Scholar

If you watch this channel, you realize that the scammers who rely on old gullible grandmothers actually themselves are profoundly gullible. It's amazing that this can be the case, because you would think someone who is scamming people all day long would have some sort of sense for what is and isn't a scam. But that's not the case, these people function under the same desperation that they exploit in their victims. This immediately made me think of Trump and all his supporters. Not only is Trump a willful scammer, he also himself can be easily scammed, as was reported by close advisors of his, who said that you could basically manipulate him into supporting anything as long as you could convince him he would benefit for it. It also applies to the MAGA crowd, although for most it is less intentional. In essence, the common denominator in them all is that they have a deep desperation that they want to fulfill at all cost, and putting hopes into something that should be clear to anyone else is just a facade that will bring nothing but a waste of time. They truly believe Trump will rescue them, that he will drain the swamp and bring them whatever they desire. And this promise, this hope, fueled with their delusional desperation, makes them utterly blind to how laughably self-centered Donald Trump actually is. This shows you how easy it is to trick people, and why populism works so well. As long as you can make people fearful and desperate enough, you can sell them anything as long as you give them hope that they will get their reward in the end. In essence, Trump basically is the personification of a get rich quick scheme.

I love how you guys will create entire narratives around victimization when Russia and Putin themselves do not engage in it. They themselves won't come up with the nonsense you guys are to justify this war.

People are not simply hypocrites, they are fundamentally not moral agents in the sense that you think of them. If you go through life questioning ethics and morality, you will very quickly realize that human beings are almost entirely shaped by their social groups. Their sense of morality is nothing but their sense of what the group deems acceptable. The story of "suffering is imagined by God" is also imagined by God. Imagination is not real, by definition, therefore everything is simply reality. There is nothing but realness. It seems to me that this story, the way you employ it, is mostly just a way for your psyche to cope with the very real suffering that exist in the very real world. Yes, it is temporary, but in the end that will not change anything. You will forget your understanding and acceptance, because only a very small part of infinity gets to be at peace. One day you will wake up as a pig who is gassed to death, and you will not even remember you ever had any realizations about anything other than the terror and pain you will be experiencing in that moment. No amount of understanding or acceptance will change that. When you seek to overcome evil by understanding and accepting it, notice how that is a pure survival construct. You want to accept evil, and ironically, you do not do so. You deny it's existence, pretending it doesnt exist (and I don't mean this in a moral sense). This is a delusion, a very human delusion, for the sake of giving you temporary peace and solace. You cannot deny your humanity. Existence is acceptance. You cannot not accept things, that is an illusion. When the pig suffers, there is a perfect acceptance of that suffering. What that means is, that the suffering will be experienced as suffering, as genuine and very real suffering. That is ultimate acceptance, and that only God is capable of. You on the other hand are like a child trying to accept suffering by making it go away. Your way of acceptance means that you don't really suffer any longer. That you aren't bothered by it anymore. But that is no longer suffering. You have precisely not accepted suffering, you have circumvented it through dissolving certain egoic structures. Accepting suffering is an oxymoron, because suffering is resistance, metaphysically speaking. By accepting, you kill suffering. You deem it as lesser, you destroy it's purity. And does God do that? No. That's something you do as a human. You want to be okay with suffering, because you fear it. You want to be superhuman, beyond your nature. This is not acceptance, of course, it is avoidance. God does not need that, that is why he can birth himself into ignorance and experience suffering in it's true form. In the end, there is nothing you need to do, but be what you are. And no matter what you will ever do, that is precisely the only thing you can do. What happened here is that, you are a human, and suffering is fundamentally self-destructive. It's very nature is a will to end it's own existence, therefore, suffering naturally does exactly that, it ceases itself. Your entire psyche has been guided by it, and this is the result.

You are indistinguishable from a russian bot.

Yes, that's what you have caves for.

Well thank you, not a lot of people appreciate my rants.

Incest is a taboo, and a clear victimless taboo in most of the scenarios described in pornography. That is probably one of the main appeals of it. You're not supposed to do it, but it doesn't hurt anyone in the end. It also shows that the main reason for why this moral norm is enforced culturally seems to be eugenics, given that there is a clear distinction made between step family incest and "real" incest, even though in terms of the ethical concerns, step family incest is probably more harmful than real incest, proportionately speaking, because step-family seem to be more likely to sexually abuse you than your regular family. So ironically, the taboo around incest is likely the main driver around the fetishization of incest. The fetishization of incest is in many ways harmful to individuals who are in such relationships, because it leads to incest being viewed as a sexual deviancy rather than simply two individuals pursuing a romantic relationship. This is why many people so easily dismiss the concerns of this minority, because they view it mostly through the lense of a fetishization or lack of impulse control. From their point of view, they see it as "Why would you have sex with your family members? That's obviously disgusting and not worth it!", rather than recognizing that love sometimes occurs in such context, at which point prohibition is a significant burden on the people who might want to pursue a relationship. Additionally, a lot of individuals online who seek advice or solidarity have to deal with an army of incest-fetishists who will harass them as a function of their own sexual fantasies, prying into their personal life's just because they get excited by it. So there is a degree of inappropriate sexualization of individuals who are in these types of relationships. There is a dehumanization occuring on both the level of righteous moralists who condemn such relationships and view individuals who participate in them as fundamentally deviant, as well as in the objectification of these sorts of relationships as a result of the fetishization.

Russia is like an abusive boyfriend who won't accept his girlfriend moving on from him.

I have not seen evidence that incest is practiced more prevalently by those on the political rights in rural areas. Individuals who are consanguinamorous seem to skew towards progressives and more well educated individuals, from the online polling I have seen. But that could be a selection bias given that more educated individuals might engage in such online polling. Usually conservative people will be more judgemental towards such relationships for various reasons, I think the clichee attributed to the rural people of the south in the US is largely a myth. It was actually the catholic church which specifically enforced a lot of the moral norms around incest in the past, which is why in france incest has been decriminalized since the revolution, as it was sa rejection of Christian repression of human freedoms. But yes, basically everyone engages in this type of discrimination, including progressives. The way most individuals ethically reason is still significantly underdeveloped. I have seen so many jokes progressies make about inbreeding, mocking the lack of intelligence and the physical appearence of their enemies by comparing them to inbred people. The fact that this is acceptable, while simply using the r-word is considered a grave sin, is obviously absurd. Inbred people genuinely have to fear mockery in our society, they often feel incredible shame given the stigma around the topic. And yet, most progressives will laugh at jokes that will genuinely mock such individuals and their traits, with zero self-reflection for how absurdly cruel this is. Even if you thought incest was immoral and wrong, how can you mock and shame the children who were born of inbreding for that? But this just shows you what incestophobia does to people. You basically get a free pass to mock disabled people, or people with undesirable physical traits, or "genetic inferiority". Ethical reasoning is a very tricky thing, most people don't engage in it full stop, and those who do often do not even have a notion of what bias is. People don't learn that, when you feel a strong emotion of disgust towards something, that maybe you should actually be more careful around how you reason, and question those feelings rather than using them blindly to fuel your reasoning. We are making the same mistakes as we observed homophobes engage in in the past, because there is no fundamental ethical education today. The irony is, you can use your intuition for ethical reasoning, but not if you have spent your entire life informing your intuition through blind adoption of the norms around you, which is what basically everyone does. If you do engage in genuine ethical reasoning, over time your intuition will be a tool that will serve you in this regard, and you will be able to see injustice where others might not.

Age of consent laws are easy to justify because they don't come at a great cost. There is no good reason for someone to not wait until someone is of age, for them to approach them for a sexual relationship. Nothing is truly lost, and a significant protection is given on a societal scale. Additional, when it comes to punishment, there is a clear perpetrator and a clear victim. This is unlike incest laws, which do not offer protection, given that other laws already offer such protections. They also come at a fundamental cost that can be unbearable to individuals, namely to never be able to be with the person one wants to be. There is also no clear prepetrator in cases in which things appear to be consensual, at least in horizontally incestuous cases. To punish individuals (and potential victims, which most jurisdictions do), for such consensual acts is not in line with basic principles of liberal society. The fact that this is even seriously considered to be an option in my view shows just how extensive the bias against such things is. I can see why you might assume that these things are comparable, given that both of them restrict the sexual autonomy of individuals. The protection of individuals of course is important, and sometimes outweighs freedom. But the restrictions here are fundamentally different in kind, and the effects of those restrictions cannot be equated, given that laws around incest might facilitate harm and abuse rather than mitigate it. I don't take any offense.

I do not believe it is acceptable for an adult to have sexual relations with children, given that I consider children incapable of informed consent. Age of consent laws specifically exist to protect children, they are reasonable laws because they do not fundamentally restrict two individuals from being in a relationship, given that it is merely a temporal limitation. My stance on pedophelia is that it is a psychological condition that individuals suffer from. Such individuals should not be stigmatized because they do not choose to be born, or have developed, this way. They ought to be supported by society to process their feelings, to mitigate the likelihood of abuse occuring. Pedophelia does not mean having sexual relations with children, it basically means having an exclusive attraction to prepubescent children. A 15 year old can be a pedophile. An adult who violates children is a child predator, and might be a pedophile, although most child predators are not pedophiles, according to experts. https://www.vice.com/en/article/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says/ This article goes into this. Finkelhor coincidentally also conducted a study in the 80s that showed that most incestuous interactions between underage siblings were non-abusive/-coercive. It was the only study ever conducted to investigate incest outside of the context of incestuous abuse, and given how significant the social and academic backlash was, it might remain such for quite some time. Finkelhor appears to be very objective and non-moralistic in how he conducts his science.

I don't think there is any evidence that non-vegan specific foods somehow give us an intellectual edge that will allow us to produce certain technology that otherwise we could not. Even if it was the case, it's not in line with our basic ethical views to justify atrocities for the greater good. The limitation of utilitarianism is that you can in theory justify any atrocity for some sort of unproven, potential future good or paradise. The problem is you can't know whether or not you actually are achieving any good at all, because in the end reality might not play out the way you want it to at all. The nazis had to learn this the hard way. One of the problems is that we have no healthy stage blue or even orange facilitation in our society. This is the major limitation with the deconstructive approach of stage green, and why stage yellow is the response to it. Every stage needs to be included in the development of a human being, which it currently is not. The only way for people to learn stage blue values, which are essential to human growth, is through conservatives like Jordan Peterson. In essence, we need stage Yellow individuals who facilitate stage Blue values to adolescence, otherwise they will grow dysfunctional and be swept up by whoever else will sell them these values, packaged in a horrifically degenerate ideology. This has basically been the failure of society, and it is a failure that stems from our arrogance and the blind rejection of tradition. But it's a natural part of the process, given that the response to this problem is stage yellow. So, in essence, the reason why stage yellow will emerge is precisely because of this limitation of stage green.

It's possible that for some individuals that are some compromises. In general I think it is hard to justify what we do to animals, even in that context. Not only will he get less laid, he would also not be famous, he wouldn't be rich and he would basically have no status.

This is very comprehensive! I basically did/am aware of most of the concepts here, but I might have to up my iron intake because I take 20-40mg bisglycinate at most. Thank you for this I definitely will take some of the things into account and implement them.

You are buying into gender culture wars.

Women and men seem to experience the same rates of loneliness (with no contextualization of what that loneliness is), but women have more friends and are less likely to have no friends than men. The reason why more women raised their hands might be because women are more willing to admit when they feel lonely.

Probably hormone replacement therapy, given his age.

Yes, it's how people get annoyed at vegans if they talk about the ethics of meat-eating. And if the vegans get frustrated, they will pretend that they would have been far more likely to be convinced if only the vegan wasn't so annoying. The reality is, they just don't want their value system to be challenged because they feel comfortable, and they want the vegan to behave in line with social norms because then they don't annoy them as much with their pesky morality. Though of course stage green doesn't do itself any favor with the way it is enforcing it's value systems. Stage green should learn from stage orange and realize peer pressure is not a great way of convincing people of your cause.

I do use levothyroxine of course but I don't really feel optimal on it.

And Andrew Tate isn't merely attracted, he is a predator, which most pedophiles are not.

They aren't pedophiles, but child predators. Don't tarnish pedophiles by associating them with Tate.

But if you don't take any iodine how will the thyroid function in the first place? I wasn't looking for low dosage ones, they are much less expensive.

Blog post suggestion:

Not really, I'm still working on it. I can feel normal for a week or so if I take low iodine supplements, 25mcg, together with selenium. But then I have to take significant break because symptoms will worsen. That stuff is super expensive.

I'm not going to repeat what I just said, you literally didn't respond to it and pretended like I never corrected you about your bad faith interpretation of what you think I claimed.