ofd

Something like that?

Moving the goalpost. Also, why shouldn't I? The ability to put together meaningful sentences that constitute a philosophical position doesn't depend on you having studies the subject at a university. The ability to put togehter meaningful formulas that constitute a hypothesis requires you having studied the subject at detail. Sokal has shown that editors of a philosophical magazine can be fooled easily by putting together more or less random words. Putting togehter random formulas doesn't fool a first year physics student. Can you elaborate on that? What do you mean by climate catastrophe? The standard model, so far, or the implications of AGW in media? I don't think that I read a journal where a theory was called evil. The dichotomy is likely / unlikely not good vs evil. Totally agree. The problem however is not the lack of energy, but the costs of storing energy and the centralized energy grid. Once the costs for batteries go down or new cheaper technologies for saving energy show up, the current system will be replaced.

The Kalergi plan for Europe (see Practical Idealism for details) calls for a mongrelisation between Muslims, Europeans, Eurasians, and Africans. That new sort of people will then be ruled by the Jewish Elite. The problem with that idea is that it doesn't work. Muslims and Africans don't change their opinions and start chimping oiut against Jews and White People the same.

My point is that you shouldn't. Check it out yourself. I welcome criticism. You can see for yourself if the claims these skeptics make are based on valid science or not. One of their easiest talking points to refute are the 70s ice age thing. The 3% human influence thesis is a bit harder to refute, but also doable if you know a bit about isotopes and basic physics.

If you look at the history of Western civilisation you will see that there were two waves in history in which SJW and related phenomena became popular. One started a bit after Luther's reformation when Anabaptists and other sectarians believed that there be no auhority except their own, when it comes to biblical interpretation. In the aftermath you will find modern phenomena, like crossdressing, polyamory, hippie communes and what not. That uprising didn't last long because both Protestants and Catholics wiped out attempts of those groups to establish independent communes. The other wave started with the Enlightenment and hasn't ended yet. In short, it is characterized by the application of Nominalism to biology and social structures. Teleology makes no sense in physical sciences, like physics or biology. But it is essential for biology (what is the function of an organ? What is its purpose? When does it work properly) and sociology (What is the purpose of a family? What is the function of a school? What is the role of the state?). That enables SJWs to substract everything connected with teleology and to replace it with their own brainfarts. Humans turned into malleable beings with no history, no context and no connection to each other, except through a shared ideology.

The problem with the skeptics is that they fail at the first part of the Ideological Turing Test, reproducing correctly what the other side says. I invite you to investigate one of their talking points ("In the 70s they predicted a global ice age in the near future!1!") to see if you can pass that first step.

The work as a mentalist won't pan out.

I don't think there will be a giant collapse, rather many small ones.

Emotional states don't make statements more true, nor do they make them more false. Facts don't care about feelings. I never claimed that I could offer wisdom. If you can't judge statements on their merits alone you have a lot to learn.

I'd like to hear success stories I am a bit skeptical about the method.

That's why I wrote about the legal definition. There is a difference between murder and killing. You can't murder yourself, but you can kill yourself. I did. If you had read what I wrote carefully you wouldn't have asked that question.

Vimeos makes money via paid subscriptions. Pornhub doesn't nearly have the output because few people watch porn videos for a long time for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately there won't be alternatives to youtube in the near future. Despite being heavily commercialized and pretty efficient on the back end of the service, youtube is losing money. If the service is as popular as youtube, it will provide 10 Exabytes per year. Amazon charges around $0,10 per customer for a gigabyte. If you are efficient, you can bring that down to say $0,01 per gigabyte. If you do the maths, you will see that it costs around 180 million dollar just to stream videos. You haven't employed anybody, nor did you store the videos. Storage is relativeyl cheaply, so it doesn't cost that much next to employing people, bribing politicians, litigations, parties with hookers and god knows what else. Lets assume it costs 200 million dollar a year just to run a popular youtube clone, then you still have to finance the losses and come up with excuses for investors why they don't see dividends.

Few people actually read and understand. Poking holes is a worthwhile skeptical activity, since it prevents you from being taken for a ride. You can argue about motivation all day long. In the end, it doesn't matter for the validity of arguments or studies. Again, if it helps you, excellent. Why didn't you simply say "There is one study, but it has only few participants. In the future we can expect better studies"? Unless you have been to conferences, where this is the norm. It's nothing personal. Yes, I did. Actually, the opposite is true. You may not know what the truth is for a given situation, but you can disregard the bullshit (via negativa). And the amount of time a skeptic spends on a given day being a skeptic is minuscule. There is no skeptical way of brushing your teeth, taking a shower, going to work and so on. It seemed overly complicated and is not in line with what we know about the way the mind works and how it developed during evolution to process signals both from the outside and the inside. Occam cuts it off when you have other more simple and testable models that explain the same phenomena.

The historical answer to oligarchies are violent revolutions, where some wealth is redistributed among the elites. That may cool down the plebs until they are agitated again to start another revolution. The economic answer to oligarchies are economic collapses, where fortunes are wiped out and the game starts fresh again. I have a friend with the same condition. I feel with you and wish you the best

I was curious enough to read it. To be blunt, the study is worthless. They admit as much in the conclusions. That doesn't mean that the IFS approach itself is not beneficiary, it may work for you. I have a scientific background. You are taught to assume prima facie that all studies, unless proven otherwise, are bullshit. To study the long term effects of IFS and other therapeutic approaches you'd have to have large sample groups and two control groups. The first control is just some random guy having friendly small talk with people of that group, the other group gets no counseling whatsoever. You then use a metric, like the Beck depression scale mentioned in the article, before, during, and after the therapy. This helps you to compare the longterm effect of approaches, compared to the simulation of a friend and doing nothing at all. If there is a positive effect after having finished the therapy, say after two years, then the therapy is effective. I have in fact. I looked for a therapist that has experience in treating people and who can has skin in the game. As a teacher of mine said, 95% of everything is fluff. Skepticism allows you to have a healthy mind in a world full of bullshit. Excellent, if it works for you and other people I am happy for you. I read some basic material on IFS and found it to be unhelpful for me. Since I am no arbiter on that subject, I don't want to discourage other people to find help and consolence there. I found the third generation Cognitive Approach to be helpful, after I studied other major systems. The experience may vary That's the reason you can't do double blind studies and why doing studies on the effectiveness of therapeutic approaches need a large scale. Unlike say dentists, therapists don't have a formula that they can work with. Being a therapist demands intuition, social intelliegence and a bunch of other factors that can't be learned. Plus, unlike fixing a hole in your teeth the results are per definition subjective.

In the pdf study you linked 16 out of 22 participants completed the therapy. That's by no means a large enough sample size to draw valid conclusions. Furthermore, the graph shown show that both TAU and IFS show a decline in depression, according to the Beck Depression Index. They write specifically that they didn't control for drug usage. The idea itself is not subersive. The unconscious as a concept has been around since the Greeks. It was Freud's usage that made it a bad idea. Lets say you are a therapist. A father writes you that his little son is afraid of horses, because the son saw an accident while walking on the street. Naturally, the fear of horses isn't connected to that incident. Rather, the horse stands in for the father who competetes with the little son in fucking the mother. Sounds legit. https://www.simplypsychology.org/little-hans.html

Freud's works are the projections of a perverted mind. Are there studies that show the longterm effectiveness of IFS? The third generation of Cognitive Therapists is just about that.

Chinese people (Naxalt) were always nasty to be around, especially Southern Chinese. Bosnians, Croatians, and Serbians have all the same genotype with different cultures. Genes can't be fucked up. If there is such a thing as r/K selection, the enviroment can favour a disadvantageous breeding behaviour that selects for bad traits. That doesn't mean the 'good genes' are destroyed, they go back in proportion. Here's the thing. The Jewish led NKVD killed most middle class people that were left in the USSR, plus wealthy farmers. In HBD literature, there is a thing called the Hajnal line. It goes from Finland in a more or less straight line down Northern Italy. West of it, you had the prohibition of cousin marriage by the Catholic church, a special form of manorialism that favoured small family owned farms and as a result small nuclear families that were outwards oriented and that had a high trust. East of the Hajnal line, you were allowed to marry your cousin, you had clannish structures and the concept of individual property became popular only until recent times. Those different enviroments led to different breeding strategies, which over a long time led to a different culture.

No, he started it. He sent advisors to Viet Nam which led to the war under LBJ. Furthermore, Executive Order 11110 increased the power of the Fed, by planning to get rid off silver certificates altogether in the future. The civil rights legislation speaks a different language. That was well under way with Clinton and Bush 2. Where do people have single payer healthcare?

Desentize yourself. The trick is to live through these situations in a safe place. Learn some basic relaxation technique (breathing, muscle relaxation) and then think about a situation that caused you discomfort. Notice how you react to it, with the increased heartrate what have you. Stay in there. No matter how strong the negative reaction is, you will notice that it becomes weaker over time. Rinse and repeat until the negative reaction is no longer that threatening.

The lectures are a great introduction to Jungian psychology, but Peterson doesn't offer a critical analysis of the Biblical text. The most commonly accepted thesis on the origion of the Pentateuch is that two sources were put together. Those have specific goals and tell the stories (or don't tell the stories at all in some instances) in a very specific, unique qay. If you read the Biblical text in a naive way you will miss out on those perspectives and come to a wrong interpretation.

It's a great idea. But then again, it didn't happen. during Jefferson's reign, the Federalists took over the government and the judiciary. They were backed by merchants and slave holders. A few decades later, when industrialists became more important, the slave holders lost interest. Hence their idea of free trade to export cotton to the UK was given up in favour for tariffs to protect the North from cheaper imports. Who makes it on that list? The criteria seem to fit only for Harding and Coolidge, who tried to shrink the government and increase individual liberty.

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/10/26/weimerica-weekly-episode-44-three-comrades/ There is a gradual difference, because there were few blacks or Latinx in the Weimar republic. The rest is more or less the same.

How many of the climate sceptics are climate scientists? When it comes to this kind of issue (atomic bombs don't exist, there is no evolution, earth is flat) there are three kind of options: A) The scientists involved are a bunch of idiots and an amateur, or a group of amateurs know better. B) There is a vast conspiracy that includes all scientists to make them continuoulsy come up with false studies and what not. C) The scientists studied the issue at hand for a long time and know more than you about it. Choose wisely.