ShindouHikaru

I finally understand why people hate this show. I just got why it’s not more popular (despite its immense value). This shit completely sets you at odds with society. I just fully realized this after years of listening…. Maybe I’m socially retarded… are we all socially retarded? Readers, listeners, are you socially retarded? I listened initially and remained listening as a result of curiosity and since my teachers told me that critical thought was an important quality. Apparently it was just a prank. How do you cope with the isolation? With the power of hindsight, if you could go back in time and prevent yourself from seeing the abnormalities of the society in which you reside, would you? Why set yourself at odds with society to this autistic degree?

Didn't misread, my post wasn't directed at you. This is a public forum and this specific thread is in relation to willpower. It will be viewed by dozens who may be having difficulties with said topic. Thus, a practical exercise might be helpful. Resource sharing.

"You could try the two-week posture experiment to improve your own willpower, or you could try other The key is to concentrate on changing a habitual behavior. One simple way to start is by using a different hand for routine tasks. Many habits are linked to your dominant hand. Right-handed people, in particular, tend to use their right hands for all sorts of things without giving the matter the slightest thought. Making yourself switch to your left hand is thus an exercise in self-control. You can resolve to use your left hand instead of your habitual right hand for brushing your teeth, using a computer mouse, opening doors, or lifting a cup to your lips. If it seems too onerous to do this all day, try it for a set period. Some research studies have assigned people to switch hands between eight A.M. and eight P.M. This lets people revert to their familiar habits in the evening, when they are already physically tired and mentally depleted from the day’s activities". "Parents can guide them through the kind of willpower-strengthening exercises we’ve discussed earlier, like taking care to sit up straight, to always speak grammatically, to avoid starting sentences with “I,” and to never say “yeah” for “yes.” Anything that forces children to exercise their self-control muscle can be helpful: taking music lessons, memorizing poems, saying prayers, minding their table manners, avoiding the use of profanity, writing thank-you notes". Excerpts from, Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength - Roy F. Baumeister, John Tierney

Lool, my bad. Didn't even notice that. Wonder how it got there.... considering I quoted the raptor. I fully intend to. <3 Touya X Shindou <3

You didn't say what? You didn't say, "Note: he copied and pasted a conversation......."? Confused. Are you sure that he copied pasta? Because he did suggest further that I was a bot.

Are you baiting? You're either dumb or an elaborate troll. Clearly I'm clearly not a scripted bot, and of course you can't respond to my post, I left no openings because I'm a fan of science and logic, as opposed to emotionally driven propaganda. Debate what? You've said nothing worthy of debating. Everything you posted is opinion. Nothing factual, nothing scientific, strictly opinion. Easily refutable as I have done. "I've met with *actual* humans on this forum so I know who you are when you post. Go on, anything you want to say. I've reported the above post as it is a scripted bot". This feels like bait. It would be far too depressing to imagine that these are your actual opinions. Please respond and tell me if you're baiting or not. Don't mind if I do. I anticipated that this would be your reaction. Why? Because you're not following the scientific method. You're not reasoning from first principles. There isn't a single link in your full post, therefore you're not driven by logic but by emotions. And of course you will disregard the science presented, have your cognitive dissonance kick in and trot out your emotionally driven propaganda. All the while claiming that, "Funny how I can say this type of thing again and again on these forums, and the rest of you have no rebuttal, you just run away because you don't know what to say". Such is a human, pitiful.

You will never be an individual who wasn't abused. The dysfunction that surrounded you during your critical brain development will never be erased. The trauma will remain in your unconscious. The dysfunctional habits you developed during this time will be deep in your basal ganglia, just waiting for stressors to draw them back out. Sure, you can mitigate the effects of the trauma experienced by adopted children, and of course they're not doomed to failure. But they will never be a child who wasn't abused. You could get shot in the belly. And as a result of this develop a multitude of negative health effects. Spending months (potentially years) in rehabilitation. And during this time, you learnt a lot about philosophy, about yourself, introspect deeply, became wise, gained a lot of virtues, etc,etc. Sure, sure these are great benefits, but you will always have those subsequent negative health consequences. They will never go away and will always be a part of you. As in, if you could choose to pour your resources into a child, why in the holy fuck would you choose lower grade specimen relative to your own genetic code? Why would you jump into a total unknown, and choose someone who would never be an equal to your own child in terms of future virtue, empathy, compassion, problem solving capacities, self soothing mechanisms, etc,etc,etc Since your biological child will have been peacefully parented from the beginning and as such won't be given such a gargantuan led weight around their neck. A 90% brain development led weight.

As far as this topic is concerned, your post is the only hateful one I've seen. For the individuals focusing on the reality of group IQ differences in this forum, I have yet to sense an inkling of "hate", "intolerance" or "spite". You wouldn't happen to be psychologically projecting, would you? And do forgive my insolent tone. I'm simply doing it to reflect the mirror of spite, hate and intolerance on your side ^.^ Interesting, in order to prove your assertion you turn to an analogy as opposed to science. Very interesting. Quote, "Ten years ago, a meta-analysis that examined the results from 26 imaging studies concluded that the correlation between IQ and brain volume is consistently in the 0.3-0.4 range". "Since it would be against human nature to admit defeat, scientists have crafted a third measure of brain size called the encephalization quotient, which is the ratio of actual brain mass relative to the predicted brain mass for an animal’s size (based off the assumption that larger animals require slightly less brain matter relative to their size compared to very small animals). By this metric, at least, humans come out on top, with an EQ of 7.5 far surpassing the dolphin’s 5.3 and the mouse’s measly 0.5.". https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter There is a 0.3-0.4 correlation between brain size and IQ. And as far as brain size relative to body mass is concerned, Humans are at the top. Meaning we've evolved to prioritize the development of the volume of the brain. More so than any other animal. Dear Philociraptor, please use science to validate your claims. As opposed to a half baked, monotonous analogy. Please research before opening your filthy mouth ^.^ As though natural selection would desire such an inefficient model. Laughable. In my experience individuals that accuse others of having no common sense suffer heavily from the Dunning Kruger effect. Have very little ability to suppress their underlying emotional triggers, and of course dogmatically arrive at a conclusion and justify this emotional conclusion with an ex post facto justification. How can it possibly be stupid for a warm blooded mammal to desire to maximize resource acquisition while expending the least amount of energy as possible? This doesn't sound very stupid... this line of reasoning seem to be in line with the nature of animals. Perhaps lazy, but certainly not stupid. Dear Philociraptor, why do you make these stupid assertions? It's rather unsightly. Hmm, and you now claim that theft isn't "actual" evil. Why do you continue to make such stupid statements? You wouldn't happen to be the grand son of McArthur Wheeler, would you? Ahh, and of course you claim that IQ is bs, which of course isn't an argument. Of course this isn't a proof of the invalidity of IQ, but McArthur Wheeler the third would deem it so. You use the term "racism" and don't expand any further. Perhaps you're new to debating. Or perhaps your grand father influenced you quite a bit. And of course the spawn McArthur would invoke Godwins law. Equating the scientifically validated understanding of IQ with Nazi's and sterilizations. In this thread you're the only one to invoke this law, you should feel honored. Truly, a magnificent specimen.... This is sarcasm dear Wheeler.... no need to get excited. McArthur, have you ever considered the possibility that we simply choose not to read your posts due to it's tiresome length? I've never encountered you on this forum but all of this is rather easy to rebut. You haven't disproven the century+ scientific data in relation to IQ. You simply invoked a simpleton's analogy and declared victory. I promise McArthur, we don't need to make you appear to be of the lower primate classes. You're doing such a splendid job that our contribution is truly superfluous. Ohh McArthur, why is it wrong to point out that there are group differences in IQ? A lot can be predicted through an analysis of IQ. Criminality, economic success, life expectancies etc,etc. Do tell my dear Ape..... I mean, McArthur, why is the supposedly wrong data on IQ so predicative of so many things? Is it a coincidence that there are no below 90IQ nations that have a very high human development index? So many coincidences, truly a mystery.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index "A survey of more than 2,000 people living in the UK has found that those with a higher IQ are more likely to live a longer life" https://www.sciencealert.com/smart-people-are-significantly-more-likely-to-live-longer-lives-study-finds Japan Avg IQ: 105. Japan Homicide rate: 0.31 per 100,000 inhabitants El Salvador Avg IQ: 80 El Salvador Homicide rate: 108.64 per 100,000 inhabitants. South Korea Avg IQ: 106. South Korea Homicide rate: 0.74 per 100,000 inhabitants. Jamaica Avg IQ: 71. Jamaica Homicide rate: 43.21 per 100,000 inhabitants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country Be careful what you wish for, when Whites left Detroit it went from being the crown Jewel of America, the Motor city to being a shit hole. Without a high IQ populous, carnage ensues. Hence why the safest places to live in America are also the places in which the population is dominated by Whites and Asians. Aka 100 and 104-106 IQ populi. Safest city in America? Irvine California Demographics? 100 IQ White: 65.2% 104 - 106 IQAsian: 32.3% 85 IQ Black: 1.8% 87 IQ Hispanic: 7.4% https://www.infoplease.com/us/california/demographic-statistics-84 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate You're rather arrogant for a simpleton McArthur Wheeler the Third. It may be best if you didn't stick around. And once more, do forgive my insolent tone and vulgarities. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate

Wait a minute, you can't be a master of IQ or attractiveness. These are things you're born with. Genetic lottery =/= mastery. No wonder this statement looked weird to me. Sure you can master entertainment but the other 2... Mastery: possession or display of great skill or technique

True, I misconstrued your statement. Makes sense. I equated "masters" to "best".

I don't think OP wants biological children. And when did I suggest that a child who was traumatized is doomed to become a complete failure? Strawman detected. I'm assuming this is all directed towards me btw

Then these children will most likely be fine. Assuming they don't get royally fucked up by their following caregivers, since 90% of their brain development already occurred, they'll be A-ok. Sure, sure. But are you infertile? An infertile couple would prefer their offspring but have to defer their first choice since it isn't a possibility. I'm not necessarily against adoption. I just dislike your personal motives for it. Almost like you're sacrificing yourself to an altar that will barely make a ripple in the reality that the vast majority of children are abused. Why sacrifice your genetic lineage? Millions of years of evolution went into producing you, why eliminate it simply because children are abused in the world? Who would have a greater positive impact on the world. Person A: peacefully parented from the beginning of their life, having a higher verbal IQ and able to passionately argue in favor of peaceful parenting. Person B: Heavily traumatized, will never be on the level of a child who never experienced said trauma, your actions will never be able to reverse said trauma and will have little affect on his/her future development as 90% of their brain development has already occurred.

90% of the brain's development ends at the age of 5. Children who have been put up for adoption most likely come from very dysfunctional households. Do you have the ability to reverse the course of said dysfunction? Do you have the ability to reverse the damage that has already been done? Can you save every child my dear altruist? Can you raise every unfortunate child? Why would you eliminate your own genetics for the sake of some abstract ideal? Why contribute to the further dysgenics of the species?

Most likely genes. Considering that you won't be able to sort through the genetic material of the individuals you would be adoption. Also, why wouldn't you want your own genes to proliferate? It's rather anti evolution to pour your own resources into another's child.

How exactly can you prove these two things?

This is a huge topic bro. Not even sure where to begin or where one can begin. I read this entire thing and didn't see a lick of introspection. Might want to start there. Some questions to ask yourself. Why are you attracted to this extremely dysfunctional woman? Why did you think that it was a good idea to go to a prostitute? What have you learnt about your internal motivations? What is your relationship with your parents like? Are there any parallels between your parent's relationship with each other and the relationship you had with this woman? 1. If I were a woman and I heard all of this, I'd be quite alarmed. And if you present yourself as not knowing why you thought it was a good idea to go for a prostitute, I'd run immediately. So it would probably be a good idea to not focus on how you could tell her and focus on figuring out why you did it. 2. I wouldn't trust time to clear this up. You were and are pursuing this woman. Meaning of all the women that you could potentially pursue, you've chosen her. So if you ditched her, then you'd probably end up with someone similar because you're clearly attracted to her. This is a pretty good point too. And I think it's a badge of honor that this person doesn't find you attractive. Clearly you're not dysfunctional enough for her. Godspeed.

Yup, 100% this guy is paid off. 1:16:00 He just propagated that debunked 17 intelligence agencies that suggest that Russia hacked the election. He also stated that the Russians hacked Podesta’s email. Even though it’s been confirmed that his emails were leaked through a standard email phishing scheme. This podcast was published in July 18, and the NYT retracted the 17 intelligence agencies fake news story on June 30th. And the John Podesta Phishing scam has been well known since 2016. And at 1:17:00 he states that Russia hacked into the democrat’s database. Even though Wikileaks already confirmed that Seth Rich was the leaker and that there was no Russia DNC hack. 100% he is paid off. Or suffering heavily from Trump derangement syndrome.

“But Scott, the emphasis on him successfully persuading doesn’t deal with the fact that what he would be persuading someone towards or the country toward may not be a good thing. Ok, so for instance I think he is someone who is so morbidly selfish, then again this is not me with a crystal ball, this is me just looking at how he’s lived his life, the kinds of things he’s done, the kinds of things he says about himself, he’s put himself first to such a pathological degree that I think he’s capable of committing treason or something like treason without even noticing it. Because there is no sense at all that he has the public good in mind when he’s acting, so the fact that he’s a good persuader even if I were to grant you that, and there’s one thing that I want to flag here that you just said that I think is manifestly not true which is that none of his lies have harmed our society. I think that all of his lies have harmed our society. I think the fact that we have a president who lies and everyone knows it and no one can really trust what he has said until the facts come out, I think that has done immense harm to the world frankly”. -Sam Harris He says this at around the 43-45 minute mark and like, none of it is an argument. I know very little about Sam Harris but isn’t he supposed to be an intellectual? Like, a smart person? This is pure sophistry, wtf is this?? He claims that Trump is morbidly selfish, and yet Trump put his reputation on the line, wore bullet proof vests, received thousands of death threats when he didn’t have to. He hired tens of thousands of people, helping them put food on their tables. How is any of this selfish? “this is me just looking at how he’s lived his life, the kinds of things he’s done, the kinds of things he says about himself, he’s put himself first to such a pathological degree that I think he’s capable of committing treason or something like treason without even noticing it”. Like, none of this is a fucking argument! “The kinds of things he says about himself” isn’t a fucking argument. And at the 45 min mark his metric as to how the end times are upon us, brought on by Trump is that lots of people are politically engaged and talking about politics! In other words, he believes that if the masses were ignorant and hated political engagement, then the world would be a wonderful place. Can anyone tell me what his views on Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are? What is his political affiliation? Has he been paid off? Why is he popular? He’s a filthy fucking sophist.

Interesting, you didn't call it, "intellectual property" in this statement but you elevated it to the level of a physical property, like your person or your car. Interesting trick. Fail, it is not the theoretical extremity of a law, it is the reality of the nature of laws. The nature of a law in a statist society is, if you do not conform, you will die. Join or die. The founding fathers were statists as well. Libertarians are still statists. Minarchists are still statists. If you don't pay your taxes, and if you choose to defend yourself, you will be killed. If you steal someone's car, and if you try to evade the police, and if you try defending yourself from the police with a gun (hence not joining/conforming), you will killed. I will repeat this again, the nature of a law is an opinion with a gun. Therefore, if you apply this reality to the property of a digital song (I'll elevate intellectual property to property in this example as you're fond of doing), then the property of a digital song must be PROTECTED. Meaning, if X individual illegally downloads a song, and refuses to delete it, and runs away from the police and chooses to defend themselves with a gun, then it is morally permissible to kill them in order to protect the property of the digital song. This is the logical conclusion of your rationale. It is not abstract, it is the reality. It is not a red herring, it is the logical conclusion. In the realm of philosophy we deal with PRINCIPLES. We do not deal with minutiae, the principles are all that matter. The principle known as, "protection of property", extended to a digital song would mean that lethal force would be morally permissible to protect said property. This is the logical conclusion of your rationale. Do you understand any of this? I'd like to ask you again, are you ok with using lethal force to protect the property that is a digital song? If the answer to this is no, that's ridiculous, then you're against the concept of "intellectual property" and the conclusion hence forth is that you do not believe that it exists since you're not willing to protect that property with lethal force (as is morally permissible when confronted with a robber or someone threatening to murder you - defending the property of the self). If you say that it's not ridiculous, that lethal force should be used to protect the property that is Kanye's digital song, then you're ok and think its morally just to defend the property of Kanye West song by shooting the robber since he won't hand over his mp3 player. Which of these 2 logical conclusions are you on the side on? I never suggested such a thing. 2+2 is still 4 and yet it has no tangible reality, but still exists as a concept. I'm simply stating that your analogy is nowhere near parallel because Kanye West's house has a physical reality and Kanye West's music has no physical reality. Hence your analogy was disgustingly bad. As in, try again. Once again, nowhere near parallel. Cars have a tangible reality, a my little pony movie does not. There is no initiation of force for a 7 year old downloading a my little pony movie, there is an initiation of force in stealing someone's car. Once again, you fail. Find something that's parallel. I promise you your points are very easy to understand, I've misunderstood nothing. You are not a philosopher, you're not talking about philosophy, you're not talking about principles. Your proof of the existence of intellectual property is the paradigm presented by a statist world. The foundation of your entire argument is the following: JoinOrDie 2017: hyuck, hyuck, "refuse to admit the fact that information is property...... then there's the fact that copyrighted material, also known as legally protected intellectual property, literally surrounds you everyday, in all media, in all of its physical and digital manifestations", hyuck hyuck JoinOrDie 2017: hyuck, hyuck, well, there are already laws that state intellectual property exists, is moral and should be protected therefore it exists, is moral and should be protected, it's a fact, hyuck, hyuck JoinOrDie 1820: hyuck, hyuck, Well, there are already laws that state that slavery exists , is moral and should be protected therefore it exists, is moral and should be protected, it's a fact, hyuck, hyuck JoinOrDie 1972: hyuck, hyuck, well there are already laws that state that conscription exists, is moral and should be protected, therefore it exists, is moral and should be protected, it's a fact, hyuck, hyuck JoinOrDie ∞: hyuck, hyuck, this politician and the government said that X exists, is moral, and should protected, therefore it exists, is moral and should be protected. Don't ya know, its a fact! Hyuck, hyuck JoinOrDie ∞: S I M P L E T O N You have an excellent "thought" process (this is sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell).

I'm not sure how long you've been listening to this show for but, "ridiculous scenarios", ISN'T AN ARGUMENT! Oh boy, oh geez, he said “ridiculous”, so I guess he wins. Fuck...... why didn’t I think of that? Detail to me what makes my scenarios ridiculous, detail why it’s deserving derision or mockery. A statist law is an opinion with a gun. The opinion of, “information is property” is enforced at the point of a gun. Scenario A A teenager downloads a Kanye West song. The authorities find out and come to his home, demanding that he should be jailed for his federal crime. The teenager refuses to come with the police and fights back. He grabs a gun to defend himself, he is shot by the police. The teenager is killed. The cops then go to his ipod, delete the song and confiscate his computer. This is what a law is. Is this sequence of events what you call justified? They were defending Kanye’s property after all so according to you these actions must be justified. Scenario B X individual breaks into Kanye West’s house, Kanye calls the cops, the cops find the robber and shoot him. The robber is killed. Are both of these scenarios equal? Yes or no? Because it is morally just for humans to protect their property. And lethal force can be used to defend one’s property. So is scenario A equal to scenario B? Can the police use lethal force to protect Kanye West's digital informational property? Based on your logic, the cop in scenario A has the right to shoot the teenager for stealing Kanye’s song by downloading it online without Kanye's permission. Kanye's music has no physical reality. Kanye's house has a physical reality. This is nowhere near parallel, try again. JoinOrDie: RIDICULOUS!! Haha, I win! I just rekt your argument SCRUB! JoinOrDie sounds like a statist larper. Are you larping as a statist? "Join or die" is the anthem of the state. Are you an elaborate troll?

Why is it irrelevant? I'm not strictly referring to legality. OP asked the question, "can information be property". Not, "is it legal for information to be property". Hopefully you don't bring the statist paradigm to every query you engage in. When trying to create a system of law, one question that has to be answered is, "is it sustainable". Is it sustainable to throw millions of people under the age of 18 in a jail for downloading content? Should a 7 year old be locked behind bars for downloading a My little pony movie? My answer to this is NO, information isn't property. Using the statist paradigm, can you honestly elevate downloading a kanye west song to a state in which shooting the individual in question can be justified if said individual refused to comply with the enforcers? If someone creates a work of art, and an entrepreneur 3d prints said painting, and throws it on their wall, should they be thrown in the penitentiary? Well so far the statists say no, as they themselves understand that such a course of actions would be ridiculous. Hence why there isn't a police unit dedicated towards locking up those pesky 8 year olds downloading Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles movies.

And are you ok with throwing a 13 year old in jail for illegally downloading a new Justice League movie?

Isn't this a reason to prefer a high IQ society over a lower IQ one?

Question, in relation to the drug he jacked up by 5000%, did it remain at this rate or was it brought down? Does anyone know the particulars of the case? Saw a video today with Shkreli in it as a member of the Thot Patrol.