Scholar

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.

Right, so why is this an argument? You said we shouldn't use humans like this because they want to live, but you are okay treating animals and plants this way.

There is no dairy that is sold that doesnt come with killing, and rape is always necessary to keep the cows pregnant. But we could just have milk humans who are raped and then we use their milk. Why would we go extinct if we only eat a special class of humans we breed? Cows aren't going extinct, are they? Why do we not want that?

Lobbyism serves an important function, do you know what it is?

We could drink human milk, that's not cannibalism. All animal agriculture requires rape, so it's not like you are against that if you eat meat or drink milk. Why would we go extinct? We had slave classes in the past, it worked for thousands of years. We don't have to be emotionally invested in the food-human class. Animals want to continue living.

But we aren't talking about what you personally would do, but what should be allowed in society. Why would we have laws against killing and eating humans? We could have a special breed that we can kill and eat, like pigs. Why not?

Why luckily? According to you there is no difference between them and animals. So why not have a human slave class to eat? In the end we have to kill to survive right? I do.

It's not that I understand the topic, I understand how stupid the unreflected assumptions are that go with people who just mindlessly compare animal consciousness to plant consciousness and assume some sort of naive realistic connection between the two, as if an act in itself causes a certain experience. Just because you cut something doesn't mean it will feel pain. The pain in response to being cut, in animals, is a very particular thing. So there should be no problem with creating a human slave food class that we don't emotionally connect to. Then you better get to research it, given that this is a life and death question.

Why does it matter if they are human or not? We could have a class of humans we don't care about that we breed and dehumanize, like we do with animals. That's all animals, because all of them are slaves whose children are stolen. Why do you kill more than you need to? If you kill an animal, you kill the animal and all the plants that had to die to feed it. If you only eat plants, you will kill no animal, and far less plants than the animal would have eaten, to get the same nutrients.

It's not only abusers who must increase their compassion. No, they eat what we feed them. You are attempting to relativize your killing of animals by comparing them to plants. As if killing a human was the same as pulling a blade of grass. Conversely, you would deem it permissible to kill and eat humans who are not as self-aware as you are. You don't have to be a friend of someone to not pay for their enslavement and death. Some animals eat meat because they evolved to.

Well, I think you need to work on your basic compassion. Most plants we kill are killed by the animals that we then kill to consume. Less plants have to die if you simply eat the plants. But yes, plants most likely don't have individuated consciousness.

Obviously? Why do we not have a special race of humans that we breed and kill for food?

No, it's not just the pain. I think we shouldn't kill animals for food for the same reasons we shouldn't kill humans for food. It's delicious because it provides nutrients that are not easy to come by otherwise in a natural scenarios.

You have to have some sort of reasonable underlying causal theory for why things are the way they are. We don't randomly feel pain. Pain obviously has an evolutionary function. It's not like these things are just inherent to actions. You don't understand how naive this understanding of experience is. Cutting a human will cause them pain, and then you think because cutting causes pain, therefore cutting any living being will cause pain. But it's not the cutting that causes the pain, but the brain that creates the experience of pain as a result of the cutting, to motivate an individuated consciousness to act a certain way. Also, guess what every animal that humans eat, eats? They all eat plants. cows eat so many grass-blades, or other foods. This is all an absurd argument, given that animal agriculture causes more plant death than agriculture would if we simply ate the plants in the first place.

I found this on the Destiny reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1gljw0t/its_worth_pointing_out_that_a_30_point_shift/ One commenter posted this:

They will blame the democrats.

That's not even the worst. The bad part is that there is no accountability whatsoever. People don't care if they are sold misinformation, even if you show them that it was blatant misinformation. There is no shame, no need to adjust your epistemic standards so you don't embarass yourself again, because nobody will think it is embarassing in the first place. After all, the other side does it too, is what they think, and therefore we have to protect our own even if sometimes they lie. Like Leo said in the blogpost, people genuinely do not care about truth anymore, even less so now than 10 years ago.

I don't care much about the topic, but I don't think it's unreasonable that aliens might exist and observe us. Most people who are self-proclaimed rationalists do not dismiss the UFO phenomena because they evaluated the genuine possibility or impossibility of such things, but merely engage in peer-pressure driven cultural enforcement. Most human beings are profoundly susceptible to peer pressure. You can test this by looking at the arguments people provide against the phenomenon, like there not being clear footage despite everyone owning a smartphone. It's frustrating that people will literally not think past whatever confirms their biases, because it should be obvious to anyone who used a smartphone that you can't take high quality images of anything that is even moderately far away. I haven't done much research, but given what is reported in the Nimitz encounters, it seems the only reasonable explanation is aliens, or there is some effort to spread falsehood. Epistemically, I find it dubious that most people dismiss that case. If what was reported is true, then in my view the explanation of extraterrestials probably outweighs most other explanations that people like to provide, in terms of likelihood.

I explained to you why the reasoning is laughable. Anything could be the case. Maybe each one of your skin cells suffers when they die. Maybe your liver is having a depression. Maybe different parts of your brain have their own conscious experience. All of these would make more sense than plants feeling pain and fear in response to being uprooted. You are conflating existence with pain. Pain is a very particular substance with a very particular function. To remove substances of mind from their function simply shows how naive your view of consciousness is.