carterfelder

@hyruga You can't be serious about removing free speech.

I'm incredibly thankful for Trump's presidency and I love America.

How do y'all feel about this? "Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods: The property tax system is unbalanced because assessment levels are artificially capped, so homeowners inexpensive neighborhoods pay less than their fair share. The Mayor can fix this by pushing class assessment percentages down for everyone and adjusting rates up, effectively lowering tax payments for homeowners in neighborhoods like Jamaica and Brownsville while raising the amount paid in the most expensive Brooklyn brownstones." https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iGn9ws9Ds0x_3kkB1tdM2pxLlbkPtT0k/view https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform

Thoughts? https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12665

I would say vegetarianism is arguably worse for the animals than nonveganism because dairy and eggs are products that come from animals kept alive for what they produce before they are killed instead of being killed at a young age for tender meat (or bones and other parts) for not being able to produce milk or eggs. I would argue that vegetarians consume more dairy and eggs than nonvegans, because nonvegans often eat meat, as well as dairy and eggs.

Thank you for your honesty.

Stop being so logical and reasonable, it makes nonvegans very uncomfortable.

I asked Grok about Scandinavia: "Scandinavia—often cited as a socialist success story—isn’t purely socialist. Countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark operate mixed economies with strong welfare systems, high taxes, and robust public services, but they’re firmly capitalist at their core. Private property, free markets, and entrepreneurship drive their wealth. For example, Sweden’s GDP per capita is around $60,000, largely from private industries like tech and manufacturing, not state-controlled means of production. Their welfare models work because of high trust, homogeneous societies, and wealth generated by capitalism, not because they’ve abandoned it. Playing devil’s advocate, I’d argue socialism hasn’t truly 'succeeded' in Scandinavia because it’s not socialism in the classical sense—centralized control of resources and production. These countries rank high on economic freedom indices (e.g., Denmark’s 2024 Heritage Foundation score is 77.6, among the freest globally). Their systems rely on capitalist efficiency to fund redistribution, not collective ownership. If anything, Scandinavia shows capitalism’s flexibility, not socialism’s triumph. Pure socialism, as seen historically in places like the Soviet Union, tends to stagnate economically due to misallocated resources—something Scandinavia avoids by staying market-driven."

What do y'all say when folks ask you why socialism has never worked?

Your argument oversimplifies human value to mere emotional attachment, ignoring complex social, ethical, and existential factors that distinguish human life from other species. It’s reductive and dismisses moral frameworks without justification.

I agree with you about PsycHacks, Emerald. I can feel the anger in Orion's videos. His videos may help men release their people-pleasing programs and modern dating frustrations, but not in guiding them toward self-love and self-knowledge in order to date in a more careful, love-focused way.

No one argues that nonhuman animals should have the same rights as human animals. Animal rights is about "negative" rights, or the right not to be owned, used and killed. Animal rights is about the abolition of the domestication of animals altogether. It's about no longer bringing them into a life where they rely upon humans for nearly everything (because they do). Animal "welfare" is about making animal exploitation more efficient, and making people feel less guilty for harming animals by purchasing and consuming animal products.

Dignity can't include ownership, use and killing of another sentient being.

You're misrepresenting the view that all animals are morally equal by using extreme, black-and-white thinking. Most proponents of moral equality advocate for reducing harm and respecting all life, not self-destruction. "Every species wants to be at the top of the food chain." There’s no biological or behavioral evidence that every species has a drive to be an apex predator. Evolutionary pressures favor survival and reproduction, not a universal quest for food chain dominance. The claim that "humans have God but animals don't" implies animals lack a quality (e.g., soul, spiritual capacity) that enables a connection to God. However, research on animal cognition shows many species exhibit complex behaviors, emotions, and social structures (e.g., elephants mourning, dolphins cooperating). If "having God" relates to consciousness or moral capacity, this statement dismisses these traits in animals without evidence.

Humans are animals, too. Why should a human animal have more moral value than a nonhuman animal in situations that don't involve any significant conflict? Watch this video, it's called "Theory of Animal Rights" by professor Gary Francione who is a vegan abolitionist.

I'm asking for actual examples. I don't agree with the notion that the left is more open-minded, generally. It's one thing to want what's "best for everyone," but how that actually gets put into action and works or not is much more important.

How are the mature left more open minded?

He's dead right.

Like other psychedelics, cannabis shows you more of yourself. If you aren't ready to see and feel more of yourself (your past, your worries about the future), you will try to distract yourself or redirect the narrative cannabis projects within you.

Thanks for the info. Does conscious mean "woke?" If not, what does "conscious" mean in this context? Is there a thread on here that explains how Tim Pool has "low consciousness," is a conspiracy theorist and ideologically-charged? Because I've been listening to him for years, and I could not disagree more.

We cannot be compassionate as long as we continue to treat nonhuman animals like things by owning, using, and killing them for morally unnecessary reasons such as convenience, habit, tradition or pleasure. As long as we continue to eat from animals at nearly every single (or any) meal, we will never be a compassionate species.

@Basman Thanks for that. I asked Grok for a summary about it: "In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt explores the differences in moral psychology between liberals and conservatives, particularly through the lens of his Moral Foundations Theory, which significantly shapes their respective capacities for open-mindedness. Haidt proposes that human morality rests on six innate foundations: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression. These foundations act as intuitive lenses through which people evaluate moral issues, and Haidt argues that liberals and conservatives prioritize these foundations differently, influencing how open-minded they are to opposing viewpoints. Haidt suggests that conservatives tend to engage all six moral foundations more equally. They value Care (empathy and harm prevention) and Fairness (justice and proportionality), but they also place significant weight on Loyalty (commitment to group or tribe), Authority (respect for hierarchy and tradition), Sanctity (purity and moral cleanliness), and Liberty (freedom from overreach, often tied to individual or group autonomy). This broader moral palette means conservatives can resonate with a wider array of moral arguments. For example, they might support a policy not only because it reduces harm (a Care-based argument) but also because it upholds tradition (Authority), strengthens community bonds (Loyalty), or aligns with religious values (Sanctity). This versatility, Haidt argues, can make conservatives more open-minded to liberal arguments, as they can at least understand appeals to Care or Fairness, even if they weigh other foundations more heavily in their final judgment. Liberals, by contrast, tend to prioritize three foundations: Care, Fairness, and Liberty. They are particularly sensitive to issues of harm (e.g., protecting the vulnerable), justice (e.g., equality and combating discrimination), and freedom from oppression (e.g., individual autonomy). However, they place less emphasis on Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, often viewing appeals to these foundations with skepticism or even disdain. For instance, a liberal might dismiss an argument based on tradition (Authority) as outdated or an appeal to group cohesion (Loyalty) as tribalism. Haidt argues this narrower focus can make liberals less open-minded to conservative perspectives, as they struggle to intuitively grasp or value arguments rooted in the foundations conservatives hold dear. He illustrates this with studies showing that conservatives are better at predicting liberal responses to moral dilemmas than liberals are at predicting conservative responses, suggesting conservatives have a more intuitive understanding of the liberal moral worldview. Haidt emphasizes that this dynamic does not mean conservatives are inherently more open-minded in all contexts. Both groups exhibit moral blind spots and can become dogmatic when their core foundations are challenged. For conservatives, threats to Authority or Sanctity (e.g., questioning religious values or traditional institutions) can provoke rigidity, while liberals may shut down when their commitment to Care or Fairness (e.g., policies promoting equality) is questioned. However, because conservatives operate across a broader moral spectrum, they may appear more open-minded in debates where multiple moral foundations are at play, as they can engage with a wider range of moral reasoning. Haidt also notes that these differences stem from evolutionary and cultural factors. Conservatives’ emphasis on Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity may reflect adaptations for group survival and cohesion, while liberals’ focus on Care, Fairness, and Liberty aligns with individualism and universalist ideals. This divergence can lead to mutual misunderstanding: liberals may see conservatives as rigid or morally outdated, while conservatives may view liberals as naive or dismissive of social order. Haidt argues that true open-mindedness requires both sides to recognize the validity of each other’s moral foundations, even if they prioritize them differently. He advocates for intellectual humility, urging liberals to appreciate the role of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity in maintaining social stability, and conservatives to acknowledge the importance of Care, Fairness, and Liberty in addressing individual suffering and injustice. In summary, Haidt’s analysis in The Righteous Mind suggests that conservatives’ broader engagement with all six moral foundations can make them more open-minded to certain types of moral arguments, particularly those rooted in liberal priorities like Care and Fairness. Liberals, with a narrower focus on Care, Fairness, and Liberty, may find it harder to engage with conservative arguments that emphasize Loyalty, Authority, or Sanctity. However, both groups face challenges in maintaining open-mindedness when their moral intuitions are threatened, highlighting the need for mutual understanding to bridge the ideological divide." - Grok

Rape: What specific allegations exist, who made them, and what evidence (e.g., court documents, testimonies) supports or refutes these claims? Citing an insurrection: Are you referring to January 6, 2021? What evidence directly links Trump to inciting violence, and how do legal findings define his role? Tax fraud: What specific instances of tax fraud are documented, and what are the outcomes of any investigations or court cases? Money laundering: What financial transactions or investigations point to money laundering, and what authorities have substantiated these claims? Cozying up to mobsters: Which individuals or groups are considered "mobsters," and what documented interactions suggest improper relationships? Collusion with Russia: What findings from investigations (e.g., Mueller Report) confirm or refute coordinated efforts with Russia? Friends with Epstein: What is the nature and extent of Trump’s documented relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and what evidence suggests wrongdoing? Gutting the constitution: Which specific actions or policies are claimed to violate the Constitution, and how do legal experts interpret their impact? Privatizing institutions that help people: Which institutions are being privatized, and what evidence shows this harms public welfare? Creating policies that will kill and impoverish millions: Which policies are predicted to cause these outcomes, and what data or analyses support these projections? Destroying jobs: What specific actions or policies are linked to job losses, and how do economic data or studies assess their impact?

I think it's fair to say that a bad person is someone who consistently causes harm toward others without remorse or taking accountability. I don't think any of Trump's actions that have been accused of causing significant harm toward others are any worse than harmful actions taken by other presidents. I'm not saying Trump has never caused significant harm during his presidency, I just struggle to find any solid examples. I think the media's constant and consistent negative portrayal of Trump, along with the rise of political correctness and woke ideology has made it very easy for many to see Trump as a bad person. I was an anti-Trump "anarchist" until disagreements about gender identity with vegan activists who used to be my friends caused me to question the ideologies I had fallen for. Psychedelics and my father's objective, scientific approach to understanding the world have really helped me understand the value of critical thinking.

That's not a helpful answer. I'm looking for a more objective answer.