barn

Sounds like a good idea. For the sake of accuracy: @Chauncey Tinker -> said: "I don't think this divide between content creators and consumers is healthy, it creates an artificial divide and I think that a lot of good voices are not being heard. People might start commenting in their spare time and find they are receiving enough rewards to make a career out of it, so it could create an easy avenue for the best voices to rise to the surface. Their rewards could enable them to start new ventures and invest in projects that they could only have dreamed of doing otherwise. The number of content creators currently is very limited, I would like to se e thousands and thousands of people doing this sort of work (and it is work, believe me). " to which I responded by saying @barn "Well , there's a reason why content creators are generally more ambitious, conscientious, productive. The fact that many people are too lazy to put in the effort... If a commenter wanted to be heard on a larger scale, they should do what the content creators had done... most of the times that's not happening because once they realise the effort behind such outcomes, the weasel out. I completely agree with Mike Cernovich's breakdown of how success is usually only seen as a sudden streak of luck, planets being align... when it's in reality couldn't be f arther from the truth. (i.e. Katy Perry, Queen, J. K. Rowling, Game of Throne's writer... etc.) I believe, it's very important to have difficulties especially when starting out. I see aiding some groups of people detrimental to their learning of survival skills on the long run. What is it, Cambridge University now gives extra time for women on their exams?... How's that treating them with respect? I guess you get my analogy, where I'm going with this. Failing is good. Challenge builds character and teaches people about thei r dedication/abilities/strength-weaknesses. " - Eeeverybody and their dogs want to be heard, which is fine. People (including myself at times of course) think like, they're the main characters in the movie and want to be treated that way. Especially when the level of entry is free... Look at YT comments... Basically, I was trying to highlight that 'piggybacking' isn't fair (less preferable) , people who don't do the required effort to produce quality content shouldn't be incentivised to 'piggyback' more. Furthermore, a great deal of the cash being sucked up by subpar contributors, won't go to quality creators It would be analogous to promoting fat people to be the dietitians in hospitals because occasionally they have a few good ideas, repeat certain advice they read in a diet book, heard from a fit and healthy dietary consultant. (a broken clock is showing the right time twice a day, nevertheless people shouldn't treat them as true timekeeping devices, engage in promoting them as equals to actual working clocks) And I empathise with your struggles... Prioritisation. Does it ever happen to you that you are full but your 'eyes hunger for more'? Think of the devoted professional vs. good parent dichotomy. Either, or. Think of the companies that haven't yet narrowed down their niche focus group, or they just want to be a 'be all, good for all' type dream, illusory provider. Can't and won't work. The reason why prioritisation is so important, so that you are utilising your opportunity costs at near peek efficiency. Think of the illusion of human multitasking. That humans have a pool of resources that when they split into several groups, only their number grows but their total sum will never grow greater than the starting amount... (or the law of energy conservation... etc.)

Dude (if I may), is it okay if I recommend you changed the profile image that you have currently on? I think it would 'radiate' more along the lines of someone who isn't constantly for mocking... (my own little subjective observation, for sure choose whatever suits you.) I didn't expect that. Well, that's admirable. OK. Good for you! (of course I had tried to make solid counter arguments, pushback.) quoting... (it's this one, right?!) Speaking of a very specific individual, from a large group of people, I can agree it is fair to judge the way he delivered his own argu... 'stuff' with less than reasonable (by Western standards... if that still exists) tone, choice of words. 1 person. An individual. Can't be representative of a nation, right?! I'm quoting... , this one right?! Wait... I think I'm getting mixed up now. Is it that those arguments you're referring to are in this one? (it would have been better, had you quoted them...lemme give it a try <sigh> ) (focusing now on 2 & 3...) -> (2) Lack of energy requires more input than abundance as with the lack of natural heating sources, the effect must be created from scratch. (ie. and rational for counter: shadow, cave, artificial depression, water evaporation techniques... etc.) I'm a big fan of survival too. No, cooling is always easier, requires less calories to be burnt in the process. -> (3) Have you had to self-sustain... ah, forget it... What would you say about the biodiversity being more or less abundant in colder /warmer environments? If we are speaking of extremes, it's sort of an 'equaliser', where superior knowledge of the environment and weather will keep you alive, or see you perish abruptly if you can't extract + conserve. (in the extremes, conservation is king... anyhow, don't watch Bear Grylls, more like Ray Mears) In colder environments, you need energy to get going AND THEN scavenge for more, whereas in warmer climate you have a greater abundance... hence the preference for the world's population from the beginning of time to settle close to water + warmer climate. (look it up, I'm not inventing it.) According to the link you've provided, that's a fair assessment. However, I invite you to have a peek at James Dawer. (a mere 100yrs+ earlier... it's not uncommon for inventions acquiring formal recognition, way after they'd been put to practical use. Wouldn't be surprised if the Sumerians or the Chinese had a few proto- inventions but never got recorded... 'hu' knows... anyhow.) I used to giggle slightly when Stefan Molyneux would speak of the bone-chilling cold out in the 'unclaimed' lands... Have you ever tried to make fire in sub- sub- sub- zero temperatures with freezing cold firewood? (I highly doubt it... I have. It's no small feat. Usually, you'd keep some firewood within the living area for later, not because of comfort, but because of necessity.) Sure. Mongolia still has nomads roaming around with very strict rules and rituals around efficient energy use, shedding the unnecessary stress of comfort and ease. A forum member might be able to tell you much more about it than my currently limited knowledge of the nomads allow for. A very structured and rule driven lifestyle that is, I know that much for sure. No laziness allowed. Or it's allowed but then you're left behind to perish... no hesitation there. True. If you can melt it. Eating snow/ice is no good survival strategy, speeds up hypothermia and frostbite. Very true. Can you also remember/find instances with context for type of cultures? (because they are ain't no moderate OR WARM -climate dwellers usually, as my memory goes)

'Good catch'! Yes. I too think it does. (Eventhough, I could have asserted it with multiple erroneous 'if/then'-s.) Would you say 'living down in memory lane' is part of linearity?

449. Massive Attack - Future Proof 450. Yoko Kanno - I Can't Be Cool

... hi @mgggb (+1...there's aaaalways a +1) ...if you cared to take a look, read the back and forth, I'd appreciate your input/feedback on it. (I think it is rather pertinent.) / (tl;dr, meh, no worries)

I see. A subjective assertion. (nothing wrong with that, I was hoping it was something else... sorry, don't know what to say about it.)

Or take a drink every time he says: "Take a drink in the name of philosophy!"

Yes, 'walk the walk vs. talk the...' sure. And I know ppl respond to (+/-) incentives. How about 'thanks/no thanks' based rep system where in one sentence the donator would have to say a few words of the 'why'? (no links, images, yes to templates, integrated translator)

Ah, ok... gotcha Agreed. May I suggest it should be a 'scientific method based' term with an example for 'how to' and proofs/refs. , all whom that wish to post must agree to it prior... or something similar? (I'm sure, for the most of us here, it'll be just a friendly reminder, a reassuring guideline & clear boundary from the get go... as you may suspect it'll certainly attract less preferable standards too once it takes off, see my suggestion as an insurance type 'caveat', 'forward thinking'. ... Hold on, it does sound almost exactly how this forum operates, or at least what my own perception of it is, in general terms. Anyway, you get me.) This, I'm not sure about. It doesn't mean it can't be a great addition, only my understanding of it limited and have doubts. a. Shouldn't the fact that a topic evolves and people are happy about it, chime back with gratitude should be enough on its own? b. I understand the opposite arguments I believe... , just as greed or laziness can be fantastic motivators (pulley, automatisation... etc.) , reputation can be 'overdosed' too, falsely (not for the good reasons) inflated, only to observe those that were once 'cutting edge', slowly draw back and fade... because of relatively lessened 'rain of rep. droplets'. Like I said, probably I don't fully understand the proper mechanisms in reputation systems c. My favourite, and I quote: "It takes two numbers to measure your own ass, but only one to measure my kid's future." Interstellar, 'Cooper', Mathew McMemmmecConaughey caveat: I'd be wrong to assume the parallel if people in general saw rep. numbers not very 'telling' and weighed it less importantly than how they in general do, now-a-days. (besides, I might be comparing inaccurately my small pool of experiences, perhaps even projecting... dunno.)

Hi @mgggb Good to see you back! (not sure about the double post but I might be just nitpicking...) I like the idea, the 'compartmentalised' approach to research in general (I'm understanding you right?!) I was wondering,... with the multiplicity of participants (as in:arbitrars of value), how's accuracy not being affected negatively, get watered down? Is it like, all participants must adhere to a common principle and demonstrate proof for keeping to it... for example?

I'm so sorry, what an amateur mistake of me having mis-interpreted it as only your Mum having passed away... My apologies for that oversight on my part, sorry. I should read you more carefully. Thanks for hashing it out. I think you can identify what I was hoping to point out to you. (highlighted words, read together) Not sure if you are 'seeing' it or why my view of it is so different... dunno. I agree, thought similarly. (not that it means anything) Ouu... it would be so good (and kind of you) if you could narrow down the time frame it was mentioned... context 'n all, you know... (otherwise I would have to seek for it manually myself to better understand the point you're making here. Could you help me find the part?)

All-right, word taken. Ouch. (Oh dear, this is a hard one to ask...sorry, but I think I should ask it even if it's difficult, even if I think I can empathise to a certain degree & have sympathy for you and your families... as much as from my side it is possible.) Sorry, doesn't that mean (logically following), that others in his mind must have been at a lower priority when he decided to introduce that 'instability' into the family dynamics? That it was worth it for him to place others in contact with the possibility of danger as his own expected reward was/is still more important for him? Has anyone pointed it out to him, that he's clearly not fixing things for the people in the family? (based on the developments, majority of the family in disagreement with him)

If you don't mind me asking: How long have you known her? Have you ever met in person? Hi @CygniAustralis (I felt it necessary to share some of the thoughts that came up while reading, I'm aiming to clarifying things, at times pushing back, with examples... Though, it's all for the sake of constructivity and hopefully my views will be a benefit... maybe you'll choose to re-examine stuff, point out new things for me... hopefully.) "1). Women cannot experience male circumcision, just like men cannot experience birth, and so her views and perspective must always be seen within the context of there being a wall between her and you in terms of absolute understanding." Not sure if I can process this. What is "absolute understanding"? Is it that: Likewise, FGM (female genital mutilation) can't be understood neither sufficiently by men, for what it is -> physical abuse / forced mutilation, since it ISN'T something that men can experience? Are you saying here: Authority from empiricism, being one of the genders? As in: Even if something could be objectively examined (independently what gender the observer was) , still it's better to 'believe'/defer to the word of a women about 'women things' because she's a female and the other gender (male) should just straight defer to females therefore? Maybe I'm not getting what you were going for but it looked highly inaccurate. (The only thing I can imagine here is the exact & subjective experience being somewhat untransferable, though could be described and it doesn't change morality in the slightest, right?!) What does "truly - understanding" means according to you here ? If it is about empathy, like you wrote it "To empathize with a person is to truly understand the feelings and experiences of another." That would mean, reasoning with someone can't be done without empathy. To evaluate truth can't be done objectively, that facts are subjective ... That's... not accurate. (to put it mildly) ie. - If I was in a car accident and I were to sue the culprit, the judges can't dismiss my claim on the basis of them not having been in the accident with me, or not being able to understand what I'm feeling for being crippled as a result, themselves never having experienced an accident... No. There's evidence of wrongdoing, there's facts like 'intact before', 'maimed afterwards as a result of the accident' and even if the judges don't sympathise with me, their decision must mirror what's morally right & wrong regardless. Responsibilities must acrew or the arbitration is benefiting someone unfairly... As in: In the case of FGM or male circumcision, that's like saying: it's acceptable to abuse a newborn, to take away from it something that none has the right to do so because self-ownership, but we won't punish those that willfully break that. Evil stuff. I think you are right in pointing out that empathy and sympathy shouldn't be mixed. (°Empathy°: {mirror neurons,} the ability to process, to place ourselves in one's situation and be able to have an approximation, a rather accurate description of an emotional experience, a description for what might have been the other person feeling. Doesn't necessarily lead to sympathy, highly dependent on early parenting. Empathy is a value that only grows with more understanding, information, doesn't diminish. '-> + possible, -> - not possible' ) (°Sympathy°: {liking someone, entirely subjective}, an emotional reaction in us, making us feel drawn to, protective, supportive for someone. Can be present without empathy, can change with additional information to its contrary. '+ <-> -' possible, they are states) I believe you are also correct when you say: "... you should not take her lack of outrage as a lack of moral objection to the practice." However if she demonstrated sufficient understanding (case made, taken through it, checking for absorbing meanings... etc.) and then chosen to see it still as a "medical decision"... that's... that's cooooold, a towering-huge-red-flag stuff! (a person lacking the ability to empathy, proper, or maybe protecting others who should be exposed instead... etc.) A warning sign (in the present and for the future) that shouldn't be taken lightly as it reveals a person's attribute for preferring someone innocent suffered and the culprits being let off, their horrendous act(s) being explained away...despicable stuff, (very) not good. Annnd so "You cannot expect her to understand the emotional turmoil male circumcision had on you..." You're right again. People don't have to (it's not an obligation to) demonstrate sympathy for having suffered a heinous act. Although, what does it mean if they don't show sympathy, being in possession of the information and arguments? (that their cognitive capabilities are underdeveloped, that their moral compass is off/non-existent?) (... I mean, of course 'each to its own ability', but shouldn't it be reasonable to expect a virtuous and sane person to come to the same conclusions about FGM or male circumcision after having presented with just the basics as: force is bad-> breaching self-ownership is bad -> mutilation is force = bad, especially since it's done to the most defenseless being with un-repairable and forever lasting negative consequences... the category of 'vile' , 'satanic' )

447. BADBADNOTGOOD - Since You Asked Kindly 448. Michael Jackson - Man In The Mirror

Faith needs no proofs. You wanna believe, do it. Eventhough I have come to the conclusion of : 'the existence of a God/Gods would be a self-contradiction' , I have faith in things I don't yet acquired proof for, nor do I feel /think the need to... I know I'm 'reasonably biased' , so what. For me, it's amplified hope, suspended doubt as I had been wrong before regarding my capabilities. Within reasonable boundaries, it's a fair ask of myself to push my own limits until they settle and teach me more of this 'reality thing' . On the other hand, let us use the appropriate tools for the right set of challenges. (As in: science, biology as an extension can't grasp morals, it's specifically designed for not meddling in matters of the metaphysical, the mind's eye... etc.) There's a plethora of inanimate, yet highly complex systems where fascinating new properties emerge from the aggregate of many 'simple' parts. i.e. weather systems, 'evolution' of stars...etc. Intelligence and awareness (not self-awareness) are two different types of things though... Take a lake for example. If you scoop out a bucket of water at one point of it, it doesn't get refilled there because 'the lake is aware' of the missing amount of water there. The lake isn't 'intelligent enough to know' what you did with the bucket at that specific location. The body isn't 'aware of its state', nevertheless it has mechanisms in place capable to self-sustaining with tandem of the mind. But it would be a false conclusion to draw, that which is capable of self-sustaining must possess a mind. It's a special property for us humans to be able to : Compare proposed actions to ideal standards and choose a desired action. Something that hasn't been demonstrated to be in possession of anything but by humans. One of the biggest hurdle btw for AIs is that it can't be programmed, completely unique to human brains...so far. As of intelligent and aware beings out there?... sure, most likely yes. Any proof? I have seen none (credible) . Has this been a sort of an answer you were looking for?

Of course, I'm only just going in general terms, specific situations might be different. I think I sort of understand... Deep, important topics should be discussed 'pronto' but when both parties are able to pay attention and be open to listening. (Though I found it rare when someone actually follows up on their promise and does their research beforehand... if they do, massive respect. If they don't, that's not good... that's soft manipulation, avoidance, lack of demonstrating respect.) I don't see anything wrong with 'testing' (as in: seeing one for who they really are). Why wouldn't you walk away had she not wanted to be open to discussing things in an honest, reason based setup? I fully agree with the notion of life in its most part being about saying mostly no, while sifting through what's available with a clear image of what is that one's looking for, those things that are REALLY valuable. Let us waste no unnecessary time in incompatible value sets with those that are choosing to stay where they are, what and how they think is irreconcilable because of the different principles for foundations. No hard feelings, life's too short for 'all that jazz', instead choose those that ARE 'your tribe'. This is interesting, I think of it very differently. How about this : "Relationships with the wrong people are so hard ." -> (because they don't want to or avoid understanding, want completely different things) Whereas : "Relationships with the right people are so easy ." -> (because they are joy to be around and always easy to act and expect curious, constructive attitude)

Hi @Flip What do you think about the following : Women in general are more aware of social dynamics, are threading much more carefully when it comes to upsetting others, bringing about counter opinions, they use and understand social austerity much more extensively than men. (diplomacy) I'm not sure why she hasn't got the full picture, clearly circumcision isn't just within "medical decisions" category but clearly belongs in the 'abuse' (opposite to what 'healing, care' would be). I'd definitely ask her intelligently and with pure curiosity why is she thinking what she does, it could be that the main obstacle for her full admission is to be found within her history & relationship with her parents, their past decisions... and maybe that could rock the boat, that's why she's so cautious. Could be, could be not. RTR, man. It's perfectly fine and even constructive to try to understand the roots of her thinking, especially when she arrives to her own conclusions. (It looks like to me, you don't really know her as of yet. Being cautious is wise)

445. Butti 49 - Spriritual Rotations 446. Nawang Khechong - Ocean Of Wisdom

'Da fu... ' I laughed until I cried... and some more 'seriously hilarious' stuff. Sorrow TV - r/tumblr Top Posts of All Time

I like this argumentation because it simplifies to 'winners' vs. 'loosers' (... if I'm following properly) whereas there IS a 'precipice' and it's clear who makes it vs. who doesn't. (graduations are debatable but the boundaries are clear) Same as in: playing tennis does not allow for playing baseball, nor 'Ulama'. I mean you can but then you've clearly lost all reputation and as a consequence morality for that matter... Ulama

Hi there, First off, your knowledge of your family definitely trumps mine, I'm operating from a different perspective totally so it's not a surprise to me if you'll correct me on things... I even embrace it, feel free to present any updates, addition. From my read (here + previous post) , I can see two things here: A form of passivity as for your Dad's agency, or lack of... (this is btw the meat of my conundrum) and the high probability of his dependency in the new relationship. If what I'm seeing is most likely accurate, why do you think He has chosen a woman whom he'd be acting as such? (As in: What's in it for him, the 'benefit' that outweighs other types of women more, so he'd settled with her?) The second is, had he been an assertive type of a person with your mother (rest in peace) or had he more often than not deferred to her will as your memories go? (As in: a really easy-going personality, conflict avoidant, seldom 'goes against the grain', feels really bad if falls short on outside expectations?) So, this is a bit off topic but not that much I could completely discard it... Let's just say I was close to initiating a relationship with someone who'd done some 'pretty' hair-raising stuff before and the only upside about it was the way it was revealed to me, plus the evident mutual attraction... nevertheless, in order to staying safe, I decided against it (I observed, cracked my head hard and realised... lack of active pursuit in coming to terms with the depths of its implications on the person's part, I realised after a while, was missing in its desirable proportions for the person... even so, it was a challenge as my attraction was competing against my seeking for 'seeing the real person'... if you get my meaning. I never repented. Quite the opposite.) This is particularly why I'm confidently willing to go out on a limb and say... Your Dad went into the relationship with the knowledge of of a huge, visible 'red flag'. Is that correct?

Sorry, that's not true. (Empirically supported too, I had eluded to when "the majority of the world's...") Stefan Molyneux has mentioned it too at Q3/4143 (last third), in the last call-in show. All-right. I'm willing to listen to your proofs and arguments for that. (with standard of disproof too, please) Would you say that the growing season is shorter or longer in a colder environment? Additionally, in which environment would the population be required to possess the skill of 'deferral of gratification' (I'd personally go with the colder climate due to longer winters... etc. but I'm open to reconsidering if you have better evidence.)

443. Boards Of Canada - In A Beautiful Place Out In The Country 444. Nostalgia 77 - Steps To The Sun /very nice/

So, I saw this (below) the other day and thought it was pertintent in this thread, especially for Q1...

This is how at Oxford, with a little tweaking the otherwise jam-packed with unknown elements formula gets you a result 'proving', we are alone in the universe... Burrarum!