zurew

That doesn't mean anything, even I could show 10thousand doctors who agree with me, that still weak evidence. If there is something there, they should be able to back their claims up with hard evidence, not just with reports and hypotheticals and assumptions. Why is it so hard for these sceptical doctors to show clear evidence about this, when they claim that this has been going on for multiple years now (since the vaccine mandates)? Literally all the peer reviewed evidence goes against their claims, so all those institutions either have to lie or they need to be very seriously wrong. Whats more likely, that they are all wrong on this one particular thing, or that these sceptical doctors connecting random dots without any tangible evidence or rigorous process?

human report != evidence. its interesting that for these twitter fighters its somehow make sense that 12+mil people have severe side effects from the vaccine, but at the same time they can't show any tangible evidence about it, just only reports. -again the demonstration of flawed epistemology.

Except it doesn't - you can see depression skyrocketing and a lot of kids are suicidal as well. Traditional stuff doesn't seem to be enough to address complex mental health problems we have right now. We know that transitioning works for people with gender dysphoria, so why be so against it, when it is well documented that it works and no other method let alone traditional method work, and no data suggest that any other method would be anywhere near close as effective and succesful. There is no going back no matter how much you want to outlaw it or how much you want to make it impractical. Again, what you do is making a bigger black market for it , and people will have to move to other countries to have access to this medical treatment. You won't solve this problem ,you will just make a bigger problem + you will make it harder for people to try to treat this problem. Also its not like suddenly people will never ever mention these things ever again, more and more people will going to talk about these things, your idea won't and wouldn't stop any of it. I still don't understand how you see this "argument" or thought process sound. You want to make it so that children don't have any access to this, and then you don't provide any alternative, even though these children would be left with high depression and suicide rates. You don't solve any root issue with this, and at the same time you would take away the only well known solution/treatment regarding on this topic. Nowhere near as harmful compared to not providing any other alternative treatment to this problem.

Maybe somewhat, but the argument of making it illegal is just a really bad argument for the reasons I already mentioned in my previous posts. Based in tradition how? and how that helps to mitigate the problem at hand? You can't reasonably take away or outlaw any modern medical treatments,without presenting a better alternative to their place, and as I already mentioned in my previous post, with that move you just make people to move to a different country, where it is avaliable and you make the black market bigger.

I don't think that you believe in that logic, because If you go with that logic, then most modern medical treatments and tech should be destroyed and taken away, but I don't think that could be called a solution at all. This kind of argument could only work, if you could put = between the treatment and the problem, but when there is an underlying fact of the matter, then this logic can't be reasonably applied, because there is a root cause that requires a solution or a treatment. But the thing is that even when you can't solve the root problem, we still often create a treatment that in the vast majority of the cases still better, than not having any treatment at all. The other thing is that even if I would agree with the premise (I don't) that if you take away this option, then people would somehow forget about it or adapt to the situation, your argument I believe would still be flawed. The reason for that is, because you can't put the genie back in the bottle (meaning, that we already use hormone therapy for other stuff, we already do surgery for many other reasons as well), so you can't basically destroy or hide these things and even if somehow you could outlaw in your country, people would still have the opportunity to move to a country, where they have the option to do so, and even if you could bring up a strange hypothetical scenario where the whole world globally would outlaw this treatment there would still be a black market for it. Plus it seems that you might have the assumption that it is 100% caused by social factors, but I can't agree with that premise either. I don't exactly know what you mean by social factors, but even if I were to agree with your premise, I still wouldn't agree with your prescription (to just take away the option) for the reasons I already mentioned + I would add here , (even if we go with the 100%caused by social factors assumption). that it seems that transitioning drastically help people with gender dysphoria, when it comes to suicidal thoughts and depression.

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.