zurew

I think his main target with this is cancelling cancel culture. People are so sensitive nowadays, that you can't share certain opinions and ideas. Allowing diversity of opinions can be valuable, echo chambers aren't practical - only feeds the ego.

For you it might be , but for me its not only about winning. I think the effort part is a really key element here. What make people interested watching sports? Only the performance, or knowing the real hard work behind the performance? I think its both, for me the hard work behind the scenes is more important. Of course i wouldnt know every detail, but i can assume it, especially if no performance enhancing drugs are involved at a certain event. I think its important to keep certain categories for fairness, so athletes with different talents and intention can compete for the best place. You could argue, that even if someone is taking PEDS or steroids they need to work hard etc etc. Yes, but your judging and assumption about how hard they had to work to achieve what they achieved will be really hard. Its much more harder to create a more even field, when you can take every substance under the sun imo. For example, if there are some bodybuilders who wants to know totally their full natural potential, i don't want to rob them from the possibility to compete at a natural event. With more options more desires and goals can be fulfilled. But if i mix up the whole field ,then natural athletes won't have any attention, and they won't have any more reason the compete. They can have some reason to compete but only if they go all in and willing to take the risks that steroid taking involves. I think we should think about athletes that are doing sports because it provides them the money that they need. if we mix everything up without any categories, then a lot of people will be forced to take PED and steroids or to do something else.Most of those wouldn't take the unnatural way of doing sports but they are forced now if they want to continue their career.

I think this got more heated than it supposed to. To be clear i didn't even think that you consider yourself as a conservative and when i wrote my criticisms about them i did not include you there. I didn't even have the intention to just debate but it may came off that way. I saw that you had a different position than me, so i was curious why you took that position thats it. What my intention is to see all the cons and pros around this topic. If you don't want to justify your position thats all good, i won't expect you to do so if you don't want to. I don't think less of you just because you don't want to justify your position. I am open minded about this topic as well, so i am open to change my position. Also i want to clarify, that when i attack or question a position i don't attack you, but only the positions that you hold. This doesn't even directed to you but for everyone. This is a heated topic, so i understand why it got so heated so quickly. But it want to clarify that i don't attack you as a person but only questioning the position that you hold. This way if i get some feedback and some arguments i might change my position that i hold, and everyone can decide and see all the pro and contra arguments regarding this topic. But if you don't want to continue interacting with me or answering my questions thats all good, i respect that, i won't violate that. Take care bro, and have a good day/night.

Yes thats true. But i want to believe that there are some conservatives out there ,that are openminded enough to change their views on things, when they get the sufficient amount of evidence.

I don't think he will attack Sweden. He is losing the Ukraine war he lost a lof of resources and money, i don't think he can manage to attack Sweden too. Sweden would be much harder to wrap around in lies and justifications to attack.

goodone bro

How big of an inflation do you expect for the next 2-3 years?

Their parents are impulsive and their parents are the ones, who are having stage red and blue values, however a young kid can be educated and we can help those kids to be less likely to be homophobic or transphobic when they become an adult. Their parents wouldn't like the idea, however it would be a net benefit for society overall if we are talking about the big picture and the next generations. If the education part won't be done, then more generations will be brought up who will more likely to become transphobe or homophobe. But thats just my opionion. Your question about how we should teach this to certain cultures is valid though. Thats a tough question, but in some kind of way it must be done imo. But maybe you are right about that it can have a negative impact on them, but i can't see the exact negative impact right now.

So do you think overall educating kids around 12 13 years old about sexuality and attraction and about gayness and about transness is good? Can you think of any exact example where this could be negative on any culture?

They just assume, that being gay or trans is not true, but its a cultural delusion and its coming from society and not from biology. I think if we can do more research about sexual attraction, and we find characteristics such that we can show exactly, biologically speaking where gayness or trans-ness is coming from, then most conservative people who is earnest will drop their demonizing beliefs about gay and trans people.But such research need to be done, until then there will be a lot of transphobe and homophobe people and they will stay that way. I saw some people change their beliefs about trans people thanks to the male and female brain research. And thanks to the education about the distinction between sex and gender. The not earnest conservatives are irrelevant, cause their mind can't be changed they will be replaced by younger more progressive generations. Or i don't really know what could be done using the spiral dynamics model, to further their development.

Most conservatives are probably gay (those who are demonizing gayness so much), they just don't know it yet, or they are repressing it (because of this huge demonizing). Its a huge part of their shadow side. Maybe because for them its more important to relate to the conservative ideology compared to being authentic about their sexuality. So ideology may outweigh sexuality in some cases.

Yes i do. When you are in primary school 5th 6th grade and above you start to feel some kind of attraction towards others except if you are Asexual. Teaching them about sexuality and attraction is very important, because they will be less likely to be depressed, when they are for example gay. Because they can understand then , that it is normal, nothing wrong with them, there are other people as well who are in the same shoes as them. They can be educated on how to have safe sex and how to attract their partner as well. Teaching about the sexual dynamics as well how it works what to expect and so on. I don't see the harm in educating in primary school. But i can see the downside if we don't educate.

What is the conservatives exact fear here? That the kids will more likely turn out to be gay ? I think their biggest assumption is that people can change their sexuality based on societal norms. I don't buy that though. There must have been the first gay person on Earth who didn't see any other gay man or woman around him/her. So if it only societal that shouldn't be possible. The only question remains is that can societal norms have a significant role in turning people gay. I think thats their only reasonable argument here.

Thats okay. But i still don't think we can control on our thoughts especially if they are coming from sexual desire. What i would be interested in how could we prevent these people acting on those thoughts and also how can we make them so that they will be willingly to for therapy sessions. But thats not relevant to this topic, so i will stop.

Yeah, but could you tell me exactly based on what characteristics a person will be homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual? I don't think we know how to distinguish between those based on what you wrote.

Notice that we were all talking about thoughts and not actions. You labeled the pedohile as 'bad' based on having 'bad' thoughts. Of course if we are talking about actions its not on the same level. But we were talking about thoughts.

I bet sometimes everyone have some weird thoughts that pop up in their head, especially when they are emotional. Like "i would kill that criminal" or "that man should be burned alive" and stuff like that Should we label everyone as 'bad' if they have weird or bad thoughts? One of the main things that meditation teaches you, that you don't really control your thoughts, you are just following them. Being good can mean not to be reactive and not to act on thoughts that are considered bad. The other question is, can you decide what you are attracted to? Imagine if you would be attracted to dead bodies. We can label that bad, but can these people change their attraction? I don't think so. We don't really know where attraction exactly comes from, its still a debatable topic in science.

Interesting, i haven't seen or heard anything like that before. Sexual attraction seems very deeply rooted to me, but i don't exactly know where the root is at and the science is pretty young on this area. If i had to guess, i would say that sexual attraction is a combination of social and biological factors. I would put a lot more weight on the biological factor though. But ultimately, i don't really know. Transcending gayness, or transcending sexual attraction? I don't think we can ever totally transcend our basic needs like food and sex.

I don't think you can willingly change what sex you are attracted to. Also i want to add here, just because someone is enlightened it doesn't mean that they can't say wrong things, and also it doesn't mean that we need to take their word for granted.

From the absolute sense, yes. But when we are talking about morality no. Is that moral to force a moral system on anyone, who don't want to participate in it? If x person have a moral system where slavery is good and y person have a moral system where slavery is bad how do you solve that? Its a dual problem, so it cannot be solved objectively. Or if you want to stay with the 'but subjective is objetive at the end' what does that mean in this scenario?

I agree with this, but this is why i don't think there is true morality or true ethics. I know that there is a spectrum here, and we should thrive towards to be better. But that is still all subjective. I am arguing that it is subjective thats all, i agree with the notion that there is a spectrum. I was thinking about this selfless thing before and how it could change our justice system. Most justice work could be reduced if everyone would be as selfless with spiritual work as he/she can

It is subjective that slavery is wrong, slavery is good for people who own slaves. Why do you want to destroy their position of power for your own ideal world? See it is all subjective. Why you want to create a world where is no suffering or a lot less suffering, when there are people who want more suffering? Why do you want to destroy their values / ideals?. You want to create a nondual world in a dual world - this is why i said as long as you have an ego, you can't have 'true ethics'

Okay ,lets say that there are or there were people who were completely selfless (i don't believe that tho) . For their own survival they had to consume food and water. Even if they were totally vegan they had to 'kill' the plants to survive. Why can a human destroy other thing's life for their own survival?

If your survival is threatened it doesn't matter how developed you are, you will act in a biased way. There is no such thing as 'true ethics' it is all subjective. Just for yourself to survive you need to live in a selfish way. Even if you are a vegan you still kill plants, why your life has more value compared to a plant? You life is depended upon a lot of consumption. When there is a finite amount of consumable resources there will never be a notion like 'true ethics'. We can thrive to be more ethical but it won't be 'true ethics'. As long as you have an ego, you cannot live fully selflessly - so you can't have true ethics

Why others don't have this desire or why others desire the opposite? Where does desire comes from?