• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Consept

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,227 profile views
  1. Im not really saying i know exactly where the line is and I am very glad i dont have to make such decisions. My main point is that its not a binary choice of there should be no government control or there should be full government control. The assertion has been made that complete free choice for the individual is paramount over having laws or policies that protect the majority sometimes from themselves. Also keep in mind if there isnt a sign on the road saying how fast you can go or if all the ingredients arent printed on a bottle of coca cola, the individual will sue the company for negligence. So its like the governments is screwed either way. Regarding your thought exercise, it is an extreme one but of course if the human race would become extinct youd have to do whatever it takes really and most likely it would have to involve deception as people wouldnt be willing to just give up their life. Of course youd exhaust every other possibility. The analogy is to say that would people still do something thats significantly bad for their health despite warnings and information, in the case of cola, cigarettes, alcohol, whatever, the answer is a resounding yes, these companies are some of the biggest and most profitable in the world. But i think what your missing is this idea of freedom that you have, it literally would not exist without government control. Its not like youre completely free and government are just annoying and getting in the way, you are free, at least more than ever before, because of government control. Theres no real way around this. Saddam Hussein was obviously a red strongman, dictator, but he had a good amount of control over Iraq. When he was taken out did everyone enjoy the freedom that was expected, well no, there was no control and order which meant anyone could do anything and that turned into a mess. The control we have today is more Orange/Green meaning that its no where near as bad as either a red dictatorship or our society if there was no control.
  2. I get what you're saying but then how far do you go with this? Should we be allowed not to wear seat belts? Which of this wasn't a law millions would most likely die. What about enforcing protective equipment for cycling or even having rules for the road, all these things could be seen as a nanny state in which the government purports to know better but bottom line is millions of lives are being saved. Also the very idea that we have any freedom is only possible because the government has immense security, laws and structure. If that wasn't in place there wouldn't anything stopping someone running into your house taking everything you have and beating the crap out of you. You having any freedom is specifically due to government of which you are also free to buy land off and live off grid not taking or giving anything to them. Imagine you were the leader of say Italy and they said to you, 'experts have told us that Coca-Cola consumption will be the cause of 2 million deaths over the next 10 years, if we significantly lower the sugar content we can save all these people, however there could be protests and people won't be happy about us choosing their sugar content because they want freedom to choose'. Would you give them that free choice knowing you're condemning so many people to death?
  3. The thing here though is that you're making an assumption people will make the best choices for themselves. Take Coca-Cola for example, it's been one of the most popular drinks for the last 100+ years. Is it responsible for the government to allow the same sugar content which will mess up peoples health, lead to numerous diseases etc in the name of freedom? Or is it more responsible to reduce the sugar or even ban the drinks as this will definitely save lives? It's not a simple choice as people will complain either way, so I guess as long as people are complaining you might as well save their lives. Either way I don't buy into this thing that everyone's going to make the best choice, not only for them but society, we're not even close to that level of consciousness on a wider scale.
  4. I feel this as well, when you're no longer trying to get anything from the social matrix or even have the expectation that it will make you happy, you can actually start meeting people where they are and enjoying those experiences with them
  5. I understand the green perspective and i get the red perspective, i dont necessarily agree with these perspectives but i think Leos laid this out quite well. If we say that what we currently have now in terms of the pandemic solution is a Blue/Orange (vaccines, lockdown etc) then what would be a red or green solution, as in if there was a green leader in charge who didnt believe in the current course of action what would their solution be? Also how effective would it likely be? We've had red leaders deal with it, most notably Bolsanaro in Brazil, which was a complete disaster and led to the state leaders simply not listening to him. We also had hints of it with Trump, although he was hindered by a good amount of the population and a system that includes weighted expert opinion. Had he been allowed to do what he wanted i think we can see it wouldve been pretty damaging. But would like to hear from someone who is a green anti-vaxx or vaccine hesitant person to break down the steps for what would have been an alternative strategy to what we have had.
  6. Turquoise can be very proactive, they basically live their life in service, whether it be giving daily talks to help people raise consciousness or doing what Sadhguru does with his eco efforts and volunteers. I think they realise that they can have a powerful impact on the planet and humans and so they use their higher perspective to carry it out. There are of course some that would probably just meditate in a cave but i dont think its intrinsic. Turquoise also is more community orientated, each stage of sd goes from individual to communal, yellow is individual and so next stage would be communal.
  7. Flat earth theory is really going to struggle to keep going with the imminent passenger space travel from virgin galactic and others, would be interesting to see how that's explained, maybe it's a simulator or something. In terms of censorship I guess what you're saying is 'what harm can it do?' to have potentially false ideas out there, especially if there's even a slight chance they could be real. The issue is how they are presented, so this isn't a neutral scientist saying 'here's the evidence for flat earth and here's the evidence for a globe'. These theories turn into belief systems a kin with religion, where they actively try and convince others what they believe. I guess inherently there's nothing more wrong with that than any other religion, so if it isn't causing damage then there's not as much of problem. However if you have a privately owned platform then it may degrade the validity and integrity of that platform if you allow such vagrant misinformation posing as truth on it . For example imagine this forum if there were many topics discussing and going into detail about whether flat earth is true or not, most serious actualizers would never come on here. Its the same with youtube and Google, if every out there, debunked, theory was given the same weight as proven theories then most likely people wouldn't go to those platforms for information, at best it would be very confusing. So to me it makes sense from that perspective, however they should obviously be free to talk about it amongst themselves, the idea itself is not censored its just not promoted. But the problem is if people find what they think is truth they always want to share it.
  8. Do you ever consider that blue especially but also orange are also incredibly sensitive, you could make the argument that they are even more sensitive than green, it's just that their sensitivities are more respected. For example if we look at blue and not even necessarily an extreme version. They tend to be religious, if anything was said about Jewish, Christian or Muslim people, even in an outdated language type of way they would be extremely sensitive to it. In fact there are anti-defamation organisations setup with the express intent of looking for these infractions that could even loosely be deemed as defamation, which then the person responsible will be sued or worse. I wont get into the backlash that has occurred from criticising Islam. Republicans are intensely sensitive, abortion, immigration, patriotism. The uproar and outrage from Kaepernick taking the knee was incredible. So to me it would seem people on both sides are sensitive, it's just that the green side is seen as comical or over the top, but I think this comes down to people being against the core ideas. The core ideas of green are not changing language, although both sides can do that to suit them, their ideas are about protecting the environment, treating animals as sentient beings, community etc. I think the reductionist way of taking them down to their most annoying tendancies is actually exceptional and a kind of whatever works marketing by the right, as it means you don't take them seriously and therefore don't look at the bigger picture. This strategy is played by both sides to some extent but the right are able to be more ruthless with it.
  9. OK I get where you're coming and why you might say that. First off I'm not really interested in labelling you anything, I don't think that's the point of this discussion. Everyone has at least an implicit bias, so it is what it is. So your position is to teach kids just facts with no context or no theory so that they can come up with their own theories. This sounds good on the surface but I think you're underplaying the importance of theories in teaching. For one youre asking a lot of kids to just come up with coherent theories for themselves just by being presented with facts. Most subjects and teaching have theory and are almost based around teaching it, there's economic theory for example, if you do economics you will learn all type of theories to make you understand the vast data of economics. If you just said there was a crash and then there was a boom and then this happened and then that happened, it gives no context or understanding of the bigger picture or why anything could have happened. It might be that some theories are biased or have different perspectives of the same event, but that's why you don't just learn one theory, you learn many and decide for yourself what makes the most sense or maybe take bits of different theory. When I was in school and we learnt about the holocaust, we learnt about Hitlers eugenics theory, we even learnt about his ideas in 'Mein Kempf', this was important to get an idea of what his perspective was and why he did what he did. I don't think anyone would say this shouldn't be taught as long as its not taught as truth and is balanced with other theories. So this brings us to crt, why is there an issue teaching a theory where the perspective is that society is somewhat built upon systemic racism? People have generally been OK with theories if it doesn't affect their worldview. There's a fear that this new theory, whatever it might be, will change the world we want to see. Creationists campaign against atheism or evolution to be taught in schools because they want to uphold their 'truth'. This is the same with crt. Even if you say crt is bullshit why should it not be taught? I don't have a problem with creationism or eugenics being taught and not because I'm overly accepting, I think if it is a bullshit theory it won't stick and if you don't teach it as truth and teach other theories as well, then kids or adults even can come to their own conclusions. It's also important to teach because you can get to the root of why something happened. Yes I'm sure you can discern what is hate speech and what's not. In the same way people can discern what theories make sense and what dont. Crt has theory in the name so by definition it's not being taught as truth. Your saying that you want to be able to decide what is hate speech but at the same time you're saying people shouldnt be able to decide which theories make sense and which don't.
  10. One way to look at it is there will always be a 'mainstream' narrative. This idea cancel culture has just come about now and that there was complete freedom of speech prior to whats happening now is plainly false. All thats happened is the mainstream narrative has shifted, for example someone who was lgbtq in the 80s didnt have freedom of speech to celebrate who they were or even legally to have sex, it only became legal for same sex, sexual acts in 2003. So there was freedom of speech for people who wanted to condemn lgbtq people but there wasnt for lgbtq people to actually be themselves. This wasnt the case for just lgbtq people, basically any minority had a sever limit to their freedom of speech if it went against the narrative in ways that were not just annoying but actually life limiting. As consciousness has risen these things have changed and maybe to some extent even over corrected, in terms of not being able to say black or whatever, but i still cant see how that would be worse than what was experienced by minorities. It would also seem to me that those that want it to be how it was before are not really happy about minorities getting equal footing. This is a somewhat survival instinct in which they want their group to still be privileged, but it would then follow that to halt this progress may be beneficial which is why cancel culture is boosted to be a much bigger problem than it actually is. Basically if i had to choose a mainstream narrative, one causing actual harm to people and the other meaning occasionally someone over reacts to someone saying the word black, id probably go for the former. This will also most likely correct itself as well anyway.
  11. OK could you just clarify this please, i dont want to misrepresent you. Are you saying i get serotonin hit calling people racist because im right that there is systemic racism and maybe i enjoy pointing that out to people, or are you saying i get a serotonin hit because systemic racism doesnt actually exist and i just want to make people feel bad by calling them racist?
  12. @StarfoxEpiphany OK so get to your final point, are you saying racism doesn't exist and black people are just blaming their struggles on race and exaggerating the effect of racism on them?
  13. You're missing my point I'm talking about the actual penalties in law for different drug offences. If we compare crack cocaine to meth, meth users for possession may receive a fine and up to 3 years, for possession of crack you can get up to life imprisonment. Essentially in law the two drugs are treated completely differently despite the heavy damage they both do. So looking at that it seems like there's a racial element to it, although I might be wrong and maybe you can enlighten me.
  14. The drug law comparison wouldn't be between other countries, for it to make sense and be considered racist, you would have to compare the penalties for another illegal drug within the same country that's user base is a different demographic. This isn't hard to do for example you can compare the sentences people got for weed over say crystal meth which has a mostly Caucasian user base, you'll find it's not even close, there were much harsher penalties imposed on black people using weed, despite the fact meth is a much more damaging drug to the community. Same can be said for the descrepencies in penalties for cocaine vs crack cocaine. Mostly the same drug but treated completely differently in the legal system. So you would have to find another country where there are harsher penalties imposed on drugs that are the same or less damaging than other drugs for your example to make sense.
  15. OK I'm racist against people from Papua new Guinea, does that change the impact systemic racism?