Consept

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

So on the forum i notice that sometimes you get people with strong dogmatic beliefs, this can range from Trump is a coral genius and is going to save the world to im as enlightened as the Buddha to the law of attraction is is to do with meta physical vibrations. Now when i see these types of things i feel the urge to question them, this could be because i think truth is very important and i think just believing in anything that feels good to you can be dangerous, not only for you but you could influence others, most people that espouse these beliefs do so with unwavering certainty. Theres probably some things going on with my ego, where i want to be right about things and its almost offensive that someone can be so wrong. Theres also some compassion where i feel that someone has missed something and theyre lost in a delusion. I never try to call them out directly as in i wont just say 'youre wrong', i give reasons why theyre right as well as the other side that questions the belief. What i notice is that people are often overly defensive about them and they even start to attack or dismiss by saying things like, you dont get it because youre not conscious enough. So the question is it our responsibility as fellow people who are on some path of achieving higher consciousness, to call out delusions in others that are on a similar path? It would seem to me to be the compassionate thing to call it out rather than let someone live in delusion. Its not something that i would really do in normal life as your average person just wants to believe what they want and prizes that over truth, which is fair enough. But i feel like people are on here to drop delusions and become more conscious. Of course the question comes who is going to decide who is able to question who? For example if someone is deluded in some theory they may and probably do feel theyre being compassionate by opening your mind to it. So how do we navigate this thing or should we just let people get on with it live in their delusion and hope they get there in the end. Im well aware i could be deluded as well btw and if i am im happy for people to call me out on it and have a conversation about it

You feel that it's possible to completely disregard feelings and be some kind of objectively rational person but I would say it's close to impossible, everything goes through your feelings filter. You can see bias, feelings and different perspectives coming through people who claim to be rational all the time. Take someone like Ben Shapiro, who says 'facts don't care about your feelings', isn't it coincidental that all his objective facts lead him to conclusions that uphold his already established worldview and Conservative ideologies. If he was completely objective he wouldn't even have an established, rigid stand point. Being rational will always be through a human perspective, its like if an ant said they were rational and that led to a full understanding of the world, the ant can not see as much we can or in the way we can so it does not have a full understanding or view of the world. In the same way are view is always limited, really the only 'rational' approach would be to realise the limitations of rationality, I could argue putting rationality first before feelings would be irrational because rationality is a concept somewhat created by our feelings, so why not accept your feelings first and then add rationality as a concept after

Ultimately it still comes back to your feelings, you like a rational approach because it feels good, it gives you some kind of certainty, if it didn't feel good you wouldn't take that approach. Feelings just happen and then we put a perspective on them or act in response to them, the key is to witness or just feel the feelings without trying to work them out with language in our head. In that way you could act more consciously rather than being unconsciously thrown around by your feelings

I get your point but i think mostly these examples are ones that people can freely choose and the risks both long term and short term are known, should also note that government would probably ban sugar or tax it highly but would get a lot of pushback from people who claim they want the freedom to choose, so its always a balancing act between 'freedom' and safety. We live in a world someone can drink bleach get sick and sue the company that sold them the bleach, thats why we have 'dont drink bleach' on bleach bottles lol. The government is always in a damned if you do, damned if you dont position because if they put up safety regulations people see it as taking away freedom, if they dont people want to know why they just let whatever happen when they couldve regulated it. Seat belts are a great example, when they first came out people did not want to use them and complained in a similar way to the mask wearing, nanny state etc, but obviously seat belts do and have saved lives. With Covid, we dont know the long term effects, many people who had it months ago are still reporting effects from it, so it would make sense to take a better safe than sorry approach at least temporarily.

Yes I agree I'm not sure if that was clear in my post. A lot of people against the lockdown, that I've come accross anyway, outright reject there's even a virus, which is what a lot of the protests are about. The people on the other side are not denying the virus obviously but they're also feeling the effects of the lockdown themselves but are sacrificing for other people. A high conscious person would look at both sides and I don't think they'd deny the virus so that they could benefit

Definitely, im not sure hes that bothered either way, he just doesnt want to look bad, like with brexit lol I think to answer the op though I would say most people that are anti-lockdown, not you Charlie cos i think youre more advocating for healthy lifestyle, but most just dont want their life to be impacted and so are actively looking for reasons why there shouldnt be a lock down, it doesnt really come from a place of high consciousness in that theyre not taking the whole situation into account, for example it would be hard to keep the position if they had direct experience with it ie going to the hospital, talking to people that have had covid etc. Lock down may or not be the right choice but i feel that the intention behind the people protesting it comes more from a place of selfishness which you could call low consciousness, many people ive talked dont believe it because they dont know anyone who has it, which is pretty selfish imo as i wouldnt say cancer doesnt exist because i dont know anyone who has it. The people on the other side some are people that just will follow the government, of course thats true, but a lot of them are aware of how bad a lockdown is and are making sacrifices because they believe its the right thing, so their intention is not self interested because they too are suffering from the lockdown. So it doesnt necessarily make them higher consciousness but it means they are taken into account a wider scope and most likely you wouldnt find many highly conscious people who are staunchly against a lockdown, although i do understand your intentions are slightly different Charlie

I agree with you in that ultimately having the prevention of a healthy living standard is obviously going to improve peoples healths, mentality etc but its almost like a separate issue, because right now if people started that doing it it wouldnt get rid of covid and the situation we're in, so there does need to be emergency measures of some kind. Also, as you know, in the UK its not that easy to switch peoples habits, im sure you remember Jamie Olivers healthy food in schools campaign where the parents and kids protested and also recently when the lowered the sugar in irn-bru and Scottish people signed petitions against and i think many boycotted it. So in other words promoting habit changes seems to be hard in the UK whether its tempoary measures like the covid stuff or longer term measures like what youre talking about. The question for me is, is there trust for the government, if there is trust then you would permit them to make mistakes as you know that their intention is whats best for the population, if there isnt trust then every move they make will be questioned. That there is lack of trust really falls on the governments hands and how shady and self-serving politics has been over the years. If we hadnt had all the crap with the bankers bonus', sub-prime mortgage recession, bail outs, Brexit, austerity, trickle down economics, iraq, grenfell etc etc, all within the last 10-15 years, and the government was seen to be for the people rather than corporations then i think there wouldnt be too much distrust and the people would go along with whatever. If you look at Sweden their strategy might be right or wrong but the point is people followed along, as did most of the countries in northern europe dispite differing strategies. So really i think what were seeing is the result of poor government decisions with a capitalist mindset that has run riot. Thats not to say there arent good people in the government but the system that exists is not for the people and those are the ones rebelling. The actual actions theyre doing for covid i think people would complain either way, if you remember at the start Boris wanted to do herd immunity and literally everyone complained about it, thats why they switched the strategy to a lockdown type thing, so either way people would complain i think. Im actually suprised they did do a lockdown considering how their main concern is the economy, but guaranteed, if we didnt lockdown, people will be out protesting now about how we should lockdown and most likely would be the same people protesting now lol

Its the same here in the UK but we've been split since brexit. It would be interesting to look at countries that have a strong alt right populist movements and correlate that to how theyve done during corona, i would guess countries that are more divided probably have done the worst

The mask thing I really don't get, I understand its uncomfortable or a bit itchy or whatever but it's not that bad. Most people who are anti-mask claim it doesn't work or there aren't any studies, but either way they are not 100% sure about that, so what a gamble to make where if you're wrong and the mask is even 1% effective 1000s could lose their lives, if you're right you just had to feel slightly uncomfortable in the supermarket for nothing. The twisting they do on this issue is crazy. The whole thing though I think is a sign that people in certain countries, don't trust their governments