Consept

A lot of the times spirituality can be used as an escape of one's current circumstances but also simultaneously keeping one within that circumstance. So with your friend, there's something that keeps her there, could be something from childhood or that she's being manipulated or whatever but importantly shes not conscious of it, therefore she doesn't see a way out. So all she can do is cope with the situation as best as she can. She needs to know that she can escape the situation but it may require some no nonsense internal work. The mind is very interested in keeping whatever the current situation is, even if it's a negative situation. The qanon thing makes sense as cults and conspiracy type movements are very attractive to those who have little control in their lives, this is because these movements provide some kind of certainty where there is none, even if the content of them is usually bullshit and they have some obvious ulterior motive

Here's the thing, what you need is double blind trials, this is the normal standard for any medication, once these have been done and approved as a valid treatment then it can be fit for use. As it stands you can't make an exception for one drug because if it doesn't work you can lose a lot of lives, which obviously you care about. The other thing is that some doctors do use it, it's not like it's banned. It's just not clear how effective it is and whether it can be used for prevention or cure or at what stage. It's not a political thing

People on here are not idiots, if they thought there was any validity in it they'd consider it. Thank you for trying to save us but it's not needed. And yeah just give up man, do something else with your life

No I don't believe you can dissolve it completely but you can build up your awareness and realisation that it is in fact an illusion. The issue is more the identification with ego not the ego itself. For example let's say you have a catchy but annoying song playing in your head and you can't stop it. For most of us even though we can't stop it, it eventually stops playing, maybe it gets replaced by something else. Because we're not attached to the song it naturally runs its course, we don't give it any more attention than needed. When it comes to thoughts about what we think of as ourselves, we give them a lot of attention and we're identified with them. Maybe we think we're not good enough, this sticks because we're identified with a self and we are hyper aware about thoughts about this self. But in reality these thoughts come from the same place as that annoying song it's just the identification that's different. So naturally these thoughts will arise and naturally they will go, the realisation we need to have is that they just aren't that important, once you can loosen the attachment to them you won't be controlled by them. So no you don't want to strive for dissolution you just need to keep reminding yourself of reality of the illusion and not really focus on the thoughts so much, including thoughts of how to stop or get rid of the thoughts

That's cool except it wasn't his property and most people aren't damaging property. The actual incident was nothing to do with property damage

Its a context thing so obviously the statement all lives matter is true, all lives do matter. The issue is when its used to dismiss others fighting for equality. Its like if a child is being treated unfairly by his family, he has to do more housework than his siblings, he doesnt get as many treats etc. If he gets upset by this and complains that hes being treated unfairly it would be quite dismissive to tell them that all our kids are important. It doesnt actually solve the problem, if the parents cared they would look into whether he is actually being treated unfairly and even if he isnt try and understand why he believes that directly from him. His siblings may want to keep telling him that 'all siblings matter' because consciously or sub-consciously theyre aware that if he gets treated the same as them it might mean less for them, so theyre invested in making him feel stupid for complaining and making him believe that he is actually being treated fairly hes just overly sensitive or wants more.

I agree with you in that yeah obviously if hes getting attacked and has a big gun on him, hes probably gonna use it, i mean thats why he brought it in the first place. But if you look at it from at least the second lot of people that attacked hims perspective, theyve heard or seen theres this kid with a rifle whos just shot someone, for all they know this could be a kid who hates black people trying to shoot up the place as has happened before with people like dylan roof. Either way you wouldnt want to take any chances, the police definitely wouldnt take any chances if they saw or heard someone just shot someone, so its not unreasonable that they would attack him, i dont know what else they couldve done. From his side he doesnt know that so yeah he would defend himself. But this is obviously the issue with having a 17 year old with a rifle police a riot, its completely ridiculous, of course this sort of thing would happen. In fact any militia policing the streets is really absurd as they would no doubt have bias and not enough training, its hard enough with the police training and bias let alone random people who could be completely racist or emotional or whatever.

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