Pepin

My response might be something like the below. Why do you think that it matters that you think you came out alright? If this is a scientific question, then drawing answers from a single self assessment without controlling for any variables or biases simply isn't relevant. I'm not saying that your opinion of yourself isn't important nor that it isn't valid, but rather that it isn't scientific. Even if we can confirm that spanking did not affect you negatively, it does not at all imply that the same would apply to the rest of the population. For instance, studies done on smoking show that only a third of smokers suffer from serious health complications. If you are in that lucky two thirds of smokers, it would not make sense to say that smoking does not cause any harm simply because it did not cause you harm. What I am suggesting is that we don't focus on your own case so much as not much can be gained. If spanking is or not damaging, then there are scientific studies which will show it. If the studies show there is causation, you may be an anomaly, but this wouldn't imply that spanking is detrimental to at least some significant percentage of the population. I think focusing on the science is crucial. Making it clear that they may be perfectly right in their self-assessment, but that you can't accept it as it isn't scientific nor a large sample size will hopefully lower their defenses and cause them to be more willing to look at the data.

About 2-3 percent of Americans are muslim, making them a minority race. They have a skin color other than white, which allows for racial profiling, which the left is against under most any circumstance. According to this source: What I believe this suggests is that muslims are just another voter base the left wants to secure. The right is in no way going to go after muslim votes, so most of the tactics the left takes is to appeal to muslims in every which way, including religious tolerance. Most on the left who are atheists are quite opposed to Christianity, but not to islam. I believe the above theory explains this as Christians are a voting base already secured mostly by the right, meaning there is no reason to appeal to them. Actually, there is more reason to mock and criticize them, but this gets confusing as that would alienate the religious left and many independents. I think it is really understated that almost everything the political left does is to buy and secure votes.

I think Alan is pretty much right. I would add that an understanding of free market economics is similar to the understanding of nature prior to the popularization of Darwin. The concept of spontaneous order is rather difficult for most people to understand as they can't conceive how such complexity and order can be generated without a designer. This is much the same as how creationist cannot imagine how such complexity and order can be generated without a deity. I don't think the term "capitalistic system" is an argument that there is a system, rather it is an admission that they cannot fathom how capitalism can operate without a system. The idea of anarchy, of spontaneous order, that wealth and peace can be achieved without a central authority: is still out of the reach of most people's imagination.

Like with religion, politics had more to do with relationships than it had to do with its contents. Taking stances outside of the liberal norm will result in a lot of personal trouble, especially for intellectual figures. Thinking critically about government in non-liberal contexts likely to invite mass criticism and ostracism. Unconsciously, the person is aware that every smear tactic will be applied to them if they for say question public education, or welfare. Memes such as "if you are against welfare you hate the poor" do not replicate so well due to being true, but rather because the statement creates causes a greater in group resilience. To make the case, the statement does not spread to those who are not of liberal persuasion or to those who are not within the liberal community, but rather it spreads among already entrenched liberal social groups. I don't doubt that part of its intention is a pseudo argument against those with different beliefs, but the primary intention is to inform those within the liberal group that deviating from such a belief will be interpreted as hating poor people and will of course result in ostracism from that group. Though the above may sound strange due to my poor wording, this is a feature of most religions. The memes which cause religious groups to maintain followers are often the ones that demonize the outgroup. The ingroup is seen as moral, while the outgroup is seen as sinners. For someone to contemplate leaving such a religion involves the acknowledgement that it will be seen by the ingroup as falling into sin, as opposed to any rational conclusion.

Metaphysics has been replaced by physics for the most part, though there are more philosophical topics which can be considered metaphysical as they are not in the realm of science. God for instance can be considered to be apart of that class, as nonexistent entities can never be disproved through empiricism. It is important to understand the history of philosophy in context to the term, as philosophers from the past postulated theories of reality that do not make sense today. There was an intermixing of elements which we now know do not bind together.

I tried to debate God once. He never showed up.

What if he doesn't want a debate? I can think of a few reasons why he wouldn't want to take part in a debate, a large one being his speaking ability and pace, which would put him at a large disadvantage regardless of what he is arguing. Another may be that he just doesn't want a debate and would prefer a friendly chat. I do not believe it would be right for anyone to spring a public debate on someone who is not prepared or on someone who doesn't want to debate. This is pretty common in fdr interviews. Take the Alex Jones interviews. Of course the thought of a popular public figure being cornered by argumentative surprise might seem tasty, but it is a shady tactic for those who value truth.

If I find the case of a teen girl and two male teachers having consensual sex creepy, then the case here ought to be considered the same. What reason which would make it wrong in one case not apply to the other? If anything it ought to be more creepy as males develop slower.

I avoided Rand for quite some time. Eventually I decided to read some of her work and was rather astonished and wished I had read them when I was in middle school.

It is a disclaimer as home treatments are not medically certified by government agencies. They would be sued if they did not put that on as there would be many regulations they'd be breaking. It also avoids liability for any damage done. It is like how most sex toys are sold as novelty items, despite clearly being meant to be used. I was skeptical about this subject, but wiki seems to back it up, so I suppose it is legit.

I would propose that there are two measurements that you are speaking of: the ethicacy of particular actions which are being committed; and the rate of change at which these actions are being committed. The first measurement looks at say incarceration for drug use, disregards the magnitude, and either finds that the incarceration is moral or immoral. The second looks at how many people were being incarcerated, and compares it to how many people are being incarcerated now. Based on the assumption above, that incarceration for drug use is immoral, it is concluded that an increase in incarceration is worse than a decrease. In regard to rape, we can all agree that it is bad if rape is occurring at all. Yet, I believe we can also agree that less rape is better than more rape. The closer to your preferred amount of rape, zero, the better. The further away from zero, the worse. Again, the measurement always involves a comparison to previous magnitudes. In regard to government, I would say that less force is better than more force. I am not able to think about this in terms of "getting on course" as there is no driver to steer, nor any road to drive on. I don't understand how anyone could take political action seriously. But if laws against prohibition, prostitution, and so on are repealed. I think this is good.

At least on a high conceptual level, it can't be UPB because religion is temporal, which defies the universality test. The statement "one ought to teach their children Mormonism" could not apply to times before Mormonism existed. There is the worse issue of religious texts containing numerous contradictions, which highly complicates any compromised theory which a religious text contains. To go further. If we are to break down the action of teaching religion to children into lower level terms, it becomes "telling a child to accept claims about reality which have no relation to reality". I assume that we are all on the same page as far as the validity of religion. If not, then some focus can be directed here. The term "teach" was changed to "tell" as comprehension is greatly diminished in children and the child has little to no cognitive ability to reject what they are being told. To teach, one must want to be taught, and a child has little ability to choose to be taught. The term "tell" does not necessarily imply a negative connotation as we tell kids large amounts of information and expect them to accept it on our authority, and at a particular intellectual level this is needed. Where the ethical nature of the claim comes in is in regard to preference. It is the caretakers preference for the child to accept the religious teaching. The child has no preference in the matter. The claim cannot be UPB compatible because the preference of the child is non-existent. It cannot be said that the child wants to learn about a religion, that they accept religious claims, nor that they are able to reject any of teachings. A question that is likely to arise is that if the above is true, then how can caretaker tell their children anything? Well, at this point, my brain is tired and I can't quite think. It has something to do with the difference between "telling a child to accept claims about reality which have no relation to reality" and "telling a child to accept claims about reality which have a relation to reality". I really need to reread UPB: The Book again, as I kind of forget how to formulate UPB statements.

There is reason to think that a large factor in the increase in CEO pay is that new money goes to large corporations first. This provides an advantage to the corporation not just in terms of in money, but also in the use of the money prior to its effect on the market. The large growth may simply be the effect of an overly inflated money supply concentrated in these large corporations. The measured disparity may be simply one of inflation. To put it this way, once the effect of the inflation is distributed across the market, the money which these corporations hold decreases quite sharply. One million units of money may have seemed like a lot prior to inflation, but soon one million units becomes a rather modest sum for a corporation to possess. Provided I am not talking out of my ass, this may mean that slowing down the release of the money is most beneficial to the banks, as the inflated benefits last longer, which may be the reason for the incentives given by the fed to not loan out money. It is a dual issue of not wanting inflation to hit the public, and another of creating a cartel. Eh, I don't know.

Who is Carrie Underwood? Don't answer, I don't really care.

Intellectually there may be some use in terms of causing different modes of thinking and greater associative ability. Difficult to think clearly in such a state though. I think it is very possible, but not at all likely for great ideas to be generated. I think psychologically drugs can be beneficial. There is research on it, which provides evidence for that claim, though it depends on dose and other factors. Having smoked a lot of weed in the past, it really enhanced my thinking. A lot of it was just the relaxation it induced. Another factor was that very obvious ideas seemed more unfamiliar, allowing for greater understanding. I do think I am in the minority on this as what I would record high was almost always good, unless I was way too high. Most people aren't like this. On Dmt or LSD, I don't think my thoughts and ideas would be too great. I am prone to the experience of "this is what the universe is" as described in the first post, not that I would believe it. I get that sorry of stuff in meditation sometimes as well, like "everything is connected". It is more a feeling than anything, and I can understand how people are convinced by it. It is similar to how in dreams you are presented with something self evident, and there is no reason to believe that it is not what your dream is telling you. I imagine it is the same experience as those who claim to interact with god. I can see how it is difficult for people to disregard these experiences.

It is preferable because it is a concept which contains only preferable behaviors. The theory being preferable is a consequent of being comprised of behaviors which are preferable. If this sounds confusing, I can expand upon this if requested. Typing on a tablet, which does not work very well for long posts.

To give a market based reply: The function of a CEO is to earn the business more money than without a CEO. The salary of the CEO is of course accounted for in this formulation. This does not mean that a CEO will necessarily cause an increase in profit, as they may have no effect or have a negative effect, but a CEO who has a positive effect on the business is one who generates higher amounts of profit. If a business is running at a loss, it is more likely for workers to lose their jobs than to receive a higher compensation. A business whose revenue exactly matches its expenditures will not be capable of giving raises as there are no additional funds. Therefore, the wage of a worker is correlated with the amount of profit the business generates. A CEO's salary is based on the increase in profit they generate. A CEO who makes a large amount of money is one who creates a large profit within the business. As an example, a CEO who generates an additional 100 million dollars in revenue may be paid 5 million dollars, which leaves 95 million to be invested in the company resulting in wage increases and further hirings. The comparison to make is not between a business which generates an additional 95 million dollars with a CEO and a business without, rather it is between a business that generates an additional 95 million dollars with a CEO and 0 additional dollars without. The assumption in the argument is that the CEO can be attributed with the allotted profit. A likely retort is that CEOs do not add value a business, which can be contested by repeating the assumption made in the argument, that the profit can be attributed to the CEO. In the real world, there are many methods of measuring CEO performance, which makes this more than a theory. With that said, there are few market dynamics at play at the present time.

How is this interfering with your life exactly? This is something my therapist and I talk about a decent bit. When I get lost in thought, the whole world goes away. It is strange because in these moments I have no awareness of my senses, just of my thoughts. If I am having a conversation with this can be awkward for them. It also has been an issue occasionally when I am driving. He suggests that doing this in deep conversation and by yourself can be acceptable, especially when it involves a lot of thinking, but not in casual conversations nor in situations where your attention is needed elsewhere. I don't mean to infer too much from the wording, but I hope you goal is not to always be in the moment. Getting lost in your head is completely needed in certain circumstances. Really challenging thinking almost necessarily entails it in my opinion. To continue, my analytical part is very active, which I like quite a lot. When I watch a movie or a TV show, that part of me is usually analyzing the plot and characters, trying to figure out what is next, and so on. At the same time, there are other parts taking in the show on various emotional levels, as well as in different hard to describe ways. I think it makes the experience more enjoyable and interesting. It is kind of like looking at a piece of art not just from one perspective at a time, yet numerous perspectives at the same time, while being able to retain the joy from each. With that said, when I wish I could turn off my analytical mind is when I am trying to get to sleep.

I am a bit disappointed they did not go deeper into the villains in season 3, but the finale was still awesome. Can not wait for Oct. 3rd.

Thanks for the post. You are likely right about the intention.

I am a bit confused by this post. If someone told me to prove that I was virtuous in person, or some other variant, I don't think I would continue that conversation. Beside the question being rather strange, it would be hard not to perceive it as "prove you aren't a douche". I am not saying that integrity is not important or that we ought not to evaluate how virtuous a person is, but putting it into this context is a little weird.

I believe the primary reason is that we are drawn to more extreme cases than modest ones. Feminists who advocate for the equal rights of all genders do not draw any attention as their position is quite agreeable and uncontroversial. Those who make bold or irrational claims draw more attention. Over time, people form stereotypes based of the group based on what is focused on the most, the fringe groups, as opposed to group as a whole. It is similar to how creationists who get the most publicity are those who make the worst case. This is a tactic employed in politics where the goal is to put the focus only on stupid things the opposing side had said, and to create a stereotype of the group based on a minority within that group. Of course, only smart and sensible statements are made the focus for their own group, which is intended to create another stereotype. Over time, people have to mold to the already existing stereotypes in people's head in order to fit in, and base their political affiliation on these stereotypes as opposed to on any argument. It is far easier for people to decide their political beliefs on dumbed down representations as opposed to putting cognitive effort into complex social issues. The question a liberal answers is not "what is the best way to help the poor?", yet rather "do I hate poor people?". I do believe that most feminists are not of the radical kind, though they likely falter on a number of topics, just as we all do. I may be wrong as this as I haven't done any studies or seen any, but I am more inclined to believe that the stereotype may not be representative. Further, I believe those who criticize MRAs are prone to the same stereotyping bias, in that more extreme and irrational statements get more attention, which leads to a stereotype of those in the movement, when such views are held only by a minority.

I don't believe it is appropriate to speak about this in context to feminism in the same way it is not appropriate to talk about the views of an atheist who advocates putting the religious in insane asylums in context to atheism, or a Christan who says I ought to be put to death in context to people who are Christan. I don't deny that there are subsets of feminism that believe this, just as I don't deny there are subsets of Christians who believe that homosexuals should be put to death, but I don't believe there is evidence to support that these beliefs are accepted outside the rather small subclass. Certainly you can find plenty of instances of those with these beliefs, but the question is whether they are representative of the whole, or just a fringe group. Note that the speaker in the video said mainsteam feminists will not stop them this time, meaning that this is a view abhorred by the majority of that group. With that said, the argument made is an extreme form of sexism What is the difference between her, and a kkk member who wants to reduce black population to create peace, prosperity, and happiness?

I don't think someone has a large amount of self if they don't accept that they are a collection of parts. At the very least, this would consist of being aware of what is conscious and unconscious. Those with more self knowledge distinguish between conscious thoughts which are not self and non self generated. I feel as though many people attribute almost all of their thoughts and thinking to the self, when they had nothing to do with it. An example is with worrying. The mind takes off in its own in a tirade of thoughts, while the self often tries to manage and control the anxiety. Understanding that there is a part of the brain which is generating all of these worries and that though it is conscience that it is a part other than you coming up with is essential to understand what you are in context to your neurology, and what you aren't.

I would add having an understanding of your subjective experience and how your mind functions. Like when you remember something, how do you experience that? When you think conceptually, how do you experience that? How does my vision work, like what an I actually seeing? How do I conceptualize various groups of objects and people? A small example with myself is tracing seemingly random thoughts back to their origin. I might all of sudden stand thinking about bats and echo location, which I can trace back to seeing a person I know recently who has a blind friend, and having recently read a Dawkins book which talked about bats Another aspect is being aware of human behavior in general. The book Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow goes into thinking biases and cognitive downfalls which are found in humans. For instance, humans are very bad at thinking statistically, so when a matter involves statistics, I ought to slow down. There is also the bias of "someone else will help", which may seem reasonable, but often can create issues as it is shared. What I mean to suggest is that your history and beliefs are only a portion to knowing yourself. Understanding how you sense and perceive the world, how you experience your thoughts and ideas, how your thoughts and beliefs are structured and related, as well as evolution shaped deficits which are detrimental to our thinking are all critical to self knowledge.