Magiilaro

deleted by creator

So it would be 10 sociopath against 1 murderous psychopath? Whatever the end result would be, it sounds like a win!

The landscape should also have some strong pillars and mountains of hard facts and factual truth. But besides that, yes it sounds like a good mind construct. Interesting idea for sure.

The part with the neighbors was more or less only a joke. If i believe anything about them, then that they are good, honest and peacefull people. Because so far nothing happend to make be think otherwise.

The belief that the neighbors will kill someone (oneself for example) sounds more like a delusion… or a really bad neighborhood!

In both cases is a counter belief maybe not the best solution

But yes, i do think that beliefs can be helpful to counter inner urges and impulses. The belief in laws and punishment by law is an example for it.

And shared beliefs (for example faith and religion) acts like a glue for societies. The belief in eternal judgment by an all knowing god in combination with a holy law book (that is what most holy texts in their core are IMHO) helps to prevent chaos and ensures that people can work against a common and shared goal. As an example for the good and positive side of that.

Beliefs are important, beliefs are what gets us through life somewhat mentally sane.

Beliefs are (for example) the cornerstone of relationships, because you have to believe that your partner really loves you. There is no hard evidence for that so it can never be a fact, only a belief.

I believe that my neighbors don’t plan to kill me in my sleep (why should they, I am a nice and easy neighbor), I believe that the person at the fast food corner doesn’t spit on my food (and that they had washed hands after using the toilet), I believe that my landlord will some day repair the water damage in my second bathroom (and put all the bathroom stuff like sink, shower and toilet back in).

One could say that belief is behind everything where “trust” is involved. Belief is just accepting something as true, either because it is something that is a concept without hard facts (love, religion, justice, freedom, money, “the good in people”) or it is something where the information are lacking either because they are not fully known yet or because it is such a complex topic that having all information is (nearly) impossible.

I believe for example that climate change is real, because I trust (there it is again) the science. I have to believe in this case because I can’t have all the information without studying climate sciences, and one can argument that even our best climate scientists doesn’t have all the information (models are still incomplete and simulations don’t use all possible parameters) so even they have to believe for some parts.

Beliefs become problematic when people take them as hard facts, as dogmas, and become extreme.

I believe that taking extreme positions is always wrong and a way to disaster and suffering. That’s one reason why I don’t like faith and are against cults of any kinds.

Having a minds eye or not is a different thing from having a inner monologue or not. People can have both, one of it or none.

Lack of an inner eye is called Aphantasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia

I have a inner monologue but not a glimpse of an inner eye.

Problem with anxiety is that literally anything can be a trigger, that makes it so complicated (even impossible) to create a world without them.

I don’t want to belittle the point that you are raising, I for myself have more then enough other anxieties to know better then that, and you have my fullest sympathies.

This is a effect called “Frequency illusion”

The frequency illusion (also known as the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon) is a cognitive bias in which a person notices a specific concept, word, or product more frequently after recently becoming aware of it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion

And even now or today is relativ and not the same for every possible observer.

Is this a quote or reference to anything? Because I don’t get it.

For me “American style coffee” always makes me think about Percolators. Not sure why 🤔

When someone talks about murdering everyone he doesn’t agrees with or taking away basic human rights only because of the demographic then it stops to be a joke in my eyes. We have seen times and times again how it ends, and it is never good.

But yes, I think enough words have been said here, everything else is pointless redundancy.

No, I did not say that. And it says a lot that I am called pathetic for taking the position of the voice of reason.

But I will end this communication with you now, have a nice day

That is called disenfranchisement and there are laws for that already.

Murder is never a valid solution to the Paradox of Tolerance.

What I say is that death should always be the last option, not (one of) the first. There is almost always a better alternative available.

And if someone calls for the extinction of people only because they have the wrong beliefs or opinions, because they say the wrong thing or even tell lies, yes I then say that it is wrong.

It was wrong when the Nazis did it, it was wrong when the Soviet Union did it, it was wrong when the Chinese did it in the Cultural revolution, it was wrong in every single case where it ever has happened and it will always be wrong when it will happen again.

You can’t use the tools and methods of the enemy without becoming the enemy. Trying to build a free society by use of oppression and mass murder is something that is doomed to fail and to turn into the thing it has sworn to fight. One day you might by able to comprehend that.

1. Freedom of speech (and with that the right to get information from every legal source) is a basic human right
2. Your examples are punishments for breaking laws, but censoring what older people can watch, hear or read is a limitation of a basic human right enacted without any prior law breaking.

So your examples are all reactive while censoring older people would be proactive. That is a huge difference.

Oh and saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick” is not limiting the behavior of people, it is giving them information to change the behavior on their own… or they don’t and then they (and the people around them) have to live with the consequences.

The law the grants freedom of speech exists to protect opinions and texts that some (or even most) people find offending or don’t agree with. A law that only protects speech that everyone agrees with is a law not needed, because nobody will ever fight that words or wants to censor them.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Oh yes, I am sure that the Nazis back then said the same about cleansing the german nation, the benefits for the Volkskörper outweigh the losses that one generation would have to suffer.

The same can be used to ban alcohol for everyone:

See the trick is this: does “mentally fit” apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Addiction can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we’ll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn’t). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.

Now we have them exposed to substances that are arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. drug-related crime). At what point does their right to drink alcohol cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?

So are you ok with a new prohibition