Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
The cultures are also not as unanimously in agreement with each other as some would have you believe. Some cultures even have the females doing the hunting and the men doing the child rearing.
There's a chain of cultural influence.
Some divergence but minimal compared to the possible divergence. Run it a for a few more millions years and we might have some more meaningful data
The cultures are also not as unanimously in agreement with each other as some would have you believe. Some cultures even have the females doing the hunting and the men doing the child rearing.
The data becomes more revealing as we get beyond the need for child rearing and hunting. They impose roles.
We're barely beginning to scratch the surface of how differently inate male/female nature manifests when we can all do whatever we want.
Every thread here eventually becomes another calipers thread.
There's a chain of cultural influence.
Some divergence but minimal compared to the possible divergence. Run it a for a few more millions years and we might have some more meaningful data
You can run it backward and decide, we lived already for a while and adult women were nursing or helping other women raising small children their whole life, men weren't as much and among other things were big game hunting away from women and small children.
Do you think that doesn't create different interests and doesn't select all organs (including the brain) for different activities , over 10k+ generations?
What is a calipers thread?
You can run it backward and decide, we lived already for a while and adult women were nursing or helping other women raising small children their whole life, men weren't as much and among other things were big game hunting away from women and small children.Do you think that doesn't create different interests and doesn't select all organs (including the brain) for different act
No-one afaik is disputing some evolutionary differences. It's the specific claims that are weak conjectures at best. Usually based on woefully insufficient correlated data
Luciom, the problem with that is that all you’ve done is made an educated guess. The credence most people give to educated guesses in science is not zero, but it’s very small. There are plenty of “apparent” realities that don’t actually line up to what reality is. Non-locality for instance would have been really hard to predict based off of everything we knew about physics, but it was predicted by quantum physics and is still very controversial.
We can’t just assume that because it makes sense that’s the way it is.
I do think to your point that hormones very much change people’s thinking, and that anyone who believes in blank slate has to contend with sexual differences in hormone distribution. It’s not fully understood how these affect interest though. Trans women that have equivalent hormones to cis women still seem to display different patterns of interest anecdotally, but that has to be studied as well.
Then again his obsession was with how post Christian societies would maintain law and order without that moral framework to underpin them, and set about writing his magnum opus which was to be a new moral framework for the West, determined to save the west from its inevitable speedy decline into nihilistic violence and chaos.It didn’t seem to go very well because, beset b
From what I understand, he championed the Roman Empire and thought that Christianity led to its decline. He was critic of Christianity but more so of atheists for being hypocrites that went along with Christian values while not actually believing them—or anything for that matter! He saw that Christians at least had a foundation for their morality, whereas most atheists were wandering aimlessly, doing this or that, with no justification or meaning for their beliefs or actions (see the G. K. Chesterton quote below), respectively, and he set out to create a new foundation. That seems to be best summed up in Thus Spoke Zarathustra with some of his other works going into greater detail, but it is a bit of speculation since I haven't read a lot of his stuff.
“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
I remember reading something a while back about Nietzsche regretting his work, realizing that not only would it possibly be, but that it would be, used for terrible things (re Hitler and the Ubermensch). I wish I could find the source for that because I'm not sure if it's true, but it seems likely. He basically predicted the wars of the 20th century and the rise of hedonism and nihilism that are ever present in today's world. He also believed that without God, people would make gods out of people or the state. Think celebrity fanaticism and political mobs. He didn't have a solution though. It was a house without doors.
He also used a lot of exclamation points and em dashes.
Someone should do a study on how the political positions of 2P2 users correspond to their views on whether or not Robbi cheated.
Seen with mysterious bulge in pants.
The one guy who works there and has live access steels 15k off her stack then writes some insane text message to Robbi saying he believes her. Lol if anyone doesn't think she cheated.
the real theft was that her husband did not win an oscar for his role as the desert fighter in this film
the real theft was that her husband did not win an oscar for his role as the desert fighter in this film
kids these days will never understand the concept of "streets have been dry for a few months" when looking for a little bud
From what I understand, he championed the Roman Empire and thought that Christianity led to its decline. He was critic of Christianity but more so of atheists for being hypocrites that went along with Christian values while not actually believing them—or anything for that matter! He saw that Christians at least had a foundation for their morality, whereas most atheists we
Chesterton was an anachronistic freak railing against modernity, denouncing the music of Sibelius because he could detect the sound of the machine and failing to consummated his marriage from shock at the existence of his wife’s public hair.
However, he did have a good fence.
been having trouble figuring out what kind of it worker you are, can you please watch both and help a brotha out?
this?
Spoiler
or this?
Spoiler
Someone should do a study on how the political positions of 2P2 users correspond to their views on whether or not Robbi cheated.
this
very telling I find myself in luckbox's camp
Lol I was one of the more active “Robbi probably didn’t cheat” posters. However I’m still open to good evidence of her cheating, since she did give back the money which is strange.
Wait I thought the bulge in pants was a boner reference, if not then can you please elaborate
Lol I was one of the more active “Robbi probably didn’t cheat” posters. However I’m still open to good evidence of her cheating, since she did give back the money which is strange.
There are probably a few dozen details that when put together point towards cheating. I have no interest in going down that road again, but there is one moment from during the hand that I've only seen brought up once, and it's worth a mention. It's from 4:45-5:15 after she throws the time chip in. The body language is so strange. She leans in and puts her hand under her chin as she grabs the time chip and looks across the table when she moves it forward. Then she crosses her arms and leans onto the table, tilting her head and licking her lips. She begins to softly rock back and forth and signals by sticking her index finger out from behind her arm (5:01), and again, she looks across the table, this time focusing her attention there for a longer period of time. None of this is natural behavior. It's a person trying to act natural in an uncomfortable situation. A few seconds later she looks down and a smile creeps across her face. "I just wanna call to see it. I think you might have me though."
I am fascinated by this whole “boys love the Roman Empire” thing playing out in this thread. Not even sarcastic, I really thought it was just a meme.
So, the meme about men thinking about the Roman Empire...
My wife works at elementary schools and at one school there was a thing where they'd say something they liked was their Roman Empire. Specific example: "this ring pop is my Roman Empire".
Greg's account of Fred sounds about right to me.
Someone should do a study on how the political positions of 2P2 users correspond to their views on whether or not Robbi cheated.
I got really deep into it and am hard team Robbi. Like most, I wouldn't rule out cheating, but saw little evidence for it and a lot of evidence against it. It was disappointing, as I like a good cheating story.
I've wondered about the political correlations too. I think the obvious one is that conspiracy people will tend to be team Garrett and skeptical types, team Robbi.
One thing I noticed which is kind of hard to describe. A lot of people who were sure that they had a masterful understanding of human nature and behavior, but were actually very ignorant and naive about human behavior, were team Garrett.
One of their core beliefs was "NOBODY would give the money back if they weren't guilty! Totally irrational and therefore impossible." As I pointed out at the time, people knowingly confess to felonies they did not commit, including murder, because they fold under pressure. There is a video of Kevin Hart returning like $20k in a similar spot. It's not at all clear that a cheater would be compelled to return the money (returning the money is unusual if she is innocent, or guilty). Moreover, it's just not that hard to put yourself in her spot and see why she'd return the money. If I did something weird in a pro-am golf event and found myself in a room being yelled at by Tiger Woods, not really sure what was going on, and the tournament director (?) was talking about how millions of people online are going to hate me, I would probably just do whatever they wanted.
There were lots of these kinds of arguments where they just knew for sure exactly what everyone was thinking and what their motivations were at all times.
