zurew

Nope, not Elon. https://x.com/AdrianDittmann/status/1812977753974796387

Lol https://x.com/TheOmniLiberal/status/1812697897848213960

How many streams of his have you watched in full? Does he update his moral stance easily or whats happening is that the content of the situation is different compared to the other and thats why his stance on it is different? Or another very common explanation is that given that he becomes aware of more information about a given situation, he starts to lean in a different direction. And even this doesn't completely exhaust the possibility space how it could be explained. Im surprised you haven't considered those options or if you did considered them, I would ask you to walk me through your thought process how you end up with "he is easily switches moralities" rather than ending up with one of the options from what I listed above. Candace Owens convo was absolutely horrible. Destiny and Candace disagree probably on 99% of the things they have a political stance on, but she characterizing that as Destiny just being contrarian is intellectually lazy and bad faith. Think about how lazy and intellectually bankrupt it is to just throw labels on the person and then not engage with his arguments, just because you two disagree on most things. This is what Destiny has always been very frustrated about, that the vast majority of people (including most political commentators) would rather make a bunch of assumptions and assertions about why Destiny doesn't believe in what he states he believes in and they would rather spend 99% of the time questioning his motivations (making claims what his "true" beliefs are) than actually engaging with the arguments that he is putting out. Whats the argument for this? Whats the argument for this?

Destiny is debating conservatives live on twitter about Trump https://x.com/i/spaces/1yNGagagVMRxj

@Raze You were right for sure. Appreciate the correction. This link reassures your claim https://www.fastpeoplesearch.com/name/thomas-matthew-crooks_15102 Fuck, there is so much misinfo.

Yeah, that probably settles it. I stand corrected.

Either this the case or the case is what I said that its the old guy, because the name matches perfectly and the city matches perfectly. I became agnostic on this, right now im not sure anymore.

Thats interesting. Here is a question though: on the link that you gave earlier (https://x.com/Mssr_le_Baron/status/1812512311669887290/photo/2) the city is Pittsburgh and not Bethel Park , how would you explain that? And the other question is regarding the name mentioned there. Why is it just Thomas Crooks and not Thomas Matthew Crooks?

It doesn't let me to open the link, could you show me the page with an image? According to the link that I posted earlier, the old guy has the exact same zipcode (first image) https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897/photo/1

That guy from 0:25 - 1:00 is not the real killer, he just pretended to be the killer , he is a troll.

@Raze Yeah, but look at the city, it says "Pittsburgh" and the name is just Thomas Crooks , not Thomas M Crooks The old guy has the exact same zip code

From 0:25 to 1:00, yes.

That wasn't the killer, that was a troll video.

That claim seems to be false https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897

from 0:30 to 1:00 thats not the guy , he is a twitter troll who looks kind of similar to the shooter. "you've got the wrong guy " - should be incredibly obvious that it is a troll. Its insane how some media outlets fell for it or they disingenuously pretend as if that video would be true (so that they can run with the "he wasn't a republican voter" narrative). https://x.com/Shayan86/status/1812357824992718981

With this literally everyone here would agree with, but originally you didn't frame it this way thats why you got the pushback that you got. Originally you were talking about that vegans are rejecting reality just because they don't eat meat, which is obviously a very stupid statement. The analogy about crocodiles was unnecessary and irrelevant and even framing this whole thing through the lense of veganism was stupid as well. Now you can pretend that the above claim was your only point that you were trying to make, while in reality you were forced to walk back all your other stupid claims that you failed to defend.

Buddy,Im not vegan, but you are not making any sense, your explanations are weak and none of them really address any of the objections that were laid out by others in this thread. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises that you laid out. It seems that you haven't thought through this at all or you are incredibly bad at communicating whatever you are trying to communicate. The argument that you laid out here is 4chan level quality. High consciousness forum and moderators cant track the basic implications of what they are saying. This is just incredibly sad,especially given that you think you have delivered some deep profound insight here.

@integral Okay, I will get more serious and will engage since you seem to actually think that you are making some deep profound argument here. 1) Veganism is compatible with not demonizing eating meat, so your long ramblings about that is unnecessary (if you want to target all vegans) because it only target a fraction of vegans. 2) In some cases you are asserting that acceptance entails doing an action (vegans don't just need to accept that their body might sometimes crave meat, but they have to act on it and they actually have to eat meat ) and in other cases you are saying you don't necessary have to act on it (in a cannibal's or in a raper's case - you seem to be saying that they can accept that they have desires without needing to act on those desires). - this seems to be a very obvious contradiction that you will need to untangle. 3) You also seem to be making a seperate claim from all of those, namely that there are some actions that are absolutely necessary for one's survival and not doing those specific actions would be the rejection of your own biology. You keep bringing up the crocodile example, where the croc actually have to kill and eat meat in order to survive , but you are yet to establish why humans have to eat meat in order to survive.

If you are a cannibal, act on it, - if you don't act on it, you necessarily reject your identity. If you are horny and no one wants to have sex with you, you have to forcefully have sex with other people, - if you don't act on it, you necessarily reject your identity. Don't reject the biology you were born with. - Integral , probably.

Is that an average day for you?

Okay thanks, that clears it up.

I think its a very easy and important question. There is a difference between having a course where you are going to a totally new territory (lets say you have 5 completely novel practices) and you don't have any empirical evidence regarding any of those practices compared to a course where you have 5 practices from which 3 is already empirically proved to be effective. There is nothing wrong with going to a completely new territory, but epistemically it has to be acknowledged that it is on experimental grounds and it is unclear what kind of results it will produce. One way to get around lack of emprical evidence is to make some arguments for why certain empirical results should be expected from those novel practices.

No I didn't meant that, because obviously you have to create it first to be capable to gather evidence and data. I was referring to whether you will use certain practices in that course, that others have already confirmed and empricially proved to be effective.

Is that practice grounded in some kind of empirical evidence or are you talking about some experimental, novel methods/practices? And if you are talking about some novel methods, how do you know what kind of results they will produce on a broad scale?