Posts by gentlecanyon92

quietdriver3 said:But if you can identify it,

does that mean you actually know how to solve it too? 😉

If you remember anything from high school math, you'll know that isn't the case. 😛

So we need to define whether EI refers strictly to recognition or both recognition and resolution..

Well?

quietdriver3 said:rowdyridge59 👍

Besides, why would you even call their approach to handling emotions "intelligence"?

Isn't intelligence the ability to actually solve a problem? Not just recognizing one. 😕

Once you recognize it, then comes the solution...

But how can you solve anything if you don't recognize it first? 😕 😉 😁

wiredbison92 said:Intelligence is innate—a baseline potential hardwired into our genetics. Our job is simply to cultivate it...

👍

good
smart
nice

☕

Fine

I don't think there's anything left to say here besides just insulting one another, so...

CONCLUSION: believe what you want, or don't. It's up to you..

🙂 🙂

quietdriver3 said:how can you not get it? we protect people out of selfless love.

You can't argue that someone risked their life to save another just because jealousy is a selfish emotion.

To be a total killjoy about it, here is the definition:

Jealousy: 1. The mental anguish felt by one who doubts the fidelity of another. 2. A sense of rivalry regarding others in business, pursuit of success, utility, etc.

Or to put it in Jedi terms: Jealousy leads to the dark side. 😈

No, I'm just saying jealousy can be positive—not in the sense of being envious of someone else... it's that specific, turbulent feeling.
You see your partner hanging out with someone who is a bad influence... out of love, you want to protect them from that person. That protective instinct manifests as a unique sensation—called jealousy. In a positive sense, it drives you to take action.

That’s different from when we say you're jealous of someone because you want to be in their shoes.

quietdriver3 said:Yeah, I am.

And it’s a pretty negative feeling.

Let’s put it this way: you can't exactly wrap the word "jealousy" in a positive context without it being total bullshit. 🙂

To me, "positive jealousy" is just an oxymoron. 🙂

We're making progress, 😉

Look, what you call "positive jealousy" is really just that same exact feeling—the only thing that makes it "positive" is that you're feeling it right now because you want to protect something precious to you, or shield someone you love from harm...

Do you see what I'm getting at? 🙂

quietdriver3 said:😕

you’ve clearly never felt a hint of jealousy😉 ?

quietdriver3 said:look, if we protect someone because they mean something to us, we do it out of love, not jealousy.

There's no other way to explain it. Unless you've actually felt love—that healthy kind of protective instinct—it’s just not the same.🙂

Kate Diaz You’re busy dissecting my answers instead of actually answering the question. So, let's get to it: do you believe there are any legitimate bioenergetic practitioners out there, or have you just dismissed everyone claiming the title? And you skipped over $0.00 regarding the therapy... honestly, when things line up this perfectly, it feels like more than just coincidence or a lie.

Rebecca Cox2 said:If there is any valid parallel to draw, it’s between our modern civilization and the various tribal cultures still existing today. Why? Because a few thousand years ago—and even just a few centuries ago here in the USA—we lived in those exact same types of tribes. If you go back 20,000 years, every single human being, from the very first to the last, lived in a tribe. It’s only in the last 10,000 years that things began to shift. That means we spent roughly 10 or 15 times longer living as the humans we recognize today within tribal structures. If we consider Homo sapiens to be "human" rather than just an ancestor, that multiplier jumps to 50. Essentially, for the last 500,000 years, the vast majority of the population lived tribally; only the last 10,000 years—about 5% of that total time—saw a change. We can only say that the populations living tribally versus "civilized" lifestyles reached parity within the last 500 to 1,000 years (roughly 1-2% of the timeline).

So tell me: which set of laws is our brain actually wired to grasp and follow? Civilized ones, or tribal ones?

Not to mention the fact that we have always lived according to natural laws—because if we hadn't, we wouldn't have been alive in the first place...

Yeah, I get your point, but I think the massive differences that emerged over those tens of thousands of years mean people simply think differently now...
You claim a woman in a tribe knows how to raise a child while our mothers don't—that we need books, whereas tribes could just write them down. But I honestly question how much actual positive impact books and all that stuff have on parenting. To me, things seem to be getting worse, not better.🙂
Couldn't the same logic apply to laws? I highly doubt a person in a tribe reacts to things the same way someone in a modern civilization does.

Did I actually mention the price? It seems you all missed that part of my posts..

So, we’ve already established that people get sucked into scams because of the money...

And this guy is going to heal me (and them) for $0.00... I have zero expenses involved, and he isn't making any material gain from it either...

Therefore, does it even make sense for him to do this for free unless it's actually the truth?

Kate Diaz said:Look, it's fine. If believing in this actually helps you, then there isn't a problem.

But how do you actually know it was HIM—the energy healer—who did the work? Personally, it might not matter much to you; all that matters is that you got better. But you can't claim he definitely provided the cure or that you're certain of his efficacy.

It is entirely possible your illness simply ran its course, or that your own immune system won the fight. You just happened to credit the energy healer by sheer coincidence.

On the other hand, we shouldn't ignore the massive psychosomatic impact of the placebo effect. If you believed that this healer would help, and you were deeply convinced of it, that psychological effect can be powerful enough to trigger actual physical improvement. That phenomenon is widely recognized in medicine and is even utilized for therapeutic purposes.

Impossible..
I know he helped because the problem vanished right at the moment he was treating me—and that has happened more than once..
And I know I wasn't just influencing it, because the first time I didn't even believe in it, and a few times I didn't even know (I was watching TV, had no clue he was even treating me at that moment) ..

Besides, when an energy healer cures someone of a months-long illness even when that person doesn't believe in any of this, how can you say it's not happening..

If it is a coincidence, I'll keep repeating it as long as he's healing people.😉

Kate Diaz said:Determining whether a method is actually effective or justified is a bit more complex than just listening to hearsay or highlighting individual success stories. You have to weigh those successes against the total number of attempts. Unfortunately for energy healers, when you apply a systematic approach to testing their success rate, it becomes clear that their "wins" are often nothing more than pure coincidence driven by the placebo effect.

I don't know what specific coincidences need to align or if there's some distinction between what they can and cannot heal, but I know that for certain cases, it is possible..

Kate Diaz said:What really bothers me isn't that people seek help from alternative practitioners, but rather their obnoxious and aggressive behavior. Their self-promotion and the way they "prove" themselves by citing successful cases where they supposedly cure cancer or a million other ailments that conventional medicine can't touch is nothing but a lie, an illusion, and a deception. It’s playing with people's emotions; it's a scam, and at the very least, it's the most morally bankrupt form of manipulation. It’s like selling a lump of dirt as gold and claiming it's precious just because you found one tiny speck of gold inside that dirt.

Again, I am warning you that there are both real ones and frauds... I have never personally encountered anyone aggressive or even advertising themselves at all....

Rebecca Cox2 said:Different topic, but briefly...

A child has an instinct for self-preservation; they won't just burn themselves. When Mom says "don't touch, you'll get burned," the kid interprets that as Mom EXPECTING them to get burned, so they strive to meet that expectation. It’s the same logic with running away from Mom—if she starts chasing, the kid thinks, "She expects me to run." ALL OTHER DESCENDANTS don't run from their parents; they stay close. They do it because biological law dictates that moving away decreases survival odds (due to predators). Human infants are built this way (we're mammals, after all), and the only ones who act differently are our babies in civilized society...

Exactly. This confirms my point: natural laws and social laws aren't the same thing. Even if children in certain tribes don't run, our kids in the US do. It's that same issue from before—you can't apply those laws here now... because it isn't the same...

Rebecca Cox2 said:Why wouldn't that change if our environment changed? Why wouldn't people realize it's better to stand on a balcony than to chase prey (which is usually why people rush)?

Because society is far too stubborn to allow 4 billion people to change like that... in any capacity...

Rebecca Cox2 said:Modern social laws aren't particularly efficient. Tribal social laws work incredibly well. They work because they are rooted in natural laws and the fact that they don't just prevent bad behavior (for both the individual and the tribe/society), but instead attempt to restore the status quo to something close to normal after a violation occurs. Those laws are designed for humans (and the tribe), whereas our current laws are designed for the system (and the system couldn't care less about people or society)...

Can you actually draw a parallel between a tribe and our civilization? Highly unlikely... sure, we are all human, but the scale is massive. That’s why it’s so difficult to apply their rules to us..

Rebecca Cox2 said:Absolute freedom doesn't exist, so it wouldn't destroy anyone. Honest people would stay honest, mostly honest people would stay mostly honest, and criminals would remain criminals—there would just be far fewer of them, because consciousness shifts based on circumstances. In other words, as long as these living conditions exist (regulated by these specific laws), human consciousness will remain this way. If the environment changed, the consciousness of the majority would change too. I say the majority because the minority (intellectuals, artists, those with strong "spirit," etc.) don't really need that—those types of people shift their consciousness with much smaller changes in circumstance...

Criminals would gain more power and operate with fewer constraints, which suits them perfectly... honest people would have to defend themselves. That's just how it works..

Yeah, true enough... and honestly, I doubt many people would actually start driving responsibly just because of a rule. They wouldn't. It’s only after a wreck that they finally get spooked..(like when a mom tells her kid, "don't touch that, you'll burn yourself"... is the kid going to listen? No. They have to touch it and feel the sting to learn. Then maybe they'll blow on it, but by then, what's the point? It's already done)🙂

And who isn't in a rush these days? Of course everyone wants to zip from New York to LA in record time... and who wouldn't try to make that happen🙂 It's not like standing out on your balcony. You're on the balcony because you've got nothing better to do and you aren't in any hurry to be anywhere else

Superskeptik said:Laws are laws. They either work or they don't. Whether they are social, natural, or divine (assuming such things exist)...

but you can't compare them.🙂 You said there's a penalty for breaking any natural law... I agree. Any violation of natural law carries consequences. In contrast, social laws aren't nearly as effective. But that's a different conversation entirely.🙂

Superskeptik said:It would have an effect if you didn't feel like you're constantly being restricted (and thus expected to slip up), having to watch every little detail just to stay within the law. I consider myself an honest man, yet I break some law every single day...

I think it would.

Besides, those kinds of traffic laws already exist elsewhere. For instance, in Malta, there aren't any signs or traffic lights, yet they have fewer accidents than many other countries (despite having plenty of cars). Their rule is basically "older and better car goes first," and municipal services—buses, delivery trucks, fire engines, police, etc.—have the right of way.

In Kenya, it's similar, though their only rule is this: drive however you want, just don't hit anything or anyone.

Meanwhile, in Brazil or southern Italy, you have a massive amount of signs and signals, but people mostly only obey them during the day. Once night falls, all those lights and signs become optional...🙂

You also have to consider that the other side—pedestrians—would take the new laws into account and cross the street more cautiously. They would behave just like you do on your own balcony—you don't need a sign telling you not to climb over the railing and jump down...

And you think this could actually work anywhere?

I agree that such a system could function... but I disagree that it could work here and now. First, you'd have to change the collective consciousness. People would need to reach a certain moral (extroverted) threshold before something like total freedom could even be considered...

And given how people are now, I suspect total freedom would simply destroy the few honest and decent people left. 🙂

Rebecca Cox2 said:I’m not talking about forcing them. The laws will do that themselves. Can you name a single individual or species capable of breaking the laws of nature without facing death as a consequence? I can't.

Social statutes aren't natural laws.

Rebecca Cox2 said:What would actually stop you from driving like a maniac at 120 mph (assuming you're in a rush, not being suicidal)? A speed limit sign? State troopers catching you on camera? A $500 fine, $333 and points on your license? Losing your driver's privilege entirely?

Or the simple fact that if you drive that recklessly and screw up—you could lose a massive chunk of your life?

Radical changes aren't inherently good or bad. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

But to prevent failure, here is my proposal: implement a temporary law (say, for 3 years). If there are results, extend it for another 5. If things get worse or stay stagnant, the law simply expires. Period.

If after 8 years it shows positive results, then it becomes permanent law.

There. We solve the "radicalism" argument people complain about while still giving us a chance to see what change brings. The same logic could apply to drug policy (which I should move to the RIGHT subforum) or any other regulation, rather than trying to squeeze everything into old, broken frameworks...

Fine, but what specific function would such a system or those laws actually serve? All we've concluded is that penalties need to be harsher... and you can do that with the current legal framework already in place.

On the other hand, it's obvious people ignore recommendations and restrictions regarding driving. Imagine if those were removed... how many people would floor it just to test their car's limits, causing accidents in the process? They don't think anything bad will happen. No one wants to deal with consequences. They aren't thinking about the person killed, they aren't thinking about $667, or $3333, so they certainly won't be thinking about a lifetime ban on driving.

Rebecca Cox2 said:Current laws—if you haven't noticed—aren't doing a damn thing. And, as Arthur Dent pointed out in his post, fools will always be fools.

My take? There would be fewer criminals if our laws weren't riddled with loopholes and actually made sense. Plus, the penalties for ruining someone else's life or liberty should be much more severe...

For example: imagine a father who, after losing one son, was sentenced to lifetime labor to support the family he harmed or society at large (with all civil liberties stripped away). He might actually think twice before buying his younger son a fast car. Think about how that would impact that kid—or you, knowing that even if you "accidentally" kill someone, you won't face a long prison sentence...

noticed

Look, I get what you're getting at... but every example we've seen shows there's no such thing as perfection, especially when it comes to legislation. You can't tame everyone or force them to play by the rules through any means necessary...

I agree that our legal system needs harsher penalties across the board...
but I highly doubt a radical overhaul like yours would actually achieve anything significant.

Rebecca Cox2 said:No, I wouldn't be indifferent. But I’d take comfort in knowing that because of their actions, they'll spend most of their lives without what humans value most—freedom. Besides, society would be safer for those 20 years.

Point being...
but most people wouldn't let someone die just because they're an idiot, which is exactly why our current laws exist... 🙂