Consept

No worries

Exactly my point though any relationship can be manipulative or have a toxic dynamic, i dont think thats something thats exclusive to age gap relationships. Age gap relationships can also be healthy as youve also mentioned. So i dont think automatically its a bad thing or its an indication of creepiness or abuse of power. Its easy to look at it on the surface like that but i think its really each individual case has to be judged on its own merit.

Everything ok? If ive caused offence it definitely wasnt intentional, hope your day gets better

You said sexual harassment so i was following that up, you can clarify your point if you like maybe i missed what you were saying

It can be seen as predatory and in some cases that might completely be the case but i dont think its enough to just say it is because of the difference in power and influence. I would call a double standard as well because there are countless examples of older women going out with much younger men in the public eye (Madonna, J.Lo, Joan Collins, Lisa Bonet etc etc) but these are never even considered to be predatory, although they could be. Also if the older man is attractive then its not really seen as predatory, a good example is Jonny Depp or Leo Di Caprio. In fact in Jonny Depps case it could be argued, and is being argued in court, that the younger woman was actually an abuser. Giuliani shouldve known better considering his status but i dont think its inherently wrong for an older man to flirt with a younger woman, its maybe not advisable though.

Im not sure, i mean if the girls obviously flirting would and the Rudy doesnt respond, would that be sexual harassment against the girl? Or because hes responded postively to her advances is it then sexual harassment against Rudy? Also what if the ages were different, like she was interviewing someone who was 28 and they liked each other? I dont really see the sexual harassment in it, furthermore she invited him into the hotel room. Seedy yes, but a legal thing im not so sure. Trump couldnt wait to get out of there

There was a lot more stuff in SBC's series 'This Is America' where it was actually quite damning for the people he 'tricked', the Giuliani clip is really just a honey trap, I dont think theres much to it, conservatives might not be happy with it but its just a biological fact that most men would flirt back if someone they find attractive is flirting with them, i dont really see a way around that. If the girl wasnt flirting and Rudy was being creepy then maybe thered be some kind of moral issue. Anyway heres the Trump/SBC clip, Trump is claiming he knew all along, he is a coral genius so maybe he did -

The point with Drew is that he was completely dogmatic about beliefs that were provably wrong, not only that he thought everyone who was not aligned with his way of thinking was a sheep and ignorant. Even enlightened masters wouldnt have that type of arrogance thay would accept that they dont know everything. Also if someone was religious and had the same mindset as Drew and was on here saying that no one gets it and theyre sheep because the mainstream doesnt want you to know about God. It would provide 0 benefit for the forum. So that could of locked in mindset will always be a distraction for people on the forum and i understand why he was banned. On a person to person level i feel sorry for him as im sure hes not a bad guy hes just a bit lost and in a sense, if he could actually use the forum as a learning tool rather than trying to reinforce his beliefs, he could get a lot of benefit from it.

Yeah saying you're smart is another way of saying that other people are not as smart as you. Thing is there are so many different types of intelligence, emotional, creative, physical, to just blanketly say you're smart is very limited. It's an ego trick of trying to always be better in some way than others

I eat meat, but there are definitely issues with it. One is the suffering inflicted through the farming process, animals are sentient beings, maybe their brains aren't as complexed as ours but they can still feel pain, fear and a wide variety of complexed emotions. The way the current farming process operates causes a lot of pain. Also there is no balance we consume much more than we need, no other animal does this. As we become more conscious we will realise the suffering we're causing. In the same way as people would've justified killing humans in the past and probably still do, we justify torturing and eating meat but as consciousness rises I don't think we will consume animals on the same way or at all

I think this is a great point, a lot of very intelligent scientist and academics have trouble communicating ideas to lay people, this creates a big divide because in turns people off as the information is inaccessible. So this is really a skill in of itself and very, very important, I would say Leo is pretty good at it, but i think with this topic and other topics where people are really tied to beliefs you have to factor in the heavy bias in trying to hold onto established beliefs, this is very hard to break down

Did Trump take hydroxychloroquine, if not why arent people making a big deal that he didnt considering how much people went on about it?

Do you disagree with what he said on the pedophile issue? If so what's your take on it?

Theres people that genuinely believe flat earth, i know some personally. They would be offended if you said the theory was planted by agencies. Also this is really speculation, we dont know that agencies planted theories like this and how would they know this one would stick

I read somewhere that the best thing a car salesman can say to lead to a sale when asked a question is 'i dont know'. Reason being if hes honest about this he would also be honest about the things he does know and so it builds trust. I think honest marketing and sales could be more effective than telling stories and pretending you know everything

As the cliche goes when the student is ready the master will appear, for now those disregarding Leo are not ready for the teachings, they are holding onto beliefs. Theres no spiritual teacher i can think of that is not in some way blunt, the point of a teacher is to strip away belief, if a belief is questioned the ego is likely to attack, theres no way around this. What i realised personally is that if a spiritual teacher triggers or scares me i should listen to him more because that is the feeling of ego and long held beliefs being stripped away

Who would it be important to make a distinction to? Anyone who wants to find out the truth of the situation, the person who was abused, their family, the police. Having someone untrained and biased distorting things will not help to find the truth of the situation, therefore if this is something they consistently do it would make sense to label them in such a way. If you look at a real world example of Sandy Hook, if Alex Jones was just seen as an investigator he couldve encouraged a lot more people to attack the grieving families, as it was that happened enough. This type of investigation is distinct from relatively unbiased investigation, as such it shouldnt be classed as the same thing, doesnt need to be 'conspiracy theory' but lumping it in with police investigations seems quite ridiculous.

OK let's take this example, if someone is abused that is a direct experience of something, they then call in someone who can investigate what happened. Imagine if someone, of their own accord started investigating abuses that were previously proven not to have happened and the investigation cherry picked and in some cases distorted truth, perhaps unconsciously because they believed the abuse happened. They then ran the name of who they were investigating through the mud and claimed that the professionals who investigated the abuse were paid off by the person that allegedly did it, even though they had no proof. Let's say they constantly do this and it actually affects real investigation. Would it be important to make a distinction between the person that does this and someone like a police officer whose job it is to investigate the abuse?

I might be, as far as I understand you're saying that those who are investigating others of wrong doing are being labelled in a way which attacks them and makes their investigation look invalid. Those that are doing the labelling are those suspected of wrong doing. I would say a conspiracy theorist is a separate thing in that they are people that believe speculation, usually about an over arching idea of those in power trying to get more power. They look to confirm this by picking disparate information and connecting dots to come to a conclusion. I would also say that their could be some people that investigate these claims seriously and impartially, if you like you can call these investigators. However there are so many conspiracy theorists who earnestly believe in them that it detracts from any real investigation, I would say this does more damage to real investigations than any campaign those in power could do to smear conspiracy theorists

You can change the label but to say that so called 'conspiracy theorists' are just impartially questioning things that are happening would be a bit of a stretch. There's all kinds of logical fallacies, stunted reasoning, circular logic, that goes on, also most of these conspiracies are either proven to be untrue or are unprovable either way, an impartial investigator would have to say they don't know at this juncture, but from what ive seen this is rarely the case, most conspiracy theorists have a certainty about these theories, this is bad investigating. I'm sure there could be conspiracy theorists that are good investigators but I would say they would be exceptions. There's also this idea that conspiracy theorist are shown to be crazy in media, this is not entirely true, there are many films and TV shows where the only one that believes in the conspiracy is the hero, 24, Arlington Road, The Bourne Series, Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson, Enemy of the State, Da Vinci Code, many more. So this whole thing about conspiracy theorists being derided is simply not true in popular media. In a way we probably all want someone to expose the shadiness of those in power, but the way most conspiracy theorists try and do it actually can get in the way of those that are pointing to real corruption, just that real stuff like corporate fraud is boring, reptilian overlord sex traffickers is a lot more exciting

I dont think you should take the likes to dislikes ratio as people not understanding it or Leo being too harsh in his criticism. The fact is if you criticise the strongly held beliefs of people, they will not like it, bottom line. Try making a video criticising the bible or the quron and you'll be lucky to only get dislikes. Mick West who is a popular debunker appeared on Rogan and got about 25% dislikes on the video, he's not rude, doesnt look down on people, is actually quite compassionate, but just presents facts, he's hated amongst conspircay theories. This is what insulates the belief mindset so much, any criticism is an attack, therefore it can never truly be questioned. Regarding the video, Leo would've expected the backlash so I dont think there's anything he could've or should've done differently. If you believe conspiracies then that vid is well needed medicine, obviously no one enjoys bitter tasting medicine

I like that he did that, if the viewers offended then they need to look at why and what they're holding on to. If I know something is relatively true like the empire state building exists and someone comes along and says no it doesn't exist, I wouldn't be offended, I either wouldn't care or will think the person is kinda crazy or funny. The fact that people get so offended and defensive when it comes to conspiracies is almost proof that they at least, don't really believe them deep down

Yeah thanks Leo for doing this vid, I've been waiting for it. I'm not surprised at the comments, there is an interesting dichotomy with conspiracy theorists in that they say they're only interested in facts and the mainstream isn't interested in facts, but in reality they're the most emotionally invested people you'll come across. These are hard beliefs and if anyone even questions them at best they're sheep but at worst they're a shill or involved or whatever you get angry, defensive comments. Although I think the video is important, in reality those that are developed enough to see through conspiracies will agree and understand, but those that believe them will do some kind of mental gymnastics to sustain their beliefs, most likely it will be an attack on Leo. That's a standard tactic to discredit the speaker. So hopefully it plant's a seed in conspicists but I think fir the most part it will just get them more riled up. Either way a brave topic to cover from Leo

So been seeing this girl for a couple of years now, I like her but she's a bit of a perfectionist, very tidy, very organised, which is fine but I'm not really like that, which is also fine. Problem is every time I see her at least once she'll tell me something I need to change or something I should do. For context, materially speaking I'm doing OK, have my business, my place (we don't live together), car, go to the gym etc. What annoys me is that a lot of the time she doesn't know about what she's trying to help me with and it feels like she's doing it either because she would like to change me and be a certain way for her, or because maybe she was treated that way by her mum and she feels that's a loving way to be (I've got this impression when we've talked a bit deep). An example of her not knowing, she told me to stop doing my business because I was going through a tough spell about a year ago, keep in mind I've been doing this for 10 years and had many ups and downs. But she didn't know much about the business just because its not a traditional job I think is why she had this opinion. A couple of times she's gotten really angry for seemingly small things (one time I had a hole in my sock) and in general she's quite impatient because of her perfectionist standards, that's not exclusive to me. Everytime these things happen I talk to her properly and tell her I'm not happy with it, and she has camled down a bit and even started meditation. But now it's like in almost on edge waiting for her to nag or complain about something and I don't like that. Of course I have a lot of stuff I want to improve but I feel like it should come from me and if I need advice I'll ask. Anyway what you guys think, is it normal to get nagged, is everyone trying to change everyone, or is this a bit much?

So ive always had a problem with anxiety and ocd from a young age, its gotten a lot better as ive done more work on myself, become more awake, seen a therapist, exercise etc etc. How it plays out is all of a sudden ill get a fearful, anxious feeling and then ill resist it automatically, then it will be on my mind about future events with this feeling, sometimes ocd comes in, although ive been handling that better, i get headaches and just general uneasy nervous feeling. Now after seeing a therpist for the last 8 months or so its gotten a lot better and ive learnt how to deal with it a lot better, the last couple days ive had this feeling again though, what im noticing is im just not accepting it and i want it to be gone and because of that it stays and doesnt feel great. I will say the periods of it being intense are not as much anymore but still can be frustrating when i feel like it. I was wondering if anyone had some advice on this as it blocks me massively