Consept

I was just thinking, in a weird way this is parrallell to Ahmed Arbery case in that a group of people (smaller in this case) thought someone was doing something wrong, apprehended him and ended up shooting him dead in the process. Obviously it's different in that Arbery wasn't looking for trouble and wasn't armed, however a lot of people including the police thought it was justified as well as people probably defending the kenosha shooting. Using that as an example wouldn't the protesters be more than justified in trying to apprehend this kid given that from their perspective he had already shot someone, was carrying a lethal weapon and was running away (just as Arbery was)?

I meant it more in a general sense like if you dont know what socialism is your ignorant about that topic or if you like dumb when it comes to socialism, obviously using the word dumb has an insulting insinuation. The way youre using is valid in that yes, if youre ignorant to certain things you can easily play a role in 'evil', but because youre unaware you think what youre doing is good therefore youre even more passionate and set on achieving your goal. Great example is whats happening with Trump now, where people (not all) you might call dumb are voting for him, statistically the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote for a left leaning president. Of course you can have dumb people voting left as well. Theres a saying 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' I completely forgot about it lol but yeah feel free to reply haha

Don't turn reading books into a religion, if you feel like reading one, read if you don't, don't.

Dumb could be seen as ignorant as in not aware

It's interesting that Carlsons writer had to resign last month after his posts on a forum were discovered in which they included many racist and sexist discussions and posts. Just gives in an insight into the perspective of Carlsons show and why he might be taking the perspective of defending this kid. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html?utm_term=1594433285735e5599df1a5fe&utm_source=Reliable+Sources+-+July+10%2C+2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=224643_1594433285736&bt_ee=bLQFXdf8v%2FdBP0C3Nvo3Zz010fng8cIMVhRBIrAQr9WVh8d%2FnNGovzrvr4Dl%2BCjI&bt_ts=1594433285736

From their perspective yes they're exceptional, but from different perspectives or even an objective perspective they're not. What would make sense is to teach an objective reality not nationalism. Always thought this clip was great -

Well it wouldnt matter so much about the specifics, the main thing is if i choose to go to these football riots because im offended at the property damage, i also take a rifle with me which i carry openly, then someone may get shot. If someone does get shot because they started attacking me or in my estimation they were acting too dangerously, am i then justified in shooting them dead? I would like to get a straight answer on this ive noticed no ones answered it directly

They could feel threatened or drunk or both and carry out those actions, so its justified in that case right?

Lets say theyre pretty violent, they damage a lot of property, have fights etc, of course if youre going to defend you dont know exactly how violent they are until you get there. Should people go to football riots armed to protect property and then kill people if they too are attacked?

OK i get it so if youre defending property its ok to murder, so say if theres riots when a football team wins as in the video below, it would be justified to go there to defend property and if anyone attacks me i can kill them?

So imagine this guy at a trump rally who was attacked legally had a gun and shot a couple people because he was attacked, would that be justified?

I think anyone would feel threatened if some 17 year old came into their area from some other state and started walking around with a rifle, i can get defending your own property but this is such a stretch. It wouldnt make too much difference i think the idea of vigilantism is just going to cause more problems than it solves any way. But in this case its illegal for him to be carrying the gun in the first place so yeah it does make a difference that hes 17. The other point is that obviously this has escalated the tension that was already there so i dont see how this can be condoned, if someone was walking around your area with a gun youd feel very threatened. Regardless whatever people decide here the courts will ultimately decide his fate and in a way i feel empathy for him because he'll probably get quite a sever sentence and its specifically to do with people like Trumps rhetoric and the ongoing sentiment thats been going round, he has been radicalised and the this is the result of that

Imagine this was the other way round and a black 17 year old shot a couple people at trump rally, would anyone be justifying that? This is actually bordering on insanity now

So just as a matter of logic you think it's acceptable or even lawful to have an armed untrained 17 year old policing the streets?

End of the day this kid should not have been there and especially should not have had a gun, as I understand it you're not allowed to have a gun if you're 17 in the states. Yeah you could argue that people shouldn't have chased him but it can't be a normality that unqualified 17 year olds are policing the streets, specifically because it will probably end in situations like this, the police are having a hard enough time doing it

Yeah turquoise will be a stretch for most so maybe leave that out for now, but if your professors are at least green i think they should be able to get their head around it. Im really interested to see (or hear about) the reaction

Do it bro!

Just had more of a think about this, most people think they are at the pinnacle of human evolution so much so that they may not even take into account that they way the think could be outdated in 50 years say. So if you present them with a model that puts them lets say at blue or orange they would most likely wont take you seriously because youre pegging them way down the spiral, its like if someone came on this forum and said yellow or turquoise thinking is actually low consciousness, the real high consciousness is blue conservative, none of us would take them seriously, i think that the equivalent to how they might see it. You would really have to be somewhat detached from your beliefs and mindset to be able to see the limitations of it and because being detached is more of a tier 2 perspective i dont think many tier 1s would grasp it. It would essentially be dismissing everything their identity is built on. Also if you are trying to tell people about it most likely youll be yellow or maybe green, so its like youre saying im superior and im gonna tell you how inferior you are. At yellow level theres not this issue because you look up to those above you, you want to learn from turquoise and higher level yellows, you also take value from lower levels, this is not the case for tier 1, each stage rejects every other stage. The only one where they start learning from higher levels is green

There is no enlightenment in the same way there is no salvation for religious people, in the same way that there is no happiness from material things or relationships. There is only what is and acceptance of that

Would you say exposure to it can help you up the spiral?

Interesting observation, i think people, on here especially, will never really take to idolisation of public figures, even gurus or people at higher levels shouldnt really be idolised. So yes maybe if they/we sense that it could raise a red flag. Having said that, in this thread no one has really been that negative toward Kiyosaki, even there is decent evidence to make the argument hes a fraud, everyones said hes a good orange teacher they just dont agree hes on a yellow level. Also keep in mind you can be like 60% orange, 20% green and 20% yellow, im not saying he is exactly that but its likely that he has some percentage of yellow but anchored in orange. This isnt a negative opinion its just an opinion and the fact that its echoed here i would say its likely, you either resonate with people or you dont, i dont think you can argue someone into it, even if i didnt like someone i would still be capable of saying they were high level, for example i dont listen to Byron Katie but i know shes very high on spiral dynamics. If you feel hes high level then thats your opinion but i would watch your attachment to people

He has some good nuggets ill give you that, but i think the test is really if people resonate with him on a higher level, which i dont think has been the case from our small sample here. I think hes a decent orange teacher but surely if you want higher level teaching hes not the first youd go to.

Do you work for him or something?

Yeah ive told quite a few people expecting their mind to blow up with the realisation that the way everyone thinks can be modelled but the response i get is usually, 'hmm, ok'. Could be that its difficult to get across SD in a short conversation, you probably need at least a few hours to grasp it, but it is weird to me peoples interest is not even tickled a little bit

I agree hes a nutjob but do you think he's legitimately stage green? Seems like strange behavior to be a stage green, if he genuinely believes it then maybe but if hes doing it for the views youd have to say theres a lot of orange there