I disagree. The heart (body) uses the embodied logic of feelings. The mind uses abstracted logic of reasoning. The raised voices come into play when one cannot tell body from the mind or mind from the body. Or worse when either or both are mistaken for the will.

When you understands you is the will, not your mind and you are not your body, it allows for calm reasoning and discussion while taking input from both the mind and the body, but knowing you are neither.

I am not my mind. I am not my body. I am the will that drives both.

How do we deal with the deflationary nature of bitcoin that incentives holding on to bitcoin, because it will be worth more in the future? How do we over come the low velocity this creates?

I had to look it up a lot of the facts checkout and demonstrates Navarro character. He did even tell his co-author that Ron Vara was made up.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/18/771396016/white-house-adviser-peter-navarro-calls-fictional-alter-ego-an-inside-joke

Humans want to be special and equal at the same time, which is an idea at odds with itself.

This conflict can be resolved by equivalence.

We are equivalent.

Reminds me of the chicken in Moana.

There is something fundamentally broken. But not broken like it worked before and doesn’t now. The kind of broken like an electrical circuit where there is nothing flowing through it.

How can so many believe that nothing is their group’s fault?

Nothing outside their immediate surroundings are their responsibility?

The goal is not to ensure your Live, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is not infringe upon.

Everyone should be doing everything they can to not infringe on anyone else’s Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. This is the goal.

It is hard when there is so much happiness derived from others suffering. It requires restraint and discipline to not infringe on others rights when your Pursuit of Happiness involves depriving others their Pursuit of Happiness or their Liberty or their Life.

But we must learn to defend the rights of those we do not like and trust them to defend our rights.

If America ever got one thing right it is that the rights Life, Liberty, and especially the Pursuit of Happiness are unalienable, foundational, fundamental, and universal.

I do not hold these truths to be self evident, because I have clear, decisive, and logical arguments to explain their importance.

There is something fundamentally broken. But not broken like it worked before and doesn’t now. The kind of broken like an electrical circuit where there is nothing flowing through it.

How can so many believe that nothing is their groups fault?

Nothing outside their immediate surroundings are their responsibility?

The goal is not to ensure your Live, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness in not infringe upon.

Everyone should be doing everything they can to not infringe on anyone else’s Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. This is the goal.

It is hard when the is so much happiness derived from others suffering. It requires restraint and discipline to not infringe on others rights when your Pursuit of Happiness involves depriving others their Pursuit of Happiness or their Liberty or their Life.

But we must learn to defend the rights of those we do not like and trust them to defend our rights.

If America ever got one thing right it is that the rights Life, Liberty, and especially the Pursuit of Happiness are unalienable, foundational, fundamental, universal.

I do not hold these truths to be self evident, because I have clear, decisive, and logical arguments to explain their importance.

Have you accounted for all confounding variables? To determine if there is actually a statistically significant difference?

“They’re trying to make Trump look bad.”

This is a pervasive way of thinking in a dangerously large subset of the population.

You can see it when confronting a person with the logical conclusion of their stated beliefs and instead of posing a logical counter argument they say, “You’re twisting my words to make me look bad!”

My hypothesis is they think, “I’m a good person. It can’t be bad, if I do it.”

If you are person who thinks other are twisting you works to make you look bad, then you should consider you might not be the hero of your story… you might be the unreliable narrator.

I don’t mean that I’m to blame for being misunderstood. I mean that I see it as my responsibility to communicate in a way others can understand.

Miscommunication isn’t a moral failure; there’s no wrong to be ascribed when it happens.

There are times when others may engage in willful ignorance, which I do think is wrong. But I still see it as my responsibility to find a way to communicate effectively.

Fair is a subjective feeling, not an objective measure.

I always consider being misunderstood as my own failure. If I communicate well then I should not be misunderstood. Though it can be quite hard to communicate well, because one must take into consideration the assumptions and biases of others when communicating.

Don’t know if that’s true. I think you’re generalizing based off perceptions about archetypes.

Also it occurs to me that your argument against UBI is that there will be a social credit system as a part of UBI, which is not the case.

In Alaska they have a form of UBI that does not include a social credit system, it’s called Permanent Fund Dividend.

Also it just occurred to me that your argument is based on the assumption that UBI will come with a social credit system, which is not the case in Alaska where they have a form of UBI called Permanent Fund Dividend.

Likes and reposts also function in a way that is similar to a decentralized social credit system.

It seems like your argument is actually that a social credit system would make you a slave to the state, not that UBI would make you a slave to the state.

It just occurred to me that Zaps function in a way that is similar to a decentralized social credit system.

Why do you believe that it would make someone a slave to the state?

I can see an argument that under the current system people are slaves to corporations, because their heath insurance and access to food, shelter, etc. in many cases depend on maintaining the status quo of keeping corporations happy. Then if that support moves to the state then one is a slave to state. But I’m not sure that argument would hold up.

This sounds very much like something ChatGPT would say. It is good.