Consept

The point is fine in that yes you can make the argument that animals suffering is just as important as human suffering, but then the problem with it is that any topic involving human suffering can be dismissed, at least until you sort out the animal suffering issue. If we talk about modern slavery the counter will be "well animals have it worse so...", obviously theres a purpose to talk about human issues regardless.

I havent heard its 90% but I think it's something to do with people doing it for power or just because they had the opportunity rather than they're sexual preference is kids. If you think about it like people in prison mostly they may not be gay but there's a lot of rape and gay sex going on. It kind of makes sense because even incels don't really rape at least I haven't heard of that being a common thing, so it's usually a power dynamic being played out in most abuse cases.

No ones saying it should be celebrated or trivialised just seen as a mental health issue if they want to get help and then obviously a criminal issue if need be. I think whats interesting about him is that he can look at these controversial issues generally without the emotional, moral perspective that most people talk about it with, also hes willing to do this in public. If you look at previous controversial issues, lets say the war on drugs, unless you were 100% against drugs there was something wrong with you, there was no room for nuance. Now we can see there absolutely has to be nuance which has led to drugs legalised and literally used for medicine, as well the drug issue has vastly improved. This is the thing with public discourse and politics, there are certain talking points where they only come up to say how wrong they are, but the problem is you need to accept the problem first to have any chance of improving it. A lot of the time the emotional attachment people have to an issue skews their objective perspective of it. So in the case of mrgirl i think being detached is actually a great way to discuss things and i think as people like him get more popular youll see the emergence of more yellow people coming through.

Im not necessarily comparing it in this instance im just saying that sexual orientation is hard/pretty impossible to change, think about it wouldnt pedophiles want to change their sexuality considering how much trouble it can cause. I think any sexuality is probably psychological and biological, it appears that with pedophiles its more psychological as in their development has affected them especially if theyve been abused, but ultimately youre still left with the same question of what to do with them. I dont know how you can judge pedophile animals but you definitely get pedophile, incest and everything else with animals. Incest is very common with dogs and wolves btw. Also historically its been part of various human cultures, even today some tribes still have traditions around it. Obviously im not condoning it im just saying that theres an argument to be made that it occurs naturally. The problem with this is that if you do ostracize them then no one would admit to being one and they wont get treatment that could help them and also potentially save kids. If you seperate pedophilia from child abuse then you can treat the pedophile without judgement. Its like if we take your example and we say all the people looking at terrorist content we're going to lock you up in case you act on it, what would happen? Theyd stop looking at the content or talking about it but theyre still going to have the same obsession, wouldnt it be better to let them talk about it and then help them by maybe deprogramming them or whatever works in that instance?

Lets assume you cant treat them, there are conversion centers for gay people and they dont really work. If you mean treat as in stop them from committing abuse, im sure there are a good deal that dont and there are some that probably need treatment to not go down that road, the ones that do abuse or are likely to obviously put them away from the public. So the question remains, the ones that are just in public and dont commit any abuse, what do we do with them? Do we leave them to get on with their lives or is the risk too much?

One way to think about this is to imagine that whatever type of person you're attracted to, man, woman whatever, is seen as disgusting and evil by society, not only that but you yourself know you can't engage in any kind of relationship with them because its harmful to the other party. So from this point of view, how would you want to be treated and what do you think would help you not engage in potentially damaging behavior to vulnerable people?

@captainamerica so what would an individual need apart from being rich to be able to make decisions?

Yes you're probably right America is too powerful but that power is still within a system. The question I put forward is should an individual rich person within a hypothetical country be able to make decisions over a system. Difference being in theory a system can be affected by individuals through voting or getting involved in politics, a billionaire isn't voted in he's just rich, you can argue about the system being effective or fair. So I'm not making a point necessarily I'm just asking if power should be given to the rich to make decisions or should a government make them? it's an either or question.

Lol you probably didn't mean it but that came across really patronising. Either way my point still stands if you want to engage it. To clarify I'm saying from an individual country perspective, within that country there will be rich people and there will be elected officials or system of government. The question is should the rich people make decisions that could affect the country or should the system prevent them from doing it and make the decisions themselves?

Why not just engage in the conversation, otherwise youre basically just posting statements and looking for people to disagree with you and then attempting to insult them by giving sarcastic answers to normal questions. I'm not trying to 'win' by making you look stupid and making me look smart as you seem to think, im genuinely interested in your take on what i posted

Society is extremely difficult to manage, in terms of balancing 'freedom' with protecting people from others but also from themselves. Thought experiment type thing but do you think the following examples are limits on freedom or unethical as it stops people making a choice themselves and also if not or if so why? - Vaccines for when you go abroad, Malaria, tetanus etc one could make the argument you should be free to travel without having a vaccine that youre not sure of Restrictions for driving ie having to take a driving test, wear a seatbelt, follow signs etc one could make the argument that if you know how to drive you dont need the government telling you that you have to follow their rules. Banning of trans fats or having sugar limits or sugar taxes on certain foods, one could make the argument that you can monitor your own health and you dont need the gov telling you how much you should eat esp if they dont really care or promote a healthy lifestyle. Smoking, you should be allowed to smoke anywhere and it is a restriction of freedom not to be able to, its also not fair that its heavily taxed esp as we are aware of the damage it does now and we want freedom to choose to do it in moderation.

Isnt the issue more about having a few unelected people making decisions that potentially could affect a lot of people?

I guess ultimately the question seems to be, who can do a better job at managing money for the betterment of society? Is it the wealthy corporation owners or is it elected individuals within a democratic system? Traditionally corporation owners having more power has led to disastrous consequences but there maybe an argument that the corporation owners of today are more leaning toward green and may genuinely want to help mankind. However a counter would be when they have had a lot of power and responsibility they either haven't been able to handle it or have been quite underhanded in their action eg Facebook and Cambridge analytica. For me systems are essential as no one person holds all the power, the democratic system has many holes and things that need to be worked on but the intention is a system rather than individual power. It also feels like a throwback having, essentially Kings of industry ruling over us. I think I'd probably more accepting if musk had a basic income and used all the money for the betterment of society rather than even making a profit.

You guys should watch succession if you haven't already. Watching it you get the sense that billionaires today are basically what Kings were previously, instead of a kingdom they have a corporation. Unlike Kings they don't have ultimate rule the government prevents it but even that line can be pushed. At the moment the government is the only thing protecting us from the United States of Elon.

This is a bit of a personal one but if anyone wants to give advice I'd appreciate it. So my family is highly dysfunctional, I won't go into all the ways but one way it manifests is a kind of insult based humour, which seems to be about making the other person feel bad or react in some way, it's about laughing at the person rather than with them. It also includes telling the same embarrassing stories in social situations, stuff like when you were a kid and scared or whatever. It's mainly done by my step-dad but mum and brother also get involved. I have done it before but I try and be aware of it and catch myself, but there definitely is the thought to do it because of the environment. The thing is they are all highly sensitive, quite insecure people, meaning that if you insulted them they would dwell on it and it would really affect them. Its because of this I don't really do it even though I could. But the reason for the anger is that I realised I was constantly tip toeing around their feelings and they don't give a fuck about mine, they go put their way to try and embarrass or wind me up, it's not that what they're doing in of itself wind's me up, it's more the fact that they're trying to do it. Just for context I am completely independent from them so I don't live with them or need them for anything but I would at least like to communicate or spend time with them without having this dynamic. I have a sister as well and she's nothing like that and has also recently moved out. I have thought of a couple options but as this is a bit of an emotive subject just wanted to see if anyone could look at it more objectively

Nah dont get me wrong i dont want them to be different or at least ive accepted they are who they are, the anger is because of their effect on me and me obviously not setting appropriate boundaries. what do you mean by the last sentance?

I hear you in that the is racism and trauma but the solution is not necessarily about blame. I see it as accepting this is the reality and taking responsibility for behaviors that are accuring because of these past atrocities. It's like if you were bullied as a kid and it causes you to make bad decisions, is focusing on the bully going to help you or is working on yourself and becoming aware of the negative actions you make and why, then improving yourself?

Skimmed it but yes it seems to be a good analysis

Its true people do that but people are also ideological beings, i mean it happens both ways, ive told people who are against the vaccine that im vaccinated and they look at me like im an injured sheep. I think a good start would maybe be people not feeling they are some how superior for their choices

Thanks for this advice and i agree i think there have to be boundaries set and if i think about it ive probably let that slip. I think a lot of the time I put others being comfortable ahead of myself and this is something i really need to look at. I will definitely implement some of what youve suggested here. lol yeah ive had this thought before, it is a really good environment to practice, as frustrating as it can be! I havent of the drama triangle but will look into it. I have tried grey rocking and it does 'work' but at the same time i feel like why should i shutdown myself because of them? I cant remember what i posted previously but obviously its something ive been dealing with. I did try the grey rock method and and just generally not letting them into my life too much, it does work but tbh i dont even think they really notice, some of them are just in their own world and just completely self-focused so i guess its more about how i deal with the situation. What annoyed me and the reason for the post is a family convo over xmas via video call, i was the only one not physically present, my gf was with me and she noticed how they would just pick up on things she said and twist them to 'jokingly' insult me, that kinda triggered me and i was just like i need to do something about this. I called my mum to say how i felt and tbf she did accept what i was saying, the big issue is more with my step-dad, ive called him out before on my sisters behalf and he basically went crazy. Sorry to hear youve been through it as well bro, yeah i mean they would have to do a lot of work to even realise what theyre doing is not healthy and im pretty sure theyre not willing to. Complete no contact might be a bit extreme for me but my contact is limited anyway as i dont live in the same country, but i also feel a certain anger where i want them to know how i feel and set my boundaries up

Well you have freedom now, which is what everyone at least says they want. I would look at ways to outsource your business and let it run without much input from you, that in itself can be a challenge. Then just meditate on what you can do with that freedom understanding that nothing is going to give you complete fulfillment.

Black people, by many metrics have been progressing and are doing much better than they were, a lot of people in the community usually don't want to hear that but it's true. People like Coleman Hughes for example talk about this and are usually not looked upon favourably. Heres article about how much progress - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/articles/black-progress-how-far-weve-come-and-how-far-we-have-to-go/amp/ But yeah this is a complex issue and I think a criticism of KS is that he seems to cherry pick certain points that keep his narrative going, he doesn't acknowledge the progress really and this can make the situation look a lot worse than it is.

Well a scientific consensus technically would mean all the scientists within that field agree upon something, within science obviously there are disagreements and different findings, the consensus would be achieved after all that has taken place. But of course this could be one part of the picture, in terms how that consensus might be implemented or acted upon could be down to different bodies. If that then gets skewed by media, governments or big pharma i dont think thats sciences fault, but of course it is a factor that has to be considered and questioned. But again for it to even be questioned you have to have a starting point of something that can at least be agreed like things in the list above. This is the point of a nuanced discussion but you seem to making it binary, im not saying put all your eggs in the basket of the government, im saying we have to have a start off point of things that can be agreed, thats it.

We can experiment though and i agree, steelmanning is definitely the way to go although as you say can be very difficult. Why dont you list some relevant anti-vax talking points and then steelman them. For example the vaccine is killing 1000s of people

I mean ultimately on an individual level if he helps someone and they can separate out the toxic elements then i dont see a problem. But this is always the issue with teachers in that they maybe saying something relevant but people make heroes out of them and turn them ideological. In the case of KS in can in fact lead to men who are not really high value thinking they are or looking down on women as delusional idiots, this obviously can create problems in of itself. But not sure what the solution would be, its probably just an issue we have as a society