Carl-Richard

What is evidence?

Alien denial is an ideology that goes hand-in-hand with the intraparadigmatic attitudes of pop science (cynicism and rigidity). Maybe when Pope-o-science Neil daddy Tyson changes his mind, maybe then we'll see some changes in the collective consciousness of neopositivists ?

I just gave you my citations: Ep. 5-6 of The Basement Office. The co-presenter, Nick Pope, worked for the UK Ministry of Defence for over 20 years.

Trying to guess their intentions is way different than merely acknowledging the possibility of their existence. For all we know, that would be like an ant trying to predict the next US election. We have no idea what level of intelligence we're dealing with.

Military personell found elevated levels of radioactivity inside the landing marks made by the craft. Ep. 5-6 of The Basement Office series on yt.

@Blackhawk How do you explain the Rendlesham UFO encounter?

I'm gonna work as a tester for covid19 this summer (I'll mostly be doing nasopharyngeal swabs, preparing tests and some IT tasks). I'll maybe share my experiences here over time (as far as it's legal to do so)

Exactly. It's a paradox

It's just a descriptive statement: such a teaching self-terminates. There is a reason why it doesn't exist among living beings. It's tautological. Teachings generally exist to dictate the life of human beings. Physical death as a prescription is antithetical to the very concept of teachings.

A teaching that promotes physical death is self-terminating.

Omg I thought it was Martin Ball ?

That was easy ?

You can compare anything with anything, but some things are easier to compare than others. 1960s and 1800s are not very comparable. Imagine trying to explain Foucault's philosophy to Rousseau.

NOTE: this is not an endorsement, just a curious inquiry. JF's argument is an evolutionary one and is essentially that welfare leads to selection of weakness, which is why we should shy away from collectivist ideologies (socialism) and adopt a firmly capitalist ideology. His argument seems strong on the surface, but I believe that SD can provide some context: Human society has been strongly collectivist for ~50 000 years (technically millions of years). Pre-agricultural tribal societies gave individuals a minimum safety threshold even though their value contribution was variable. Sure, if you were found out to be a leech, you would be cast out, but there are also systems in place for that today (e.g. welfare employment programs). Capitalism arose only after ~10 000 years of agricultural feudalism. If the weakness selection pressure argument holds up, JF must differentiate between archaic/tribal collectivism and modern/governmental collectivism (which I don't think he does in this conversation). He also prides himself on using a theory with few assumptions but underestimates the depth of each assumption. It's not that clear whether or not the selection pressure for weakness in one specific area (helping people in deep poverty) will dominate the wide range of selection that is made available by solving the problems that are in fact caused by deep poverty. Let's say JF got some welfare while he was poor. Would the JF we see today really be diminished because of that or would he actually have been enhanced? Let's say he skips 5 years of poverty and gets a headstart on his career compared to today. Even if we granted a level of weakness induced by having received welfare, wouldn't that headstart possibly be a net benefit? Stuff like that. The general conception is that his argument is rather strong but that he goes way overboard with the conclusions (given that he doesn't particularly specify the scale of the problem, only the possibility of its existence). It's true that even though welfare could provide net social benefit or even some evolutionary benefit, it could degenerate the entire system if the weakness selection is strong enough. Any other ways to come at this?

I shortened down my take on it: The original human societal organization was intensely collectivistic for the majority of evolutionary history (pre-agricultural, tribal societies), where a base minimum safety was provided for people with variable value contributions, and somehow that didn't lead to a dominant, self-terminating weakness phenotype. So-called "individualism" didn't come online before ~10 000 years ago (agricultural, feudal empires), and the less exploitative version of that (capitalism) came even later. The supposed selection pressures created from a couple centuries or millenia of individualism is comparatively speaking homeopathic to the millions of years of collectivism from our evolutionary history. JF must 1. clarify why modern collectivism would be more detrimental than archaic collectivism, and 2. clarify the exact level of expression that would create a dominant, self-terminating phenotype. So far, he has provided a couple of big "ifs" but relatively few "hows".

Strong

Try a couple of trips of longer-acting substances while working yourself up in dose. The specifics is up to you.

Just got first dose of Pfizer BioNTech

Do you meditate every day?

Every comment section is an endless, fractal cascade of reactions ?

In this universe, there is no reason to fear something that has never happened before in the history of the universe.

If there are no limits, there have to be cases where that is extremely unlikely to happen.

You need to have a mystical experience