• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Consept

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,125 profile views
  1. I agree with you it's a difficult situation, I only use the child analogy to illustrate the point to you, I probably wouldn't use it to change anyone's mind. I think it's near on impossible to change peoples mind on certain issues. The only thing I've seen that's effective is when something serious happens ie someone close to them dying or them getting really ill, even then it's not a guarantee that they'll change their mind. Essentially you are questioning someone's whole reality, at which point it's better just to accept them as they are, in this case the dad and not really entertain their talking points. I also think the government and social media companies really messed up by not communicating the message properly and then also by allowing wild conspiracies to proliferate especially in the early days.
  2. Yeah now i dont really care they can say whatever they want even though i still dont think the numbers are in their favour, but my central point would still stand in that, they (anti vaxx people) think that there is a nefarious intent on behalf of the government. So that being said whatever is said by the government will be rejected, in fact I have a suspicion that if the government had taken an anti vaxx stance, conspiracy theorists wouldve been pro vaxx and got angry about the government keeping the cure from the people when many are dying. So the science is secondary or even irrelevant, primary is the perceived battle for 'freedom' against the government. Now being anti-government is not necessarily problematic in normal, but during a health crises it definitely can be and lives are on the line. That being said the government still has to communicate in a transparent and honest way and they have to consider those that are against them, in some ways they did fail with this. But either way if lives are on the line then of course they have to make decisions that could be restrictive to people, it is a very hard thing to balance. Also you have to appreciate the difficulty at talking with those that are primarily running on emotion. For example its hard to reason with a child that is wants to eat ice-cream for dinner, you can explain the science of how bad it is for him and how much better vegetables are but he is making the emotional decision that youre being unfair and any punishment or restriction will add even more injustice in the mind of the child. So you cant really win you have to just set boundaries and the child can either accept them or continually fight them but the boundary is the boundary. Any discussion is an attempt to manipulate into dropping that boundary, maybe he finds the one scientist that says ice-cream is healthy, maybe he pulls up a story about how someone ate too many vegetables and died, but either way he is not looking for the truth he is trying to manipulate you. He may even protest and have a tantrum, but all of this is just emotional and about getting what he wants. So its the same with anti-vaxx people im not sure what you could present them with that would get them to change their mind and so your only option is to keep the boundary but still have compassion for the fearful emotions.
  3. I dont think it really matters tbh with the information they had it was way too much of a risk to suggest that people dont get vaxxed and just hope that it fades away, whereas the risk of actually taking the vax is so negligible its barely comparable. Even if lets say we find out the better option was to not vax and that it wouldnt make any difference in hindsight, why even take that risk, like if it has a chance to help why not do it? The only reason people really had was emotional in that there was a distrust of the medical establishment and the government but thats almost a separate issue to the actual facts.
  4. Recently just watched most of the happiness video and there are a lot of things I can relate to Leo on. We're both around the same age and both INTPs, theres a lot of differences of course but in terms of the question its mainly relevant that we both like time to ourselves and having a freedom of routine. So im trying to figure out what would be better for me, being single or in a relationship. I notice Leo, you sometimes mention you have a girlfriend or that you date, so how does this align with your need for solitude? Personally Ive always found the idea of traditional relationships scary in that another persons needs are somewhat your responsibility and that you dont have that same flexibility of just doing whatever you want, even if thats just being by yourself for a few days without feeling guilty that you havent been in touch with your partner. On the flip, I do enjoy having someone there that cares about me and someone that you can share things with. Ive kind of always had relationships but tended to keep them at a little bit of a distance in terms of not wanting to live with them and wanting to have my own life outside of them. I dont really want to do the player type thing, Ive dabbled in it before and it is fun but its just not that meaningful and I feel that all the effort that gets put into it is not really worth a bang here and there. I've also grown and developed where i think i could be myself more in relationships, this is something i struggled with a bit previously where id sometimes feel like Id lose myself and just try and keep the other person happy. I always somewhat put the relationship not working on the partner because they were difficult but looking at it now they were doing their bes with someone who had one foot in, one foot out, wanted a relationship but then also wanted to be by themselves. So i came to the conclusion its really on me, the partner could of course be more or less compatible but generally its my issue either way. Anyway any advice would be greatly appreciated and obviously not just Leo can answer, anyone that can relate or give advice.
  5. tbh i dont know of anyone with long term effects from the vaccine, potentially i could be biased and maybe dont remember them or maybe people dont share because of the stigma, but short term as in for a week or so after taking the vaccine I can remember quite a lot of people got sick, headaches etc but since that first week nothing else. In terms of long covid quite a few speaking with a friend who coaches youth football (soccer), he said he had it and also many of the teenagers he coached were affected by it, aside from that a lot more than ive heard have had problems with the vaccine. Also I was in hospital for something unrelated during the pandemic and speaking to the nurses a lot of them got covid and had long term effects the specific nurse I talked to knew around 10 or so colleagues and patients personally that had died, he himself got covid and was seriously ill for over a month. So thinking about from my personal experience its not even comparable.
  6. Personally ive seen a lot more people with problems from long covid than problems with taking the vaccine
  7. You notice that guys take is literally the worst take you can have on it, without knowing who he is you can tell he has his own ideology and agenda he's trying to push.
  8. Every world view can be coherent if youre hearing that world view from someone who is inside it and whos livelihood depends on selling that world view. What those inside tend to leave out is the valid criticisms of that worldview, so for example if we look at veganism it could be argued that some people need to eat meat because a vegan diet could have health consequences for them or they could argue that vegans shame meat eaters which adds more division and is unlikely to actually change behavior. Of course there are lots of positives for veganism as well but the fact is both sides can be true, when in an ideology people see any criticism as an attack on that ideology because cognitively they cant handle two opposing perspectives both being true. What I would advise is any ideology you look at make the argument for the other side as strong as you can, what youll realise is that every ideology has truth but its not complete. Once you see this it will be difficult to get completely sucked up by any particular ideology. Also consider every ideology has tactics to get you to join their side, usually its making their opposing side look completely crazy, woke v anti woke, red pill v feminist etc etc. When you see one side as completely crazy its hard to empathise with their point of view and very easy to dismiss them and get entrenched further in your belief.
  9. If you notice every ideology purports to have the truth and on occasion their name indicates that, for example red pill is the idea of waking up to the reality of things. In the case of wokeism, their name suggests being 'awake' to the truth. Their particular truth is to see all the injustices in the world and speak out on them in an effort to make the world a better place in their view. Obviously this can go too far but that's the same with any ideology. The general tenant of their ideology isn't necessarily bad but the trick with all ideologies is to take the relevant information without buying in wholesale to the world view.
  10. Also hes obviously joking by exaggeration that these terms should be banned, you cant really ban terms how would you enforce that lol?? all hes saying is that he doesnt believe people should use them for manipulation, come on bro
  11. It feels (lol) like youre giving the worst interpretations of what Destiny is saying in these various clips, which is fine you can do that but why not fully engage and comprehend what hes saying and then give your analysis of that. In the above example its clear hes saying that using psych terms is great if you have an understanding of them either by studying psych or going to psycho-therapy yourself. His criticism is levelled at people who dont really understand the terms but use them for thinly veiled manipulation ie if someone disagrees with you you say theyre gaslighting you. I think it is very fair to say there is a problem with people using terms they dont understand to win arguments. So I dont know if you genuinely dont understand what hes saying or you have some kind of grudge against him, I would guess you have a grudge, no problem but own it instead of strawmanning his points to prove yours.
  12. I watched the full thing earlier, as I understand it Destiny is making the distinction that a pedophile is someone who is sexual attracted to a child ie someone pre-pubescent. In his example a 16 year old in theory could look like an adult or look sexual mature and therefore a 29 year old male who is attracted to them isn't attracted because they look like a child, he's attracted because they look mature. If that same 16 year old was 12 the 29 year old wouldn't be attracted. If the 29 acted on that attraction obviously that would still be wrong but it wouldnt really be pedophilia in the same way as if he was attracted to a 12 year old. Also in that clip Destiny brought up the fact that the Tate brothers are on record as dming 15 and 16 year olds from Romania to recruit them to the webcam business, sneako and adin didn't really know what to say to that point. But either way you wouldn't say the Tates are pedophiles just because they found 16 year olds attractive enough to contact, they could still be considered scumbags for doing it of course. What I've noticed with conversations around pedophiles is that people just want to label them as evil which I get, but if you are bringing it up in conversation then just labelling them evil and virtue signalling to others that this is what you think is kinda pointless, there are more interesting conversations to be had if you can look with nuance.
  13. @bazera So i would go with the healthy 0.5-1kg a week, its not really a case of pushing yourself its more about overall health and sustainability. What youll find with diet and exercise is that if you 'push yourself' too much it can really hurt you long term. What would make more sense is to get a good workout routine 4 days of resistance training either body weight or weights and then use the food to fuel that. Dont get hung up on what you perceive as 'results', track them but just do the work and the results will take care of themselves. If you want a good body that is functional you really want to develop muscle but this is not tracked with your weight necessarily. Protein wise yeah a bit more chicken, expert advice is between 1-2g of protein per kg of body weight, so if youre 100kg (im 97 btw) you want at least 100g of protein if not more. So if you dont get this from chicken, I put a scoop of protein powder in my oats in the morning which gives about 20g and ill add in a protein yougurt during the day which is another 15g and then dinner will be the main one with chicken, ideally breast. I managed to lose about 7kg over a couple months in around a 5-10% cal def, but eating different things and working out a lot. Well done btw in terms of taking action youre doing well just didnt want to see you go down the wrong path
  14. Sorry to intrude on your journal but just noticed your diet and exercise regime, you're eating way too much into a caloric defecit. To lose weight healthily you only want to be in around a 10% defecit, you probably burn around 2000 calories a day bsr plus you're exercising as well, which could burn another 500 but most days it looks like you're eating less than 1000 calories, this can be quite dangerous at worst but even if nothing bad happens you won't have the required energy to be on top of your game as you want to be. Also I don't even think you're eating enough protein, meaning you won't gain any muscle in fact you'll most likely lose a lot following this diet. I would urge you to reconsider and do a bit more research on doing this. You also don't really need to look at overall weight, it's more about body fat percentage, for example if you put on muscle and lost the fat you could even weigh more than you do, but you would look really good, so having an arbitrary number of pounds to lose isn't always the best. Of course feel free to delete this post or let me know if you want it deleted
  15. Im a regular gym goer but ive strained my neck meaning gym at the moment isnt as useful for me as i can only really do cardio. So ive been walking a lot more in nature, which is great and i enjoy it but ultimately without the gym equipment i wont really be able to build any muscle. So to answer your question it depends on what you want to do and what your aims are for exercise, if youre looking to just do cardio and get fit you dont really need a gym, whereas if youre looking to build muscle and do resistance training then you will absolutely need a gym. So no the gym will not be seen as a fad unless they find something better that can do what the gym does for you.