Gesundheit

Member
  • Content count

    3,354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gesundheit

  1. And that's generously assuming that it'll work or take you anywhere. Maybe it'll even hurt, and many times it does. There are literally countless factors that contribute to being rich, but they're all minor compared to the inherently unequal playing field.
  2. Lol. You most certainly have no clue what I mean. You still think that mindset is the great equalizer. But that's not true at all. It's like reading one book and thinking that that's all of reality. Mindset can only take you so far, as with anything else. The rest is pure luck. Poverty will never cease to exist as long as we are succumbing to these delusional ideas that the rich planted in our heads. We need to free ourselves from these delusions if we want to ever reach equality. Otherwise, nothing will change and we'll forever remain slaves. Yes, slaves! That's the word! We are all literally slaves to the system, and that includes the rich as well. The rich are also slaves to the system, but at a different level. The difference is that we're double slaves, running endlessly and going nowhere.
  3. Really?! After everything I said?! Of course higher degrees correlate with higher salaries, no two people dispute with that. And actually, that's why I'm studying in the first place. Of course, if I get a higher degree, I will have more opportunities of working at higher paying positions. Nobody disputes with that. But you're forgetting that for you to get a higher degree, you will have to study more years, which are practically wasted years where you're just a consumer without an income. So, you're basically just lending your future self some money from the present, and not much will change overall. I really hate getting this technical, but let's consider the following: Less than a high school diploma – $553 per week. Bachelor’s degrees – $1,198 per week. Master’s degrees – $1,434 per week. These numbers are from the link above. Do you know how many years you'd need to spend as a consumer until you reach from $553 to $1,434 per week? Nearly a decade! And that's assuming that you're moving at a normal pace without repeating years or even dropping out. During that time, you'd be just spending money. And unless you work a part time job, you will be losing money until all that money starts to pay you off eventually after more than a decade of hardwork. Let's say you're 15 years old and started working at $553 per week. Instead of going down the Master's degree path, you continue with the $553 per week. Now, I don't know what college/university fees are in your region, but they're probably expensive, given that you said that rich people get to higher education easier. You do the math. How much different would it be if you went with $553 per week for 10 years instead of spending (I don't know) for the same amount of time? You see, in order for you to increase your income by 2.59x, you'd have to spend a decade paying for education and possibly working in order not to regress. So, you're studying (which is a form of work/full-time job) + working a part-time job + paying fees in order to get the 2.59x increase while instead you could have gone with the simpler route that only requires work and could also increase with time. But eventually, does it really make much difference in total? I mean after you start earning the $1434 per week, if you were to do the math, would it be very different? Or is that an illusion that people are buying simply because they lack enough critical thinking? Do you see where the problem is? Do you see the sneaky trick? Is it really so hard to understand?! I feel like your main point here is that education could eliminate unemployment, which in turn should eliminate poverty, but that's too naive and simplistic, still. The truth is that unemployment exists because there's a finite number of jobs within society, not because some people are lazy or uneducated, although I'm sure some people are lazy or uneducated or both. If there were infinite jobs, everyone would be employed. But, there's only a handful of positions within society. And once they're occupied, there will be unemployment, due to lack of supply and over demand. That's why governments fight overpopulation so hard. Because we have more people than society needs. In fact, there are even jobs that aren't even necessary just to help against the unemployment issue. They just exist as a coping mechanism with overpopulation. Now, even if everyone gets employed, poverty will still not go away. Because some people hold most of the money and they only get richer. So, by definition, no matter how you work or make, you will still not be earning enough in comparison, because their money increases at a much faster rate. One might argue that the good life does not require being rich if there's good healthcare system and everything. But that still misses the point of inequality, which is a rich person's gaslighting technique in order to hold on to their wealth. Let alone what I said above about poverty on a national/global level. No. There's only one variant, and it's called luck. Everything you mentioned and did not mention are subcategories of either being lucky or unlucky.
  4. How exactly? I actually can't see the link here, and I think education is overrated. What does education have to do with wealth? If anything, it's a tool for learning a skill. But there are many skills that don't require formal education. For example, a carpenter does not require professional education, at least where I live. There are formal institutions that grant degrees, but they're basically useless. As well, this extends beyond just the more bodily kinds of occupations. I don't know what your degree of your education is, but it's not like schools or universities actually teach a lot. Most of the time a person spends at education is spent on learning theory that has very little to do with the actual final job that they'll be taking. And this is not exceptional to poorly funded schools or universities. It's a universal theme that even Harvard graduates experience. The gap between theory, i.e. Academic education and practice, i.e. The real job. I've read an article about this long ago, so I'm not sure I will find the link, but I'll look and see if I can. The bottom line of what I read at the time is that it's actually much more efficient to take a 2 years practical experience or seminars through some sort of institution than to actually chase some 4-5 years degree in universities. The former person comes out after two years of experience ready to start their own career, while the other person usually would have no clue what to do with their degree, neither would they likely have the required experience to make something meaningful out of what they have learned. It's not impossible, but the point is that the time spent on higher education is basically a waste of time, and so is the money and the funding. The best occupation a graduate could have would be a professor in the same department, because of the huge amount of theoretical knowledge that they have. But what about other jobs? So, to return back to the topic, I don't really see how education is the key to remove poverty. At least not the mainstream kind of education. Maybe you mean education is the key to remove unemployment, and removing unemployment is the key to remove poverty? But again, I would have to disagree. I'm looking at it even from a universal perspective. Actually, the reason why I'm poor is not my lack of skills or education. I am now 24 years old, and have been working on and off, but mostly on, since I was 10. I have worked in different jobs, probably 6 or 7 jobs, so I have a variety of skills and experience. I know English besides my original language (which is rare here). And besides all that, I am one year away from getting my general practitioner's degree. But can you imagine that I can't even afford to buy a phone? Even if I worked two full-time jobs simultaneously, I would still not be able to buy a phone, or maybe barely after a number of months. The reason why this is the case for me is not lack of skills or education. It's because of the political situation in my country. The economy is extremely poor, so I am getting affected by it, as many others in the same country. We are a third-world country, so we're not industrial. We don't make phones, or really anything else. All of them come through importation, and illegal importation at that. The government here is communist, and it's being restricted and sanctioned by the US government. So, the people here are getting affected by those sanctions, though indirectly. The government is extremely corrupt, and uses us as an economical human shield to keep itself from falling. So, we're facing two major injustices, both external and internal. How do you solve that? People who had some money moved out before all this. They forsaw that it's going to happen and moved out. Others, like myself, were too young to realize anything, and my parents weren't and still aren't that smart, so we stayed and now are stuck here. Cars now have to wait in line for 3 days to get some fuel, which is a limited amount controlled by a smart card. The same thing with bread, although just a few hours. Electricity bill is very expensive too. And much more... I don't want to bother you with the details of my story, but what I'm trying to say is that, again, it's not our fault that the world is conspiring against us (figuratively). Most of us were in the middle class before the political crisis, but now we are poor. My country is not the only place where injustice happens. Poor African countries are very similar to us, and they're probably being exploited by first world countries and their own governments too. So back to the universal perspective I mentioned above, the same dynamic I highlighted regarding the rich and the poor applies on the level of nations. Developed nations are basically the rich people nowadays, and the rest are either the middle class or the poor. That's the system we're living in. For other countries to be rich and able to afford a high standards of life, others have to be poor and exploited. My country happens to be from the latter group. The game is greatly skewed against us. There's very little hope, and it's only getting worse by the day. Last year was better, and the year before was better, and so on.
  5. @NOTintoxicated Okay, I'll try one more time. And I hope that I won't regret it. What you don't understand here is that I don't have the same mindset as you. You think that I'm here to win, because you're here to win. This me vs. them mentality means nothing to me and completely misses the point. I am here trying to communicate and understand, and you are trying to force your opinions on me. You might have perceived me as an enemy that is trying to undermine your opinions, but again, that'd be just your perception. I came here and saw some outrageous claims, so I started scrutinizing them in every way I can. Excuse me if that felt threatening, but I won't just nod my head to anything anyone says. When I present a serious argument and get strawmanned in return, I will have to assume bias and emotions. My arguments might not be 100% coherent due to my lack of information. But that doesn't mean you should resort or that it's okay to make logical fallacies, such as the strawman and the purely personal attacks. If your case is coherent, then it shouldn't require defending with all sorts of fallacies. I've overestimated Forest in this regard too. The smiley face was because the whole reply was just a huge strawman that did not address any of my arguments. I didn't want to say that explicitly, so I just posted that smiley face hoping that that'll be enough for both of you to reflect. But again, you filtered that through your winning vs. losing lens, and then launched some more personal attacks against me. If you were seriously interested in communicating your perspective, you wouldn't have made it 100% personal. The only time I saw you making serious/mature points that aren't 100% personal is in your last comment. And that's why I'm trying to re-establish this communication. All of this (and what I said in earlier posts) is my truth and my perception of what seems to be the case to me. You might believe me or might not. And you might agree or might not. If you either disbelieve or disagree, just be mature and communicate where you see my perception flawed instead of the same childish remarks that you made earlier. Communicate with me like I'm communicating with you here. Be blunt, but not a jerk. State your truth directly. Don't shift to personal attacks, because I'm not interested in that. This blunt communication that I'm making is targeted at your communication, not on your person. If you're going to take it personally, then we're not getting anywhere anytime soon.
  6. @Consept I updated my last comment. @integral I've given my final insights here if you're interested.
  7. Do you experience wet dreams, though? If yes, how often? I haven't ever reached this far with no fap, but my experiences were similar, and I can intuit the same thing. Although, I still can't be 100% sure. Because the urges do actually lose some of their power, but they still don't subside completely. So, it's very hard to prove in practice.
  8. @Consept Okay, let me clarify before going any further that I understand what you mean very well, and I hope you're not assuming that I am stuck in a victim's mindset that you're somehow helping me out of. I understand the importance of mindset, and I would never dismiss it at any point in my personal life. That has been my initial position from the beginning even before starting to comment here. So, let's get that out of the way, and just keep our focus on the topic at hand, which is wealth vs. poverty. This discussion isn't about me complaining about poverty. It's about me exposing the injustice and inequality that is inherent within the heart of the social system. The social system is designed in such a way that can't be sustained without poverty. What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be this. You should get the idea that there are poor people within the system. It's the other way around. There's a system that necessitates poverty. Now, I am going to play this little game you suggested, just to show you how gullible it is. Let's say that all of those poor people you talked about tried to be smart and decided to start saving/investing their basic income instead of spending it here and there. Is that even possible, realistically? Do you know what would happen? Any guesses? First of all, the basic income you suggested cannot come from nothingness or from Mars. The most fundamental fact here is: Money is finite, and therefore cannot increase overall, it only gets split between people. That being said, where do you suggest the money should come from? Who's going to provide that basic income? The government? The rich? The middle class? Other poor people? Whose money is going to decrease? Now, let's assume the problem above is solved and everyone is happy. The next step is choosing between 3 options (unless there are more): Spending Saving. Investment. #1 Spending: We already know what would happen. Let's go with #2 Saving: If everyone saved their money and did not spend or invest it. What's likely to happen is that the economy would collapse very quickly, because of recess and slumpflation. Money would just decrease in value. And that would create poverty once again. Now, with #3 Investment: Scenario #1: The investment market would close down very quickly or the stocks would drop down and lose value, due to over demand and lack of supply, and most of those poor people would end up right in the same place once again, poverty. A small portion of the poor would likely make it to the middle class, and the rest would have actually had spent their money in vain. Why? Because investment is not an infinite pool of ever-growing money. Now, as the money increases through investment, the poor growth rates would still be lower than the rich and the middle class, so they would likely eventually become poor again if they didn't figure out a way to make it further. If they succeeded in making it further, the overall value of money would decrease, and other people who would have lower growth rates would get marginalized at a certain pace, until they reach poverty. Scenario #2: Major capitols would bankrupt and many businesses would shut down due to lack of demand. Many rich people and even more people in the middle class would become poor, which still would not solve the problem of poverty. I don't know what else. Note: A mix of the 3 options would not work either. And actually, it's already the case. Some people invest, others save, and others spend. ________________________ The point of all of that is that poverty is not a simple problem that you can magically fix with a nice utopian idea. And that it's definitely not the poor's problem. Y'all need to get this idea out of your head, because it's wrong and poisoning your mind. Poverty is a systemic issue that has existed probably throughout all of human history within all of its civilizations. The root cause of poverty is simply selfishness, aka corruption, inequality, etc... Unless you have a solution to that problem, don't blame the poor for being stuck. Yes, I could break out of poverty, but someone else would have to be poor in exchange. Someone has to be poor. If it's not me, then it's you. If it's not you, then it's someone else. I hop you're appreciating the depth of what I said in bold. Even if I successfully became rich, someone else would have to become poor. And once I am rich, then it's very unlikely that I would go down anytime soon, because the system is rigged to support me. Do you see how the system is fundamentally rigged for the benefit of the rich? It's the same as the carrot and stick principle. The human riding the donkey is the rich using the poor for their selfish reasons. Now, of course, I'm not demonizing the rich here. They're just ignorant and unaware, and of course, extremely selfish. I understand why this is the case and why it's necessary at least at our current level of development. But I don't want to go into that here because it's kind of off-topic, and I've already written a huge post that I don't want to make any bigger. You're an intelligent person, I like reading your posts, and it's really a pleasure discussing with you. I hope I've made myself completely clear.
  9. How dare you address the next Abraham Lincoln like that?!
  10. Well, that's obvious. But those are rare cases, and we are discussing the general trend of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Focusing on rarities is a strawman argument. Notice that I'm avoiding talking about the middle class here because most of them will remain in the middle class, even though, obviously they have better chances of moving up instead of down. But most of them stay mediocre, regardless. That's how the system is designed. Poverty is a systemic problem that has little to do with mindset. I have already provided many arguments for this claim. As well, I would make a distinction between becoming rich and being successful. The two are not identical, even though many people think they are. Success doesn't necessarily guarantee you wealth, nor is wealth a sign of success. That's an illusion that gets implanted in our minds from birth. Really, think about it. What's the relationship between money and success? Wealth is easy to spot/define in practice, but how do you define success? Is a dedicated worker at MacDonald's successful? After all, he/she is part of the reason why food is being delivered to hungry people everyday. They're consistently providing a service that is very essential to humanity, because it's directly related to survival. But they're frowned upon by most people (maybe even by themselves) because of the illusion that I highlighted above. For a rich person to remain rich and get richer, it's quite easy. You just gotta not be lazy or stupid and then just move your ass and do anything with your money. That'll work just fine. That's the mindset it takes to become richer and not devolve into the middle class or even poverty. You just gotta have a minimum amount of intelligence in order not to devour the piles of money that you currently have. But if you are poor and struggling to pay the bills, then no amount of mindset is going to help you unless you are extremely smart and/or get lucky somehow. Notice the huge difference. A poor person might have to work in a toxic environment for 12-14 hours a day just to survive, like sweatshops. If you think that mindset is a crucial factor there, well good luck with that. On the other hand, a rich person can easily sit behind their desk for a few hours and things will get done for them. A rich person does not even need to work at all actually. If they're smart, they can use their money to create a lot of passive income. For example, a rich person could buy a number of apartments and rent them and hire someone they trust to collect the rent. So basically, they'd be doing nothing and living like kings. It's the circle of life, my friend. Hard circumstances create strong people. Easy circumstances create weak people.
  11. I am a reasonable human being. I don't know you or your experience, neither do I need to. I just know that suffering is inevitable in any living form. So, anyone who claims otherwise is deluded or lying. Nothing personal against you, but you're yet to have some rude awakenings. I'll see you in hell. You are deluded because you care about my opinion of your insight, so that supports my initial thought that you are deluded about your insight.
  12. You most certainly can, but I agree with you. God is not a commodity for exploitation. I mean, if selling God is okay, then what is left for the devil?
  13. Could be the case, too. Diseases are not limited to germs and viruses.
  14. @Consilience Yes, SDS is a brute force technique, and it's risky, so it shouldn't be a long-term technique and should be done rather minimalistically and carefully. That's why I rarely meditate in a sitting position. Most of my meditation practice is done while walking. Also, no one can say zen practitioners don't have any symptoms unless they have done some research and studies into them. It's just wise to be informed and careful, and we agree on this.
  15. @Consept I would be careful with the word mindset. It's important to keep in mind legal vs. illegal wealth. For example, a poor person could steal or murder a rich person and take all his money. Does crime count as mindset? If all odds are placed against the poor from the beginning, then it's not a fair game to begin with. After all who decides what is legal and what isn't? Why isn't being rich and irresponsible a crime? I explained above how the rich is indirectly killing the poor. The social system is built around undermining the poor and further empowering the rich, and the legal system is derived from it, because that's what it takes to maintain the hierarchy. Otherwise, people will become lazy and society will collapse, and with it the legal system. But see, this doesn't make much difference to the poor, because they're already living miserable lives. It only really matters to the rich who need to maintain their wealth through manipulating everything in their environment to their benefit. If society collapses, the rich and the poor will be in the same position.
  16. @NOTintoxicated Keep fighting with yourself, you're not moving an inch in any meaningful direction. You're not demonstrating anything else except the things I said above, and I don't have time for that BS. You're an ideologue, it's just that simple. The smiley face was out of generosity of me, and really out of tiresome. I don't have time to waste on blind defensive ideologues that lack critical thinking. Of course you will again repeat your same nonsense, because you're not seeing what I'm saying, and you will attack me again like a 5 years old. But I won't stoop down and reply to you again, because I know it will be pointless. It was my mistake from the beginning to take you seriously and hope to have a mature discussion with you when it was obvious where this was heading.
  17. Again, I would have to disagree. The more money you gather, the less others will. Simply because money is finite, and we all share it. So, obviously, there can't be rich people without poor people. So, basically, wealth inequality is inherent in our social systems. Humans are identical to cancers in this regard. And any argument that doesn't factor this as the main cause of poverty is either selfish or deluded, or both Rich people think that they're rich simply because they're smarter than others, or in other words, mindset. I don't care one bit if they want to believe this delusional thought. But it becomes problematic when they start broadcasting it, and then poor people naively buy it. Why? Because when that happens, the rich become the host of the money game and everyone else submits to their rules. This further empowers the rich and further disempowers the poor, which further increases wealth inequality, which eventually creates a pole that has all the money and power, and an opposite pole that doesn't have either, which is exactly how all societies are. There are many illegal ways to gather money that many rich people use, or have used before but not anymore. In any case, the legal system does care about true equality. It only cares about preserving the social system, because the social system preserves the legal system in turn. There's a loop here that I hope does not need any further clarifications. The legal system turns a blind eye to wealth inequality because it helps it preserve the social system and itself, even though being rich and irresponsible is technically a crime due to what I said above about cancer. Because the rich is not being held responsible for the poor, and many poor people suffer and even die due to diseases and poor conditions, i.e poverty. You see, the rich does not take responsibility for that, so they're basically killing the poor, even though passively. One might argue that poor people nowadays are still relatively rich compared to earlier societies, but you can probably see how that'd just be a strawman argument and a form of gaslighting that the rich (or deluded) person would use to keep the system intact and in favor of the rich.
  18. @Hulia Yes, but you're insignificant, statistically
  19. Stop right there.
  20. I think there would be a big difference, like x10 at least. Men rarely cry. It's not really our thing. It would take extreme circumstances to make a masculine man surrender and show emotional vulnerability, even to himself. Good. Now that you've identified where you have problems, you just need to work on them. I have my guesses but I will keep them to myself.
  21. Of course. The same way you can harm yourself physically and feel pain, you can harm yourself psychologically and suffer. The difference is that with psychological harm, you cause it to yourself unconsciously without even knowing, and sometimes suffering becomes prominent only after years of self-harm. So, in order to heal, you'd have to uncover the real causes of your suffering, which is done through awareness and enlightenment work. This is not to say that all suffering can be removed 100%, or that suffering doesn't exist, but that most suffering is self-created and can be removed.
  22. Most suffering is psychological ime. In the past, I used to suffer like 10000% more than I suffer now. Thanks to enlightenment work, I learned how I was creating most of my suffering unconsciously, how to remove it, and how to stop creating it anymore.
  23. @Consilience https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bed-sores/symptoms-causes/syc-20355893