Consept

Time isnt infinite, its only a way to measure the movement of form, if theres no form, theres no time. You could say consciousness or space is infinite

If you made eggs for breakfast, the eggs came from chickens of which their ancestry can be traced back to the beginning of time. Before time there was no material only consciousness so, material was created from consciousness which set the ball rolling for your scrambled eggs

An enlightened being is free to kill yes, theyre not tied to any arbitrary idea of right or wrong. However they are in touch with others and feel a lot of compassion, not only in the case of another's suffering but also in that they would want the living thing to complete its life cycle and learn what it needs to in its life. I feel that if an enlightened being wanted to go around killing unconnected unhappy, homeless people, it will be hard to do just as an action of killing someone and the idea that you're making the decision. Perhaps if someone was suffering intensely and wanted to die, it would still be difficult but I can see that being a more realistic scenario

Theres a lot about this in the trump doc on Netflix. His older brother ended up killing himself partly because he couldn't fit the role that Fred Trump wanted him to fill, so it goes to show you what Donald had to be for survival. It is definitely possible to have empathy for trump but someone who is not even conscious of how they've been corrupted in this way, shouldn't be president.

I still dont know how this is a good argument if it boils dow to the left just having negative traits. Ive witnessed many groups and many of these things are basically inherent in any group you can think of, potentially the left has gotten more power recently which maybe makes it seem like its more blatant but its definitely not unique to them. For example you could very easily make cases against feminism, against mgtow, by using examples of them doing the things youve mentioned but that doesnt mean that the points they have arent valid it just means some of their number, usually a loud minority, are not evolved enough yet. So if you do agree with left policies but not with the people attempting to implement them, i would think a sensible position would be to push for those that you like, for example if you like Bernie Sanders, or just dont subscribe to any leaning and just a la carte choose the points on either side that you agree with. Personally it doenst make sense to me to support someone mainly because you dislike the other side, especially if you agree with the other side. Its like saying you support Dortmund because you hate Bayern even if you dont particularly like how Dortmund play

These threads are simple it comes down to 2 scenarios 1. Black people are inherently more violent and aggressive. If you believe that poverty is the main cause then black people are inherently lazy and dont want to work or better themselves. Either theres something inherent in them that causes the stats we're seeing 2. There are complexed socio-economic and historical issues that have led and contributed to the situation that black people find themselves in. If you present these stats as the be all and end all (not saying op is doing that), then you subscribe to number 1. If youre interested in why this is the case and want to get to the route of it then most likely you subscribe to number 2. I think if youre making an argument with these stats you should be clear what scenario you are arguing for.

So if this is your main reason, it would suggest to me that youre not too concerned about the policies and its more you dont like what the left has become or that theyre untrustworthy. It may also be fair to say that looking at what you disagree with Trump on, you probably support as many left policies and ideas as you do right ideas. Im sure if we actually laid all the policies out youd agree with more left ones than right, in fact most of what you agree with are not even policies. So my question would be if we're taking policy out, why would Trump be more trustworthy than people on the left? There are numerous examples and accounts of him not being trustworthy through the years, even prior to his election, its at the very least comparable to people on the left. Then even if he is trustworthy, you disagree with a lot of what says, which means if you believe him to be trustworthy you would vote knowing that things you disagree with and know are bad for majority of people, will be enacted. Healthcare for example, if he is trustworthy he dismantles health care so if that is something you feel strongly about and being from Germany you can recognise how important it is, then how can you back someone trustworthy or not, that is dismantling something like the healthcare system?

@Robi Steel *meant to say think not identity Yes of course immigration is a complexd issue and isn't just about throwing the doors open. My question was more whether you think a wall is the best solution to this complex issue. So what Trump policies specifically are you in favour of? My theory is that he caters to a particular demographic and isn't too bothered about the rest of the people because he can get enough votes from the group he wants them from, I maybe wrong but that's the sense I get. So someone who's into spirituality it would be interesting to know what policies you champion from Trump

@Robi Steel well take trump and any 'identity' out of the equation, would you say building a wall to separate countries is an identity that would lead toward unity of people? A spiritual belief would be to get toward unity as we are all one already and are working toward realising this, so does a wall for example help with that?

I think this is a fair point and a criticism i had of the current political system, essentially politicians were very fake on all sides and you got the sense that they werent being truthful so it was hard to relate to them as a human. That could be because the public demanded that whiter than white politician with no skeletons in the closet but either way we got to a stage where you had to put on this clean act to get anywhere in politics, i found it terrible. Trump in some ways offers an antidote to that and i can see that it can be a positive going forward as other politicians know that acting is not going to get them through. If youre just saying that point then i get it, but to say hes actually a good president and the way forward for the country, i really dont see that. Im not sure he really cares about much apart from how he appears, if the democrats wouldve had him he wouldve gone with them and whatever policies he felt would be well received by the targeted audience he wouldve gone for. This suggests to me that he doesnt really 'believe' in anything he says, theres a lot of right wingers where you can have a certain respect for them as thats their world view even if you disagree, but with Trump he doesnt share a world view, he is solely about power and status. So to that point it is hard to fathom that someone who is very interested in seeing past illusion could think that someone like Trump is a great president and even support him, most people will think its a certain naivety or that youre not as spiritually evolved as you think. I would go for the former. Another thing to consider is that all the enlightenment teachers wouldnt declare political allegiance but just from their actions where would you peg them? Id say theyre pretty liberal if you want to put it on that scale, but they may not even be that aware of American politics. So i think if you take away the labels, a spiritual path will naturally take you to a 'liberal' point of view that wont be anything to do with tribal allegiances

Thats interesting and i wonder if it has anything to do with Spain, Italy and Brazil being very hard hit by the virus, seemingly randomly. Its not impossible both ways though, im not really an expert so i dont know

Good topic, I'll have a look at the bits you've shared

Wasnt gonna post it but i laughed enough to justify it -

Ahmazin! I dont know if hes trolling or theres something wrong with him mentally or hes a comic genius or thats just him, might be a bit from each category

@Peter-Andre he's pretty solid blue in my opinion, who said he was orange?

Dizzee Rascal, you guys probably not heard of him but hes a grime (rap) artist from the UK, hes 35 and has ascended comfortably to orange and maybe pushing toward green now, but he recorded his debut album at 17 and talked about how it growing up in a harsh environment in London. If you can understand what hes saying he gives his perspective on it whilst being in it, very unique to hear -

I watched this a while ago and found it quite interesting, so I'm glad there's a discussion about it. I think yes the robot is a high level consciousness but I think it lacks compassion and sees humans as disposable. We do this to animals below us but I wouldn't say that's a high consciousness action. It also sees everything as a means to an end so essentially no action is off the table if it gets them to their desired end result. This would work if they were the only thing in existence, but it's hard when something is outside their singularity. Good film though I may watch it again at some point

@James123 what do you think of the idea that enlightenment is more of a state? As in you can't be enlightened you can experience different temporary states, one of which being a detachment from ego, another being an attachment to ego

This sport is insane, mixture of mma and rugby that is 100s of years old. The guys playing are probably orange/blue but the sport and level required to drop down to is red maybe even purple

If you tell a fool theyre a fool they wont listen, if you tell them theyre suffering from some scientific effect you might have a chance

lol yeah its the dunning-kruger effect, when you know a little you feel really confident in your knowledge, when you know a lot you realise how much you dont know and are actually less confident

I didn't actually realise the religious componant

5% is the current rate of all those tested but of course most havent been tested and majority of people who get it will be asymptomatic so they wont even know theyve got it so in all likelihood it will be much lower. Even if we go to 0.5% youre still looking at least a million deaths. Exactly, i think America has a misunderstanding of freedom, which is soaked in fear. Their gun policy demonstrates this, i would say America is an outlier in the western world, their history being a big factor. UK has been pretty bad in terms of the virus but America are way out ahead

Yes its very simplistic lol. But youre right that is more the issue, when something like covid spikes and everyone gets it at once the hospitals get overwhelmed, this was the issue when the virus first broke. I think realistically youd get states locking down individually, going through a 'herd immunity' is too much to stomach and too much pressure on a poor healthcare system. The strategy is not even really proven, Sweden didnt have a lockdown and their antibodies in the population is not much more than places that had a full lockdown, not to mention theyre not 100% you cant contract it again. Sweden people do have common sense though and many self isolated anyway, which wont be the case in the states. It wouldnt surprise me if America got toward a million deaths from this but i hope not

In the states it's around a 5% death rate if you catch, heavily weighted to people over 65 but younger people have obviously died from it as well. If the US go full herd immunity, I think population is around 350 million, in my simplistic calculation you're looking at 17.5 million deaths. I'd like to think if the deaths did start ramping up, there would be another lockdown or whatever is needed to stem the deaths. So question is how bad will it get before measures are put in place again? Also I doubt every state will go full herd immunity but who knows