Consept

The paper isn't great, he uses Osho as the example of what a guru should be, which although I believe Osho was awake he was arguably more flawed than Sadhuguru esp considering what happened with the community he setup. Also generally he's not even saying Sadhuguru is a fraud in the paper. In general ive always got quite deep vibes and general sense that Sadhguru is enlightened and in general has done a lot for mankind, esp with causes like this and trees which are not really fashionable, when the dust clears I think people will be very grateful for his contributions. Having said all that of course he's not above criticism and he himself has said something along the lines of don't just be devotee accepting everything I say, judge everything I say with whether it resonates and makes sense for you

I think i might be able to help with this, drop me a dm if youre up for having a chat via zoom to explore some of these issues

Yeah the thing is fear mongering works to get peoples attention whether it's mainstream or social media. I would say the social media fear mongering is much worse because they have very little checks and balances compared to mainstream, even though they fear monger about their freedom of speech being taken away ?

You have to really be careful with this content and i include Russell Brand in this. If you notice Ralph talks a lot about hot button issues even if he doesn't really know much about the topic and yes there could be some truth there, but he always seems to setup a "I'm on the side of truth against these evils (inorganics), are you with me". This creates an us against them mentality and shifts away from actually trying to learn about a topic in a nuanced way. I think he knows what titles and thumbnails and topics will get the most views and a lot of people realised during the pandemic that if you play off people's fears you can get a shitload of views. Even if you buy that he's a great spiritual teacher, which I don't personally, then that doesn't translate that he would about complex political situations. Its kinda like the Chappelle joke "what does Ja Rule think about this??". There are some yellow political podcasts and content that could give a much better analysis.

If you ever want to chat about it just drop me a message, im studying to be a financial advisor, have a business etc. I know its tough in London, i grew up there and still live near, its like everyones just there to grind and make money esp coming from over seas

I understand why you might think this, but i dont think its a case of Leo just not accepting views. If we look at Nahm as a teacher who, at least previously, holds some authority by being appointed a mod by Leo, it is very important that he meets people where they are at, which i think he rarely did imo. This forum has many vulnerable people on it and just having the inflexible 'you are not your thoughts' reply to every question, has the potential to be quite damaging. I had a couple discussions with Nahm myself and i left it very confused, either he just wasnt making sense or it was just way over my head. As i remember it was a discussion about LOA, in which i was skeptical about manifesting and he left several replies but i just couldnt understand it. Now i think its really on the teacher to teach in a way that could be understood and if we say Nahm is just incredibly enlightened, which could be the case, he has not found a way to communicate to people in a way that resonates, not on a wide scale anyway. So i think he should still make his content and those that want to consume it resonates with i think thats cool, but in terms of being on a large platform and being able to influence people as well as charge for his time, i dont think it works unfortunately.

I think most people that get into conspiracy theories are looking for truth. But they reality is the world is very complicated and nuanced, CTs offer a very simplified way of looking at the world, where there are good guys and bad guys, evil vs good. This is very appealing as it offers a way to understand the world which we all crave, I think there's an anxiety of not knowing. To be clear many other ideologies offer this, religion, politics etc. I think real truth seeking starts with the acceptance of not knowing, being OK with not having an all encompassing world view. Accepting the anxiety you feel of not knowing and being cool with it. From this point you're not tied to any ideology and can take in new information without it having to make it fit into an already established theory. If you notice this is why most CTs spin off and get bigger and bigger because new information has to be explained within the context of a theory. If you're seeking truth you will have to hold multiple ideas in your head at once and not favour one over another just because it fits a narrative. So for example yes Pfizer are trying to make money from their vaccine, but also yes the vaccine will save many lives.

Genuine offer - we can video call and talk through some stuff. Im currently studying to be a financial advisor and have also run businesses for the last 15 years and not had a job for the last 8 years. DM me if you want to set something up

It's out of context though I'm saying that as a potential criteria for making decisions in place of a government. As in if you make a lot of profit and also impactful decisions, these decisions you make can affect that profit positively or negatively, now you may not use this for your benefit but I think the temptation to is a risk. Its like if you're a judge and you have to make a legal decision in regards to a family member, obviously your judgement is going to be affected even if its unconsciously. In terms of just making a profit I don't have anything against it.

There is no matter

@captainamerica I didn't say anything against profits. This dialouge is going off in a lot of different directions and we seem to be talking past each other, you've said a lot but I don't actually know what your point is. Are you making the argument that wealthy, poweful individuals shouldn't be taxed?

Dismissive avoidant and yeah it does line up I would say, I always feel like i want someone there but just kinda in the background

But yeah in theory, after a country has met is expenses etc if there's a profit then yeah you can have a tax I don't see a problem with that, I mean probably they'll make sure they spend all their money

I take your point which as I understand it is if the wealth is concentrated in one country, should that countries wealth be redistributed amongst other countries within the global community. A utopian answer might be that yes all wealth should be redistributed. But of course that would be a complex thing to just impart, having said that there is more responsibility on countries like the US to offer aid, military support etc to less wealthy countries. Regarding being taxed on an individual level for one each person within the system has tacitly agreed to it, so once you've made money you can't just turn around and say I don't want to contribute anymore, if you do then you are free to go to Puerto Rico or wherever and pay less tax if you choose. But in theory you have used the US system and people to make your money, it wasn't done in a vacuum. Also this money that you are being taxed in theory should help others also become successful.

I'll answer your question but answer mine first, as its more relevant to the topic. What is the criteria, apart from being extremely wealthy, for an individual to be able to make decisions that affect a mass amount of people?

The point is fine in that yes you can make the argument that animals suffering is just as important as human suffering, but then the problem with it is that any topic involving human suffering can be dismissed, at least until you sort out the animal suffering issue. If we talk about modern slavery the counter will be "well animals have it worse so...", obviously theres a purpose to talk about human issues regardless.

I havent heard its 90% but I think it's something to do with people doing it for power or just because they had the opportunity rather than they're sexual preference is kids. If you think about it like people in prison mostly they may not be gay but there's a lot of rape and gay sex going on. It kind of makes sense because even incels don't really rape at least I haven't heard of that being a common thing, so it's usually a power dynamic being played out in most abuse cases.

No ones saying it should be celebrated or trivialised just seen as a mental health issue if they want to get help and then obviously a criminal issue if need be. I think whats interesting about him is that he can look at these controversial issues generally without the emotional, moral perspective that most people talk about it with, also hes willing to do this in public. If you look at previous controversial issues, lets say the war on drugs, unless you were 100% against drugs there was something wrong with you, there was no room for nuance. Now we can see there absolutely has to be nuance which has led to drugs legalised and literally used for medicine, as well the drug issue has vastly improved. This is the thing with public discourse and politics, there are certain talking points where they only come up to say how wrong they are, but the problem is you need to accept the problem first to have any chance of improving it. A lot of the time the emotional attachment people have to an issue skews their objective perspective of it. So in the case of mrgirl i think being detached is actually a great way to discuss things and i think as people like him get more popular youll see the emergence of more yellow people coming through.

Im not necessarily comparing it in this instance im just saying that sexual orientation is hard/pretty impossible to change, think about it wouldnt pedophiles want to change their sexuality considering how much trouble it can cause. I think any sexuality is probably psychological and biological, it appears that with pedophiles its more psychological as in their development has affected them especially if theyve been abused, but ultimately youre still left with the same question of what to do with them. I dont know how you can judge pedophile animals but you definitely get pedophile, incest and everything else with animals. Incest is very common with dogs and wolves btw. Also historically its been part of various human cultures, even today some tribes still have traditions around it. Obviously im not condoning it im just saying that theres an argument to be made that it occurs naturally. The problem with this is that if you do ostracize them then no one would admit to being one and they wont get treatment that could help them and also potentially save kids. If you seperate pedophilia from child abuse then you can treat the pedophile without judgement. Its like if we take your example and we say all the people looking at terrorist content we're going to lock you up in case you act on it, what would happen? Theyd stop looking at the content or talking about it but theyre still going to have the same obsession, wouldnt it be better to let them talk about it and then help them by maybe deprogramming them or whatever works in that instance?

Lets assume you cant treat them, there are conversion centers for gay people and they dont really work. If you mean treat as in stop them from committing abuse, im sure there are a good deal that dont and there are some that probably need treatment to not go down that road, the ones that do abuse or are likely to obviously put them away from the public. So the question remains, the ones that are just in public and dont commit any abuse, what do we do with them? Do we leave them to get on with their lives or is the risk too much?

One way to think about this is to imagine that whatever type of person you're attracted to, man, woman whatever, is seen as disgusting and evil by society, not only that but you yourself know you can't engage in any kind of relationship with them because its harmful to the other party. So from this point of view, how would you want to be treated and what do you think would help you not engage in potentially damaging behavior to vulnerable people?

@captainamerica so what would an individual need apart from being rich to be able to make decisions?

Yes you're probably right America is too powerful but that power is still within a system. The question I put forward is should an individual rich person within a hypothetical country be able to make decisions over a system. Difference being in theory a system can be affected by individuals through voting or getting involved in politics, a billionaire isn't voted in he's just rich, you can argue about the system being effective or fair. So I'm not making a point necessarily I'm just asking if power should be given to the rich to make decisions or should a government make them? it's an either or question.

Lol you probably didn't mean it but that came across really patronising. Either way my point still stands if you want to engage it. To clarify I'm saying from an individual country perspective, within that country there will be rich people and there will be elected officials or system of government. The question is should the rich people make decisions that could affect the country or should the system prevent them from doing it and make the decisions themselves?

Why not just engage in the conversation, otherwise youre basically just posting statements and looking for people to disagree with you and then attempting to insult them by giving sarcastic answers to normal questions. I'm not trying to 'win' by making you look stupid and making me look smart as you seem to think, im genuinely interested in your take on what i posted