zurew

I already addressed this point if you read further. If you have a problem with time , wealth and emotional distribution and cost, then you essentially making an argument against having a big family and having friends, because you spend your time, money, and emotional faculties in those cases as well.

You can have distributed wealth if you want to and you can build more and bigger things if all of you are working together because you can accumulate more resources. Don't have to source things, but it would be good if you could list thing at least on an abstract level, I don't think it too much to ask for, when you claimed that you have things. I saw you mentioned STD-s but if a person is okay with catching certain std-s and if that person has safe sex whats your argument against that? Most std-s can be cured anyway. Also to be clear, I wouldn't be in a poly relationship, or wouldn't suggest it to most people, but that doesn't mean that its impossible to make it work or that everyone should follow one rule and one type of relationship, when it might not fit to every person What do you mean by you won't get deep, do you mean that you can't have multiple meaningful realtionships, because of the lack of time? If thats your point I don't think thats true.Iif that would be true,then you wouldn't have time to create meaningful relationship with other parts of your family because of the lack of time, and you basically would make an argument with that point against creating a big family. Your point applies exactly the same to polyamorous relationships as well. "it doesn't matter if you think that or not as long as you figure the relationship out and stay there or brake up if it doesn't work at all." So whats is your argument when it comes to individuals? What If there is a person who is okay with an increased chance of catching std-s and this person doesn't want a family? Also your reasoning about poly relationship couldn't raise kids is not necessarily true. You mentioned lack of time, but time can be managed in different ways and to suggest that its impossible to manage time to focus on kids is not true. In a monogamous relationship parents can work all day without focusing on their kids or without paying much attention to their kids. Its a question of how much attention you pay to the kids regardless of polyamory or monogamous relationship. So that point is not exclusive to polyamory either. The golden rule sometimes counterproductive to people and can make them miserable. There is no one fits for all system all of that is naive and eventually fails and can create more problems than solutions. If you want to go with the logic of "you might signal something that is harmful and people would try it regardless of how harmful it is" you would have to apply that to everything and that is not stable, I don't think you believe in that logic. Also harmful can be defined is multiple ways, and when people and society make choices we don't only look at the negatives (and that alone can change depending on from what pov you make you analysis), but we look at the benefits as well.

Why? Would be curious about the evidence. almost none of your points is exclusive to polyamory and could be applied to monogamous people as well. The concept of selfishness is a question of pov. It could be argued that if you are into monogamous relationships you are more selfish because you want to own your partner and want to lock your partner to your own values and desires. Most people don't want to be in a polyamorous relationship so the 'scaling it to a global level' is not a problem. What if a random individual wants to be in a poly relationship?

Why do you assume that vaccination has anything to do with this incident?

If thats the case, God should be capable to give you free will.

I didn't say that it is evidence, i just gave a response to your narrative, where you implied that even entertaining the possibility that he would do something like that makes no sense at all, or that it is almost completely out of reach.

Is it impossible to imagine that there are people in the world, who don't act in a perfectly rational way all the time and their narcissism sometimes can overwrite their rationality, and sometimes they will do and say some shit that won't lead to the best calculated outcome(s)?

What about the part where he said that he did some shady shit in the past, and he flushed his phone down the toilet when the police came, and what about the part where he said that he didn't let his women to go out anywhere? This is of course is not evidence, but it seems that top g did his own self snitching by being vaguely vocal about his shady past.

I guess the most genius and intelligent way to tackle with any question or problem is to invoke the absolute, and then virtue signal that we are so wise and spiritual.

Those two things is not necessarily mutually exclusive. There are stepping stones here, that need to be recognized. Its clear that rules can work at some places and rules are the best we have at some places.

I like the "make teachers be transparent by their own code of ethics. I don't agree with the 'as many code as you like'. I think there should be a minimum number that must cover certain things like teacher-student realtionship. It would make it so that teachers could be hold accountable to standards that they have given to themselves.

When I say "the alternative is worse" I mean the alternative when we don't do shit, if you have better ideas, then say them.

The argument is that the alternative is worse, and you have yet to make the argument why would it be worse than cults being totally free to trap people and to operate.

The point is not to give a specific number, the point is to make at least some action, more specifically a structure (like an ethics code) that can lower it, without ignoring it all together and without not giving any fucks at all.

and yet how many bad examples we can look at. This all or nothing mentality is bullshit, because basically in one hand i can take the teaching of truth and on the other hand I can put anything (any volume from the worst things possible) that can justify the teaching of truth. Also I don't see what serious teaching tool is taken away by the implementation of that list. Also, we can talk about the modification of that list (but we can't get to that point, if we can't acknowledge, that no list is = to (the spiritual teacher can do basically any fucking thing he/she wants for the sake of teaching the truth)

Google has their own shit, I don't think they need to fear anything, they have an AI that is not even public and people who used it says its good. There is definitely a competition to be the first company that can build the best AI, and this competition will be even bigger as time goes on and as more company can compete with different implementations and models.

I didn't say that, I just said its not the same as with other services or products. I guess maybe positive testimonials don't hold that much weight in this subject (at least for me), but negative ones can do a lot here and they can have a lot of weight, but the problem is that people are shy and don't know what to say or how to handle these things (when they get fucked over by a cult or and get mind raped by a teacher) so they often don't say shit, and some of them don't even know whats good or bad treatment anymore, because they get brainwashed. - thats why it would be good that some people could look and go to this list and decide which teacher is high quality and which one is low quality and unnecessarily dangerous.

Yeah but that doesn't really give you any objective image about how effective that teacher is. I don't think you can judge testimonials the same way as with a random other service or product. For example in this case in it doesn't really matter how many students claim that they got enlightened by the teachings because there is no way you can measure that objectively, you can't have access to their state or to their mind. So you are saying that people will go with the teacher , who is basically the best marketer? So claiming outrageous stuff just to lure in people? Now, I could agree with that, but that has nothing to do with how effective you are at being a teacher.

The reason why its irrelevant because following these rules won't necessarily make you less effective. So being ethical is not mutually exclusive to being effective. I don't think this is a problem. There is no good way for someone to measure which spiritual teacher is more effective than others, when you have almost no experience with the subject. There is no metrics by which you can judge which teacher is really effective ( at least I don't really know any), people will go with a teacher that they can resonate with the most.

The effectiveness is irrelevant in the context of this conversation. The effectiveness is a separate conversation, right here we care about the ethics part.

How any of those ethics rules make the teachings less effective or significantly less effective?

"there is no one to be narcissistic and there is no one to manipulate" - thats how retarded is to say that there are no teachers. That level of dismissiveness and inability to engage with the topic at hand is fabulous.