zurew

1) 'Why don't you wake up already, stop being lost in your illusions, realise that you are ignorant' ---> "Ohh, thanks dude, i haven't thought about that, now you helped me a lot!" 2) 'Why don't you wake up already, stop being lost in your illusions, realise that you are ignorant' ---> "Dude, shut the hell up and don't talk to me ever again, you are boring, and provoking. Also i don't know Who tf asked?" Which one is more likely, the first or the second one?

We can cherrypick some bad cases of course. Do you think that you have the same level of opportunity to get out of povertyhood as in the past? Do you think that the farmers who lived in medieval age had a better life compared to the people you are mentioning above? Most poor people don't even know what to do with the money they have. Most of them have really bad money managing habits and even if they win some money they end up being poor. Unless you are living in a very very bad place you have your basic needs met. The only problem here, that you can constantly elevate your basic needs so now you need the newest iphone laptop etc. Of course there are some people who don't really have a chance because they were born in a very bad place. But most people are willingly staying slaves, because they don't want to put extra work into improving their lifes, they have no vision and no plan what they want to do, and they also have no skills. The normal slavery definition is about you are forced to do things you don't want to and you have no choice to get out of it and you basically have no free time(where you can do what you want). Nowadays in most of the cases you aren't forced to do anything but you choose to remain a slave. You have a lot more freetime nowadays compared to the past. Now, what you do with that free time is another question. I don't know if you have noticed, but most people are suffering because they have so much things to choose from, people can't decide what they want to become because they have soo many choices to make and so many opportunities to choose from. The reason why you can think a lot more about your life abot what decisions you want to make is because you are less of a slave. Again being a slave - lack of choice and freedom. Interestingly, most people have a lot of time complaining, but don't have time for improving their life and improving skills. You are visiting this forum, you have healthcare,you have cops and laws protecting you ,you have internet, you have time to write messages back and to contemplate and to watch youtube ,you have a phone, a computer a shelter and a whole lot of other items and gadgets that are on your name, and not on any other organisation's or person's name. You have a lot, and we still call all that slavery because you need to pay some taxes? Again not denying that there are some people who don't have almost any choice, but to say that nowadays people are more slaves and have worse lives compared to the past is a huge stretch imo.

@Blackhawk So do you suggest universal basic income everywhere in order to destroy slavery? I think that world is far from now, maybe in a few countries we will see it happen in slight forms, but to really happen we will need an AI to take care for most jobs. That world seems far from now, but even if we would grant for you that universal basic income world, do you think you would be more happy? Streching the slavery definition so far makes it lose its meaning. Basically, we can replace your slavery definition with survival. We can complain all about how bad and tough the world is, but we can use our options to make the best out of them. The irony is that the world is nowhere near as tough and hard compared to the past. Even most normal people live a better life than kings lived in the past. Now everyone wants more and complaining about everything, without making any effort to make the world or their life better.

The only problem is, when the rules are blurry, so you don't know where you cross them and when. Topics where there is a lot of disagreement will always trigger some people lets be it progressive or conservative. We can't totally avoid trigerring people, because anyone can get offended by anything. The question is, do we care more about discussing hard, heavy topics or do we care about people's feelings so much so, that we are afraid to talk about some stuff, because we are afraid that it will trigger some people. We can always get behind the 'i got offended curtain' and use it as a weapon to deal with ideologies and ideas that we don't agree with, so we don't need to argue against them. People can get offended if we are talking about ideas that they don't agree with. Why not use arguments to deal with people we don't agree with? Labeling everyone as low conscious is a lazy way to deal with ideas. Tear down their ideas with your arguments, so everyone can see that you have a more nuanced view on that particular problem compared to the other person. Of course there are some lines that have practical and moral usage, but those lines should be very precise and tangible. If the lines are not exact , the lines can be weaponised. Do we want to ban based on intention? Who decides how can we evaluate who had what intention. There are some very clear cases, where we can see the bad intention and ad hominem but there are some other cases, where you can evaluate sentences in 10 different ways.

But gender isn't the problem though, but sex is. Gender is an inner image of yourself. That is why, it can become a mess if we are only focusing on gender and not sex. Social constructions have their own practical consequences. Just because something is a social construct that does not mean, that it need to be abandoned immediately. For example, our whole economic system is a social construct. We made a system that we all play along with. Sex has its own practical categorizational usage, for example when you go to a doctor you won't be treated based on your gender(inner image of yourself) but based on your sex(biological traits). Sports are based on biology and not on self image. The reason for categorising based on sex was to create a more equal playingfield for women. We can abandon all these categories but then we will need to be aware of some consequences: There won't be any natural competitions (because anyone can use anything for their transition) Women will probably compete a lot less because they won't have any chance to be anywhere near the top, they will lose a lot of their sponsors, most women who have had a career as a professional before, will lose her job Now, i think we can all agree that it will mostly cause damage for biological women. We can say that sports are tough , reality is unfair so realise that and stay with that. But we are not really consistent with that statement when we are talking about other systems. For example, if we are talking about economics, in the past you could make a lot of money using your physical strength so men dominated. We didn't stay with that we created new jobs and tools to make physical differences matter a lot less. Right now intellectual difference is a factor, but most intellectual differences can be evened out too in the far future, because of Artificial intelligence and DNA changing. So most of the time, we won't just stay with the raw facts of reality, but we want to make reality more equal with creating new systems and tools. I don't think its good to stay with this black and white thinking that sports are either totally equal or not. Just because no one plays on a totally equal ground that does not automatically mean, that all the factors that are made to make a field more equal should be abandoned. Most of the arguments about this sport topic is around opportunity vs outcome. I think most of you guys are focusing on the outcome more and not really paying that much attention for the opportunity. ( sports are about winning so who cares who wins and with what tools - focus on outcome vs sports are mostly about winning , but if we make certain categorizations we can give opportunity for people more people to be able to win and more people will feel the need and motivation to compete, because they can think that they have some chance - focusing on the opportunity part)

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?