zurew

Yeah, then my bad, i projected my assumption on this thread.

Yeah , thats why i said that no matter what position one take we will have to eat some heavy bullets. I bet you care on a political level , if your position on abortion would be used on a societal level. It boils down to subjective prefences and metaethics. Its not more true to say, that abortion is right or to say that abortion is wrong, because ultimately its based upon subjective grounds. Generally, we debate or talk about these topics and arguing because we assume, we can change the other side's mind about their position. If we assume, that the other side won't change their position at all, then the only point to continue talking about the topic is to be able to understand why the other side they think what they think ,and why they take the position what they take, but other than that, not much value you can get from the discussion.

Its irrelevant for the sake of abortion discussion. We could reason why he is or why he isn't a sociopath but the conclusion won't change any abortion position here, so i don't think its relevant to argue about it. Pro lifers will be able to attack your position and say, why do you justify killing a human life, by saying that that human life might grow up in a poor environment. Pro lifer could say, why shouldn't we kill then other poor children who grow up in a poor environment? Your other argument was (correct me if i am wrong) that "people should be forced into having children if they are not ready". Pro lifer would argue, why should that statement hold more weight compared to a human murder? I am pro abortion and I think, if you are pro abortion you can't take the stance that you think that human life begins from pregnancy, because it will be almost impossible to defend. Its impossible to defend, because anything you will say will have to hold more weight than a human murder.

Generally speaking we would want to get down as deep as we can, to see what you value and why. There is a reason to get down deep, because the other party might change its position if he/she hears a sounding argument in favour of your position, but if you start on the ground of "common sense" then no one will change any positions and noone will be convinced of anything. But we don't need to continue this,if you don't want to, but you have to be aware, that the other party who will argue againts you can use the term "common sense" as well (because you are using it too) as they like and whenever they like without needing to justify or further elaborate why they think what they think. Using the word "common sense" is begging the question and implies that we didn't really think through our position why we think what we think and why we value what we value. Its irrelevant for the sake of this discussion if he is a sociopath or not. Of course i would just use my assumptions, just as you. So if a mosquito put its needle in you and suck your blood and you kill it, regarding to this framework it would still be considered murder, because you intentionally killed it, just to be more comfortable and to not feel pain. Or if you kill a fly in your home, just because you got annoyed by it , it would still be considered a murder, and if you use this framework the only justification you can use is that, "it annoyed me , so i had to kill it " but of course that will be very weak to justify murder. So according to you , from where human life begins and why there? Also, why should we value the potentiality of a life the same way as an already developed life?

If you want to take the position that consciousness is not necessarily related to the brain, then you will get into a weird position which will be really hard to justify. We would get to a place where killing any small bacteria or life should be considered a murder because generally speaking what we actually value is conscious experience. Also, generally speaking we definitely value consciousness over potentiality, so how do you go around that? Just as he said, we can keep a body alive, but we no longer consider him conscious (if he is braindead) . I don't think you value 5 braindead bodies the same as 5 healthy person with healthy brains Also, he can use the "from where do you consider the fetus a human" argument as well. He can say that it isn't a human before 6 weeks and that way he can justify abortion. Its subjective where someone draw his/her own line. He is not a sociopath. He was a pro lifer some years ago, but he changed his position. I think he is giving pretty sounding and rational arguments most of the time. There are no common sense distinctions in morality debates. You need to bite some heavy bullets depending on what position you take. Its the nature of moral arguments that you need to justify everything. No matter what positions you will take ,you will have to eat some heavy bullets, the only question is, with what bullets you are okay with.

Destiny is laying down a strong pro abortion position here. It starts at 1:19:31 .

that "pay me for my nudes" is really strange if she is interested in you for real. She could be a desperate hooker or idk lmao. But i mean, you can test her and that will tell which assumption is true. If you really want to, you can keep on chatting with her and see where it goes. If she is not interested in you, she will stop chatting with you, if she is interested, she will stay around more, but who knows. Or it might be the case ,that she really is a hooker, but she is interested in you, and testing you if it would be okay if she was a hooker. But of course this is just speculation.

I think she was pretending to be into you in person. Hookers and bitches can play like that . First try to make you horny and try to play it like they are into you and then they can use the buy my nudes card or to fuck me for money card or to get a bj for money card. Also girls can pretend to be into you , just to get drinks for free. 100% agree.

I think you need to work on your embodyment, and your ego is fragile. You are getting overrun by your emotions by a pretty basic everyday situation. In the future, you will bump into a lot of cold and provocative people and they will be much more triggering than the one you interacted with. That being said, i agree ,that there is a subjective line for everyone ,where they will decide to kill someone. That line is being drawn at different places depending on the person. But i think your tolerance level is way too low. If you got so triggered by this situation , that you started contemplating about killing other people, that means that you have work to do, and you are dangerous. You need to figure out why you get so bothered by basic life situations. You may need to go to a psychologist or a psychiatrist to work on yourself and on your ego to be able to tolerate more shit. Your ego will be shattered by other much more serious situations. I don't think so. Even if a cop kills someone who is dangerous, he doesn't want to kill that person but he doesn't have any other option. He doesn't do it because he wants to, but he hast to. There is a big difference between wanting to kill and when there is no other option, but to kill. (In the first you have other options, in the second you pretty much ran out of options) If you get satisfaction by the thought of killing other people you have something seriously fucked up in your mind and you should go to a psychologist or a psychiatrist. But to be more charitable to you, there are exceptions of course. For instance, if a pedophile would rape and torture my kid ( I don't have any but if i had ) i would probably want to kill that person because of the emotions. But that is a pretty exceptional situation and not some basic everyday situation that can happen on a regular basis. My tolerance level is pretty high, i try to avoid and do everything before things get physical. Even if i was to get attacked there are a number of things i could do, before i would get into a fight.

It might be, but not necessarily. Lets take spirituality, you can get the big picture pretty fast using hardcore psychedelics, however to get the details and the connections between the parts and how it really works is much more harder imo. The problem with only focusing on the parts is that you study them in an isolated way, and your understanding of them will be limited. You can put those elements/parts into a different system and see how they will work (That way you can understand even better what the purpose of those parts why they work differently in different environments and structures, and you will know what are the aspects that are unique to those parts, regardless of what system you want to put them into.) Of course focusing only on the big picture has its own limitations too. But i think you are right , that you don't necessarily need a TOE to be more practical. TOE would be more about understanding than being practical. If practicality is your main focus, then TOE won't be interesting to you. A theory is pretty strong and not just speculation it is based on data. Of course that doesn't mean that it can't be faulty, but a theory is "stronger" than a hypothesis.

If you want to develop you own way of thinking , you will have to read or absorb information, because what you will consider your own system/idea chances are high, that it won't be in any way unique to you. If you read a lot, and you know how others thought about stuff, and if you can understand their thinking process and why they thought, what they thought, you could start to agree or disagree with their ideas and eventually develop your own new stuff. Career wise there are different roads you can go down. You can become a teacher, lawyer, system thinker, system improver [you can find lot of fields here, you could improve these things on a systemic level: education, politics, law, ethics, science, epistemology etc ], you could become an analyst at different companies (here obviously philosophy won't be enough in an of itself, you will need other background as well like business or compsci or other), you could also become a writer or you could be a person like Leo who share his insights using a medium like youtube. You could get into Datascience, you could create softwares that are related to philosophy and some level of truth etcetc. You could express your thoughts/ideas in countless ways. You will have to find what medium resonate with you the most. You can read, think , question, contemplate and repeat that process. Or you could question your own ideas about reality, yourself , about systems, whatever you want to question. Ethics could be an interesting road to go down or epistemology. Imo, the most exciting would be to question how science works and how its framework could be developed and show what the blindspots are. That would be one of the most difficult jobs to do, but also the most exciting one as well. Providing better tools and frameworks to research, explore with. Whatever you will do, you will have to deal with a lot of criticism, especially, if you decide to go down the "questioning science" road.

If you have a model that can describe reality in an accurate way, that means that you can use that knowledge to do practical stuff and to manipulate reality. Understanding the whole, can improve your knowledge about the parts. Knowing how different parts connect to each other, can help to understand those seemingly separate parts better.

Yes, and also it could work as a hive mind. All the self driving cars would know all the other self driving cars location and where they want to go, so they could find the best and most fast ways to get to their location. Also parking wouldn't really be that much of a problem, because that self driving car don't need to stop anywhere, it could detect the least occupied places and go there without blocking anything or any other self driving car's way. Also as time goes on, more and more things can be done from home. There will be a point, where you won't really need to leave your home for almost anything. If one thing that we could learn from this covid pandemic, is that we can make things manageable from home. School can be done from home, most work can be done from home all the other stuff can be done from home. Soon drones will be used to deliver a lot of different kind of stuff, so because all of those, there will be a lot less reason to go out and to occupy roads and sidewalks. The more worse the traffic gets, the more reason we will have to make everything manageable and accessible from home. The future is here. California allows driverless taxi service to operate in San Francisco: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/03/california-driverless-taxi-cars-san-francisco

He couldn't argue why Leo's points about quantum mechanics are incorrect, but he made it look like Leo's point was incorrect. He doesn't really attack any of Leo's ideas, not even try to understand any of them, rather he goes into personal attacks. He is taking things out of context and try to present a picture about Leo in an obviously bad faith way.

How would you verify if there is anything outside of you? You can't, its impossible, but just because something is impossible, it doesn't mean it can't be true. Basically unfalsifiable, unverifiable.

Lets not forget to mention the risk part too. If you are able to double your money every year ,that basically means that you literally gambling with your money and you get really, really lucky. (Even if you have a very successful company, doubling your income cannot be maintained) Just because sometimes you can make some lucky guesses, that doesn't mean, that suddenly you know how to invest. When we are talking about big rewards we are talking about big risk. When we are talking about big risk, we can know that one of the biggest success factor will be the luck part. Don't make it look like you are a God investor who knows with a very high certainty, how to constantly make a lot of money. There is no way, that you know with a high certainty, how the market will behave and even if you knew what will happen and how people will react, there are unknown unknown factors that you are not calculating and you cannot calculate. Just simply mention, that you got lucky a few times and thats it. Be honest about it, and don't mislead people.

Nah, there is truth to what he is saying. We can talk all about these issues, but they will never get solved, if we can't get the incentives right. If there is no incentive to stop polluting, then why would anyone stop it? If there is no incentive for companies, to stop polluting (because in most cases, polluting is more profitable compared to not polluting) ,then why would they stop? They won't stop just because we make a moral argument, most comapnies won't give any fuck about morality, but they will change , if they can see that not polluting is more profitable than polluting. On an individual level, why would anyone stop polluting? Why would anyone invest time or money or any effort solving this issue, if they don't gain almost any personal benefit from it? From their perspective ,it looks something like this: " So, i need to make a significant sacrifice right now, to reduce the global pollution by 0.0000000000001% later, and i know that i won't get any special reward for it in the short term, and i won't get any personal reward for it in the future " This is the core question: Why would anyone or any company or country stop polluting ,if in most of the cases, polluting is more profitable for them than not polluting? Talking about moral arguments won't cut it, talking about saving the World won't cut it either. I think that money is a core driver here. We can say here, that the incentive would be, that if we change, then we can live longer on this Earth, but that reasoning won't cut it because of countless reasons) Not everyone agrees that there is a problem When we are talking about a problem like "carbon emissions" we aren't talking about just carbon emissions , because there is a system behind this problem and thats why its occured in the firstplace. If we really want to solve such problems we have to take a systemic approach. People who recognize that there is a problem, don't want to make any sacrifice, because they don't see how one individual polluting less will make any significant global change In most of the cases, the first who make sacrifice, will lose the most in the short-term. Almost no one wants to optimize themselves for the longterm, because all our systems are rewarding in the short-term. If you lose in the short-term you can lose the race because others will tear you down (in this age, obviously there is a rivalous dynamic between us) Lot of people think that this issue is too complex so they are freezed and they feel hopeless The reward can only be seen in the far future. Humans are not optimized in this age, to do tasks to get rewarded in the far future. We are optimized to get immediate rewards for our actions. etcetc Yeah, i agree 100%.

Yes thats true, however, the big difference is that we can choose what we want to consume and how we want to consume it. When we are talking about morality, we assume some level of free will or agency and using that agency you can choose between taking action a or b or c. Thats why it is a moral issue, because we have a choice. As we develop technologically,cognitively and spiritually etc the way we operate and how we view the world changes. Back in the day, rape and murder were okay, now they are not. Also beside the moral side of it , its an environmental issue as well. So its a multifaceted problem, that needs to be looked at and thought about.

I think thats true, if we are only debating if we want the other party to change their position. Lets say if we wanted to have a debate for other reasons too like trying to improve our knowledge about a certain topic and hoping to hear good arguments from the other side, so we can deepen our understanding that could be also a point to have a debate. Of course, we have a debate assuming that the other party is good faith, and maybe able to change his position, but yeah Leo is right that in the vast majority of the cases, debates are about winning and about dick measuring.

Yeah i agree with you. I just pointed out that sometimes it can be misleading, especially when two layman having a debate and both of them relating to the same dataset and ignoring the conclusion of that data-set and trying to make their own interpretation of it just to be able to make an argument. Just to be clear, i don't think we disagree, i am not saying that the data itself is incorrect, but the interpretation of it could be incorrect or misleading when some layman try to do the interpretation him/herself alone (I am not talking about studies, but only raw data where there isn't any conclusion provided from anyone). When we are talking about peer-reviewed studies as a layman it would be really dumb for me to try to come to a different consclusion compared to what a paper/study says. In my vocab i would say thats not raw data, but thats a conclusion from a study where they collected a set of variables , used a certain method and then they concluded what you just wrote above. In this instance, lets say the raw data would be a dataset about people who smoke tobacco and about people who don't smoke tobacco and thats it ( lets say there would be 4 different kind of health variable included too in that raw data). Now to come to the '90% of tobacco smokers develop lung cancer at some point in their life' that would be called a conclusion and the raw data would have to be processed to come to that consclusion. So you would have to use a method to evaluate that raw data to come to your conclusion.

There is no such thing as objective factor in an of itself. The 'objective factor' only comes when we start to use some kind of a methodology to make sense of that data. Also, i didn't assume that all interpretations are at the same level. I made a point, that some people use that tactic in debates to say that the raw data says this and that, which is incorrect. Data collecting is one thing, but making sense of that data, or creating your interpretation of that data is different. Depending on how manipulative one wants to be about it , if there is a big enough data-set you can make multiple different kind of narratives (which are all factually correct based on the data-set) and interpretations about it, because you can cherrypick from it, exclude variables from it etcetc. For instance,if you wanted to make an argument about a drug being safe. You could use a big data-set you would lets say focus on 4 different kind of variables and ignore all the other ones purposefully. You could make an argument that based on those 4 variables the drug is 100% safe and it would be factually correct, because you used a raw dataset, but at the same time misleading, because you excluded things from your estimation. In this instance, you could be the one , who would purposefully only create a data-set and collect data which includes only those 4 variables ,so it is impossible to make a counter argument about your drug, using your own data-set.

When i say having a debate, i am not talking about hardcore debate bro conversations but debates where you ask geniuine questions to the other side to understand it better and then you counter back why you don't agree with the other side's points (we could say having a good faith convo). I agree with this. Depending on the topic it requires having multiple debates/convos to get to the root and to get a real understanding of the other side. I also agree that nowadays most debates about showing off rather than actually arriving at a deeper truth or getting a better understanding about a certain topic. But i would also like to add, that when we are talking about a sensitive or a highly polarized topic,then there will be a lot of friction between the two sides no matter what. Having some level of friction is not necessarily bad but it can destroy the productivity of the conversation. Yeah i get that it is a problem, but if you want to make a change nowadays you have to be articulate. Especially, when we are talking about sensitive and highly polarized topics where the other side is almost completely closed to your side and waiting for any opportunity to point out that you are dumb. You can't really make a good strong position without understanding both side's best arguments. If you can't counter back to certain points it shows that you haven't really thought it through from the other side's lense -- So you position is weak and that is a feedback that you should study the other side more ---> doing that you automatically get a better understanding of the other side. I think no matter what side we are talking about, there are always some set of people (of course this is a minority) who are indecisive enough to be able to be open to change their positions if they get good enough points.

This is interesting. There are a lot of talks and debates when a person says "the raw data suggest x and y" when in reality the raw data doesn't suggest anything in an of itself, unless you try to make sense of it somehow. The process you use to make sense of the data will determine everything. ( and here i didn't even talk about from where and how do you collect that raw data ) You are totally right.