Carl-Richard

An emotion is not a thought ?

Ok.

@lxlichael If you just believe, or certainly if you actually can, outdo a four-time world champion kickboxer in a "no rules" fight to the death, I would say it's very probable that you are a psycho. But sure, spam 20 paragraphs to prove otherwise.

He argues that if a choice is determined by what you call "yourself" (which he defines as your 1st person experiences of your tastes, desires, intentions, etc.), then that is what free will is, because free will is when a choice is determined by you. You can argue that all choices are only partially determined by you, as transpersonal forces will also impact your choices, but even then, he cites how Schopenhauer identifies a transpersonal Will which underlies all of reality (and which also underlies "your" free will). This makes sense, because Schopenhauer thinks all of reality as "mind", i.e. that which constitutes your 1st person experience. So if free will is when something is determined by mind, then reality as Mind is Will.

Well, you do strike me as a psycho ?

He is also a four-time world champion kickboxer.

If it truly affects you emotionally and it becomes overwhelming, then certainly no. Other than that, a lot of the forum is low quality entertainment and self-harm. All people engage in it to some extent, so you have to get it from somewhere, though it's good to become aware of it from time to time. I think the worst part is getting complacent with behavior that you despise, as a sort of co-dependency with the larger space. If you get used to not calling it out, people can take advantage of that in your daily life.

What?! ?

Bro, there is no "inner cause". This is a normal ape response to normal bad ape behavior. It's not deep, it's nothing to psychoanalyze about. He came here to vent and it seems like it's over and dealt with. If he starts having nightmares or writes a list of homicidal fantasies, maybe then you can roll out the armchair, but this is not that time.

So you're not able to name one human trafficker, let alone describe what a "human trafficker type" is like? That makes your statement that he doesn't strike you as a human trafficker type not hold a lot of weight. I get it that you were going just based on your feelings, but I'm just pointing it out.

If we step on the pedal hard enough, of course. To even question the shape of the Earth contains a lot of cultural assumptions. What is "Earth" to a pre-agricultural tribe? The local environment? Do highly mobile tribes have a different concept of Earth than more sedentary ones? Do they have a concept of "planets" as differentiated from other celestial objects? Do they consider the Earth a planet just like the other ones in the sky? We didn't really do that before the 16th century after advanced developments in mathematics and astronomy. To even have advanced mathematics requires at least a writing system, and that is not a given either. Even in the modern world, if you're raised by Flat Earthers, it will take a lot of exposure to other cultures before that can be challenged. Even so, you see that it's still just culture, just a larger variety. Besides, if the culture is pervasive enough, experiencing a larger variety will likely never happen (an obvious example is the materialist paradigm). But sure, if humans have a capability of rationality that transcends culture, then surely the individual variation of this matters, and also, having a variety of cultural influences can create a synthesis which is more in line with this rationality, as you're able to do cross-references. If you don't have anything else to contrast your current culture with, you'll just take the blindspots as a given, and you'll stop questioning them. At this point, individual factors will generally start having a bigger effect on the differences. So the key for people to come into more agreement is to expose oneself to different cultures and viewpoints while following one's sense of rationality. Even when people do that, it might not amount to much. Rationality might actually also be the biggest hurdle. Even people who consider themselves rational are, if not completely unaware, at least painfully ill-equipped with their irrational drives and biases. Andrew Tate comes to mind (he is also well-travelled).

Post-hoc mental gymnastics aside, you'll still get mad the moment you find out that somebody sexually assaulted your girlfriend, unless you're some kind of alien robot. How you process that anger is of course up to the individual.

@KH2 ?

Can you give me an example of any human traffickers at all?

@PenguinPablo No need to be disrespectful.

What is a "human trafficking type"? Any examples?

Yes, because those are different tribes.

I've dipped my toes into cessation many times, and it scares me to death I haven't had a God realization though.

Oh yes. LSD makes you see :>

?

No two people are alike, but two people who live in an isolated pre-agricultural tribe will be very much alike each other, and the type of disagreements you're thinking about would probably not occur. So the defining causal moment that lead to the phenomena in question could certainly be the invention of agriculture, as ridiculous as that sounds.

One tribe, one opinion. Many tribes, many opinions. It's a very materialistic analysis, but the way we got there was essentially through the discovery of agriculture, which allowed for a more complex division of labor. Resources accumulated, tribes grew and clashed, civilizations formed, and the different labor forces developed their own little worldviews and opinions on things. The skilled workers got their opinions, the academics got their opinions, the politicians got theirs, etc.

The keyboard solos in this one are TRANSCENDENT

Division of labor.

Definition of rape: "something ugly people do" ??? The nuanced and sophisticated redpill worldview: everything in the world can be explained by sexual market value.