Carl-Richard

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.

The self-deception.

For being a self-help-oriented psychologist-guru, JP sure makes a hell of a good job creating customers in sore need of his advice. Firstly, Jordan Peterson has done zero studies on whether IQ can be increased or not. He has merely purported to have read the literature. Secondly, the studies on brain training like N-Back training are underestimated because they practically speaking inevitably use unmotivated and unknowledgeable /untrained /uncoached individuals (but even then, they show non-negligible increases). You also have to understand that JP is very pessimistic because he is essentially looking for a miracle cure for mentally disabled people. But if you're looking for going from say a standard college graduate in terms of IQ (115 IQ) to a stellar one (125 IQ or above), you have much better odds than what JP has made you to believe. If you are highly motivated to train and you get somebody to teach the techniques (or you're simply motivated to teach yourself the techniques well), you will see great results. There are tons of testimonials on this. Sprint and HIIT training (and also resistance training) also has shown clear increases in IQ-adjacent cognitive metrics (>10% increases). Also something as simple as filling a nutritional hole (calcium is for example one often completely neglected example for cognitive functioning) can take you from debilitating brain fog to pristine mental clarity. Something like a food allergy/sensitivity the same.

@StaraX The alternative is to 1. do what you feel called to do, 2. try more things. Have you tried brain training for instance? High-intensity cardiovascular training / speed/power training? Dietary optimization? These all factor in heavily to academic/cognitive performance. "Genetics" is essentially a placeholder for "people who are different than me". Of course people are different than you, that's life. You're supposed to do you. And statements like "80-90%" are highly generalized, vague and tentative estimates. You don't know whether it is even true, or how much it is true or for which things. So don't let your life hinge on such a thing. Also, if somebody scores higher than you on a metric associated with a thing, that doesn't mean you can't do that thing. And any metric is just a part of the story anyway. In the real world, real results matter, and you're an unique individual who can contribute uniquely.

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?

No it was not. I still don't know what you meant by "them" in your sentence.

Did you know that if you scroll up on the same page, you'll see that hate speech is against the guidelines and you might realize that statements like "muslims are dangerous" count as hate speech and thus you should be given a warning point for that (and eventually be banned if you continue)? "Yes, the statement "Muslims are dangerous" is considered hate speech because it attacks an entire religious group with a broad and harmful stereotype" — Gemini.

How do you know that?

Do you know what the maximum amount of warning points is before you get banned?

You can now exit the thread since you don't want to add anything of value. Or you could just, you know, clarify what your spontaneously aborted fetus of a sentence actually meant.

You can't threaten me with a slap 😏😏 Sry 🙏😌

You can try to wipe the floor with say a Rupert Sheldrake or David Bentley Hart, see how that goes. You consciously mock Muslim women when you say that Muslims are dangerous. I don't know, there is a trend that people with racist/bigoted tendencies and high amounts of warning points are more likely to get banned than the opposite.

🤔🤔🤔🤔🌝

Leiv Eiriksson discovered America before Columbus. Checkmate buddy.