zurew

This basically means pro abortion, because that allows both. Pro life people (mostly stage blue people) will have a lot of problem regarding to the video that you mentioned, but i am pro abortion as well. I want women to have more choice not less.

When we are talking about abortion its a moral issue so its a philosophical argument in the firstplace, we aren't talking about what exist from the absolute pov. Its all relative of course, but its still a morality issue, and lot of people care about it , so we need to justify or question things using philosophy. We can define what a human is if we want to make arguments in favour or not in favour or abortion. Its all about justification. But defining what a human is, or from where do you call a living creature a human is an essential point to every abortion debate. If we don't define what a human is ,then we will have a debate that will become loosey-goosey and won't have any hard foundation. Once a definition is made, arguments and justifications can be made. The question is how far you can justify being totally against abortion and for what cost. Also its interesting to see that a lot of people who are completely against abortion, and talking about the potentiality of things, often don't take into account how real world works and in what horrible circumstances and enviroment can a child born into. But it should be part of defending the potentiality, because if that poor child comes from a single mother household who were raped and who is really poor etcetc. Then its really tough to justify such things.

I know the potentiality argument, because thats what pro-life people choose because they can't defend their morality any other way. If you want to defend the "potentiality" argument you are going to have a really hard time doing it. Why don't we call having a blowjob or handjob or having sex with a condom on as murder? Because sperm has the potentiality to become a human, so why not consider it murder? So you can't really escape the 'line argument'. accounts to murder but not necessarily human murder, thats the point. Most people don't give a damn about killing life around them. For instance you can kill insects thats a life form and no one gives a damn about it, or i could name a million different kind of life-forms that you can kill without any laws protecting them. So lets get deeper into it. Anything that has a heart accounts as murder? Should we have laws that protects every living creature that has a heart? See its going to be really complicated to defend the 'potentiality' points. So if you want to defend your point we can go deeper into it. Yeah it can be interpreted as harm for them, but what i am talking about is not up for interpretation it is objectively harmful for humans. And one really fundamental distinction between these two, that one is infectious the other one is not. What i am talking about can be tangibly measured. Also when it comes to these kind of debates we can weight which harm is worse than the other one. Because they don't hold the same weight. If you want to defend this point this is going to be another hard one. Because if you want a society where you don't want to infring on anyone just because what if they will get angry or what if they will interpret it as harm, then this argument could be made to defend any immoral points. We can strectch your infrigement argument very very far, and thats the problem. For example if i wanted to use your argument, then we shouldn't infringe upon pedohiles by protecting children with laws, because it might upset the pedo-s or they might interpret it as harmful. The same could be made for psychopaths and people who actually want to murder people who are already born. Or if you say thats not relevant, because those two example are not directly 100% related to the "my body my choice" argument, then regarding to how to weight if my or your argument make more sense, we can weight the harm. Regarding to the 'my body my choice' one, some consequences are: Spreading the virus faster, so killing some people flooding hospitals with people because more people catch the virus, there are more people who can't go to work, so they can't earn money, the companies are losing more workers so it has measurable damage on the incomes on both sides And we can compare it to mine, where we basically have angry people, who don't want to get infringed upon, and a very small number of people with some side effects So far it seems more damage on society if we want to use your argument and morality. Depending on your morality, and depends on in what stage we are talking about abortion. I don't really want to make this thread to a covid19 debate, because we already have a few of them and most of my arguments are made there regarding this vaccine topic. You can advice people "to just stay home" and it can help, but people must work and you can't just shot down companies forever. I don't think i need to justify why it would be horrible if everything would be shut down for a few month just because you want people totally isolated. Also i could argue, that forceing people to stay home for x amount of time would be a bigger violation on ther autonomy. If we are talking about not total isolation, then we are still talking about spreading, and people who are working can bring back the virus. So this talking point is not above my argument "which violates bodily autonomy" according to you. So the diesase still would have been spread really fast, and those who refused to take the vaccine made the spreading faster, infected more people so we are going back to the hospital argument, that because of these "my body my choice" people, people flooded hospitals even more.

Take notes, and contemplate the ideas and make tangible everyday or weekly or monthly or yearly plan how do you want to implement those ideas in your life. You can't just remember all the self-help ideas because there are way too many things to remember. Thats why note taking and contemplating is important. Also i believe that you need just a few main changes and habits in your life and pratice them daily and focus on them hard, other small ideas can give you benefits but not nearly as much as the main ones. By the main ones i mean habits that have a snow ball effect. By the snow ball effect i mean you start with just a small snowball on the top of the mountain and as time goes on it becomes exponentially bigger. ( for instance meditation or reading ) So if you find an idea interesting you should spend a lot of time about contemplating about how you can implement it in yourlife, what benefits can it have and how does it changes your thinking about yourself and life. Spend more time about implementing ideas than collecting ideas.

The abortion arguments are often revolving around what do we actually call a human. Where do we want to draw our exact lines. Because most of those people who advocating for no abortion at all, they do not think about a sperm as a human but they will draw their line somewhere else. Regarding to the "Should the death be classified as a single murder" it depends on in what development stage do we call a fetus actually a human, where do we draw the line. So it correlates with my first point. Because its fundamentally different from the abortion. Not being vaccinated can cause harm for society and people around you, can shot down hospitals etcetc. Being able to have an abortion does not.

I like these two. I think the only "problem" with dividing and creating more and more sections is that it needs unique guidelines and more and more moderators. So if that can be balanced out i think those two are great ideas.

It could bring this community more together and closer, by understanding and getting to know other people's interest and humour and styles. For some people some regulations may limit how far they can express themselves, so i think it could be a cool experiment to have.

@Leo Gura I would be interested too, why you are so optimistic about it. I know you know more about these catastrophic risks than we do, and still you are optimistic. Do you have reasoning for that or you have a deep intuition that tells you that most humans will survive? Btw, i don't think either that humanity will cease to exist, but at the same time i think that there are a lot of possibilities for viping out hundrends of millions or a few billions of humans. Especially, if not just one, but more than one catastrophic risks are taking place at the same time.

Exactly. Also, there are so many different kind of global extinction factors that we can be aware of and if any from those become true, we can say goodbye for most humans. water scarcity, global war potential, dying of the ecosystem, AI takes over the world, soil degradation, species extinction deadly infectious diseases, biowarfare ocean acidification, coral die off Planetary natural disasters (Volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, earthquakes) Distributed exponential technology (as times goes on its more and more easier for anyone to reach for really deadly weapons and tools) etc etc etc. This is not fear-mongering. This is about being realistic and being aware of global problems. Ignoring all these is somewhat part of the problem why these are really hard to solve.

Whats your opinion about people who talk about "psychedelics can only do , what you brain is capable of doing. Chemical compounds go and activate already existing brain machinery." (These people are mostly either psychiatrists or gurus like sadghuru) Suggesting that you can achieve it naturally too in theory. Also suggesting that if we would be capable of using our body to produce chemical compounds willingly, then it would be insanity (we do it willingly when we meditate or when we do yoga, but thats of course nothing close to psychedelics).

If we are talking about maintaining or trying to continue with the constant economic growth, then this is not true. Maybe if we had the knowledge to transform energy any way we like it instantly, then we can say that we won't run out of resources. We are in the dark ages when it comes to energy using. We are "wasting" so much energy because when it transforms into certain states we can't do shit with it or we can't utilize it, because we don't have the knowledge or the tech for it. But we are getting exponentially more effective at burning energy though. But thats not very good , when it comes to mainiting resources. Even when we try to create energy sources, we probably burn more energy creating them, compared to how much energy they produce.

The usefulness of conversations and language can only go so far when it comes to existential questions. Language can be effective and deceptive at the same time. You can only grasp really deep insights and experiences if you have had some similar or identical experiences to the person who is sharing his insights with you. You can ask the same question for yourself ,that you asked Leo. After that, you can investigate it yourself, thats the only way (using direct experience) to make sense of existential questions. Even if he gives the perfect answer for you, it won't be anything else, just a belief that you can hold onto. Investigate, then come back with your own exp and insights.

How is liberalism a failed ideology? Its just getting started. Yeah its much better to live in a country, where you have no say at all, you have to obey. You are being held as a little servant and nothing more, you hold no more value for your country than a machine that can work. That being said, liberalism have a lot of limits and problems if its being done in an extreme way. No political ideology should be extreme, there have to be some kind of a balance. I don't think that any one of these would be only exclusive to liberalism. These things can occur in countries that are nationalistic as well. If you or your blogger want to argue that these problems are bigger and much more likely under a liberalist political ideology, than we should get deep into statistics and see and compare how things are.

To a certain level yes, but there is a treshold where more material abundance won't change anything. If we use maslow's hierarchy of needs, its obvious that there are needs that can't be handwaved away with meditation or by anything else. Those 'basic needs' are always changing and adapting to society's development and structure. But at the same time having 10 houses and jets and cars etc etc there is a number there ,where it won't affect you anymore. Same with money, you are constantly adapting to your success. Leo's video about survival is really good, and shows how survival is not just about basic needs like food and water and shelter.

Little update on the most recent, famous ufo case.

Yeah this is a good suggestion imo. Also i would add that there could be more transparency and honesty. For example, if you didn't do much research on that particular topic, or if you are not sure that the information that you are sharing is 100% true, then you should mention it. That way people can be more sure, and do their own research and there would be less misleading topics. Also this way the emotionally charged topics can be reduced and more intellectual conversations can be achieved imo.

100% agree.

Okay, so how do you explain gay people, and trans people in society, if it mostly or only comes from culture, and society and not from biology? Btw just to mention your argument will hurt gay people here. Most stage blue people use the same argument that gayness is just comes from society and thats why they need to be banned, beacuse they will destroy culture and society and people will stop procreating. If you use the biology argument, that it comes from biology, then you are arguing in favor of gay people.

Maybe it can be transcended, but i haven't seen any people that could do that, that does not mean it isn't possible. You don't need to feel sad for those people because there are solutions to this problem even if we assume that it can't be fully transcended.

I think mostly yes, but i can only talk about myself. I don't know what other people are attracted to, i am obviously assuming here and projecting my own situation out.

Thats a deep question, and i think none of us knows the answer for that one, but we can make arguments and assumptions on both sides. I write you down my argument about pedohiles, which is about why i don't think attraction mostly comes from culture, but more from biology: But at the end of the day none of us knows how attraction works and where it comes from. My belief is that it mostly comes from biology

Yes,i do. I wanted to talk about pedohiles too, to bring up a point about this discussion. Think about it, if pedophilia would be mostly or only influenced by culture, conditioning .. Then why there are pedohiles at all, especially nowadays, where pedohiles considered the worst of the worst in society. All pedophiles are fearing for their lifes when they are caught because of societal pressure, and because what will come towards them when they go to jail. All society coding into everyone do not be pedohiles, and pedhilia is gross and wrong and evil. So why would there be then so many pedohiles then if it is only or mostly comes from culture and society?

Also you have this assumption baked into your argument that people the reason why people are attracted to certain traits and things is because of societal and cultural examples. I don't agree with that. I think that attraction comes from the combination of societal things and also from biology. I would put more weight on the biology part. Thats why i don't think you can change what you are attracted to.

I don't think its discriminatory if i am not attracted towards certain people. If i am straight is it discriminatory that i am not attracted to men? If we want to use the word 'discriminatory' that vague then it will lose its meaning. Again you are conflating being attracted to gender and being attracted to biological traits. For me if there was a man who had a vagina and big female boobs and no facial hair no dick etc but a female body i would be attracted to it. I don't care about the gender part in this case, because i am attracted to biological traits. And also to be clear, just because you are a woman, that does not mean that i will be attracted towards you. Everyone has their own biases, kinks, traits that are attracted to