Carl-Richard

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.

I think my answer to this ethical altruism conundrum is that we don't just value the sheer quantity of human life or even alleviating human suffering, but we value things like music, art, and we need different people to do different things to make society go around. We need air traffic controllers, train station workers, nurses, physicians, academics, politicians, etc. Even people who suffer, value music, art; they might go to those things to alleviate their suffering, and if you take that away from them but you assure their life through Malaria prevention, you might have made their life less worth living. So what to do?: Do what you feel called to do. A person who feels called to do something, who feels motivated to do it, will do it better than somebody else who does not feel as motivated. And that way you will contribute greater to that part of the world you choose to contribute to. If you feel very called to donate money to Malaria prevention programs, do that. If you feel very called to find a cure for cancer, do that. Charity is a way of using your time on something you think is valueable. So use your time on something you think is valueable. "But can't you donate like 5% of your savings to Malaria prevention and save a big chunk of lives that way and still do what you feel called to do?" Well, yes, but what about other programs like water sanitation, cancer prevention, other disease prevention? "Just choose one that has a high life-saving conversion rate". Well, why do you ought to use 5% of your savings on initiatives with high immediate life-saving conversion rates and not say finding a cure for cancer or just landing a recording contract?

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.

The thing about this solo is not that it's impossible to play, but that it contains some incredibly musical but not music-theoretically standard series of notes. It's what happens when you play music but you don't know or care much about music theory and you simply play what sounds good. And sometimes that let's you play things that sound really really good and interesting but that no person who has learned music theory will ever be privied to play (because they have boxed themselves in and limited their range of accepted notes). And that also goes into my point that music is not something you fundamentally learn in theory, you learn it in practice, you learn it by expressing what your soul hears and feels (I'll refrain from tying this to a discussion of PUA, but I also think this also applies in a big way to communication between other human beings, a.k.a. "being social"; it's something you "do" most fundamentally, and getting boxed in by theory, "getting stuck in your mind", can definitely limit you). 4:00-4:32 This one is also sooo coool: 1:42-2:07 (The solo at 3:05-3:35 is also pretty cool).

The riffs also in Morbid Angel are so good and catchy. My favorites are in Angel Of Disease (I'm thinking of that one during the first solo), Caesar's Palace, God of Emptiness. No wonder they inspired so many metal legends (Gojira's entire early discography is essentially "Nothing Is Not"; Opeth's riffs in "Master's Apprentices" come to mind; the intro riff in Bloodbath's "Breeding Death" is so similar to the intro riff in "Immortal Rites", and likewise the intro riff in "Mock The Cross" is so similar to "Where the Slime Live").

Doesn't that mean you have to take out the trash 2x as often?

Just forget everything about hydrogen, helium, etc., and try to imagine telling a pre-modern person what a star really is. That if you were to be able to fly and travel towards that little dot in the sky, that if you were to come close to it, it would vaporise you. How alien and God-like a star is, that it's so far removed from our physical existence as meat sacks, that if you were to actually travel to it, you would end your existence as a human being. The absolute sheer power and divine posture, world-shattering capability, of a star. And how mindblowing that is, that this is the reality as far as we can glean it from our current understanding of the universe.

Gotham City Research LLC investigates publically traded companies for weaknesses and fraud and publishes reports which they predict will make the stocks fall in price 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

Molded bongwater.

There is "Tier 2 content" and then there is Tier 2 people engaging and acting in the world. Bernardo Kastrup, John Vervaeke, perhaps Alex O'Connor past his "anti-theist" days, Michael Levin, Rupert Sheldrake. These go into their specialized fields with an openness and depth that gives you invalueable insight and understanding and teaches you Tier 2 by osmosis.

The more severe the outcome of corruption is in a given situation, the more you should be wary of "legalization" of such corruption. Since you're apparently not satisfied with the current standards, how high should the standards be? I'm not entertaining that as a likely hypothesis; I'm making a point that making factual claims is most probably (I can't come up with a counterexample) always less than 100% certain. And that should inform whether or not you want to kill people based on such claims. Imagine that you take all prosecutions that will ever happen in the history of the world, you take the inevitable portion of wrongly executed people, put them all in a ditch, and you're standing on top of the ditch with a gun. You walk down the ditch and up to every person and look them straight in the eye, and for each person, you say "I might be wrong, but..." *pulls the trigger*. Every person you kill is innocent. That's the moral weight of you as a person supporting killing by the state as punishment (capital punishment). 21 years in a jail cell, unless you're old (which then you're less likely to commit such crimes), you have hope for a future, you have opportunity for recourse, you have a life where you can better yourself, work towards something. Around half of the people sentenced to death in the US were ages 20-29 at the time of crime; when they're below 25, their brains are not fully developed, and many criminals tend to grow out of it by 30-40.

Why

Although you might be commenting more broadly, that's exactly not what is happening in this thread. I'm saying people who describe themselves as Muslims, Christians, etc., can be compatible with orange and above (per various examples like Mamdani, El-Sayed, Sheldrake, Hart). There are probably some brain-fungus-ridden leftists like Hasan Piker defending terrorist groups and sentiments (like the Houthis) because "American imperialism is so much worse", but standing up against people calling all muslims dangerous is such a different phenomena altogether.

The concept of a male escort, especially a high-rated one, is really fascinating. Notice the personality type. Notice the social status, the philosophy and values, the type of interactions that women want out of it. They (the good ones) seem like highly caring, sensitive heroes.

The point is that even the potential of corruption in the case of capital punishment is so bad that it could invalidate having capital punishment. "Getting caught in 4k" is not a standard you have rigorously defined, and even with a rigorous definition, the nature of reality, evidence, proof is incredibly complex and uncertain. Probably no fact you could ever propose would be 100% certain; Breivik could have had a body double waiting on the island to give himself up while he left the island. Any prosecution of any criminal act has a component of "the tyranny of conceptualization / inference / reductionism". You're trusting that a prosecution has reduced reality to one thing, one judgement, one description, over another. Adding corruption to that equation, multiplied by every chain in the chain of command, you can start to see how at least 600 people have been wrongfully sentenced to capital punishment.

Do you go to the gym?

Only if you're supposed to draw something in front of you. I always used to draw from my imagination when I was little, so when I came to art class in high school and had to draw the teacher, I drew him as an idealized image from my imagination rather than looking at what I was supposed to draw. I didn't get the proportions right according to the teacher. But I didn't think it was a bad drawing either. It was just not as grounded to the concrete object.

I said what I said. What are your specific concerns? If you don't want to invest a couple of minutes every other day to increase the processing capacity of your brain, sure, it's your choice. You can also choose to not work out; you won't necessarily become mentally disabled if you do. But if you care about maximizing your potential, not just for shallow efficiency reasons but for the experience of life, for deeper understanding, for more refined states of mind, you might want to do the few small things that help in that direction.

Some maps are retarded. Materialism is such a map.

There is also something called naive idealism. What do you mean by "appearance"? What do you lay in the notion of Maya/illusion? What do you make of visual illusions, the fact that our sense perceptions are adaptable/changeable depending on circumstance (e.g. you no longer feel your butt as much in the chair after sitting for a while, or if you keep a finger in cold water after a while it no longer feels as cold), that they are limited and only capture so much, etc.? You can still describe things even if reality is mental. That's fundamentally what science does. It's just that materialists additionally create some mysterious substance called "matter" that nobody has ever seen and cling to that as a metaphysical paradigm. "Matter" is in reality a description of mental states. Whether or not you assign an ontological status to it doesn't change this fact (you're always conceding that you ultimately only have access to your mental states per Descartes, unless you're some idiot who doesn't know up from down).

The standard for executions in the US is already "beyond a reasonable doubt". And no matter how high your burden of proof supposedly is, you're opening up for legal malpractice, either due to faulty evidence or corruption. Corruption is not limited to non-judicial branches of government. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/policy/prosecutorial-accountability 600 people is more than Breivik could ever dream of taking out.