zurew

What are you talking about dude, which statement of mine implies that Im an expert or that Im a doctor?

You are being bad faith there. Im not saying what you should do, we are having a debate about which approach is better and which approach has more downsides. I never claimed to be a doctor or an expert and never implied it.

Hence why you shouldn't give advice about certain things, that you are not educated or sure about (especially when it comes to medical advice). Thats possible, but I think its still better than letting that person seek medical advice from people who are not educated on the topic, and who are explicitly stateing that they won't take any responsbility when their advice do more harm than good. Thats being framed like that person was boxed in based on little info or framed like there was a strong sign that her relationship to the forum was getting better. People here triggered her and she triggered some people - if you want to manage that, that requires a lot of care - will you take responsibility for monitoring and moderating all discussions like that? And yes, certain people can't take as much responsibility because their ability to take responsbility is undermined. Treating some people as if they could take as much responsibility for their decisions as you is one assumption that you should question, because that base assumption can lead to harm. That supposed to be an argument in favour of what exactly?

This is not about open mindedness, this is about responsibility. You treat this forum as a place where you can experiment on these people ,while you don't want to take any responsbility if your advice have a negative effect on them. This place is not a place for doing experiments or research on these people.

Sounds like a very responsible approach - I will try to help them, but if I fuck them up its not on me.

Yeah right. Im sure you have a well thought out response to this: If you have more than 1 mentally ill members on the forum, which one are you going to optimize the whole forum around?

If your criticism is that we put some members in the mental illness box too quickly or we do it based on not enough info - I disagree, because that specific member had a consistent pattern of behavior and not just a random or a few outbursts once in while. Regarding you saying that its more about degree rather than kind - I disagree. If you have a certain mental illness your brain actually works quite differently compared to people who don't have that specific illness. - and this is not about to feel better or superior than those people, this about recognizing that difference so that they can actually be treated differently if the situation requires it do so. Recognizing correctly who has what seems to be essential to maximize the ability to help and sometimes helping means that you need to let certain people go. Or can be harmful. There is a hell of a lot research need to be done on this topic, before we can play around any holistic approach. I know you didn't imply this - but I don't think its responsible to treat some members here as experiments for certain approaches

What do you mean? Maybe. But , im not sure I see the relevance of that point. Do you think a spiritual teacher is qualified to treat patients with mental illness?

I would be extremely careful with letting "conscious" people telling her what to do. Being enlightened will have almost nothing to do with knowing how to help someone who is dealing with a mental illness (especially as severe as BPD). The likelihood that a know-it-all user here will be able to help her is much less likely than that same person telling her something that will affect her negatively. There is also a case to be made - that if you allow her to stay you will contribute to her stress, because she will get triggered repeatedly by other forum members.

I mean a system that can differentiate between different types of cognitions. For example here is Michael Levin's model:

@Leo Gura Do you have a model of cognition? I am not asking just for hyper cognition but a general model that can rank (in some way) and can make sense of all types of cognitions. Also what is your take on the idea of distributed cognition ? - it seems to me that the idea of distributed cognition has some parallels with the idea of a social memory complex that the law of one talks about.

Yeah, they should have been extremely clear what they meant because it seems everyone misinterpreted what they said (and I think they did misinterpret it rightfully so, because based on the context , it seemed like they are saying that there is a genocide)

Okay, I like that approach. I will try to engage with that in good faith.

My main point bringing up the picture was to demonstrate that I did read the source that you provided - and the point of that is to counter your general claim about people not reading the source that is being provided. And to be clear, before someone misinterprets me - I am not claiming that Im the only one on this forum who read the provided source(s). But regardless, I don't care about that specific debate in terms of how much of it is environmental vs genetics - I do care about though when someone make confident empirical claims about something without any evidence and I do think that you are making a lot of confident empirical claims about a wide variety of topics without backing up with the needed evidence and that makes interactions with you hard. Unless you can make a sound deductive argument where you know with 100% confidence that your starting premises are true and where you can exclude all the logically possible explanations different to yours, you should drop this idea of trying to prove empirical claims with only using logic .

That framing of that past debate and interaction is false. It wasn't a 100 page document it was a regular wikipedia page, that disagreed with the specific point you were trying to make. It wasn't like "well look, your own source disagrees with you on this irrelevant point that doesn't have any effect on your main argument at all" - no it disagreed with you on the very point that you were trying to prove by using that source. Its like using a study claim that vaccines are unsafe and then in reality that same study saying the exact opposite - that they are safe. I agree , my usage of the word "disprove" there is not correct. Thats false - I havent made that fallacy, you have a confusion about how that fallacy works. Merely asking for evidence is not a fallacy. If I would have made the argument , that "Look you haven't provided evidence for your claim, therefore it is false" - then you could say that I made that fallacy. Yes I agree and have never disagreed with the idea that - things can be true without any need to demonstrate/prove that they are true. But in the context of a debate and in the real world, when someone makes an empirical claim or a claim that can't be substantiated by mere reasoning (data needs to be showed) - then that person needs to provide evidence for that claim ,because otherwise we are left with making claims without ever needing to substantiate anything and the other part of it is that why make strong empirical claims when you don't have the necessary evidence to back up the level of confidence that you have in said claim(s)? How do you know those claims are true, if you don't have evidence to back them up?

If you are not willing to provide evidence for your claim(s) - then you need to walk them back its very easy. Don't make a claim that you are not willing to defend or just clarify that it just a guess or a belief of yours but nothing serious. The claim about "No one even takes the effort to go through the proof even if it's provided" is false and you and me had our debates in the past, and I showed you how your own source disagreed with you https://imgur.com/a/oAa23Ws - that clearly demonstrates that I did gave enough fucks to read through what you sent. But even if it is true, that most people won't go through your source , that doesn' t give you a free ticket to just make any claim about anything without any need to back up that claim. I can generate 100 false claims, but that doesn't mean that its on you now to disprove them - no I need to demonstrate how each of them is true. Throwing around sources is not an argument. Its not even clear what your argument supposed to be. First it seemed that you try to imply that Destiny is a demagogue ,and then you talk about him being disingenous - its unclear which of those you want to say with your chest (willing to defend) and its unclear which one of those claims support which part of the video. - hence why you should have spell out the argument from the get go. Also, do you think if I provide you a 1000 page pdf and say "what about this" without clarifying where the relevant info is and without clarifying which example(s) I agree with and why, that automatically means that you need to disprove that whole 1000 page document? No, If I try to be good faith even the slightest - then I will at the very least make it clear if I agree with everything in the document or if not , then clarify which points I agree with so that the other side potentially won't waste time questioning points, that I don't even plan on defending. and If I try to be actually good faith not just slightly good faith , then I will spell out the arguments myself and then showcase which piece of evidence is connecting to which part of my argument - that way I can showcase that I actually did go through the document that I sourced, and I don't just want to make you engage with something ,that I haven't gone through myself . So which one of those are you willing to defend? Are you willing to defend all those 3 (disingenuous, uninformed, or extremely biased) and that Destiny is a demagogue or you want to modify your claim before we dive into it? Now that it is clear that you agree with all of the examples in the video - we are going to go through step by step each of them. But first you will need to clarify what you mean by disingenious and extremely biased. For example: How do you differentiate between being unclear vs being disingenious?

If there would be a 100% chance that suicide will eliviate suffering, would you agree with it, or do you have a principled stand against it?

Well, all these arguments are probablistic and not 100%. Its all based on what you think you know and coming from that I think its more probablistic that it will eliviate pain rather than not. But even if we go with the 50-50, 50% chance of eliviating pain is pretty high, and that is probably much more higher chance compared to waiting in real life for someone to find a cure for you - my main point with all this is that I don't think that it is irrational to commit suicide in certain contexts , if your main goal is to get rid of your suffering.

Thats a slimy move there - thats not how this going to work. If you think that bait is going to work on me - (shifting the burden of proof) , where I need to lay out why I disagree with any kind of criticism that is made in or outside of the video - you are mistaken , Im not going to do the work for you. You have made a claim and then you linked an almost 1 hour long video, without clearing up which criticism in that video you agree or disagree with. The question is, do you have any criticism that you agree with in the video or do you have any critique that is not even in the video ? Pick one that you agree with or create one, that you think can substantiate your claim about him being disingenious. I will engage with the source that you linked - if you clarify which criticisms you agree with in the video.

Can you lay out what he has been disingenious about? You can't pretend that using an Ihypocrite hitpiece video as a source is a good faith way to try to critique him.

I see, interesting. Well, good luck on your journey!

can you elaborate on what you mean by 'developing this' ?

The interesting part of the conversation would be about why we want the things we want. It seems to be a pretty fucking complex problem and I don't think there is any scientific theory that actually explains in a precise manner - why we want the things we want. - so I would be careful to take on any strong position on this topic.

3 things that I would have done differently. 1) I personally at the very least would have made it clear, that Tucker can maintain his religion without needing to deny evolution (He doesn't have to be a creationis in order to be a Christian) 2) I would have checked or would have done a little research about some of Tucker's controversial claims in real time on google (just like how Joe did when Alex Jones was on his podcast and he checked some of his outrageous claims) 3) I would have pushed for more clarity about what Tucker's actual disagreement is with the scientific consensus and I would have pushed for confidence (how confident he is regarding a specific claim and I would have asked - what he is basing his confidence in)