressives did in the past.

Musk is baffoon. AI basically will give underdeveloped, less intelligent people the ability to frame their biases in a more sophisticated manner such that progress will be much harder to achieve, given that people can simply remain within their bubbles of bias. If you were worried how bigots and baffoons were able to convince the ignorance masses in the past, prepare for hell. You can already see this happening, as I predicted when the models initially surfaced. And like with social media, there is literally nothing that anyone will do about it until significant damage to society is done. This is why giving biased apes powerful technology is such a bad idea, because it allows them to get away with even less wisdom than before.

Actual infinity. It's just insane. It's actually insane. It's unfathomable, it is eternal, it is everything. Like, think about what that means, it is actually infinite, and it has been infinite for all of eternity. Everything you have so far experienced, as you can remember it, is an infinitesimal small part of what you have experienced and what you will experience. There is no end to it. You could live every single life of every single being that has ever existed on earth and it would be nothing. Just think about how far you have come, and you have no fucking clue. You have no clue where you are going, where you have been. There is no end to exploring yourself, coming to know yourself in the most intimate way possible, through pure being. Existing is basically having sex with yourself, it is the most intimate act possible. And think of where you are right now, how precious this moment is, how utterly mindblowing. Forget about all the human bullshit for a second, just look where the fuck you are right now. You have probably been interdimensional fruitflies or some such for your past billion lives, and now you here. Catch your breath, look at what you are. This is a rare moment of self-reflection on your infinte journey through your own self. You can connect right now to those moments of clarity, of which you already had an uncountable amount of.

You are not engaging with what I said. What's the point of asking a question if you will ignore my answer and then give the laziest response.

Also, the point of believing in stuff you can't be conscious of should be fairly apparent if you just inspect the reason for why you are here and treating us all as if we existed as separated entities. In the end you could just make an argument for the principle of caution, in that, it would not be good to assume others do not exist if they do exist, as you might have no reason not to inflict suffering onto them, if that suffering doesnt exist in the first place. This faith is such a fundamental part of being human, and an entity in general, that it would be silly to pretend you could just throw it out and pretend it wasn't a thing.

This is all bias. Reality is perfect as it is. There are infinite beings who will live "unawakened" lifes, who have done so for eternity and will continue to do so for eternity. There is nothing fundamentally special about awakening. You will experience everything anyways.

It very much depends on what kind of rape it was. I'm assuming it wasn't a violent rape but more so statutory rape, with maybe coercive elements. Either way, we, largely, live in a societies that put consenting adults in prison for being in sexual relationships under the pretense of eugenics, so it is not very surprising that people would go bonkers in clear abuse cases such as this.

The point of having faith in the appearances of the divine is love. You can project a deep love towards the connection you share with others, if you recognize in them a selfhood. It allows for a deeper intimacy between different parts of God. In other words, it allows for connection where, metaphysically, connection should not be possible (with the wisdom of the divine). There are things that have impacted me before I have been conscious of them. In the end I trust in the divine order and believe we have developed fundamentally truthful intuitions about the nature of existence, such that, despite a fundamental disconnectedness, we can still perceive each other and hold each other within our minds. That to me is part of the genius of creation. I think while you cannot become conscious of other minds in this way, due to the nature of selfhood, you can become conscious of divine intention. I believe faith to be a fundamental component to existence as it relates to self-hood. I think attempting to translate it into propositional logic will undermine the entire point of the existence of these dynamics. These are delicate things that will dissipate if you use the clumsy hands of your rational mind to grasp for them. In that way, faith is what sustains these things, as it is keeps your greasy fingers off of the delicate forms that you have been gifted so you could connect intimately with all the parts of yourself that exist outside of this selfhood. You cannot be conscious of anything that isn't part of your consciousness.

This cannot be possible by the very nature of what a soul or mind is. That doesn't exclude the existene of other minds, it just excludes the possibility of becoming conscious of other minds. The claim here is that they are both separate experiences and they can individually experience different aspects of the body-mind. For example, they said that from the perspective of the guy, he basically blinked out of existence for 5 years and then reentered the body having no recolletion of what had happened to him. The biggest claim I guess would be the fact that they are saying they are basically in the same body, dividing it up to share the space in it with complete lack of awareness of what the other "personality" is doing or feeling. They say they can each inhabit one of their arms and then touch each other and it is just like touching a stranger.

You just put more effort into the arguments. Who is and isn't a fool is relative.

That's basically your whole career as well.

Yeah it's like saying Awakening will make you give up sex because you realize you only have sex with yourself.

Think about this: If it turned out DNA didn't exist and it was all a big illusion and actually the body is just smooth spirit-matter that has no processes other than shaping itself to function itself the way it does. Literally nothing about our ideas of what women and men are would change.

Leo what is your intention for having all these conversations? Is there some shift you are trying to make in how you publically communicate?

Trying to answer the question as it was framed is futile. It is similar to attempting to describe subjective preferences (morality) in a strict propositional form. it will never work because the mind, and therefore subjectivity, including preferences, aren't grounded in propositional systems. You will always arrive at contradictions if you try to translate non-propositional computation into a propositional computation. It is the difference between intuitive, subconscious processing and conscious, rational processing. There is a reductionism that occurs, the translation necessarily breaks the nature of the object attempted to be described.