zurew

You are the one who is very confident in your position and you are the one who seem to imply , that you have done deep research on this topic, so you should cite your sources and then make your arguments alongside your cited sources. "do your research" is not an argument. I already told you that so far I only have my intuition on this based on the surface level research I have done on this topic, thats exactly why I can be moved on this and thats why I don't have a confident position on this. But its on you to showcase why your stance is strong and why your stance is correct (because you have made a lot of positive claims on this topic, and each of those claims require justifications). This is not about being myopic , this is about being able to see and being able to demonstrate which variable is more relevant compared to the other. For example, making a claim about testosterone when in reality it might just be the 20th most relevant in the context of one being good at chess could be just a waste of time. List your variables in an ascendant order where the lowest one will have the most impact on someone becoming a GM in chess. And of course it will be on you to justify each weight signed to each listed variable. Thats equivalent to saying "everything is just biology bro and that explains everything all the time". Its just a bad strawman that wont progress the debate further. You are already begging the question there - assuming your position is correct and studies that go against it all have to be biased or incorrect.

So do you have a position , where beating one's self with a stick 8 hours a day vs doing 8 hour meditation every day continuously for 40 years vs watching a film on netflix - all have one thing in common: They are completely useless when it comes to enlightenment (or in other words they all have the same amount of utility in the context of enlightenment), because nothing will get you to enlightenment and nothing in the relative domain (no thought process or method or activity or drug) will get you any closer to enlightenment (not even 1 step closer).

Also guys who have strong and confident opinions on this issue. Can you list the top 5 variables (1st having the most weight) that relates to one becoming a GM in chess? And of course if you can, give an argument and a source that will justify each of those claims/variables. If you cant do that, then dont be confident regarding your chess beliefs

@Bobby_2021 The research I have seen on this (regarding testosterone) only demonstrated that winning can have a positive effect on your testosterone level, but that doesn't mean that winners on average before winning the game had significantly more amount of testosterone. So would you say that if a player does TRT , he/she will become a significantly greater player at chess? Like how predictive are we talking about here? Like could an average player using a fuckload amount of Testosterone rise to be a GM (if we assume that he trains a significant amount of chess like any other GM)

Do you think that those chess nerds have high testosterone? ?

Whats that reasoning? Any group of people can have different kind of opinion about what would be equivalent to what (based on their unique subjective standards), but that doesn't mean, that just because of that they can now exclusively dictate how the free speech laws should be managed in a country. Do you have a problem with free speech that allows burning holy books? If not, and you only have a problem regarding burning the Quran, because you have some kind of a bias towards Islam, then what do you think where is more free speech? 1) in a muslim country 2) In sweden

I don't see this to be rampant anywhere. I think you got caught up in the selective youtube/facebook/tiktok algorithm and now you think that something that is an extremely niche and rare type of thinking to be common or more than common. Cool so that is your main reason above why you feel the way you are. Suddenly this became more of a personal psychology issue, rather than a societal issue.

what ideology

Your answer is tangential to Leo's question. You are not just against legalization, you are also against decriminalization. According to your logic and theory Portugal's results should be much worse ,so what is your explanation? Where is the evidence that demonstrates a casual relationship between the drug war and the maintained levels? How can you contain, moderate or regulate, when you give all the power to the black market? - and thanks to that its much harder to track who buys what kind of drugs in what quality and in what quantity and from whom.

You can build that by using Electrolysis : But at the end of the day, this in my view would still be considered an electric car, because this kind of system still necessitates the use of electricity.

The argument of "there were many different kind of suggestions that the world is going to end in the next 10-20 years and none of them became true, therefore the same applies to the current situation as well" is logically fallacious.

So you don't buy into the assumption in general, that in order to get a PhD you need to be more logical than an average person or that you would be considered a logical person? I don't know the details regarding that specific statistic, and I don't know what kind of PhD-s you would select for in this case and how you would properly measure how much logic you would need to have regarding each of those instances. - in other words, what makes a major more logic reliant compared to others and how would you measure that? I mean the claim that certain people would be capable to earn a PhD but they choose not to is probably applicable to both genders. I don't know how you would properly measure this either or that what data you have on this. Interests also come hugely from social factors, from culture, from family values, from the social matrix. Having the right to choose is just one factor from the many potential sociology factors. Btw Im not suggesting that there would be no difference between the two genders (if we control for most sociological factors), when it comes to certain majors, my intuition is that that gap would probably become much smaller, but I can be persuaded if good research is shown on the subject. But regardless, you don't need to engage with my questions above, because it is a kind of sidestep from the original topic (chess). Regarding that topic, do you know what kind of variables are the most predictive of one becoming a chess grand master? So for example is there any research that demonstrates how much weight IQ holds regarding one becoming a chess grand master and what are the other most predictive variables? Can you link the research paper on this please? I tried to search for it, but I only found articles on it, but not the original research paper.

How do you exclude and measure the weight of sociological factors on one's decision making? Starting with the assumption of one has to be logical in order to get a PhD - How do you explain for example the fact that in 1980 there were more than twice as many men who earned their PhD compared to women, and now:

I will give you this : he is charismatic and can be really funny sometimes

Hahahaha, im crying from laughter. Thats why he bragged about it proudly ,right? Also he has so much integrity that after he self snitched multiple times ,now he tries to deny everything and just says that all of that was just a character. - thats a peak of integrity for ya

Ya know, THEY have an evil agenda, so its not a surprise.

Because its all a planned matrix attack, because they don't want Tate to reveal the truth about them. But no problem, even if he will get convicted it will be because of the matrix. Even if there will be a fuckton of evidence presented that will all be fabricated by the matrix. - They are afraid of the Tate brothers

Their saying of "its just a character" could be or could have been an optional defense if we wouldn't know all the surrounding facts and context about the guy like: having multiple women tattooed "owned by tate" on them; having a pimp course ; 4 victims reporting him about rape and violent assault ; him demonstrably lying about his own case multiple times and much more makes their saying incredibly weak.

Dude please do research before you speak on a subject. Your message suggests that you haven't read this thread and you haven't done much of an independent research on it yourself. He has already been charged with with rape and sex trafficking - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65959097 . The only thing you can argue about is whether he will be convicted or not, but so far nothing suggests that he won't be convicted. The court taking its time has nothing to do with whether he will be convicted or not. Again do your research or just read this thread before your speak on a subject with such a high confidence. You have an incline to hop on the "matrix is powerful and bad" , but that shouldn't make you blind to whats in front of you. This will be a brief introduction to Tate, I won't write everything down , because I would just reiterate whats in this thread and its actually tiring at this point: - You have guy who has easily 30+ hours of video and audio footage where he brags about how he manipulates women, and how he just views them as a tool to achieve his financial goals - He had a pimp course where he taught guys how to manipulate women and how to set up a cam business - There are multiple women who has a cobra and an "owned by Tate" tattoo on them - totally normal right, who wouldn't want to signal so clearly that they are a property of someone else? - There are leaked logs where he talked to his group and gave tips and even asked for advice how to manipulate more effectively so that he can bring them to his place to eventually turned them into cam girls, obviously under false premises - which is sex trafficking - you have 4 victims reported things about Tate like rape and violent assaults. - and there is so much more that I don't have the patience to write down - just look through this thread and you will get more context.

Whoever unbanned me after Roy quickly banned me, thanks.

Roy has been going downhill for a while now. There is not much of a substance to anything he says and he seem to be incapable to engage with most topics more deeper than surface level.

If you really want to attack porn, lets see if you can make an argument why there is no such thing as making porn in an ethical way or in other words - why all porn production is unethical. or make an argument that shows what is inherently wrong with porn (so don't talk about consequences given a certain societal context, but talk about the subject [porn] without societal context, to demonstrate whats wrong with it inherently) -or in other words give something that would be wrong in all context.

@Recursoinominado Don't even engage with that dude - he clearly haven't done even a surface level research on the subject, haven't even read the very study that he linked and its actually embarrassing at this point that he said 50% death rate with a straight face without backing it with anything and without thinking just 5 seconds about what that would actually mean if it would be true. He already undermined the validity of medical studies multiple times in this thread, and people like that wont ever be persuaded by any single or collection of studies and you will have to argue with their feelings on the subject, which is obviously a waste of time and an actual brainrot. Im surprised how people like him can survive on a day to day basis using an epistemology like that. At this point we should create a vaccine (and then unironically mandate it) that gives some of these people the ability to feel shame after they make confident and stupid and baseless claims

Dude this thread is full of evidence, at this point you couldn't be more easily spoon fed with the evidence that is against him. You sound like someone who not just haven't done an ounce of research on Tate, but someone who haven't even read this thread. Most of the time he either lies or make claims that haven't been substantiated.

In those posts, there is no justification or establishment of causal connection for the essential claims that he makes, he is just stating his conclusion several times, without backing his claims up by anything. Very poorly made and formed "arguments".