Advertise on podcast: Ghostless Machine

In my fourth dialogue, I talk to Ștefan Mironescu about Câlin Georgescu. Ștefan studied cinema at the National University of Theatre and Film in Bucharest and works as a video producer. He’s also a member of the Party of Young People in Romania, one of the main parties behind Câlin Georgescu. Ștefan thinks Western values such as secularism, LGBT+ rights, and support for vaccine compulsion are harming Romania, and that the country needs a strong leader to preserve Romanian sovereignty and national values such as Christianity, traditional families, and the freedom to not vaccinate. Although I agree that there are legitimate reasons to be frustrated with the liberal world order, I think populists politicians are capitalizing on this frustration to promote an ideology that will ultimately harm Romania even more. Problems such as rising social inequality and the cost-of-living crisis are not going to be solved by scapegoating minorities, but by resisting culture wars and focusing on evidence-based policy. What do you think? Should Romania remain aligned with the EU and try to solve its problems within this paradigm? Or does it need a strong leader to fix the problems that liberal democracy has failed to address? Glossary: - PSD ("pe se de"): Partidul Social Democrat (Social Democratic Party) - USR ("uh se re"): Uniunea Salvați România (Save Romania Union) - AUR: Alianța pentru Unirea Românilor (Alliance for the Union of Romanians) - SENS: Sănătate, Educație, Natură, Sustenabilitate (Health Education Nature Sustainability Party) Intro 00:00 Teaser 00:42 The importance of dialogue Discussion 08:33 Introducing Ștefan Mironescu 17:22 Reasons for opposing/supporting Georgescu 21:16 The legionary movement 23:43 Ciolacu (PSD) vs. Lasconi (USR) 25:03 Christian values and the state 26:05 Most pressing problems in Romania 32:12 Is religion at risk? 41:24 What specific AUR policy proposals do you support? 42:05 Same-sex marriage vs. civil partnership 42:47 S3x education 45:55 Does voting conservative increase well-being for Romanians? 50:26 Shouldn't we trust science? 54:23 If fighting poverty is a priority, shouldn't we support parties like SENS? 57:17 How confident are you that Georgescu would be good for Romania? 58:19 Are you concerned about Russia's influence on Romania? 01:03:38 What would change your mind? 01:04:20 What does it mean to be leftist? 01:05:25 Polarizing language vs. real fascism 01:07:37 Biden, Trump & American Democracy 01:12:56 Aggressive/tribal leftists 01:13:15 Being controlled, billionaires, and trans rights 01:20:05 What would change your mind about the "left"? 01:23:21 What about the "right"? Abortion rights? 01:25:17 What would change my mind 01:30:47 What is the social cost of changing our minds? If you want to be up to date with Ștefan and his views, you can follow him on Instagram or Facebook. And if you like my content, make sure to follow me: - Website/Mailing list: http://ghostlessmachine.com/ - YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ghostless.machine - Facebook: https://facebook.com/ghostlessmachineblog - Instagram: https://instagram.com/arielpontes - Twitter: https://twitter.com/arielpontes - Medium: https://medium.com/@arielpontes - Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/arielpontes You can check the vegan strategist post about the "activist sweetspot" here.

In my third dialogue, I talk to Adrian Cotora about astrology. Adrian is the vice-president of the Romanian Astrologer's association and, as you can imagine, he believes the position of planets in the sky at the time of our birth correlate with different personality traits. I, on the other hand, as a naturalistic atheist, don't believe the position of planets correlate in any way with our personality. In this conversation we discuss how our different epistemic values lead us to these different conclusions, and we also discuss the possibility of a reformed astrology that focuses on its value as a potential psychological tool for exploring our relationships with different archetypes while avoiding untestable claims about the nature of the universe. So, what do you think? Is astrology real? 00:00 Teaser 00:26 Topic Introduction 01:14 The guest Adrian Cotora 02:05 Where do you think we agree? 03:17 Where do we disagree? 09:19 How does Astrology work? 17:21 The Barnum/Forer Effect 27:44 Pseudoscience and Popperian falsification 36:07 What would change your mind about Astrology? 49:02 How do you view Pseudoscience? 01:04:13 How sure are you about your version of Astrology? 01:09:15 Not believing but using astrology for personal growth? 01:30:29 Value of intuition in knowledge creationFor Adrian's Podcast (in Romanian), you can visit  @Transformarecontinua  . And if you like my content, make sure to follow me here: - Website/Newsletter: http://ghostlessmachine.com/ - YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ghostless.machine - Facebook: https://facebook.com/ghostlessmachineblog - Instagram: https://instagram.com/arielpontes - Twitter: https://twitter.com/arielpontes - Medium: https://medium.com/@arielpontes - Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/arielpontes

In the second Ghostless Machine dialogue, I talk to Kitty about verbal vs. nonverbal consent. Kitty jokingly refers to herself as a “consent-nazi”, meaning she thinks the only legitimate way to obtain consent is verbally. I, on the other hand, tend to think that such an approach fails to take into consideration the full complexity of human behavior and sexuality. Because of that I tend to favor alternative ways to tackle the issue of accidental violations of consent. So what do you think? Is nonverbal consent ever enough? 00:00:00 Teaser 00:00:42 Intro 00:01:50 Kitty's intro 00:02:30 Where do we agree and disagree? 00:06:47 How to ethically make a move on the first date? 00:08:35 Are there legitimate alternatives to verbal consent? 00:12:26 Steelmanning 00:15:59 What about people who are turned off by verbal requests for consent? 00:16:53 Nurture vs. Nature 00:33:43 How plausible it is that asking for verbal consent could become a dominant social norm? 00:39:36 If verbal consent wasn't an option, what would be the second best alternative? 00:43:23 Should we promote verbal consent as an admirable option rather than an obligation? 00:44:59 How confident are we about your opinion? 00:46:42 How confident am I? 00:47:20 Asking for consent in a non-robotic way 00:51:23 Why do guys reject the idea of asking for consent verbally? 00:55:33 What would make you change your mind? 00:57:25 What would make me change my mind? 01:00:20 Tips and final thoughts from Kitty 01:01:30 Do you think being dogmatic about verbal consent risks backfiring? If you’re interested in Kitty’s work, you can learn more about it in the following links: - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thekittyrea/ - Podcast: https://eropedia.ro/ - Influx: https://influx.events/ If you’re interested in tips about relationships, dating, and masculinity from her recommended sources, you can check them out here: - https://www.tiktok.com/@mattcama23 - https://www.tiktok.com/@justinbaldoni - https://www.tiktok.com/@remasculine - https://www.tiktok.com/@watchfulcoyote And finally, if you like my content, you can always follow me here: - Website/Newsletter: http://ghostlessmachine.com/ - Podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ghostlessmachine - Facebook: https://facebook.com/ghostlessmachineblog - Instagram: https://instagram.com/ghostlessmachine - Twitter: https://twitter.com/arielpontes - Medium: https://medium.com/@arielpontes - Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/arielpontes

I think political polarization is one of the biggest problems in our society right now. That's why I started a series of dialogues where I have friendly disagreements over controversial topics with a variety of guests. These conversations are guided by three core principles: scout mindset, non-violent communication, and radical honesty. In the first episode of the series, I talk to Jamie Woodhouse about the ethics of veganism. Jamie tends to believe veganism is a moral obligation, while I tend to believe there is no such thing as moral obligations, only better and worse actions. 00:00:00 Teaser 00:00:22 Intro 00:02:29 Jamie’s intro 00:03:39 Where we agree 00:07:02 Where we disagree 00:11:58 Moral obligations 00:19:09 Analogy with tallness  00:24:11 Levels of confidence 00:30:23 Is it natural to eat meat? 00:35:45 Does it matter? 00:43:03 Moral conventions  00:49:12 Individual vs. systemic change 00:55:27 Reducetarianism vs. abolitionism 01:00:45 Virtue ethics and rule-based utilitarianism 01:07:27 Jamie’s criticism of utilitarianism 01:11:33 Would this change your mind? 01:17:04 Is humane farming possible? 01:21:14 Jamie’s final message 01:24:46 Ending If you’re interested in Sentientism, you can learn more in the following links: Website: https://sentientism.info/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Sentientism Podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/sentientism Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2000192466918170 And if you like my content, you can follow me on these links: Website/Newsletter: http://ghostlessmachine.com/ YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@ghostless.machine Podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ghostlessmachine Facebook: https://facebook.com/ghostlessmachineblog Instagram: https://instagram.com/ghostlessmachine Twitter: https://twitter.com/arielpontes Medium: https://medium.com/@arielpontes Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/arielpontes nYEfE6n65x1FOQAXXHTj

The moral relevance of intentions Why intentions are important even for utilitarians This is the second of a series of articles defending a compatibilist interpretation of utilitarianism, which can be reconciled with all major moral theories. In this article I explain why intentions are important even for consequentialists. You can read the written article here.

Cultivating virtues is utilitarian Virtues are traits that contribute to a better society This is the second of a series of articles defending a compatibilist interpretation of utilitarianism, which can be reconciled with all major moral theories. In this article I explain how utilitarianism is compatible with virtue ethics. You can read the written article here.

This is the first of a series of articles defending a compatibilist interpretation of utilitarianism, which can be reconciled with all major moral theories in Western moral philosophy. In this article I explain what utilitarians mean by "pleasure" and "pain" and debunk a few myths that result from a misunderstanding of these terms. Original article: https://medium.com/humanist-voices/are-pain-and-pleasure-all-that-matters-4d45ac0a3e18

"Abortion should be legal. It is immoral to make it illegal. But is that because women have a fundamental right to do whatever they want with their bodies? No. This is simply an invalid argument, and in part the reason we fail to make progress on the abortion debate. Arguments matter. Sure, people are emotional and some are so blinded by their religion that they will not be persuaded by any arguments. But in any debate, there will always be persuadables. If we manage to spread a pro-choice narrative that appeals to universal moral intuitions rather than to the gut feelings of certain political groups or religious confessions, we might have a chance to make that narrative viral and persuade a critical mass of people. So what is the reason abortion should be legal?" Original article: https://medium.com/humanist-voices/abortion-is-harmless-62ddebdd4f72

"The tricky thing about conspiracy theories is that sometimes they’re true. This is a point that conspiracy theorists often bring up and we cannot simply dismiss them because it’s true, and we will lose credit if we simply deny it. But does that mean we should always presume any conspiracy theory is plausible until proven otherwise? Are they really all on equal footing? Of course not. Here’s why." Original article: https://medium.com/humanist-voices/conspiracy-theories-92ebab7581ad

"A few months ago, I decided to read 12 Rules For Life. All my progressive friends hated Jordan Peterson, he was the butt of many jokes in most philosophical or political pages I followed, and the target of strong criticism by most publications I read. On the other hand, many friends of mine who are super nice, open-minded, accepting and non-judgemental men and women, but who are completely oblivious about politics, seemed to be enthralled by him. On top of that, Sam Harris, a public intellectual that I deeply admire, seemed to have a very favorable attitude towards Peterson, even though they disagree on some fundamental issues. I had listened to all their debates, but I couldn’t make up my mind, so I finally decided to take a final step and read his (in)famous book in an attempt to formulate my own opinion." You can find the full article in text format here: https://medium.com/humanist-voices/on-jordan-peterson-8cfc410ac19a