zurew

No, I don't. How far would you give with that logic? Should we destroy all modern medical technology? The argument of "sometimes having too much option is bad" is only good or a sounding argument, if the alternative of "not having any or having less option" is a better alternative, but how could you argue that the lack of option in this case creates a better outcome , when all the relevant factors (suicide rate, depression) - still stays high among these people?

The big problem with this type of thinking is that there is no good alternative option is given, so if you go with this thought process you leave these people in the dust with nothing. Its not just an option, its giving an access to a special kind of medical treatment.

We know from scientific data, that transitioning has a huge positive impact on their depression and suicide rates. More reserach needs to be done, but an intelligent person should go with what the data is suggesting right now, based on our current knowledge on the subject (especially when literally your life depends on it). When you evauluate something it can't just be one side, if you criticize these methods you always have to take a look at the alternative where there is no transitioning and the suicide and depression rates are still knowingly really high. Even if thats the case, there still haven't been shown any method that would have remotely close the success rates to tranisitioning, when it comes to lowering depression and suicide rate among these people.

If that would be the case I would have already spoken up on this forum like a million times, but thats not the simple case of "someone disagrees with me therefore silence that bastard", its more like "this person have demonstrated over and over again that he is not willing to change his mind on a matter even if the the evidence leads to the opposite direction what he preaches about, he has very surface level understanding on the matter that he is so confident about, he is jumping to his own "truth" without any rigorous epistemic process , he is showing no interest in presenting sounding arguments with evidence, he is machinegunning ideologically driven talking points. All those things are creating unnecessary problems and never ending fights for a lot of forum members, so whats the point to all this? So given all those things especially the part of "he is not willing to change his mind on the matter" whats the point of creating a 100 threads on the same topic?

@Leo Gura Whats the point in giving a platform to these antivaxx threads, when there is no sign of being good faith, knowledgeable , no willingness of changing one's position on the matter (even if all the evidence leads to a very particular direction) , and they never show any evidence to back up their claims - only fear mongering , machinegunning ideologically driven narratives and a lot of misinformation and all these threads are creating more and more unnecessary fights on a matter that has already been beaten and discussed like a million times.

No, you could do it in a reasonable way. You have a hypothesis that this x chemical can change the child's sexual orientation and you measure that chemical in the mother's body in one way or the other, then you compare the results between millions and tens of millions of findings and see the results. So you don't have to inject anything there, but if you would have really wanted to inject chemicals in a human body, you would first have to establish that it is safe and you can do the establishment of that by finding mothers who have relatively high level or low level of that chemical (naturally) and monitor them and see if that particular chemical being high or low level in the mother's body would cause any health problem for the mother or for the child. Once it is established that it is safe, you can start to test your hypothesis. None of these things are impossible to do or to achieve, if we really value the validation of this hypothesis and there is no need to do it in an immoral way. The government already incentivises people in many countries to have children by a variety means and factors do you think in this case it would suddenly be different? The cost of sperm donors would be much much cheaper because a lot more people would be willing to give their sperms, because there would be a lot bigger market for it , a lot more clinics would open up and there would also be a possible competition between the clinics (who can provide more and faster and better quality sperm samples.) If a couple can't afford to buy sperm from a clinic, then that couple shouldn't have children, because they won't be able to reasonably afford to raise up that children, and again if you really want to help them , the government could still be there to help really poor people by buying sperm from clinics or by buying them a surrogate mother. Also almost all orpahange would become empty suddenly. - and that would be a big positive to all this. Also, it seems that you have the assumption of "You can only change a person's sexual orientation with chemicals in their mother's womb , when they are developing" , but we have no reason to assume that, unless you have some theory for that too. But its not even worth to entertain the point of "what if 50% of the global population will turn gay", because its irrealistic, given that your hypothesis is true, we would be able to directly change the sexual orientation of unborn people and prevent this from happening, if we would see it as a big threat or a problem.

But it should be possible to somewhat prove it, doesn't it? If there is a hypothesis that this x chemical or this x set of chemicals are changing people's sexual orientations, then after collecting a lot of data from everywhere for a long period of time, it should show at least some change. Of course that still wouldn't show the exact line or prove without a doubt the hypothesis, but at least we would have something to build from. Not necessarily, especially not in modern times. Being attracted to the opposite sex is not a necessary requirement to be able to have children. Also being gay doesn't automatically mean not wanting to have children, so gay guys could still send their sperm to clinics or could give their sperm to girls ,who are willing to give birth to their children. Also depending on how fast the technology evolves, eventually we can have artificial wombs as well, so the possibilities are almost endless.

It has a hard problem deciding between giving a creative response vs giving a factual response, because frankly, its a really compilcated problem to solve, especially if you want to combine the two (for instance you want it to do a roleplay as a scientist and explain complex things to you).

Because you can get easily addicted to it, and after a while lose all your savings. Maybe not from trying out once, but there are very very few people who can do gambling relatively frequently and stop any time if they wanted to. Its almost similar to say "why don't you try heroin?" Are you willing to risk getting addicted to it for a few hour of pleasure once in your life? Not with a person who has moral considerations only for himself.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210117143958/https://www.cobratate.com/phd-program/ - this was on his website in the past.

I can guarantee you that a large partion of them are like that. Whatever advice you see someoneis giving, you can automatically predict what kind of audience will go for it, its all logical. If you are a sexually frustrated incel, you will go seek advice from people who tell you how to get laid (for example pickup artist, redpill). If you are depressed with no purpose and maybe mentally unstable you will seek advice from people who can at least promise to lower your suffering or can completely uplift from it (spiritual teachings, religious teachings).

You definitely can. All spirituality and purpose kind of teaching brings a ton of vulnerable , weak,mentally unstable people, together because all of these people are thirsty for advice to get out from their own hell.

I think its definitely problematic for mentally unstable people, but he either do the big reach kind of broadcasting type of teaching or an exclusive cult type of teaching method (where he could screen for mentally ill people), which one is better?

Thats totally irrelevant what my definition is. What he did was this: when you say that I will pay the taxes for you, when in reality you don't pay any taxes. If that doesn't scummy or criminal activity to you, then I don't know what is. There is plenty of material in this thread, you can look through for all of the videos and twitter links:

Logs of him doing it. He literally described that in his own videos multiple times. He desrcibed it himself and told that pimping is not that bad and that he did pimping.

Sex traffiking, grooming children, hitting women, stealing money? Go ahead and show where and when leo did those things, or where did he get accused of those things? Also when did Leo got rich by manipulating 70+ women into doing sex work for him and stealing most of their money, lying about taxes to them? When did Leo create money with doing casino business and by that fucking over a lot of people and make them addicted to it? Yeah for sure, I can know with a very high probability from the words you are using, from the thiking process you are using , and from the fact that you are autistically defending him from stuff that he already agreed to doing.

He literally did his own self snitching and he literally described his pimping process, how he stole money from the girls, how he lied about taxes, how he had a criminal past and he had to flush his phone down the toilet. He literally marketed and bragged about not just in youtube videos but on his own website how to manipulate women and how he doesn't give a fuck about women, that he doesn't really care what women goes through as long as he can achieve his success and money goals. At this point you not knowing about any of these things, just demonstrates that you actually doesn't care about honestly evaluating Tate's character. We wouldn't expect you who's entire life is dictated and determined by Andrew Tate's ideology to think for yourself or to ever care about entertaining the possibility that your God could have done anything bad.

I definitely won't play the proving game with you, because I super don't care about your approval. I want to hear it again: So in your head no one can critisize anyone ,without critisizing 100 people at the same time? Is that a thing you want to go with?

I have been critcising Leo for a while now, probably more than most of you. The idea that one can't critisize someone without critisizing 100 people at the same time is just dumb.

No, they definitely wouldn't. Tate has a very naive, one way, linear kind of thinking and advice to achieve things. He is giving the same very basic advice to everyone, that everyone already knows.He is a very one dimensional guy very far from a system thinker and his advice on most stuff shouldn't be taken seriously especially on mental health, because he has no fucking idea on anything regarding to mental health and psychology.

Probably a lot more than to Leo. So much wise advice from Tate: "depression doesn't exist bro, just get better" , "Hold all your negative feelings to yourself, man up"

For a guy who think of himself as the most macho and masculine man on Earth, he is whining a lot and he is incapable to take accountability for his own actions (even though he always brags about to man up and to take accountability for your own actions). This guy who also think of himself as someone who broke out from the matrix and as a someone who can do whatever the fuck he wants, it seems that all of the cases that he considers bad, he is very keen to give away all his power and responsibility to the matrix and it seems that he often likes to play the role of a victim. Remember guys we can learn a lot from Andrew Tate: If something bad happens to you, just pull out the victim card. Even if all the accusations are false, he literally created all this shit for himself, by making a ton of effort to become the most searched person on google with the method of making a ton of controversial statements including statements that are easily chargeable.

His cult followers are crazy and embarrassingly stupid. Its insane what people are willing to do for one guy,who they have never met in their life.

Unfortunately, I don't think so.

Yes. Those are bots, so be careful with them and simpy ignore them, they just want to scam you and they pretend that they are the original youtubers. Sometimes they can get very sophisticated with it and if the original youtuber has an O or multiple O in their name, these scammers can swith that to number 0, and sometimes its hard to recognize that, especially if you are not assuming every time that someone wants to scam you. But generally speaking, it should be obvious in 99% of the cases from the narrative they try to sell you, that they are not the original ones, and that these are bots and they just want to scam you. I have seen cases, where half of the comment section under a video was made by bots trying to sell you a product or a story that this service/item is really good, and they liked each other's comments, so it looks like that 100+ like on every bot comment + they can leave a comment under each other's comment (so under a bot's comment that has at least 100 like, there can be another 30+ reassuring comment all from other bots with random names and profile pictures ), so it can get really crazy.