I remember also hearing someone paying 1200$ to someone to play with his mother (in a safe way) and they done it and was happy about that.

christ jesus fuck

Quote from: FatherlyNick on May 22, 2020, 09:57:06 AM

You had a golden opportunity to not post this.
Now you have a golden opportunity to delete it before I find you.

https://twitter.com/ethanchaotic/status/1263562617953693696?s=09

Quote from: Solonoid on May 20, 2020, 08:16:52 AM

lmao people get schizophrenia because they're weak willed bro

If u had Verbatim's force of will psychosis would just go away

modern studies seem to point toward dopamine?
dopamine inhibitors are an effective treatment of schizophrenia and other psychoses?

no dude they're just not organizing their brains well enough

if they were smarter they wouldn't have such disorganized minds

i don't remember saying shit about schizophrenia

if you forgot, this is about breaking the interdependence of physical and mental health on the basis that they have no logical correlation, and that i'm capable of differentiating between logically-induced positive moods and biologically-induced positive moods, and recognizing that the former is intrinsically more meaningful to me

i'm sorry if you're not capable of doing that, i guess? but i am

do you not understand, based on the text you just read, that schizophrenia, and other mental illnesses, are caused imbalanced brain chemistry, and your assertion of being able to ignore that by just thinking about it logically would obviously also apply to mental illness if it were true at all

also, this is not the first time I have mentioned mental illness or even schizophrenia itself in this thread

I also mentioned that healthy eating and exercise habits reduced the severity of symptoms

you aren't capable of anything you think you are. when your brain gets dopamine you feel something, and you can't logic your way around feeling it, or decide to ignore that feeling because it's literally happening to you and you have no choice but to feel it

if you take wellbutrin, you'll notice you're incapable of feeling bad, and this is from personal experience

you can think to yourself "I'm such a piece of shit" and go through all the motions to try and make yourself miserable in your mind, but you literally cannot stop feeling good, because you have been stripped of the ability to feel like shit

it doesn't matter what you value or what you think, when the drugs (hormones) hit they hit, and you can't just willpower your way into being sober (not happy) by thinking about it logically, because your brain is a physical organ that feels the things it's told to feel by your body

when you think negative thoughts, you're not creating some mental cloud in which you control your feelings, you're just decreasing the stimulus to the part of your brain responsible for dopamine or serotonin creation (and if something else is actively stimulating that part of your brain its going to be very hard, usually impossible to destimulate it)

these things that you think are in your control are actually exactly the same as the things that aren't, and that's why it's so ridiculous to claim you have the power to force a change over something that you are literally powerless against

but please, like I said about all that energy devoted to not being on edge when your blood sugar drops, go on, get fit and then spend every moment of every day meditating on negative thoughts until you're no longer in shape

eventually you're going to get distracted and just start feeling good again, and after a few days you're going to forget about your negativity project altogether and enjoy the boon to your mental well-being until you're unhealthy again

lmao people get schizophrenia because they're weak willed bro

If u had Verbatim's force of will psychosis would just go away

modern studies seem to point toward dopamine?
dopamine inhibitors are an effective treatment of schizophrenia and other psychoses?

no dude they're just not organizing their brains well enough

if they were smarter they wouldn't have such disorganized minds

Quote from: Aether on May 20, 2020, 07:31:48 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 20, 2020, 07:17:35 AM

Quote from: Aether on May 20, 2020, 07:10:50 AM

I don't see how someone can be physically unhealthy and it not affect their mental health in a negative way. Physical and mental health are very interdependent. My personal experience with this fact is very visceral.

this is a graver insult to the intelligence of humanity than i could ever personally muster up

What, are you trying to say that the two things aren't interdependent?

i'm saying it's a sign of lower intelligence if you don't actively try to put the mental at the forefront

you're not your body

do you really think that the health of your body will have absolutely no effect on your hormones or the chemistry of your brain, or are you just convinced that you alone have learned how to completely separate your consciousness from your physical mind and can overpower the factors that determine how your brain is going to function

Quote from: Solonoid on May 20, 2020, 05:51:23 AM

I mean, you would literally feel physically better. Losing 70lbs has made my whole life better.

Being fit isn't just a vanity project, it will actually improve your mood and well-being.

and in a matter of time, i'll be able to refute this

that is 100% an assumption, and I think you realize that

How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?

It depends on how alien that person or group's perspective is to the way you perceive and comprehend the world. Sometimes, conflicts in understanding are rooted in a belief so fundamental to how you process the reality of the world that trying to see their side becomes futile. I recently had an argument with someone who believed that monopolies based on market dominance were completely justified, and that companies should be able to extract any price from dependent consumers they please because, in his opinion, the market is always just. In his opinion, if you make a product that is superior to all other similar products to the point you squeeze competition out of existence, even if that product is something people, or society as a whole depends on, you should be able to charge much more than a reasonable profit margin, and he did not see that as taking advantage of consumers. It's not that I'm unable to understand his viewpoint, I'm just completely unable to understand how he could justify something like that. Should I even consider his argument when my fundamental values are so misaligned from his that where he sees acceptable business practices I see blatant abuse? Honestly, I don't think it would even be possible for me to seriously do so; what we believe is just too different on a very basic level.

When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material?

Again, when something becomes so alien to your most basic understanding of the world we live in that you literally cannot comprehend their point of view. Some cultures believe (or have believed) it's okay to marry and have sex with children, but there would be absolutely no point in me watching some child pornography to attempt to understand the sexualization of minors. I don't even need to see it to know that I will never agree with it or view it as anything other than criminal. Conversely, if you come from a culture in which twelve year old girls are made into brides and that's your tradition, though I might see it as my moral duty to put an end to it, your worldview would be so fundamentally misaligned with mine that my arguments would be laughable and not worthy of consideration. The only way to snuff out something like that is to indoctrinate the youth at a very early age to understand your point of view, before the traditional understanding becomes cemented.

When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic?

Same answer again. Criticism is only necessary when it can be effective, and becomes pedantic when there is an outstanding conflict in two moral viewpoints. Look at Congress as an example. The legislature only exists to make compromises and concessions in the areas least offensive to the opposing party. Radical agendas are so incapable of gaining traction because Republicans simply do not understand humanity in the same way Democrats do and vice-versa. Conservatives have a fundamental view that humans do not have the capacity to do good with the sole intention of doing good, rather that acting in one's own self interest is neither good nor bad, and people, given the opportunity, will always make the decision most profitable to themselves. However, by trusting the collective wisdom of society, and trusting centuries of accumulated tradition, we can benefit from wisdom much greater than any individual could muster, to the ultimate good of society. Liberals on the other hand, believe that humans are capable of doing good with the sole intention of doing good, and that by trusting the articulated wisdom of experts, we are able to defy backward and abusive traditions to the ultimate good of society. Because of this diametric opposition, radicalism on both sides is eschewed, and moderate policy prevails. This system oy works because each side's pedantic and ineffective criticism of the the other ends up being totally ignored (though it does often consume a great deal of time), while necessary and moderate criticism of each other shapes compromise into law without the opportunity for radicalism.

Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?

Whenever there is an opportunity to truly see a situation through the lens of another. In my first example, I was totally incapable of understanding how the guy I was arguing with could come to the conclusions he did, though I did understand the conclusions he came to. However, if my alignment were slightly different, and I could really consider his beliefs by virtue of the logic he had used to arrive at that conclusion, then even if I might not necessarily be convinced to change my stance, I would see it as worthy of my consideration. Anytime the lens someone sees a situation through is comprehensible to you, you owe it, not to them, but to yourself to look through that lens and understand what they are saying with an open mind. That doesn't mean that you will ultimately agree with them, merely that you have considered their point. You should always be reconsidering your stances when possible. If you do, and your stance does not change, then you will have a better understanding of why you believe what you do. If your stance does change, then you will be likely be happier and more complete with your new viewpoint than you were with the old one. Unfortunately though, seeing it the other way is not always possible, and attempting to do so when you really just can't will only cause confusion, consternation, and unresolvable self-doubt.

the unemployment office owes me over $3,600 and my savings are dwindling

I am very mad

oh and the claim that men have no gender based political interests is a joke

Men have been used, historically, in many ways by women. Different than the ways they use women, but equally troubling. Court's prejudices against men have begun to dwindle, just as women's rights have improved in recent years. However, just as women are still often marginalized, objectified, and taken advantage of, society still often demands that men be stoic caretakers and personal piggy banks for women, and see not only backlash from their peers, but often backlash from the legal system for not playing this role.

Equality means equality. If we want to elevate women to the place they deserve to be in society, we must also remove the gender biased constraints we have placed on men. Otherwise, all we've achieved is switching which gender has too much power.

The writer bases this presumption on the idea that it's easy for a woman to understand what being a man is like but impossible for a man to understand what being a woman is like.

I would say that if the latter is true, the former must be false, and vice-versa. The terf who wrote this article seems to believe that a male mindset and role in society is very simple, forward, and easy to understand from an outsider's perspective, while a female mindset and role is nebulous and impossible to comprehend if you haven't lived it.

I'd counter that both are equally nebulous, and often misunderstood by closed minded people, but that trans women, and trans men, both have experience as the gender they identify with. To say a trans woman can't understand womanhood is obscene. The assertion basically says that society will continue treating trans women as men, and they retain the privileges of male life after transitioning. This simply isn't true.

Most of society, unfortunately, does not see trans women as women, but they also don't see them as men. They see them as less; not equal. On top of not being seen as a man, they're also subject to prejudice commonly levied against all trans people.

The article also asserts that television and media provide a perfectly clear insight on what being a man is like, what's going on inside the male brain, and what a man's place is in society, while saying that the same is not true of women. Unfortunately, neither is true.

Drama is not real life, and you cannot simply understand what being a man is by watching movies and tv. Indeed, that is merely introspection based on drama that you have watched or read unfold. It's not that you get a clear idea of what being the other gender is like from consuming media written by and about that gender. It's that you come up with your own ideas, using their expression as a sort of mental prompt for your imaginary exploration.

The only way to understand what being a man or being a woman is like is to live as one, and both trans men and trans women have accomplished that.

The ideas of terfs have no place in serious discussions about gender or the reshaping of society, and though they should be free to voice their opinions, it would be pragmatic and wise to ignore them altogether, especially from a policymaker's perspective.

Quote from: Solonoid on May 14, 2020, 03:32:10 PM

tbh I'm not really sure what the question is

how would you cope with being an unwilling sex slave if your life depended on it

thanks for clarifying

just move forward?

I was in this exact situation like two years ago. I saved like a grand, packed my shit, and left while nobody was watching.

I try not to think about it, and I don't think it really gives me any trouble.

Then again, that's not the worst thing that has ever happened to me by far, so I'm not sure how the average person would cope.

Cheat isn't a pegboy

She went to jail previously?

Quote from: Solonoid on May 10, 2020, 01:25:33 PM

and she might be going back to jail soon anyway

yeah, last month most recently

how the fuck did this become about racism the boy just wanna say the n word

fuck you Fred