Carl-Richard

😁 @Joshe @Natasha Tori Maru But what about the F's? 🤔

If you have to only choose one type, you do it for me 😆

It is if you accept that innocent people will die. If you ask a scientist can we be 100% certain about any scientific observation, they will say no. And law is arguably even messier, especially granted corruption. You could simply bite the bullet on this and that it's acceptable rather than crying that we're actually going into this. But if you can't accept it, maybe think twice about voting for the death penalty. Maybe it will be you who gets executed wrongfully.

You trying to NJ an NP 🧐

Why can you only choose one? 🧐

Without reading the context, you sounded very hungry. Survival machine indeed.

What authority? I meant you could invent some rule or specific standard of evidence so we know what you mean. Because the specifics are kinda important. If not, when you're going to vote for the death penalty in your country (which you are going to do unless you're just virtue signalling), how do you know whether you agree with the program? How do you know whether it's different (or how different it is) from the US death penalty system? For example, what actions do you think should qualify for the death penalty, and for a conviction, do you e.g. need full unanimity in the jury, multiple converging lines of evidence, etc.? But again, even if you don't have that, I think it's a safe assumption (but if you disagree, we can discuss that) that all forms of empirical evidence granted limited knowledge are less than 100% certain, and given enough time, you will kill innocent people. We will just be arguing how big that number will be (and if "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the US produces the 1 exonerated per 9 executed number, I would bet it would not look very good either way). And you don't seem to solve for corruption. Even if the justice system were to be technically capable of 100% certainty granted no corruption, corruption would of course "corrupt" that number.

"Common sense" does not hold up in court. "Breivik" is not very specific. You could give something like a statute or type of evidence. Or are you suggesting to build the entire dealth penalty framework on case law?

It's not meant to, but it inevitably does, by the simple fact that people like harmony (consonance) and playing inside scales or chords more than outside and they will tend to do so when they have the wherewithal to do so. People who don't know as much about such things will hover in and around until they find something that works or sounds good, which sometimes could lead to a relatively simplistic or formulaic playing style or it could lead to a very interesting and open (and dissonant) one (or a mix of both). And of course there is the phenomena of simply learning a scale and "letting the scale tell you what to play" rather than having it as a template for which notes could sound good (roughly paraphrasing Guthrie Govan); your insight is in a sense a response to that common tendency in especially new players, that it doesn't have it be that way (but yet indeed, it's a common thing that happens). And some genres and players are more prone to such "scale tyranny" than others, e.g. technical death metal neoclassical arpeggio virtuosos (Necrophagist, Obscura, etc.). What is exactly so cool about the two first solos I linked is that they are quite dissonant at times, and that if you are a scale fanatic, you will again be more likely to sit within harmony and use dissonance at most very strategically or sparingly.

I asked you what the standard of evidence should be, but you didn't answer. I think you can't give any specifics, only a vague idea or ad hoc examples. If you don't have a specific objection or amendment to current standards of evidence, we would have to go with those current standards for what a realistic implementation would look like, and the wrongful conviction numbers for those are abysmal (apparently for every 9 people executed, 1 person is exonerated from the death row in the US). But my bet is that even if you have some implementable incredibly high standard of evidence, the nature of law, the nature of the universe is such, that over enough stretches of time, you will get mistakes, you will get an imperfect picture, and you will of course get corruption, no matter how Scandinavian-ly brain damaged you want to be (corruption exists there too). And there isn't just an issue of determining whether something happened. It's determining whether they should deserve the death penalty for it, which itself can be an issue of contention (as seen in the Nathaniel Woods case in the video above). Nevertheless, again, over far enough stretches of time (and with finite knowledge), I think you will end up with wrongful convictions (you could probably create an extension of Hume's problem of induction to argue for this). And then you are left with the inevitable conundrum of killing innocent people in order to simply induce an incremental feeling of justice for someone who may support the death penalty and perhaps some victims who are more likely to also support it in that case. And that conundrum presents the issue of creating the same kind of victims in order to soothe some other victims for those exact same crimes or simply bystanders, which is itself a self-perpetuating and self-defeating game.

And this one you will also never play based on music theory, but you need amazing musicality, creativity, fearlessness, flow AND music theory. It is the greatest solo in the history of metal: 3:09 It's said that when Marty Friedman played this solo in the studio, Dave Mustaine stood up and shook his hand.

When I was 14, I was skeptical at people in my class adopting political party views seemingly at the drop of a hat. I thought they must have not done much thinking or known a lot about each party's position and simply adopted it because whatever (friends, family, happenstance). Then at like 25, I looked back at that same memory and then I contrasted it to how I adopted atheism at the same time (14). And I realized "huh, seems like everybody just adopts shit that they know very little about when they're young". If you want to pin this to a stage, it's probably post-orange reflecting back at a memory of orange and/or blue reacting to what they perceived as blue and/or purple (but what might indeed have been orange and/or blue, because perhaps the people who subscribed to a particular political view did so based on some thinking and not just pure group-think, just like what I felt I did with atheism). My late teens (cannabinoided up) I started thinking in real kind of hippie lines of thinking. My plan for life was essentially work an unskilled job and smoke weed with a girlfriend and that's pretty much it. I started literally believing in like 1960s "Turn on, Tune in, Drop out" 'philosophy' (Tim Leary, Ram Dass; taking "Drop out" quite literally with respect to school as was allegedly not intended even by those people despite a speech by Tim Leary where he said drop out of school and basically any job that exists), Terrence McKenna stuff, I started believing the ego was somehow "bad" and made some weird decisions and conclusions (e.g. that trying hard to practice guitar to become better is ego so shouldn't do it and also shouldn't go to music school for a year with a friend because then I would practice to become better and that's ego). I started to believe in determinism / no free will as I was listening to Sam Harris and I started taking it a bit too literally sometimes acting like I had no say in what I did when that is a misunderstanding of what no free will actually is. You could call it Green (but taking everything so literally could suggest otherwise) but I also felt I had to catch up on a lot of Red so that too probably. I also had a moment of clarity where I turned down alt-right rabbit holes because I felt "it wasn't consistent witth my values, where I come from" and embraced my soc-dem roots and later started experimenting with socialist ideas. And today, I'm apparently some kinda New Age (post-modern, "mix-and-mash your own" smorgasboard spirituality/religion), New religious, somewhat Christian-apologist, somewhat Muslim-apologist, psychic phenomena -entertaining, analytic philosophy -eating, degree guy coding websites and writing academic articles, who believes religion is actually 'based' and we need more of it and that dogmatism is an ubiquitous problem not limited to religious fundamentalists, yaddi yadda.

You support the death penalty, no? As far as we have observed so far in the world, innocent people (as defined by a legal decision) die due to the death penalty. I think the state killing innocent people is unfair. Locking up people who we have good reason to believe killed innocent people is a very tough punishment already. Taking away somebody's autonomy is very serious, people kill themselves over it (depression and perceived lack of autonomy are virtually identical). Killing the people who killed the innocent people, granted that it will lead to the death of more innocent people, might be taking it too far as it perpetuates the very problem that you're trying to bring "justice" to. And then, where is the justice for the people who got innocently killed by state? Which person in the state should be killed as an act of justice for those people? "It's like you care more about murderers than the victims". Here are the victims:

Using how we treat animals (as if it's grounded in some philosophically aware inquiry and conscious decision and not simply thousands of years of bronze age cultural manufacturing) as a standard for how we should treat humans, is more philosophically tone deaf than judging the soundness of metaphysical materialism based on the fact that probably most people in society seem to somewhat hold it.

Your argument is that it's acceptable to kill innocent people if it leads to an incremental feeling of justice in some cases for some people. If you support the death penalty and wrongful convictions are inevitable, it's almost as if you care more about the perpetrators than the victims. You'd rather kill innocent people because you dislike not giving some people (people who support the death penalty, which is not everyone) an incremental feeling of justice ("it's good that they got locked up but they should really be killed").

Bump cuz previous title was shiet.

Original title: 'Debunking YouTubers' of the financial world. Gotham City Research LLC investigates publically traded companies for weaknesses and fraud and publishes reports which they predict will make their stocks fall so they can short the stocks (borrow shares from a broker, sell them immediately, re-buy them at hopefully a lower price, and return the shares to the broker for profit). A later report involves the work of a Nobel Prize winner Shinya Yamanaka: https://www.gothamcityresearch.com/post/sumitomo-chemical-and-sumitomo-pharmaceutical-part-ii-cira-dr-yamanaka-and-the-undisclosed-his Not unlike debunking YouTubers, they can fall in the trap of spinning a narrative that does not represent the full reality and that misses crucial details, and they are heavily incentivized to do so in order to create "clickbait sensationalism" that drives up their attention and revenue. You can read about some of the responses to the above report here (you'd have to translate the site using the in-built browser Google Translate or equivalent): https://www.khrono.no/borsspekulanter-anklager-nobelprisvinner-for-fusk/1082312

@Carl-Richard A shiet I just realized it's that drummer:

Steven Wilson, the king of sound engineering.

The double-bind is what is being purported, not my position. Although I don't really subscribe to the opposite position either.

Then you would clarify what the argument is. Well, yes. That didn't really add much. (I fail to see how "however, see next point" was supposed to be a logical bridge from the previous statement [which was simply a re-wording of my statement], but anyways:) But you can think logically about them and make them consistent. That's what we do here. If you want something else (if you want to go "meta" on thinking about things logically), you can do that somewhere else. There is something I'll coin "meta-garbage": unsignalled/unprovoked leaving comments in a discussion that go meta on the discussion instead of engaging within the discussion.

It was not a minor discrepancy and it did not help that I clarified my point or that you responded to it already, because I still had to ask what you meant. As for "it seems although you're suggesting curing somebody's malaria could actually lead the people who are cured down a wrong path away from a creative future more worth living", I'm suggesting that if nobody made music, art or other creative things that people enjoy and make life more rich, life would be less worth living for those that enjoy that. And then the question or ethical conundrum becomes: would you want such a world or do you want more people buying Malaria nets? I'm pointing out there is a tension in values there, not necessarily that you should do one or the other. But what I'm suggesting as a solution (which may have holes or exceptions, e.g. psychopaths, but I'm mostly speaking to people who have an ethical impulse or would want to entertain such a question sincerely) is you should do what you're called to do, because then you do it the best, and you will provide other humans those things the best, and additionally, if you truly feel called to do it, odds are other humans will appreciate it (as that is a big part of what creates the experiencing of meaningfulness in what you're doing, and if you feel called to do something, odds are it's because it nourishes you in some way as a human and it likely will nourish others in a same way). Doing what you're called to do, as a person with an ethical impulse, is tapping into the human impulse and you're creating life for humans. Life for humans is not just one thing. It's not just survival at the bare minimum, it's the exploration, the transcendence, the beauty, the love for life in all its forms.

What a beautiful double-bind that is: either you're causing the downfall of all of humanity or you're a fraud.

I first discovered this at 6-7 years old looking up at the stars at night with a friend. It's the thinking mind (or ego identification) coming online and pondering its place in eternity. So two important things: it's your thinking mind, and it's about eternity, not death per se. It's not actually that you fear nothingness in eternity, it's that you fear the unlimited groundlessness of eternity. But it's the thinking mind/ego that fears it. And it fears it because it thinks "what should I do?", "how can I do?", "where is my choice?", "what if I don't want?", "what if I want grounding?", "what if I want safety?", "what if I want 'reality'?". But if you can instead identify as God, you will be an infinite being creating everything it wants for eternity. If you can actually identify with that, isn't that wonderful? Perhaps from the perspective of the thinking mind/ego, probably not, but from the perspective of God, it's everything you could ever want.