rosencrantz

Nah. Why should I?

Dr. Suzanne Humphries is a homeopathic quack. Sherri Tenpenny is an osteopath with no formal training in immunology. Andrew Wakefield is a quack whose study has been debunked. Have you listened to both sides? If so, can you make the case for vaccines as an advocatus diaboli? If not, there is no shortage of material from credible sources advocating for vaccines.

For every crime you need a criminal (or criminals), a victim (or victims), a place and a time where the crime (or crimes) took place. Unless those are presented I call bullshit and confirmation bias. And the (unproven) accusation of Satanism and pedophilia is not quite new.

I just had a pizza Quattro Stagioni. What does that mean?

The earth is 4,5 billion years old, man is intelligent for 100 000 years. That's some low tier generating force if I ever saw one.

Emotions and thoughts are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. While this may be positive in dangerous situations it proves to be an liability when you can rationally dispute dysfunctional ideas but the emotions connected to them make sure they come back again and again.

The post is wrong. There is no original sin in the Hebrew Bible. Sin doesn't procreate, it is individual. At most, its effects can be seen for two to three generations. Circumcision and the rest of the rituals are a sign for the covenant between god and the Israelites. If those are broken, it's a sin that will be punished. There was a council of the Apostles in 49 where the question was discussed if Christians should still keep the Jewish laws, namely circumcision and special diets. In Acts 15 we are told that only Jewish Christians are bound to the Jewish laws, while the rest is free of them. This is in line with God's commandments after the flood where we are told that the only thing non-Jewish people need to observe to be saved is a) not to kill and b) not to eat blood.

Seventh Svenpai clairvoyant as usual

That depends on the number of people they alienate. I think only fringes complain about the policies. Most people enjoy normiebook quite a lot.

There is no alternative to facebook or twitter because the value of those sites is based on the numbers of users they have. Unless there is a conservative website with a few million users there isn't an alternative.

Do you also suspect that we have entered a very odd timeline?

No. Lets see what happens when you don't 'anthromorphize groups'. There were no groups such as the Foundings Fathers, the Revolutionaries, the English Army. All were indidividuals doing their thing. There was no revolutionary war in the US, only a mass of single aggressions. So there are also no sports teams who never win sports games? They don't work together? So there are no groups but you need to defend yourself from their actions?

And? If you work together as a group you can change the state. Alone you are defenseless. Thank you for proving my point. I never said it was. The surival of groups is a question of practicality not one of ethics.

It's not virtuous, it's a necessity. If a group can't defend itself it is doomed.

Voting is only a subset of the actions that the state does. Some of those you can engage in, some are involuntary. So the question is: does paying taxes and all the rest of it constitute duress and does that the NAP hold under duress. Of course you only focus on the voluntary part so your argument works.

Sure, if you give a good answer. So far, I haven't seen one.

The interesting question is if (a) the NAP still holds under duress and if (b) we live in such a situation. If you showed both to be true, the next question is if voting is morally permissible or not. Most libertarians agree with (b) but fail to show that (a) is a valid proposition.

They do indeed. The aggregate of them determines status. Status can be determined how people interact in a group. You can rank the status of groups pretty much like google or alexa rank websites.

You do a survey essentially. Like I said, status is about perception. Or you can have a family father and that playboy interact with a different groups of people, do a network analysis and determine their status. This may be too strict a definition. I am not sure what exactly you mean by that.

The effects of self-knowledge and the status in a group are similar. If somebody says he is enlightened, I can ask that person how that materializes in his or her every day life. How did the life change since gaining more knowledge, what improved, what has gotten worse. Those things can be tested. You can only test phenomena in the real world. If the person claims to have knowledge but there is no testable material available you can be sceptical of the claim. After all, anybody can claim to have profound insights. Status is a social relationship in a group. You can sort of deduce it from body language, but to determine the degree of it, you need to observe how individuals interact in a group. You can do that with any groups of mammals living together socially, including humans. Sure, I get that. But like I said, status is determined in a group. If you are together with a group of friends, say 7 people and 2 don't like lipstick, 5 do and you meet a lady with pink lips which is fancied by your friends the status of her within the group is determined as the agregate. If you are alone, her status in your eyes is determined only by you, pink lips being one factor. Status signals work when they are accepted within the majority of a given group. When they don't work as signals anymore, they are abandoned. Your preferences are varying degree of the acceptance depdending on the size of the group. Lip sticks work as signals for fertility because they are accepted as such (and trigger desires) by a majority of heterosexual man. For some time, Apple products were a status symbol. I may hate the fact that they are, but my opinion is only one among many uninformed people to take another example.

You can do that by watching a group that persists for some time. Over time there will be patterns. Who relates to whom? Are there people left out? Who has the contacs, who has the least? If you apply the same criteria, independent people will come up with the same ranking. You can attach ordinal numbers to the single members (that person is first, he or she has the highest ranking within the group). In addition to that, you can identify subgroups some certainty by the sort of makeup they wear (or don't wear). The way we dress, the way we put make up on is a veneer for sex. Usually, dresses for men emphasize strength (broad shoulders). Dresses and make up for women tends to emphasize sexual markers or general genetic fitness (clear skin, red lips, accentuated eyes). Indeed. But shouldn't therapy also allow you to express yourself in the 'real' world. If you gain knowledge but your circumstances (relationships, job, money) stays more or the less how much did it really help you? Usually, the understanding is the easier part. Acting on it is much much harder.

There is an outstanding book on race relations in America that can even be enjoyed by swiply normies. https://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479214193&sr=8-1&keywords=bowling+alone

Status is the sum aggregate of a group's preferences. You can measure it by observing a group, how individual members relate to each other. There is no unit for self knowledge. I am 5'7'' tall and I can say that somebody is smaller or taller than me. I can also quantify by how much. The same isn't true for self knowledge. You cannot compare yourself how much more knowledge you have nor can you state the amount of self knowledge you have in absolute terms. Exactly. The only thing you can see are results of a therapy or self work. Value is subjective. But if you want to judge the positive effects of therapy in an objective way, you have to look at things that can be measured.

One of the most reproduced tests in psychology deals with picking dolls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_and_Mamie_ClarkAs it turns out, dolls with lighter skin tone are preferred over those with darker tones. Furthermore, you have the same results in multicultural societies with adults, where generally partners whiter partners are preferred over darker ones.

Gain higher status to get more ressources or find a partner. Self-knowledge, self-worth can't be measured objectively. Status or a partner can be.