Are brain implants the future of treatment for depression and anxiety?

[Syne]

She says, again avoiding the simple questions about her supposed values.

[Secular Sanity]

I thought I answered them.

What I value may not be what another person values even in the same situation.

Sex is a natural part of being human. It’s pleasurable and can deepen connections. I’m a heterosexual but that’s just me. Not everyone else is. Our sexual desires do not have to serve humanity by propagating humans.

I’m an atheist but that’s just me. I’m learning to recognize that others may have a deep need to believe in something over and above themselves—in something that exists outside of space and time. An entity that can define what is good or bad is immensely powerful and influential. I am no such entity. When I looked into the abyss, I saw myself doing what I hate—preaching on how to live.

Don’t get me wrong though, if you ask for my opinion or push yours onto me, I will respond in kind.

I also clearly said that taking something that may help deal with anxiety is fine as long as it helps and doesn’t interfere with getting on with life.

Don’t be sad! Don’t be nervous! Don’t be stressed! Stress will kill you! That’s all we ever hear, but accepting, dissecting and validating these responses for what they are, e.g., thoughts as thoughts, physical sensation as such, emotions, etc. is helpful.

"We invented happiness"—say the last human beings, blinking. Each wants the same, each is the same and whoever feels differently goes voluntarily to the insane asylum."

Jeff Bridges was encouraging him to embrace his thoughts and feelings rather than fighting or feeling guilty for them.

[Syne]

I thought I answered them.

Only in your head, deary.

What I value may not be what another person values even in the same situation.

Do you believe murder is wrong? Or do you hedge about that too, because it "may not be what another person values?"

Sex is a natural part of being human. It’s pleasurable and can deepen connections. I’m a heterosexual but that’s just me. Not everyone else is. Our sexual desires do not have to serve humanity by propagating humans.

What's wrong with biology and evolution serving the survival and propagation of the species?

I’m an atheist but that’s just me. I’m learning to recognize that others may have a deep need to believe in something over and above themselves—in something that exists outside of space and time. An entity that can define what is good or bad is immensely powerful and influential. I am no such entity. When I looked into the abyss, I saw myself doing what I hate—preaching on how to live.

So your atheism is an ego boost, because you think it means you don't has this supposed "deep need." You think you'd be a lecturing shrew if you believed in a god? If that's what you think, that's in you, whether expressed or not.

Don’t get me wrong though, if you ask for my opinion or push yours onto me, I will respond in kind.

So...become a lecturing shrew. Like moralizing about others being judgemental.

I also clearly said that taking something that may help deal with anxiety is fine as long as it helps and doesn’t interfere with getting on with life.

The healthier approach would be to build a tolerance for run-of-the-mill anxiety, rather than seek to avoid it, which is a never-ending task (lifelong dependence on drugs, brain implants, etc.).

Jeff Bridges was encouraging him to embrace his thoughts and feelings rather than fighting or feeling guilty for them.

You don't embrace things by trying to suppress them.

[Secular Sanity]

Didn't we evolve with a propensity to kill? If everything is about evolution and biology, does that make it right?

Not everything that you write deserves a response. Your preconceived notions are at play here.

[Syne]

Didn't we evolve with a propensity to kill? If everything is about evolution and biology, does that make it right?

Except for self-defense or prey, propensity is not a biological/evolutionary necessity for survival of the species.
Do you see the mental gymnastics you're doing? Conflating propensity for necessity.

Not everything that you write deserves a response. Your preconceived notions are at play here.

Nah, that's just you avoiding cognitive dissonance. Always very telling what you choose to avoid. https://www.scivillage.com/thread-11374.html

[Secular Sanity]

Didn't we evolve with a propensity to kill? If everything is about evolution and biology, does that make it right?

Except for self-defense or prey, propensity is not a biological/evolutionary necessity for survival of the species.
Do you see the mental gymnastics you're doing? Conflating propensity for necessity.

Not everything that you write deserves a response. Your preconceived notions are at play here.

Nah, that's just you avoiding cognitive dissonance. Always very telling what you choose to avoid. https://www.scivillage.com/thread-11374.html

Nah, that's just me disagreeing with you and you thinking you're always right.

[Syne]

Nah, that's just me disagreeing with you and you thinking you're always right.

So...you disagree with no response? That more readily comes across as tactic agreement.

Nah, you're still just dodging the question. It's so typical of you.

[Syne]

So if a parent is not responsible for leaving their children in the street (or a driver innocent of killing two children by swerving off the road) and a truck driver not responsible of killing four people with his truck, is officer Kim Potter equally as innocent?

Kim Potter faces first-degree manslaughter and second-degree manslaughter charges for fatally shooting Daunte Wright during a traffic-stop-turned-arrest on April 11, 2021.
...
Prosecution

Assistant Minnesota Attorney General Erin Eldridge told jurors in her closing argument that the case is "very simple," it's about the "reckless handling of a firearm" and "culpable negligence" by Potter.
...
She added that "an accident is still a crime" if the defendant's actions are reckless or culpably negligent.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kim-pot...d71bf6719c

All three cases hinge on accidents and gross negligence. But I'm guessing people here will not be consistent with all three cases.

[Secular Sanity]

She got manslaughter, right? That's a less severe charge than the truck driver got.

[Syne]

She got manslaughter, right? That's a less severe charge than the truck driver got.

And she killed 1/4 of the people he did (plus he injured others). She's facing up to 25 years in prison, which is about 1/4 of his sentence. The math checks out.

But thanks for verifying that you have inconsistent standards.

Cheers.