|
I don't know how feasible this is because I have limited to no knowledge regarding the coding of the forum.
However, the forum would be greatly improved if all post quoting ignored users were also automatically ignored.
Without that feature the ignore button does not really work as ignored users posts still show up in quoted rebuttals.
Such a feature would also reduce the need to ban individuals who are very obnoxious but borderline cases as it would become easier to actually ignore them.
|
|
|
|
While this whatever the fuck Israeli or Arab semite girl tends to have more rodent-like, animal features, but with lighter skin:
You don’t have to be a monster or a madman to dehumanise others. You just have to be an ordinary human being. The Essence of Evilhttps://aeon.co/essays/why-is-it-so-easy-to-dehumanise-a-victim-of-violenceIn Germany, Jews were labelled Untermenschen (subhumans) and were likened to vermin, maggots and disease-transmitting parasites. Half a century later in Rwanda, Hutu génocidaires referred to their Tutsi quarry as cockroaches and snakes. This year, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterised the Palestinian killers of three abducted Jewish teenagers as predatory beasts (an epithet that he did not apply to the Jewish extremists who burned a Palestinian boy alive in retribution). ‘They were kidnapped and murdered in cold blood by animals,’ he said. ‘Hamas is responsible and Hamas will pay.’
What is the common element in all these stories? It is, of course, the phenomenon of dehumanisation. But this is neither recent nor peculiar to Western civilisation. We find it in the writings from the ancient civilisations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece and China, and in indigenous cultures all over the planet. At all these times and in all these places, it has promoted violence and oppression. And so it would seem to be a matter of considerable urgency to understand exactly what goes on when people dehumanise one another. Yet we still know remarkably little about it.
...
We dehumanise other people when we conceive of them as subhuman creatures. Dehumanisers do not think of their victims as subhuman in some merely metaphorical or analogical sense. They think of them as actually subhuman.
...
This pattern of thinking has been reproduced with spine-chilling fidelity across time and space, and from one historical epoch to the next
|
|
|
|
You are defending something indefensible. It has to work for the majority, or the system is broken.
Not defending anything really. The system is indeed broken. Our challenge such an environment is to live the healthiest life possible despite an ill culture. That is no easy task when our environment is more or less toxic and our culture desperately ill. I understand why many men choose not to marry for some that may be the best course especially if ones partner is the more material type or prone to the temptation of leveraging state power against their partner. I just don't think that is the only or the best solution to the problem unless one has already committed to a partner that for one reason or another is not marriage material in the current legal climate. |
|
|
|
Let me just make something clear, for the record. I am not against marriage in principle. If we were still religious and it was a purely cultural function, it would be fine. It used to tie people together. But as it exists today it is a legal contract with the state, and it incentivizes women to divorce.
I am also not against family. Because I have one. It's a very necessary thing. But the laws in the west today, and the US especially, are such that it is a suicidally stupid thing to do.
I understand your position and agree that the risks are very real and the consequences extreme if one chooses poorly which a majority do. I just disagree that the risks cannot be navigated if one is careful. That said I married a highly educated Asian girl and we go to church together every week so I admit that my perspective may be a bit different then the average. |
|
|
|
Prenups are worthless, and you can't trust numbers like that. But even if this particular number is true, you still need to ask the question "compared to what?". The odds of a fresh marriage today surviving for ten years, in the form of an intact marriage, is about 3%. So with your religious reduction, that still leaves us over the 50% mark. You have better odds betting everything you own at the casino. Literally. And I use literally in the correct way here.
Disagree about the numbers part. Risks can be dramatically reduced far beyond 50%. You just have to choose your spouse wisely when selecting a partner. Check out these divorce statistics they vary dramatically based on several factors. https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/U.S. DIVORCE RATE BY OCCUPATION Professions with highest divorce rate: * Dancers – 43 * Bartender s- 38.4 * Massage Therapists – 38.2 * Gaming Cage Workers – 34.6 * Gaming Service Workers – 31.3 Professions with lowest divorce rate: * Farmers – 7.63 * Podiatrists – 6.81 * Clergy – 5.61 * Optomitrists – 4.01 * Agricultural Engineers – 1.78 Among the population segments with the lowest likelihood of having been divorced subsequent to marriage are Catholics (28 percent), evangelicals (26 percent), upscale adults (adults making more than $75000 annually) (22 percent), Asians (20 percent) and those who deem themselves to be conservative on social and political matters (28%). Just group a bunch of low risk factors together. For the absolutely lowest risk marry a conservative religious Asian girl who is highly educated. Risk then is probably less then 20%. |
|
|
|
No. Just no. There is no way to credibly reduce the risk to something even approaching acceptable levels.
It's all about incentives. Women, especially the women we have today, don't actually have the ability to love like they did a few generations ago. It's all about immediate incentives, little things like taking half of everything you own plus future income plus money for the children that can be spent in whatever way she wants. It's the entire system that's fucked.
Well I am happily married for 11 years now so I am biased. Nevertheless, a 47% reduction in divorce risk is substantial. I was impressed when I came across that study. Combine that strategy with a prenup and I think the risk is manageable even if you have money if one seeks out character over aesthetics. Everyone has there own risk threshold's for these things. |
|
|
|
Divorce is the leading cause of suicide for men and the divorce rate is well north of 50%. No fucking way.
Then there is all the ridiculous stuff. Nevermind the pandemic of false rape charges, a woman is suing a man for "stretching her vagine with his unusually large dick so it has become loose". This shit is only going to get worse, and so will the divorce laws, which is also to say, the divorce incentives.
There is no doubt that divorce is very bad news. However, it is a risk which can be minimized. Married Couples Who Attend Church Services Together Are Less Likely to Divorcehttp://www.christianpost.com/news/married-couples-who-attend-church-services-together-are-less-likely-to-divorce-study-171853/
Married couples who attend church services together are more likely to live longer, are less likely to be depressed, and less likely to get divorced, according to a new study conducted by a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health.
The study, titled "Religion and Health: A Synthesis," conducted by Tyler J. VanderWeele, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, noted that religious service attendance is connected to "better health outcomes, including longer life, lower incidence of depression, and less suicide," the Institute for Family Studies noted on Tuesday.
According to the study, religious service attendance is also "associated with greater marital stability — or more specifically, with a lower likelihood of divorce."
Married couples who attend religious services are 30 to 50 percent less likely to get divorced than those who do not, the study asserts. Such couples are also nearly 30 percent less likely to be depressed and, over a 16-year follow-up period, were shown to have significantly lower risk of dying.
...
Though some might criticize the marital stability data by suggesting that those contemplating divorce might be more likely to stop attending religious services, the researchers took that into account.
By looking into the timing of changes in religious service attendance, VanderWeele said, "we were able to control for this possibility, and the results persisted: those who attended religious services were 47 percent less likely to subsequently divorce."
"Religion is, of course, not principally about promoting physical health or decreasing the likelihood of divorce, but about communion with God," he said, and efforts to commune with God have "profound implications for numerous other aspects of life, including health and marriage."
While Christians understand and interpret the word "religion" and everything it entails differently than academic researchers, the operative definition VanderWeele posits for the study is: "the pursuit of complete human well-being: physical, mental, social, and spiritual."
Taken together, "religion is about both communion with God and the restoration of all people to their intended state of complete wholeness and well-being. The evidence suggests that it can indeed accomplish both," he said.
...
"The religious community provides social support, a constant reinforcement and reminder of the religious teachings, family programs, and a communal worship and experience of God. I would not say that good marriages need a community to thrive, but it certainly does help!"
Also further improvements in ones odds can likely be obtained if one chooses a spouse with an understanding of what matters most in life. https://www.prageru.com/courses/life-studies/what-matters-most-life |
|
|
|
Thanks for the detailed reply. Yeah, what you say is perfectly reasonable among the possible scenarios.
Also it seems, that even if you sold some substantial part of your stash on the way up, you mostly didn't take advantage of the opportunity of $10K+ to $19K... as I suspect is the case of most here.
I sold a little in that range but my overall average sell price was somewhere around 6.5k. That felt terrible when BTC shot up to near 20k right after I sold. Now not so much. I am confident the day will come when I feel terrible about selling at that price again. I just think it will take a little while. |
|
|
|
I see most everyone here is bearish.
So I need to ask, how many of you have basically hodl from the ATH till now.
I will start: I have basically hodl all the time and the little in comparison that I was selling I used to rebuy in the way down. Not a single $ withdraw back to my bank account, not now, neither in 2013/14. Of course I could easily withdraw the total I invested right now if I wanted to, obviously I am not underwater at all, but that's not the question.
I would like to get a better picture of what the average situation is in that regards.
I sold some on the way up but not much this year.. Accumulated in the $250-$1900 range. Sold some on the way up largest chunk at $3,800 some higher in hindsight too early but I did ok. Still hold just shy of 50% of my peak BTC holdings. I am short term bearish but not selling at these prices. Current conditions remind me of the slow crash following the decline from $1000 to around $300. I suspect further capitulation spikes down followed by a long grind and slow climb out that I think will take as least as long as that earlier recovery and probably longer. I won't be selling more because I think the long term future is very bright, but if I needed the money in the next 24 months I would probably sell what I needed on Monday or Tuesday evening asap but not during a holiday weekend crash. Just my thoughts but I am no expert. |
|
|
|
Finally getting more scientific proof that religion literally rots people brains. Pretty cool stuff  From the article. “Another caveat is that the relationship between different styles of thinking and belief in fake news was not so large (see below).”That about sums it up. Utterly uninteresting study. If you actually look at their graphic for religious fundamentalism the exact same proportion of the least fundamentalist and the most fundamentalist rated fake news as very accurate. Thus you are left with statistical wizardry and trying to claim that the fact that the fundamentalists surveyed were slightly less likely to rate fake news as not at all accurate and instead slightly more likely to rate it not very accurate is somehow profound and meaningful. The study results for the delusional are even more trivial. Study shows confirmed paranoid delusional people are more likely to believe things that are not true. Can't say that's a surprise. |
|
|
|
I always wondered what happens below the Planck"s length or time. I don't know is my answer.
I don't know is a good answer to that question.
Is it possible that we are in a simulation? Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.
I don't know would be a better answer here as well. The available data fits the simulation/holographic model surprisingly well. That does not mean it is reality only that the possibility should not be casually dismissed. It behoves us to remember that sometimes reality is more complex and mysterious then we initially believe. When Copernicus's first published his works on a heliocentric solar system it was received by many as a mathematical trick. A way of simplifying the math when calculating the position of planets in a geocentric universe nothing more. Only with time did the new and obscure mathematical ideas overcome the entrenched and widely held but erroneous "common sense" beliefs of the era. It is not impossible that materialism could turn out to be the modern equivalent of geocentricism. Wisdom necessitates humility in the face of our limited science and understanding. |
|
|
|
A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever
There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms
What physical evidence do you have that we are in a simulation? Does this count? Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explainedhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRcrjKmsw2cEvidence at least that results are not computed/determined until they are observed. . There is no "spooky action at the distance", the problem is that we are familiar with properties at our classical level and we try to apply the same classical rules to the quantum level. This guy explains very well the weirdness of Quantum Physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6IYes I agree that is what all empirical evidence seems to show. I also agree with your video linked above where the presenter posits that information is probably the fundamental unit of quantum mechanics. Have you considered the possible implications of this? They really are quite profound. At a minimum they should make one seriously consider some very interesting possibilities. Here is a video that explores some of these possibilities. It is somewhat speculative but the data is strong enough that the possibilities outlined should not be casually dismissed as impossible. The Emergent Universehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iFEBOGLjuq4 |
|
|
|
A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever
There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms
What physical evidence do you have that we are in a simulation? Does this count? Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explainedhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRcrjKmsw2cEvidence at least that results are not computed/determined until they are observed. |
|
|
|
There is no evidence of anything magically appearing in this world, Look at buildings, cars and the aeroplanes, they were all made and it shows that everything has a creator so that means that Human Being who has made all these things must also have a creator, it's just logical.
There is plenty of evidence of simple living beings evolving to really complex animals, they didn't need a creator. Spontaneous and autonomous emergence of complex behavior is not evidence against a creator. For Example: Google's DeepMind AI Just Taught Itself To Walkhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gn4nRCC9TwQ |
|
|
|
we need to assume something is true, because we will never have infinite knowledge. have to assume something, then you can build everything else on top of that.
Agreed However many today suffer from a peculiar form of delusion. They assume a nihilistic materialism is true while strenuously denying they are making any assumptions. It's really quite bizarre. That said af_newbie and I are similar in some ways. You see just like him I support people's right to believe in nihilistic nonsense the same way I support people's right to be mentally sick. The difference between us is that I can point to numerous scientific studies that support my view that such nonsense actually makes you sick as it is correlated with both reduced physical and mental wellbeing and he cannot. |
|
|
|
So I can prove to you that the "Gods" of all major religions do not exist, however, I cannot prove to you that some pantheistic God does not exist.
The question of God existence or non-existence is not even a scientific question.
Just one final point for clarity sake. If cannot disprove a pantheistic God then you also also cannot disprove a faith centered on the worship of such an entity. The most you can do is demonstrate that a particular religion's understanding must be incomplete or lacking using whatever logical inconsistencies you identify in their texts. I agree that the question of God existence or non-existence is not a scientific question. Science alone is only a tool and too narrow a framework to fully evaluate the universe and our place within it. |
|
|
|
...
Today, people just know better. Religions exist today only because our parents force us to believe in them at a risk of losing relationships with our family and friends.
The exuberant irrationality of religion is poignantly manifested in as much as this idea and all it entails, being amongst other things, grandiose, almighty, omnipresent etc., can take preference over, exceed and outdo the full qualitative value and meaning of having someone tangible right in front of you, a fellow human being with all manner of interactions to your avail - completely and utterly startling. I think dippididodaday inadvertently makes a good case for why you are incorrect about this point af_newbie. I disagree with him only where he describes the phenomenon as irrational as noted in the quote. He captures well the shear power of religion. It's not something that is entirely dependent on parent to child transmission or social networks those those certainly play a role in transmitting and sustaining it. We have no evidence that any God (of any kind) exists
Many would disagree with you. They would point to the natural world or written tradition as evidence. You would likely challenge that evidence with materialism and a dismissal of the historical accounts as fantasy. At a minimum, however, if you are logical you must concede the following. We have no evidence God does not exist. |
|
|
|
LOL fuck off with the world police shit already I don't need to pay more at the pump in Canada because some moron dissident was stupid enough to go into a dictators embassy.
US consume lots oil, Saudi Arabia sells lots of oil, US makes Arms, Saudi Arabia buys Arms. Hmm not hard to see that the only people that will end up being hurt by this is the poor sacks of shit like me at the pump... Any fucking sanctions aren't going to hurt anyone but "me".
Evil always spreads if good people don't step up and oppose it. Today's it's an embassy. Tomorrow it could be a small and week third party country during a vacation. The day after that it might be you in your home if you happen to anger the wrong foreign billionaire. We don't need to be the world's policeman but we create the world we want with our actions. This necessitates a firm response of some kind that demonstrates our disapproval. An appropriate response not an overreaction is needed. Something to demonstrate disapproval and change behavior not cause a world crisis. I trust President Trump to figure out what that response is. |
|
|
|
A more sane explanation is that Quran was hastily assembled into a book by some military leaders who saw disorder among the ranks.
These guys plagiarized the Bible (which in turn was plagiarized from the Egyptian texts) and added few mistakes of their own in the process.
There is certainly reason to believe that historically many religions were often formed twisted and warped little more then gross political tools. Nothing has the power to cement control like a bad religion. I read a study a while back that highlighted the fact that pagan priests and rulers who sanctioned human sacrifice may have had such motives. The analysis of more than seven dozen Austronesian cultures revealed that the practice of human sacrifices tended to make societies increasingly less egalitarian and eventually gave rise to strict, inherited class systems. The ritual killings helped keep the powerful in power and everyone else in check. I discussed this more here: Pagans and Human Sacrifice. But is this the entire story or is this simply a manifestation of the human capacity to twist, lie, manipulate and corrupt for power. Are all religious velvet gloves hiding the iron fist of tyranny underneath or is there is something deeper to some of them? To help make that determination we need to look at religions with a critical eye understanding the historical landscape in which they arose. The more religions act like political systems favoring control of the powerful over the meek the more suspect we should be. When a religion does the opposite of that when it facilitates the rise of freedom or favors the powerless over the powerful we have something of a conundrum. How could such a belief survive and form when it opposes the powerful? Such inconsistencies warrant further evaluation. For what it's worth I am firmly in the camp that there is something fundamental and deep in at least some religions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
