Posts made by TheSir

@Peatly said in A list of members banned from the Ray Peat Forum:

Not sure why Mephisto has been spared when others got banned for making more benign comments than this

It's due to Charlie's authoritarianism. Mephisto was taunting Charlie with: "just ban me already you prick". Of course, though Charlie most likely did want to ban him, this itch was overridden by his desire to not take orders from anyone.

A similar thing happened when Impero gave him the following ultimatum:

"So, which is it?

Are you taking the True Man of Honor and Integrity Way? (Posting your secret screenshot)

Or the easy way out? (Dropping the hammer)"

To which he replied "both", overriding not only his isolated desire to simply ban Impero, but also his previous decision to not share more proof. He couldn’t simply ban impero because that would have meant yielding power to Impero's ultimatum. In order to avoid this, he had to additionally go against his own word and show proof despite previously saying that he won't do it.

I think this suggests that Charlie cares more about power than personal integrity.

Update: I am now banned too as a result of this post.

@insufferable said in Defanging your computer:

I don't want to get pinned down to just "it's the blue light that's bad." There's just something incredibly Wrong with these unnatural lights, beyond the red/blue thing. Very sensitive people on the ledstrain forum talk about how they wear red glasses, deal with the light flicker problem, and still they get terrible migraines and so on from their screens and modern lights

On the old forum there is a thread called "nothing in life comes free", it might interest you. From what I remember, it's not just light but EMF that will enter your eyes, and since your eyes are an extension of your brain, the EMF will easily enter your brain. The harmful effects happen all the way to quantum level where the spin of electrons is affected, meaning that you can't really completely mitigate it in any way other than stopping exposure to it.

Anyway, great thread. I'm probably going to buy an e ink screen soon too.

@Mulloch94 said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:

To meet the demand of something with an adequate supply

From what I see, fentanyl is already being supplied so well that you will get a free fentanyl lacing to whatever illicit substance you buy. In order to become the best supplier, not only are you going to have to give it to people for free, you might actually have to pay people to take it from you. I do not support your freedom to ruin your personal finances like that. If you give your money to me instead your wealth will be well protected.

@jhp said in Nietzsche Discussion Thread:

This is true of Aristotle, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or Descartes, or Locke, or Kant. Such philosophies are like mountains: you climb to their tops or you give up. In either case, you will know what has happened and "where you are." But this is not so with the thought of Plato, or St. Augustine, or Pascal, or Kierkegaard, or Nietzsche. Their philosophies are like human faces on the features of which are inscribed, disquietingly, the destinies of souls; or like cities rich in history.

If you are familiar with Jungian typology, the philosophers in the first group lead with introverted or extroverted thinking functions. Hence the logical and explicit progression of their thoughts. The second group consists of dominant intuitives and feelers. Their thoughts have a more implicit and less definite nature. Due to the reductive nature of translating intuitive thought processes into written form, almost as much meaning is communicated by what is left unsaid as by what is actually written down on the paper. Hence the works of intuitive philosophers partially act as a mirror into the reader's own mind, so that everyone, depending on their innate and acquired disposition, will end up with a different interpretation of their message.

@Mulloch94 said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:

I should be able to open a lemonade stand and sell fentanyl to whoever wants it.

Why?

@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:

Society is just another concept used to justify coercion and compulsion.

In that case, why submit to it? Why pay taxes to it and benefit from its tax-produced products and services? I don't believe you are really against the idea of a society. Rather, you just want rights without duties. Yet duties are necessary for the perpetuation of your rights. Unless you are an anarchist, wanting to enjoy individualism while disregarding how to best serve the society that is making your individualism possible is the attitude of a parasite. Is it not so?

@Ecstatic_Hamster Though we abide by individualism, as individuals we do not exist in absolute isolation nor can our actions be separated from the living fabric of the society. Where the 'fine until it harms somebody' line of reasoning falls short is in not acknowledging that the behaviors justified by such rhetoric more often than not characteristically lower the individual's potential to positively contribute to the surrounding society. Since deliberately diminishing the growth potential of an entity is almost universally regarded as harmful, it would be fair to assert that letting the individual harm themselves in the name of pleasure will be indirectly harmful to everyone in the society by lowering the individual's ability to contribute to societal growth. In other words, in 'fine until it hurts somebody', the somebody has to not merely refer to bystanders, but the subject himself too, if we are to truly be mindful of the harmful consequences of our choices. The question thus becomes: why should the society harm itself by allowing its inhabitants to harm themselves?

@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:

@Sugar completely support people in their rights to do anything that does not hurt others. Drugs prostitution etc all should be legal completely.

How could engaging in drugs and prostitution not hurt others?

@Kilgore said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:

@jens @Hando-Jin Are libertarians actually looking at most people today and thinking, "These people are capable of self-governing"?

That is precisely the fatal error in libertarianism. It is projection of one's perceived self-sufficiency on the population at large. Worse, often this perception of self-sufficiency is not even justified.

@TheRealPeater said in New "Mission" of RPF:

I have no idea if you are 'correct', Biblically speaking, but that was a beautiful sentiment.

It's not directly said in the Bible, but I think it can be inferred from how Jesus came for the sinners and
the poor in spirit, rather than the virtuous. Besides fear, what else could generate in someone the need for a redeemer, if not disappointment in their own inability to be absolutely good? Being aware of how you are persistently unable to choose the most righteous words and actions in every moment of your life will unsettle the conscience in a way where only accepting the perfect lawfulness of a divine figure as your own can help. Anyway, it is a beautiful sentiment for sure.

@DonkeyDude said in New "Mission" of RPF:

What is this ideology?

It's British Christian Identity, or Anglo-Israelism. Their proponents believe that the ten lost tribes of Israel became the Europeans (and later on, Americans). It leads to some funny implications, such as the Holocaust being a Jewish civil war.

@yerrag

The Holy Spirit is where...

I think you might be creating an unnecessary divide between the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit does not have a will of its own, but rather is a medium for Christ's work within us. When you turn to Jesus in prayer, Jesus responds to you via the Holy Spirit. Whether you are inspired to action or something else, it is channeled by external God through the Holy Spirit into your inner heart. Thus whether we refer to this as an external or internal process is not necessarily anything more than semantics.

I hope you know what Christ said is the greatest commandment. If you knew, you would know Christianity is merely an umbrella for a group of religions and sects hasn't had the effect of bringing any semblance of God's Kingdom here on earth. All wars we see are not the just war that Christianity on paper sanctions where good triumphs over evil. It's only in movies where good
triumphs.
The inability to see this reality is what makes one blind and to hold one to using Christ as his security blanket due to one's inability to summon the courage and inspiration to make himself a vessel for God's love.

Yes, agree. We seem to be paraphrasing the same point here. As God's kingdom is not of this world, we are not called to create a political holy Christian kingdom entity on Earth. Instead, it is God's love shared between believers that definess this unseen kingdom.

Relative to the current state of world affairs in our current civilization, there have been meritocracies that far outshine Christian kingdoms and empires.

As far as I know, meritocracy has hardly ever been legitimately tried. Since the times of Plato, it has retained its relevancy mostly as a theoretical curiosity. So what meritocratic societies would you be referring to? Of course, in regards to current state of world, almost anything would be preferable.

I was asking you a hypothetical that isn't improbable as clearly there are men who could be great leaders and you your saying these people are so rare (once in a century?) makes me laugh. Where do you live that you have such as low view of people?

Your hypothetical is based on your subjective estimation regarding the prevalence of great leaders. In response, I am offering a view based on my own estimation. Fair game, no?

You are clearly denying the existence of an effort to make the practice of medicine in the US, which has been ongoing for already a century. I asked you about the Flexner Report and you chose to ignore it.

Eh, no. I implicitly (and now explicitly) acknowledged it in my argumentation. Who allowed those practices to be put in use, if not the people? Why did they allow it, if not for having weakened themselves by their own sins? In the Bible, God repeatedly allowed the enemies of the Israelites to harm them whenever they turned away from God. In the US, perhaps the same pattern is happening to you. If the OT is to be modelled, turning back to God would make your enemies lose their power.

I don't know what the Flexner report is. If you think it is relevant, you are welcome to explain it. Otherwise I can do nothing but ignore it.

You goofed in what you said because you troll by habit and couldn't resist. Now you're caught foot in your mouth, and ignore answering for fear you will look silly.
Shows you to be the troll as you so often demonstrated at RPF and continue to be here.

I really don't get why you insist that I must be trolling. It is mildly offensive, because it implies that my views are so stupid that they can't be real. In the past you have come across as a reasonable man who could discuss a wide range of topics calmly and rationally without making things personal. I wish you would honor that tradition.

@yerrag said in New "Mission" of RPF:

As I said, you can rely on the God from within and not on the God from without.

I am unable to infer exactly what you mean by that. What is the difference between the two in the context of one's practical life?

All are helpless. In need of saving! By an external all-[powerful entity in Christ Jesus the Messiah. And very hopeful but hopeless in the infinity of time that Jesus will come and save them. Faith in the non-existent that is to come keeps them as eternal slaves to the powers that be as they die and let their children, and their children's children, keep this nonsense going on while the Zionists and their sycophants keep getting more entrenched in feeding off this brainwashed mass of humans.

It seems that you are critizicing Christianity for its failure to be something which it was never intended to be. The most fundamental function of Christianity is to offer a permanent solution to a person who has actually tried their best to be good, and, like anyone who has attempted to be good, been unable to satisfy the uncompromosing standards of the law that is their own conscience. In other words, Christ gives an exit strategy to the person who wants to be moral yet is trapped in a vessel of immorality. Thus in general, an inability to fathom the need for Christ reveals a person who has never truly tried to be good.

That Christianity is used as a foundation to earthly culture or politics and is subsequently generating abominable outcomes is not at all the fault of what Christ is, does or advocates for, but the fault of how humans pervert Truth in their pursuit of an Earthly paradise. Every example in your reply serves to show precisely why we need more of the grace of Christ and less of our own, misguided deeds.

Let's just stick to the last 2000 years ok? Is that fair?

Unfortunately no, as that would not deliver an accurate picture of our downfall which began with the advent of agriculture and kickstarted our physical and mental degeneration. I do certainly understand your urgency to focus strictly on the timespan in which Christianity was born and developed, as a larger picture than that would invalidate many of the points with which you are hoping to paint Christianity as a disaster to mankind.

It's better off to be born without this brainwashing and abide by natural law, and to be guided by humanistic philosophies such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, and Manichaeism. For that may still bring true hope that society will once again develop and not degrade as the government is formed by meritocracy where public servants are respected because they are raised on ethical standards and shame exists as a code exists that serves the common good. This is love expressed in the highest levels of society.

Yes, living in an utopia would be nice. Due to the imperfections innate to man, evident in history and present day alike, there is no good reason to assume that this would be attainable. It is too easy to refute existing paradigms with pipe dreams, yet exceedingly hard to refute them with something that is known to exist or have existed.

Was that a product of God's design or by a conspiracy by a group of evil men to game the system to slowly but surely build a population of sick and stupid people whom they can use as Orcs?

Clearly it is both. Evil men can only ride on the backs of our sins. Their success is a dynamic testament to our failure to live responsibly. Their rule would end the minute we regained our sense of virtue. It's not a conspiracy when the ones being conspired against are willingly perpetuating the conspirators' power with their own deeds.

Let's say you were able to become...

But you are not, the people around you are not, and the masses at large are not. This is very much the wishful speculation I am motivated to point out. Those once-in-a-century men who are destined for greatness will inevitably manifest that, be they Christian or humanist. Such men raise the masses behind them and even change the direction of mankind. In absence of these men, however, it is pointless to rally people as if their leader already existed. It is far more productive to simply teach them to live righteously instead, and so deprive the evil powers of their sustenance.

Or do I need to explain to you more? Please don't feign ignorance this time.
Being knowledgeable enough and having been in the RP Forum long enough, it seems you favor trolling with your pretense at ignorance with your line of reasoning.

I urge you to clearly spell out every point you are looking to make. You can't ascribe our lack of mind-reading powers to malicious intent such as trolling or feigned ignorance.

@yerrag said in New "Mission" of RPF:

The hopefulness all Christians possess in acting for an externality in Jesus to be a magic bullet for all evil is a vehicle for extreme helplessness as it doesn't allow each believer to take corrective action to make the world better meaningfully.

What would it mean to make the world better meaningfully? What meaningful improvements have we achieved since the dawn of agriculture? Our grand achievement is that we have gradually turned ourselves sick, weak, ugly and stupid. We have uprooted everything that is necessary for our wellbeing. No community, no traditions, no harmony with nature, no healthy culture, no good food. We used to have everything we needed before we came up with the idea that the world could somehow be improved.

Since our largest efforts seem to only make things worse for everyone involved, the most rational thing for us to do is to stop trying to fix the world. The world is a lost cause, and trying to save it will not just waste your time, it might cost you your soul. Evidently any possible hope for us humans, as well as the world itself, can be found in nothing lesser than God himself. Rather than learned helplessness, this is lucidity given by 10 000 years of hard evidence.

The sphere where they do good is limited to their small bubble of family of friends, but on a larger scale they allow the noosphere to be controlled by a perpetual evil set of masters that would never give peace and justice a chance.

It is mere supply and demand in action. What can Christians - or any group for that matter - do against a sick population producing the demand for a sick noosphere? A population has the masters it deserves, as the flaws of the masters are but a reflection of the flaws of the population and what the latter deems permissible (even if begrudgingly).

The only sphere where an individual can realistically be expected to do good is their family and friends. Is it not so? How much influence do you really have over what is going on even in the government of your own municipality, let alone your country, or another country altogether? It is, in most cases, wishful or delusional thinking to believe that one's potential sphere of influence could reach much farther than their immediate environment. Therefore, the most an individual can be asked to do is to take care of the people close to them. If everyone did this, the world would fix itself. It is in no way the fault of the people doing just this that others are not doing it too. What are you doing more than your family?

@CO3 What you have is a potentially unjustified belief in the healthiness of your approach. Discussing this is fairly on-topic, and your refusal to do so is far more anti-Peat than anything else written in this thread so far. If NDT was giving you wrinkles or white hair, would you still be able to justify your denialism with fantastic abstractions? Absence of lunulae is no different.

@CO3 I don't get it. Are you on thyroid or not? Why would you think your metabolism has healed when you are depending on meds to keep it running?

@CO3 Are you on thyroid? Ray said that his disapprared on thyroid. Due to this, I wouldn't take it as a sign of the metabolism healing, but rather as the med imblancing the body further. Traditionally and universally, lunulae have been seen as a marker of health.

Very small in eight fingers in total. Few people are healthy enough to have good sized lunulae these days.

@zipris Changes in serotonin or other neurotransmitters are intermediate steps in the metabolism, meaning that they have no causal agency. Usually a more fundamental issue is accumulation of metals such as copper or mercury. The drug use and veganism OP mentioned will cripple the adrenals and burn through zinc reserves both of which will lead to copper accumulation. The reason high dose B vitamins are sometimes used to treat schizophrenia is that they enable thr metabolism to circumvent the downstream effects of metal toxicity. However since they don't fix the underlying toxicity their use has to be continued indefinitely or the symptoms will come back.

@AltarandThrone interesting, thanks for the lesson.

@Peatly Yeah, that's true. Taking a lot of magnesium tends to counter the twitching resulting from excess calcium. Strangely, all my electrolytes are above average within their respective reference ranges, so there could be more to it than mere electrolyte levels.