Carl-Richard

I agree that incest is not really what is wrong, rather the abuse that may arise. And I'm not saying that incest is wrong because abuse may arise (which you seem to think I'm saying). I'm simply saying in the cases where abuse does arise, it's wrong, and those cases are pretty common for incest. Still, "potential" can certainly be wrong. Should you convince a child to play Russian roulette? They can potentially get hurt, but as you say, they won't get hurt before they actually do get hurt. Also as you say, it just requires more of a certain thing (in this case luck) to engage in Russian roulette (and not get hurt). That is also for example why there are ethical rules against teachers engaging in behavior with students that is not compatible with the teacher-student relationship, e.g. initating a romantic relationship. The hurt is not in the fact that they're iniating a romantic relationship, but it's about the potential abusive outcomes of such a relationship (e.g. incentivizing sex through improved grades). It's just like how a parent-child romantic relationship might be wrong, not because it necessarily leads to the child being hurt, but because it likely can. I think there can be a definite overlap between dysfunction and morality, certainly when it's one individual (usually the one with power) imposing their dysfunctionality on another. I have the same attitude to people who I deem immoral (to primarily try to help them). I'm going to use your own logic here: what if there is enough care and maturity in the relationship? Some minors are more mature and caring than an adult. Why does them being a minor necessarily make it wrong? Even still, would you say that immature and uncaring minors can potentially (that word again) engage in such a relationship while also not being abused? Why does them being a minor necessarily make it wrong? Just a slight correction: pedophilia describes sexual attraction. It does not necessitate abuse. Also, again, I agree that incest is not really what is wrong, rather the abuse that may arise. I was just quoting the results of the study which uses statistical tests and threshold values for establishing statistical significance. There might in reality be a tiny difference, but not a large enough difference to produce a statistically significant result. Also, just because there is a taboo doesn't necessarily mean it will lead to a statistically significant difference. Maybe the taboo is actually really ineffective when it comes to stopping people from actually engaging in incest.

I think there are more problematic and less problematic forms of incest. For example, most forms of parent-child incest (different ages, different roles; more power differential) vs. peer cousin-cousin incest (same ages, same roles; less power differential). Sibling-sibling incest generally falls somewhere in-between. You could say it's not the incest per se that is wrong, but it's the potential of abuse that occurs in particularly sexual relationships with a power differential which is wrong, and incest is one common manifestation of that dynamic. There was no difference in incest avoidance between humans with supposedly higher social bonding and animals with supposedly lower social bonding, which is evidence against the hypothesis that social bonding affects incest avoidance. If social bonding is a significant factor for incest avoidance, and if humans display significantly more social bonding than other animals, you would expect to see a significant difference between humans and animals in incest avoidance.

Left-brain andy. Me (ex-addict though).

Will you kick the lyrica as well after that? It's a pretty addictive drug in itself. Beware when Christmas comes for any rationalizations to keep doing the drug. You just displayed one. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable rationalization, but that's what is tricky: rationalizations are always somewhat reasonable. That is why they're so seductive and how they keep the addiction going. At some point, you have to be fully loyal to your goal, no matter the rationalizations. Delegitimize the PhD debate panel, be dogmatic, don't listen to them.

Spotify gives you an annual summary at the end of the year of what you have listened to (and how much, etc.). Post the song that you've listened to the most here. This is mine 😂: I played it 135 times 😝. I tried to learn some parts of it on guitar, so I don't know if that maybe affected it (maybe it only counts full playthroughs). I don't think it matters though, because the top five songs are all also from the same album (and in chronological order from after that song). For the record, I don't only listen to Meshuggah; I listened to a total of 332 artists and 2642 songs this year 😅

I'm technically addicted to sauna 😆 I was loyal to a particular gym brand for over 10 years (built up a platinum membership with a lot of perks), and then when I moved closer to the city, I changed to a different gym brand soelly because they didn't have saunas 😝

😅

Hehe, it's in Norwegian, so you would have to use Google Translate on the entire thing (I don't know if that is practically possible). But I can give you the abstract which I've pasted into Google Translate and slightly tweaked for grammar: I don't mention "New Age religion" explicitly in the abstract, but it's essentially equivalent to "newer individualistic forms of religiosity", as well as "spirituality". As you can see from the concluding remarks, the students in the study don't actually perceive "spirituality" as having anything to do with religion, as it's not included in the definition that was arrived at (which you can also see on this forum and more generally), but the scholars do. What the students perceive as religion is largely what the scholars refer to as the traditional and collective forms of religion.

True, but in another sense, to separate life prior to genuine realization from the realization itself (certainly in a way that avoids responsibility, care or concern for those who are suffering), is equally madness.

Or just say what you actually follow, which is New Age religion. I've written a short research paper on this very topic, so I can talk more about it if you'd like.

New Age religion.

By the way, a proper sauna session every day could probably help to alleviate the symptoms (it gives a natural sustained endorphin boost, given that you stay in there a little past the part where you start fidgeting and breathing a lot). If the sauna is 80-90 degrees Celsius, doing 10-15 minutes x 2 with a cooling period in the shower in-between is probably optimal. Also, how is masturbation? 😅 Based on my limited experience with opioids (and subsequent micro-withdrawals), it could either be very pleasant or extremely weird (in any case, it may help the symptoms).

Every denial of a craving is itself a little high and a step towards the eternal high that awaits you at perfect sobriety 😊

A cultural taboo doesn't have to be explictly taught from parent to child to be effective (although I was personally taught that way about incest many times). That is the thing about taboos, they're rarely talked about explicitly, but the feelings and general moral atmosphere around it is ubiquitous. Also, you might have learned about it very early but just not remember it, as is the case with most concepts you learn. For example, you probably don't remember the first time you learned about the concept "soda", but you sure as hell know what it means. That also means you could possibly have internalized the aversive feelings about it in a way that might seem less obvious from quickly introspecting into your conscious mind (the most surface level part of your mind), hence you might think you're not impacted by the taboo when you actually were molded by it. It's hard to find easily digestible numbers on it, but here are at least some numbers: "Survival and inbreeding coefficient (F) of offspring of 71 marriages from the Habsburg royal dynasty" - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Survival-and-inbreeding-coefficient-F-of-offspring-of-71-marriages-from-the-Habsburg_fig1_221920028 For reference, a first generation offspring of a sibling-sibling union produces an Inbreeding Coefficient (F) of 0.250. In the graph, you'll see that 0.250 F corresponds to a 20% chance of survival to 10 years, compared to 80% chance for 0.000 F. Of course, you have to factor in that the sample is not of people living in modern society, so that could have an impact, but the drop-off still seems pretty severe even for that. And this is just humans (animals of course don't really live in modern society, at least wild ones). Back to when you generalized earlier to social bonding and thus implicating other social animals, the first study I provided says this: So there were no differences between humans and animals period (and they presumably studied a large variety of animals with varying degrees of sociality), so the "more social bonding produces more incest avoidance" hypothesis seems to not be supported in this case. Ok. Is incest wrong?

If you make a 54 second clip where you say "men are like saplings that have to grow and develop thick bark to survive, thus men need to fight for the right to exist", without going into the specifics of why that metaphor is specific to men, I'm going to say that it's an intense over-generalization that needs elaboration. Merely stating such a thing is not telling you anything. Having a PhD doesn't change that.

The overlap between their worldviews and their ways of conceptualizing "the crisis" ("the meta-crisis", "the meaning crisis", "the master and the emissary"). Daniel has a social/economic/game-theoretic focus, John has a psychological and philosophical focus, and Ian has a psychological, philosophical and neuroscientific focus. They talk about meaning and how it is not reducible to purpose (you also have coherence, flow and mattering), how the modern/post-modern world developed a reductionist materialist worldview and moved away from the sacred, how it can be understood by looking at hemispheric lateralization in the brain (left vs. right), the need to steward catastrophic technologies and the power games related to that, and many other variations on those questions. They seem to be converging on the need to create an updated form of religion.

I won't turn down a free incest discussion that easily >:/ Honestly though, I think we're doing fine so far.

They said they didn't have adequate empirical data to say anything about kin recognition. Do you mean that they're simply not attracted to them and won't initiate mating? Or do you mean that the physical of experience of sex is significantly different? Maybe subtle distinctions, but I argue against the latter in the edit of my previous post. As for the former, there is something called the Westermarck effect which could support your hypothesis, but the empirical evidence seems to be mixed. I think it maybe has to do with human cognition, not necessarily social bonding. I refer you to the edited post again. Parent-child incest (specifically the pedophilic kind) is generally explained as a psychological power thing on the part of the perpetrator, and it's generally psychopaths/sociopaths that engage in it, not people who are attracted to children, which again supports the idea that it (incest avoidance) is a human psychological thing rather than an animalistic biological thing. Trust me, a scientist whose life depends on publishing positive results will milk whatever they can out of their results. Depends what you mean with "significant harm". I've heard that many types of non-parent-child incest do increase the likelihood of diseases pretty significantly in humans at least. I wouldn't call them instincts but cultural taboos (or that is my running theory). It's related to why we think it's wrong, which is a tangent, but so was your idea of bringing up incest in the first place

https://www.su.se/english/research/the-conversation-news/incest-isn-t-a-taboo-in-the-animal-kingdom-new-study-1.571568 You can read the study here: "Meta-analytic evidence that animals rarely avoid inbreeding" - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01453-9 So why only in humans? I'm speculating, but maybe it's because humans are the only animals with the sufficient level of meta-awareness (self-reflective capacity) and cognitive control (executive functioning, planning, general problem-solving) to see the cumulative negative side effects of inbreeding and be able to consciously decide to not engage in that behavior (and subsequently constructing cultural taboos around it). Cultural taboos are essentially just particularly intense collective normative "do not" statements, and other animals are unlikely to have that. And it does make sense that the taboo is merely a cultural phenomena not grounded in instinctive biological drives, because incest sex isn't actually less pleasurable than non-incest sex, and incest sex does happen (and people like it). I remember talking to a friend (female btw... I don't know why that is important) who said (paraphrasing): "you can't sincerely claim that fucking your cousin wouldn't be just as fun as fucking anybody else". And I agree (but I don't think it's necessarily ethical to do so ).

@Scholar Now you're being baited into it

It's not the name

@Danioover9000 That's a pretty cool discussion. I'm 44 minutes into it.

Who is to say he is not questioning the current moral paradigm?

"Men must fight for the right to exist" is an intense over-generalization, just like "fat people lack self-control" (one of your other controversial statements).