zurew

Ejaculation will serve whatever purpose one want to give to it, there is no universal purpose here. You can do it to feel pleasure, or to release stress etc. If you recognize that your case is not universal, then why do you try to make arguments using your special case to say that masturbation is bad?

this: Or just simply give a copy to people who you think are qualified enough to give a quality analysis or response.

Things is that you don't really know if its true what he said, or if its 100% true without any streches. Is it a possibility? Sure, but we need more than just one source to confirm his claims, because the source that "leaked" this, is a source that is known for being anti mainstream. If we all are searching for the truth, then we shouldn't take any single source as 100% true, because that just shows an incredible bias and thats the opposite of trying to be objective. Even if taken all at face value, this still isn't a big deal. If they actually did gain of function research in an illegal way - sure sue them. But the implications are not that big from the currently leaked information.

The best lie is a half lie, because that makes it seem much more legit.

There are ways to explain this without assuming he was actually leaked something true here, but of course all of this is speculation just as assuming that he told the truth. The thing is that he was on a date, so there is a chance that he just wanted to impress the other guy on his date by telling and leaking "secrets".

Because according to that conspiracy the gain of function research was done by an American company, so China could have dunked on the US massively and could have gained massive political gains, if they would have exposed them. So the idea that no one would have leaked anything about it is very unlikely to me. But the reality is that we haven't seen any tangible evidence to prove it and I have not seen any leaks by any institution or country or company. But blame doesn't mean anything, they didn't show or leak any tangible evidence about it. But again even if I take all that for granted, we are still very far away from proving bad intentions and bad planning behind the scenes.

I don't think anyone here who critisizes him, want him to be a doormat or to be super kind, just don't be a dick thats all, - be normal, act normal. There is no need to be sweet or to lie and there is also no need to be a dick or a bully. Thats a different case. If someone is clearly a dick towards you and act toxic then its definitely justified to act back, but thats not what most of us have problem with, what we have problem with is him assuming in his videos that his viewers are just dumb and toxic, and also sometimes on this forum him assuming a lot of bad things about a lot of people and then use that to justify his behaviour.

Why wouldn't have China or Russia leaked anything about it?

Yeah sure, this is why I am against gain of function research. But again keep in mind, that this "lab leak hypothesis" hasn't been proven yet, it is just a theory. Trust them for what? Speaking of trusting, why do you 100% trust a single person telling you stuff about a company?

You make it sound like , that sometimes it is necessary to be a dick, but I don't think you have established a compelling argument for it yet. Do you think anyone in this thread have changed their mind after you turned on your "raw" mode? Honesty could be necessary to be an effective teacher, but honesty doesn't require being a dick. If you don't want to change your teaching style thats fine, but don't act like it is necessary to do your teaching style this way.

I think its possible that covid originated from gain of function research - but I haven't seen any compelling evidence that would prove it, but even if I take that for granted, that alone is far from proving bad intentions. There is no leak yet, that could be considered significant. This "leak" assuming it is true, only proves that they are doing gain of function research. I don't need to trust any single company. I can look at the overall body of research (that is done on a multinational scale by different companies, countries and institutions) about a topic and go with that.

I am personally against gain of function research, because I find it very risky. On the other hand, If its done safely, it can be very useful to learn more about viruses and to do preemptive measures before the new variants are infecting everyone.

Gain of function research is not a new thing. Nothing new here.

Yes, but thats just my personal suggestion/bias. If you are okay with risking it, without getting quality feedback first, then do it. I thought your original intention was, to publish it to the general public, if thats not the case, then forget what I said.

I think a very good portion of his camworkers haven't done any camwork before they met tate - and that alone tells a lot about manipulating them into doing completely new stuff , that they have more than likely would have never done on their own.

My point was to challenge your ideas before you write a book about it, because it might be the case that without getting feedback from people who understand really well the people and the ideas that you want to critisize - you will regret your book in a few years down the road. So my point isn't to never write a book, but to first challenge yourself: make sure that you are not making surface level arguments, and after getting sufficient feedback and after you contemplate a lot about the feedback - you can start to write your book with confidence (with earned confidence) and you will be much more equipped in general , because you will know a bunch of counter arguments and pushback that are targeted at your work and ideas.

Sure, if he or anyone makes a compelling argument why he does it, I am willing to change my position on this.

He is saying things that are unverfiable and using his own subjective metricsystem to say that he reached this and that. I don't think its an impossible ask to not brag about yourself, when you gain new insights. A lot of spiritual teacher can do it, so he can do it as well. He is making himself automatically authoritative by him doing his dick measuring contest and he takes away the focus from his work and putting it on himself (and contrary to this he always claims ,that its not about him, but about his work). He is automatically creating an unnecessary and unusable hierarchy and ladder. Yes.

Except there is no rigid,objective process by which you could verify any of his claims and he can always say that you are dumb or not developed enough or you simply need to do more work - so basically he can make any controversial claim and get away with it. Share the insights without saying that you are exceptional or wihout saying that your insights are exceptional - let your work and insights speak for themselves. He has no way of verifying whether someone has a deeper perspective or insights than him, so there is no point in saying that you have reached deeper than anyone else.

I think it would be useful to think about what niche you mostly want to target with your teachings - think about what characteristics they need to have - and then you could modify your style of teaching aligned with that. Just as you need to assume when you make a part 3 about a certain topic that people must have watched the first two part, - the same way, - you should assume your listeners to have certain characteristics and certain level of development already in place before you shoot a video, because otherwise the message will be torn apart between you trying to fit your message to regular self help people and trying to teach serious people as well. ( I know its tricky, because even if you want to target serious people, other people will watch it as well, so they can misinterpret things in a dangerous way - but aside from that I think you shouldn't torn your message by trying to adapt your message to everyone)

Yeah, I shouldn't have said "never" - it can work, but there are better and more effective tools, that you already have the capability to use and execute. Its understandable, especially considering how much low quality messages and comments you probably get every day. Yeah, I can see your character development, and I should have given you props for that. The reason why I felt like I need to give you a little push back on this, is because it seemed like that you first acknowledged that you want to change, and right after that ,it seemed that you started to justify why you did what you did. - and when someone acknowledge something and then right after that makes a justification and rationalization for it, it comes off as if the acknowledgement wouldn't have happened or as if the acknowledgement would have been honest. That all being said, I definitely appreaciate your open mindedness for feedback, and I appreciate your ability to self-reflect (all of us can learn from it).

You will never humble people by directly shitting on their character, you will humble people by being emphatetic and carefully walking them through examples and demonstrateing how wrong they are. - and you already have a very good skillset to do that, and you have already done that in some of your videos. By the combination of praising yourself (saying that you are special, saying that you have a special brain chemistry, and saying that you have awakened to things, that no other guru or spiritual person have awakened to) and at the same time shitting on your listeners - you create an effect, where most of your listeners will just look at you as an authoritative figure who delivers the truth, the truth, that cannot be questioned by them, because they are too incapable or dumb to do so , so they will just eat your words without thinking about them or without any contemplation. You also create an effect, where your deepest insights will be directly tied to the uniqueness of your character ( because the impilcation by you saying that no one knows the stuff that you know [even though there are many spiritually gifted people who have done much more spiritual work than you], is that your deepest insights can only be achieved by having the characteristics that you have).

When it comes to philosophy, its really easy to bullshit yourself that you know stuff, because in most cases there is no way to test your ideas. You should have definitely asked for feedback from qualified people before you started writing your book. How many people have you talked to (about your critcisms and ideas), who has a phd in philosophy ?

I think it matters in other times too. If you are unique to a subject, in this case to spirituality, then you could get very easily repelled from the subject if the delivery is pretty off , and people who get repelled from it will associate the quality of delivery with the quality of the subject/message. Ideally it would be, but thats not how humans work and think. We definitely care about the delivery and we definitely care about the integrity and the character of the messenger. A very easy way to demonstrate it: Would you listen to a spiritual teacher, who is publicly known for rapeing kids, and for torturing humans or Imagine getting introduced to spirituality by that spiritual teacher. Yes, but the reason why its worth listening to both of them (even if the message is the same )is because us listeners expect something new to gain from the same message if its delivered by a different messenger and style. The same fact/message could be put into a 100 different context, and the context that it will be put into will be depended on the delivery style of the messenger. + I would add here, that the very reason why teachers should be very careful about the quality of their delivery, is because most of the time, they are not in a completely unique field, but in a field where there are a lot of teachers. - so in better cases people will listen to others in the same field, or in worst case they won't ever listen to anyone who are associated with that field. - so at the end of the day these teachers lose their ability to give their unique insights and perspective. That being said, I agree with the idea, that we should strive towards being only focused on the message, and thats a skill that can be improved for sure, but this thread is about how Leo (as a teacher) could improve his delivery.