barn

Thank you very, really much! Brave. Balls of steel. Respect! (again)

In this day and age (easy access to information, skill-based mobility worldwide, easy access to long-haul transportation... etc.) , other than in low IQ populations, I don't think feudalism is going to have much traction. Nor would most governments be in favour of it, given it would bring about compartmentalised power in the hands of more individuals than of now with less added benefits. (Greed, lust for power... sins 'stuff' at the table of the unelected 'elected' decision makers) Also, for a full fledged dictatorship I'm guessing, the mean IQ would have to drop 10-15 points (which is a lot) overall, at least. Or, is your projection in the coming centuries? What signs at currently transitioning (?) examples are you basing your ('might/could') projections for Europe? What are the standards for disprovability? I don't think America/Russia would benefit from importing the most cowardly 20% of Europeans...  Me neither. I don't think cowards have a desirable track record in terms of providing value, it's not common to see coward entrepreneurs or good (yet coward?) professionals create value as a whole. Instead, I recommend that you had another 'peek' at (or explained to me why you thought I assumed wrongfully... etc.) -> Please refer to the part where I wrote : "I was approximating the part of the population that would be welcomed with broad arms by the States." I would listen to (read) your ideas here if you had any... ... ok. Yes. Future stuff is just as inaccessible as the past from a living / acting type perspective. Sure. I appreciate the reminder and sort of... nope, sorry let me start again. I appreciate the reminder but it is bugging me too much, it's not doing the trick this time. I'm on a sinking ship (Europe) and doesn't seem that gaping hole got any smaller lately... By the by... Are you also located in Europe or you are actually elsewhere? (no need to be specific) ps. - to moderators: I'm perfectly fine with @Siegfried von Walheim 's comments or posts, please let them through.

Hi voter, Thanks for your interest and the new views here also! Hahaha... Your actions are just hilarious, at least makes for good comedy....

Hi voter, Thanks for your interest and the new views also. So you downvoted this (after I got responded to it) : ->with : "I don 't really know how it relates to philosophy, but I asked first in the General section, and received an answer that it should probably go in Philosophy ." Running out of ideas, huh?...Hahaha Thanks for brightening up my day!

Hi @dataguy Welcome to the board and posting! Barnsley

"Hello, my name is Robert! - Hi bob, I'm Jack S. !"

That's right.

490. System Of A Down - Forest 491. Unkle ft. Brian Eno / Jarvis Cocker - I Need Something Stronger

Supplementary, to the benefit of all : Daniel Kahneman and Dan Ariely and a documentary called, - (Dis)Honesty, the truth about lying - plus the book called - The Honest Truth About Dishonesty - (btw, would love to see him / them appear on an interview with Stefan Molyneux and Vox Day) ps. - for for those, unfamiliar with Vox Day, see podcasts 3714, 3573, 3522... etc.

Would you say that Astrophysicists, Planetary Biologists... etc. have a rather high cognitive capability and that they tend to be quite intrigued by questions such as you put forward?

Ouu,... Right. I see what you mean. That's all-right, I was just wondering why this post wasn't in the "Science/Technology" section given that it's about immunology, largely. I mean, it looks like an honest mistake from here, a small error in comprehension: It was said by Freedom4the: " Probably in the Philosophy forum. " - I guess he didn't mean to suggest the appropriate section but rather give a general answer, hence the word "forum"(like: where to advertise effectively -> on large bilboards?) I beg your pardon, who's:

488. Audio Lotion - Cosmetic Odyssey 489. Bonobo - Noctuary

Hi thinkers and alike, Ever tried to explain something that required higher cognitive functions,... to a wasted drunkard? To a person seeing lepricons somersaulting? To a sociali... In a mental state with several blockers (chemically in the brain) preventing certain parts from activation, there's little to no chance successfully transmitting sense, nevertheless the person's hardly capable to retain/have an accurate recollection afterwards, partly due to 'skewed' evaluation of reality. (That's why socialising/working while drinking 'heavily' is an empty interaction, there can't be quality there. Illusons, sure.) Has anyone had any success getting through to a person who's clearly about to begin / in the mode of: 'I'm repeating this sentence! I'm repeating this sentence! I'm repeating this sentence!...' Like a child having a tantrum, obsessively sticking to something, making a scene. If a person is unable to partake in being 'the driver' , the person supposedly in charge of its own body / actions is clearly enacting mindlessly the will of others, what could be the most constructive reaction to their behaviour? (with caring for our & their own wellbeing, universal standards...) Wouldn't it be simply sensible de-fanging them, making sure they can't do harm to others? (This, I don't have a firm stance on... but can, if they wish, to themselves?) (This, below, is probably not my own idea but can't recall from where/what pieces came from... would love to, bc then I could compare, evaluate more. If anyone remembered Stefan Molyneux or anyone substantial speaking to the topic, give me a shout, would you?) Throughout the evolution of mankind, the most stupid, wreckless, irresponsible individuals had a rough time surviving, if they did at all in-fact. They'd 'invite an unproportionally greater amount of bad luck' in their existence... As in: the most bloodthirsty, careless, greedy, bold, aggressive, disorganised, restless, psychopathic... etc. would end up torn to pieces by a saber tooth tiger, they'd be the most likely candidates for being stabbed in the back, they'd be discarded first during piece-time for continously causing trouble... etc. Especially in piece-time and more importantly if they had no unique-essential skill-set(s) making them indispensable during those piece-times. If we said that throughout the last few thousands of years there was a general trend for humanity becoming more 'domesticated' and was slowly, one-by-one removing mechanisms that in the many hundreds of thousands of years of its past served as 'natural discarding processes', it might be actually biology 'disagreeing and pushing back' against those intents on humanity's manifested new direction towards changing how it wanted to live as a society. Obviously I don't think biology has a conscience or that humanity knew / knows what it is doing as a whole but this thought came up as I was reading about how Ebola's latest mutations were documented, degree and type of infection rate, their implications... etc. Think of this. A chosen 'bug' is treated with a drug, effectively killing it off or making it lay dormant somewhere undisturbed, out of reach for sufficient re-propagation, it basically means no harm. (ie. - Erradicated, like Smallpox) That means, that the 'free-market' of pathogens don't need to compete with, don't interact with said 'bug' and can have their 'free-rein' until they're countered or the circumstances change for their detriment. Another scenario is, when a chosen 'bug' becomes Drug Resistant (MultiDR, TotalDR... etc) that'd had to have come about by either insufficient treatment or mutation (or a mixture of both). Meaning, something harmful was not countered with sufficient force and it got updated/manged to outgrow the current capacity for combating it. It still only exists in a small quantity but its potential for a not yet seen devastation grows by each failing to isolate it from the rest of the world. Not because it's impossible to find an antidote but because its potential for debilitating too many, too quickly before any meaningful progress could be made to research it, understand it at least, is so very unlikely. What if something, similar-in-structure was going on in the realm of morality interconnected with genome selection for Critical Thinking Resistance and what we are looking at currently is an age old 'mental-bug' getting out of hand, further aided by 'fascinated-witch-doctors' whom rather than calling for immediate and swiftly administered inoculation shots (do witch-doctors do that?! ) , choose to conduct experiments in the name of (bad) science on the larger population? This is no way to aim for conspiracy theories but I was wondering how come people are so susceptible to what best can be described as instigation, division, backing ridiculously silly ideas more viciously in more and more numbers (meanwhile, facts and reasoning, readily available, at the fingertips of everyone) Is this the rise of a 'mental-bug' that once got nearly eradicated but 'humanity stopped with the treatment at the first sign of relief'? How to counter an anti-reason epidemic, where those 'infected' show signs of Critical-Thinking-Resistance?

Hi @soozable What philosophy aspect does your thread have ?

Hi thinkers and alike, In short: Infowars's 'puff', gone from 'Screwtube'. Please refer to your preferred sources on the details. It would be nice if FDR could have a chat with Alex Jones, but it might mean stretching things too far... it's a crazy world we're living in, a mental fog ladden freakshow with seemingly endless supply of extras... I wish, other aspects than technology had evolved alongside the last hundred of years or so human history. Maybe we just got a lot closer to 'the great equaliser'.

486. Marco Beltrami & Marilyn Manson - Prologue & Main Title 487. Sergei Prokofiev - Battle On The Ice

484. Underworld - Shudder & King Of Snake 485. Michael Andrews - Manifested Living

Hi @soozable Welcome to posting on the board! Barnsley

482. Boum - Trenet 483. Fear Factory - Body Hammer

It's mostly just a political buzzword imo. The travel ban is what's most effective, not extreme vetting, because people can just lie.  If I understand you correctly, you're saying that vetting people by origin of country is more effective than origin of country + additional criteria (if I translated the expression you used "extreme vetting" close enough) ?  I'm not sure it really matters if they want a better life. Most political parties in europe make Sanders look like Rothbard. It doesn't matter to me if someone is ethnically european if they're going to bring their european politics with them and influence things here.  Is it possible that 'you're casting your net wider than preferable, catching more sea-life than what you'll actually want to trade' ? I mean, you do realise my op's aimed at less than 20% of Europeans. Hmm, or is it that what I'm thinking is not inclusive enough and my narrowing down was irrelevant you think? I do get and see eye to eye on the highlighted part: Ok, let me ask you this... When thinking of value encapsulated in a given quantity... Does Stefan Molyneux qualify as European if we filtered by origin(?) (+1 Would you say that Peter J. Watson's manifesting "european politics" too?) and that keeping the back door open for such individuals was an immense net gain, even if the costs were relatively higher? (because they'll be paying it off in several multitudes later, unlike the illegal immigrants currently unable to 'find' jobs) As a sidenote, I fully agree with you on the 'buzzword' thingy, although in this case it's actually representative of the majority of people who voted Trump into office(and he's using it accordingly). This is also interesting. Again, I would be curious to know, how have you concluded / verified it?  No way you think? Bummer. No probs. It sounds logical though to a certain degree. The way I think of it, the reason I was asking, because I know quite a few people who have large sums of money sunk into 'cashcows' / sluggish herency related assets... etc. and to transition from one place to another 'TAKING' with you your lifesavings is quite a challenge (well, depending on your preference for retention rate and stuff). There's not that many 'mobile asset holders' to 'cemented down' wealthy people, comparatively. Future telling is a great gamble, especially if you aren't used to it (Europe has always had less applicable free-market as a whole than say the USA, takes time to 'unlearn' state boundaries). (Obviously, I also know about the 'cream of the top' having left/in the process of leaving / transitioning, but as you know there are several levels below say, 200K a year, conservatively put.) Do you know anyone's personal story first-hand that had left ahead of time? The only way most europeans can be rehabilitated is by admitting the intrinsic failures and immorality of their ideologies. Short of that, the best thing that can happen is that their suffering serves as a warning to others. If people refuse to admit their causal role in what's happening in europe, then they're a lost cause and it will only hurt us by bringing them here.  That's a great point, I think. (see below if I got it) Similarly in parenting, or in education, if consequences are being kept outside of a bubble, the children/students will not be able to interact with reality when the bubble burst. For them, the otherwise neutral reality is most likely going to be an impossible impasse, for most it's going to be a knee-jerk reaction to seek out another 'protective bubble' during the shock of being unable to function/the world is 'functioning upside down', suddenly. (Is this that you'd meant?) Would you say that perhaps it was time the Europeans, except for the "few and far between" should be left to their own devices, and it's an illusion that 'helping' would help? (as in: " You are not to leave this building. America is closed. America closed." - Terminal, movie) Yes, indeed. A great working principle 'separating the chaff from the wheat': ° The most accurate predictor of future behaviour is past, relevant actions, behavior. That's it. <first heard it from Stefan Molyneux>

Hi @Pod A chiming in, no worries if you aren't into it... Does supporting Hollywood and its 'players' affects the continuation of malpractice enacted by those that have been revealed (and still not prosecuted, only just 'mockingly') to be 'rotting from the inside'? ps. - (There goes my mainstream media support, evaporating like 'flying salts', but at least I think I'm 'woke')

This sounds like a composite draft for a possible 'suggestion letter', were you interested to sending it, some might read/implement this or that... It's possible, no one thought of it... (other than that + basic empathy for your frustration, not sure what else to say... I'd rather not add to the thread's derailing.)

480. Howard Shore - Helm's Deep 481. Boards Of Canada - Left Side Drive /D'ammit ruling forces of NZ/

... later however ...recorded in a what looks (?) like 'free-speech' compliant Auckland, NZ library...