zurew

The goat oeaohoo is back. I think you would be right, if most people would be actually voting based on substance and not on perceived good and bad. That perceived good and bad in most cases backed up by feelings that a given propaganda machine created in you and then circling this back to your claim - this eventually becomes a psychological issue (where the ability to persuade you will be constrained by the aritficially created feelings in you) and not an issue on disagreeing on substance and about policy. Even in the context where one actually cares about the facts and open to be persuaded on a descriptive ground - Most of the convos go like this: "I don't like policy X because it has effect Y" - well you are wrong about X creating Y, here is the evidence - "Well ,okay ,maybe but it will have effect Z as well" - You are wrong about that as well, here is evidence. And then this goes on after a while where you end up at a place where we start to talk about values rather than just about outcomes and effects. The disagreement eventually becomes about why you hold the values that you hold and why those values important to you (which also eventually becomes a psychological discussion).

Comparison doesn't meant that you compare two things across all dimensions - you can compare two different things just on 1 dimension. What happened here is that I outlined the sillyness in your logic. The idea that one can only validly judge someone if one has the exact same lifesituation (like having the same amount of kids, having the same amount of money , having the same career etc) is silly. Again when I apply your logic to other situations like to Jeffrey Epstein, you immediately backtrack and you don't want to use your logic anymore. It seems that in those situations you are perfectly okay with judging those people and you don't qualify with "well my judgement isn't credible , since I am not in a similar life situations as Jeffrey Epstein". The interesting thing is that you are not consistent with your skepticism. Because if you would be, you wouldn't even make positive judgements about Elon and Trump you would stay completely agnostic about both of them, since as you said you cant credibly judge them. But if you cant credibly judge them , that also means that you cant say any positive about them. When people judge Elon and Trump they judge them based on their actions. If you want to put a % on how much good vs bad a given person has done, then again we are going to go back to your silly skepticism problem, where im gonna say "Well you know little about Epstein, how do you know that you can correctly assess all the bad and good things that he did, maybe he did much more good than what you know about and your % about him is very much off". The other thing is that even if you can establish that given all publicy avalaible knowledge about a given person makes that person more good than bad (based on their actions) , even then one can still make comments about their negative and their bad actions.

Wait, how do you know the system is corrupt, if you werent there personally witnessing directly the corruption? Are you telling me and other people, that you believe in biased sources informing you about corruption? Wow, you don't only purely rely on your direct experience when you make an analysis?

You guys dont need to deny the spiritual development of sadhguru , you can just say that spiritual development doesn't entail that you will have an informed and well educated analysis on every single field (including politics). As I said in other threads, being a system-thinker or being spiritually developed doesn't entail that one won't give trash takes and trash analysis about a given field. You need to study that given field and you cant get around that no matter how developed your cognition is and no matter how spiritually developed you are. You need to study a fuckton, you need to understand fallacies and you need to be careful with how you make your inferences.

" You cant judge Jeffrey Epstein for what he did - I mean think about it, he had so many billionaire and millionaire friends and you have no idea what Jeffrey Esptein was in person or what he was standing for - maybe he was a great husband, maybe he was a great friend. All you have information about is what the extremely biased media told you and there is a reason why you only know about his crimes. Maybe those huge companies that provide so many jobs to so many people around the world wouldnt be there today, if Jeffrey Epstein wouldn't have been who he was. He was an extremely great middle-man for networking and probably managed to connect so many bright minds and wealthy people together. Would those wealthy people have managed to get to where they are today, without Epstein's great networking ability ? Well, we will never know. No one here can compherend the responsibility of navigating meetings and conversations with a bunch of billionaire and millionaires who are all power hungry , therefore no one has the credibility to make any judgement about what Epstein did. "

All of these people wave system thinking as an aesthetic - I have seen even Schmachtenberger giving surface level takes about certain subjects - all of these people need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Yes, some of them are very good in certain domains, but they are very bad at other domains. The fact is that you need to have some level of specialization in a given domain to not give trash takes about it. There is no getting around this. No amount of system-thinking is going to shortcut the necessary learning and reading that you need to do. You need to spend some time and if you don't, you are going to inevitably say some dumb things . She made literally a vibe based analysis, without engaging with any piece of fact and she bases her whole analysis on a spiritual model that ranks emotions. You could literally grab any random person from the street and that person could give a political analysis with the same if not better quality.

Im not saying just content specific, im trying to point to the difference in generating functions. Its not just what kind of beliefs the majority of each party holds (which would be the issue about content), its how you get there and how you form your beliefs and based on what criteria you accept and reject things (its about your epistemic methods ). Im saying there is a qualitative difference in generating function.

Yeah but your "both siding" doesn't work when we get into specifics. Again, half of the republicans deny the result of the 2020 election even after all the lawsuits, they deny climate change , they collectively believe in a bunch of conspiracy theories. You cant make a similar case for the left. The two side different and not even close. When someone brings up insane lefty positons , most of those wont be held by the majority of the lefites, they are hold by extremely fringed twitter kids - on the conservative side though, thats not the case. It needs to be acknowledged that the two side operates differently when it comes to epistemically engaging with facts and the world. As long as we pretend that both sides are the same, we won't be able to solve things. It doesn't work in that it wont persuade already radicalized people in changing their beliefs and opinions but Im not convinced how it doesn't work for people who aren't already bought into a bunch of conspiracy theories and on people who aren't radicalized yet. At the very least - not amplifying the fuck out of ragebaits and conspiracy theories would be a good start to slow down radicalization.

Except the exact opposite thing that happened and happens in real time. People cant engage with facts and by allowing conspiracy theories what you end up with is creating completely alterantive realities - so much so that people cant actually be reached anymore and there is no common ground anymore. Right now half of the republican still thinks the 2020 election was stolen. There is literally no substantial argument that could make them think otherwise. No amount free speech will fix this. But more free speech where all conspiracy theories freely go or even intentionally fed by the platform will make people even more radicalized and not less.

https://x.com/KyleKulinski/status/1853641364669391214

Are you trying to imply it was a good episode where Rogan hardcore cornered the debate partner of Hancock with completely irrelevant twitter and political and personal beef that were all tangential to the debate proposition?

Thats fine, I think its not impossible to make the argument possibly why you wouldn't necessarily want to include intersex people in women's sports. I do think though, that its not straightforward and requires some reflection on a lot of things ( I personally havent thought deeply about any of these things, so im just going to throw stuff out there) So for instance: Creating a more clear concept and boundary around what it means for someone to have an unfair advantage. Reflecting on the reasoning behind why you would or wouldn't want to maintain seperate categories and then ideally backing it up with empirical evidence (if empirical claims are made) Before arguing about the purpose of dividing sports based on sex, maybe its more easy to argue whether the division between natural and not natural categories should be maintained (or created in some cases) in the firstplace.

Having XY chromosomes is compatible with being intersex. If you think having XY chromosomes is sufficient to be categorized as a man, then its entailed under your definition that a man can give birth.

Having both of these features at the same time seems to be a contradiction on its face (Impermanence, Shape-shifting). There might not be a contradiction entailed, but I need to know what you mean by impermanence first. I don't grant you that being in form necessarily presupposes being bounded by time and therefore necessarily being subject to change. There is no getting around this, you either need to bite the bullet that God could create something like heaven, where no one dies and can be in permanent bliss (unless you can show whats the contradiction entailed by the creation of Heaven or by something similar to heaven where death isn't logically necessary) or you can go with a set of metaphysical constraints that you put on God, but then the big bullet that you need to bite is that the existence of God (as you outined it) is not logically necessary ( which would mean that there are possible worlds that can exist - independent from the existence of God you are talking about ). What you guys always miss and this (includes Leo as well), is that as long as you don't demonstrate or establish why God is logically necessary, you can talk about metaphysics as much as you want, but you guys showing how 1 specific version of metaphysics can explain the world, from that doesn't follow that other types of metaphysics wouldn't be capable to do the same, if not more. This is why if you want to rule out all other possible metaphysical explanations, the way you do that is by spelling out a contradiciton (in this case spelling out such a contradiction thats entailed by all other types of metaphysics except the one you think is true). Obviously this task is incredibly hard if not close to impossible (but this is where real philosophy begins in my view), and this is where all of you guys get completely lost (including Leo) and none of you can successfuly make the argument. The way you get out from this burden is by toning down the confidence in your claims and not claiming that the God you are talking about is logically necessary but only claim that your metaphysics is better compared to other metaphysics (when it comes to a set of theoretical virtues or whatever virtues you want to use to differentiate between different types of metaphysics).

You keep asserting that, but you havent given any supporting argument in favour of it yet. What Im saying is not even remotely controversial. Why couldn't an omnipotent God create a universe with different laws of physics ,where he just spawn humans into existence without any need for evolution or for death to occur? Or if you don't like the concept of an omnipotent God, you can think of it this way: What is the contradiction in saying a universe can exist with humans in it where there is no death? (you pointing out some physical limitation won't be sufficient, because what Im talking about is a logical possibility not physical one, there is no reason to presspose the current laws of physics and there is no contradiction entailed there being universes with different laws of physics)

Creating a Universe without death is compatible with multiple models of God, but it seems it isn't compatible with yours . But God being a system seems to be compatible with a Universe where there is no death. But I would also expect a universe where there is suffering and death being more probable where a non-loving God creates the Universe or where a mindless set of rules creates the Universe and there are other possibilities as well, but generally speaking I wouldn't expect it to be created under a loving God who has the ability not to create it this way.

I would personally be more sad and pissed about missing the opportunity for someone intelligent to actually challenge my views than being worried about me spending time clarifying my framework and terms. There will be probably people on here who can challenge your views in a deep way, but you will probably miss out on it, because you don't want to cuck out with clarifying stuff. But you know , at the end of the day, you do whatever you want, and thats all good.

Do you hold the value to get across the meaning that you want, without others misunderstanding you?

As long as your metaphysics is compatible with clarification, I dont care about any of this. I dont think you are able to spell out why specifying context is impossible on your view. I also don't think you can spell out why would assuming a platonic idea or truth would be necessary for clarification to be possible. But go ahead, prove me wrong.

Im not saying it has nothing to do with it, but what im saying is still true. You could in principle maintain all your views and still engage in clarification. There is a difference between your metapysics constraining and limiting and informing what kind of norms you can engage in and your subjective preferences informing the same. Talking about metaphysics in this case is a big red-herring.

Sure, but even your framework is compatible with clarification the way I outlined it. The real reason is not your theory of meaning or your metaphysics , the real reason is your preference.

I dont care about you using a specific phrase for a given meaning , Im interested in understanding the meaning behind your sentences and words . Im not interested in forcing my semantics onto you, you can use whatever semantics you want, but I want to understand the meaning behind the semantics you use. Clarification in my view just means specifying the context a given phrased is used in. Dude, we made this big ass tangent about theories of meaning and about metaphysics but at the end of the day, all we seem to relevantly disagree about is communication norms. You could have just said that you are not interested in clarifying your terms, without pushing the convo into unnecessary rabbitholes (theory of meaning and metaphysics). None of the disagreements about metaphysics or about theory of meaning was relevant or necessary for me to understand the fact that you don't want to play by the same communication norms.

Do you have an argument for why God couldn't create a world where any of the things from your list dont exist?

For the sake of the argument I can grant all that underlying metaphysics and your theory of meaning. I don't see how under all of that, clarification is not possible or not useful. Again clarification in my view doesn't mean that you transfer meaning 1:1 exactly as it is. Clarification under your framework where the referent always changes would just mean you outline what you mean by that phrase under your understanding at that given moment. If at t1 by X you mean Y1 , it might be the case that when you reflect on it at t2 you wont be able to describe Y1 but you will describe Y2, but thats fine with me. We dont have such a sophisticated meaning detector (at least I don't) where an infinitely miniscule change in context will competely throw me off from getting a sense what you are trying to refer to. But you desribing Y2 at t2 is still better than you not giving me anything.

Right now all I want to make sure first, is that I track what we actually disagree about when it comes to the concept and utility of clarification. It seems to me that you agree that there is such a thing as me getting you closer to what I mean about a given thing. Do you agree with that? (even if its just slightly closer)