That and race realism think you fool

I completely agree with you. It's ming boggling that literally NOTHING is learnt about parenting in schools and that is by far the most important thing to at least have a rough concept / idea about it and it's consequences.

kosztaz87 schools have not been able to teach the 3 rs how then parenting..? first teach and change the schools from the ground up ,then have parenting class about human interacting and empathy,as well as respecting others and responceabilitys.

+Shashank Gogoi You saved me the time of watching this. Thank you. I searched a debate with Steven Pinker on precisely this issue and came across this. Considering the fact that none of these people are aware of the strongest compelling evidence against genes determining people's behavior, it makes this pointless to watch.

S. F. Agreed. The two people I'd really like to go head to head on this issue are Steven Pinker and Dr. Gabor Mate.

S. F. That is an absolutely EXCELLENT point of conversation and investigation. Somehow, I am simply not convinced of this panel bearing much insight however. Perhaps I can find her arguments even better stated on an individual video of hers. I hate that it's so difficult to find relevant debates by people at the forefront of these sorts of arguments. I am wondering based on her conclusions if she may have any aversion or further arguments for a society structured based on a Natural Law / Resource Based Economy. I wonder if her research accounts for societal limitations and otherwise influential root societal factors on this front. If you are familiar with what I am talking about here, perhaps you may even have some insight XD

Yes, Resource Based Economy is a dreamy future but I am all for it. However, in order for it to happen, would require the people working towards it, to be able to fund it THEMSELVES. I find the approach of Elon Musk and Manoj Bhargava as something TVP can learn from. Both these American billionaires have made their fortunes with a single product. This led to growth of more products and ideas. There are many similar stories out there that have sprung up from our monetary world. The reason I find these two individuals as someone we must learn from is because they had an idea and worked with commercial models to fund their sustainable technologies. We all know the monetary system is doomed but for now we have to beat it by working with it. Therefore, I feel, TVP can only be successful, in a global scale, if the TVP folks can fund themselves with products/technologies they can manufacture and sell. Only a viable commercial model will convince Govts. to step aside and make way for a Type-1 civilization. Educating the masses is all well and good but the success of TVP will lie in it's ability to fund itself.

Shashank Gogoi I agree (mostly). As a matter of fact, I have made extensive comments and sent letters along exactly the same lines as you just made, noting Elon Musk as well. The reason I say mostly is, TVP or an RBE based model is not a product (and I wouldn't simply label it "a dreamy future" =P). My point was always that the conversation just needs to be taken on a greater scale and basically, if it were to reach the likes of Elon Musk and furthermore public intellectuals/scientific figures, it might start catching the media's attention because suddenly it's something which can capture people's interest. The point furthermore would be for the first city to be funded somehow, whether it's a bunch of billionaires and/or a largely government funded project, the idea being that this first city would be kind of like a huge University and all jobs there would be for the purpose, through every field/industry, of further researching ideas and creating video games and movies that show the possibilities. This is somewhat realistic and an actual possibility. It's not as unprecedented and it could in fact happen if it's generally something the people want. Not enough people know about it so as it stands, spreading the awareness is the best thing to do; imo it's just not being done strategically enough. Somehow, I don't feel like Elon Musk would object to this idea and I doubt either Peter Joseph or Jacque Fresco ever tried approaching him with these ideas and seeing if he might have a way of contributing.

Television is awesome!

No is not

Well it can be... If you use it as a monitor

I think I see what you mean. These debates, to me at least, are infinitely more fascinating than the most popular TV shows.

I believe that's Adrian Raine

Keep in mind that locking people up, however right in however many instances, is institutionalized violence. From your saying that sociopathic people (wrong-sized amygdalae and missing foreskins) should perhaps be pre-emptively locked up, I detect in your own pronouncements perhaps a sociopathic disposition to violent measures. How about perhaps we lock _you_ up?

I am also curious

+hawk0485 My favorite scene was when a king was asked, "he only watched. Should we execute him as well?" The King replied, "make sure to kill him last, so he can "just watch" all his friends die.

Plz clarify

Paul Smith Yes. Rules for logic and strategies for reason were established by a Greek over 5 centuries later but you would admit that philosophy isn't confined or even best practiced by the modern state of Greece no? It doesn't really matter where something was discovered especially if said philosophy is 2500 years old. What matters most is who is best applying the strategy today.

that's like a mechanic telling an automotive engineer "a lot of good that calculus will do you when you're trying change a throwout bearing." These are two different levels of concern, and both are needed. btw *sam harris's podcast interview with Jocko* is really fascinating if you want to get into the nitty gritty like that.

Holy shit, this comment doesn't even deserve a reply. What a fkn moron

+uncomonsense where is your study of your implied claim that consuming violent entertainment causes real life violence, doctor??

Are you serious? Read Christopher Ferguson's research. He has a 2015 paper that does a longitudinal analysis of violence in media and violence in real life, and where media violence has increased, real life violence has decreased. The previous studies from the 80's seem to have found an artefact. He also looked at video games which have took media violence to massive levels, and violent crime has decreased in a linear relationship with that -- although he contests the likelihood of a cathartic effect. The origins of media violence is Bobo the Doll and Bandura's experiments, and since then these lab experiments are very open to scrutiny. Social learning theory modernly considers media and real life learning to be separated. There is an argument that media gets blamed for gun crime in the US, when guns should be what are blamed. As stated, contemporary social learning theory (which is criminology theory too) would consider the gun and watching others use guns in real life, to be worlds more influential in creating gun crime use.

Yeah America has a gun culture, but I take the view that a guns design purpose is an offensive weapon, and as such, will gravitate towards being used criminally. Switzerland also has very high suicide rates, which is another issue with the gun. But yes, they achieve quite low homicides considering the amount of gun ownership. The homicides they do have, often do involve guns.

It's an offensive weapon. It projects hot metal at high speeds to cause severe to fatal physical damage. It won't prevent a crime per say as allow you to murder a person when you perceive them as committing one. Not only are US homicides the highest in the developed world, but your defensive gun use laws are likely masking how high the gun use is. There are grey areas in the law where people can legally get away with killing people -- and we can use likes of Zimmerman killing Martin as a case. Of course guns are not the only thing that causes crime. America celebrates guns in a way that probably exacerbates their use. Guns kills people, that is their design function, they don't have an alternative use. Humans are prone to error, guns rarely fail, they do what you intended them to do. We can't stop people from making errors, or having bad intentions as you would suggest, but we can keep them from dangerous equipment. After all, why would you ever need guns fit for a war situation in a civilian environment? You can buy hollow-point ammo in America, which is illegal even on a battlefield. Substantial differences between US and Switzerland to say the least. And if Switzerland did have irresponsible gun use and high crime, they would probably ban guns. As most developed countries already have.

Of course it has a gun culture. They celebrate guns, and see it as part of their heritage, citing the 2nd amendment. Responsible citizens do not need battlefield weaponry. It's arguable irresponsible to even own a guns without a justified cause. The paranoid delusion that you are frequently at risk of being murdered, makes allowing these people to own a gun irresponsible. It increases the likelihood of misuse, and this idea that it is an effective defence tool, is false.\ And yes, it drives up the price of black market guns; as access to them is harder. Also, higher penalties for carrying a gun, and zero tolerance of use would deter crime. This notion that a 'criminal' will still commit a crime without a crime tool is ridiculous. If there was a tool for breaking into cars, then of course the widespread availability of the tool is increasing the crime rate. And the response that some people might use it to innocently get back into their own car after accidentally locking themselves out is just mindless. It's for breaking into a car, of course you cannot allow it to be legally obtained. A gun is for killing people, of course you cannot allow it to be legally obtained. You seem to be indoctrinated by gun culture ideals. In psychology, we would bring up the fundamental attribution error to address this cognitive bias that 'other people' misuse guns. No, the gun doesn't really have 'good' use, it's a fairly sadistic and unforgiving weapon.

It's a woman.

it appears that you are not a smart person

She makes me think of Mark Cuban for some reason.

Great advice for situations like this: media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/94/f7/93/94f793e5d8fa71d59ab598211753a62b.jpg