BlueOak

I fully understand reality is subjective, because reality is entirely in your mind. - Beauty in this case. What you do understand is that states are often created before logical thought rationalises them. I've explained some. We'll do an easy one. Being wet. I don't sit there and think to myself am I actually wet, I am just wet or dry. We can experience this differently, but wet or dry is wet or dry. Certainly, you can example a bear mauling you, and ignore survival, but reality contains survival in it. In actuality, I should be shooting or escaping the bear, as it's a horrific experience to be mauled. Certain constructs within reality simply are, and these evoke different states of being. Survival is a key factor in life, as are the human needs; they are baked into the experience of being a human, not tied to belief, patterns of behaviour, identity etc. Then you are exampling perfection (whatever that concept is) and beauty, telling me they must be seen everywhere, because why exactly? Where is it written that everything must be beautiful and perfect? Who told you this, and why is this the default, overriding state? Why is that belief system the overriding one? I'll answer, because it makes us feel better, and thus, feeling better generates a better experience. You consider the imperfect or ugly as lesser or not wanted (insert your term here) because reality does have inbuilt triggers that generate states within you without any conscious effort at all. - One of them being beauty and ugliness.

Here is the Political Minds Analysis of the this page + some core strategies: Hyper-rational political analyst solving complex issues objectively 1. Moral Symmetry vs. Structural Asymmetry BlueOak’s Core View: Emphasizes personal accountability and balanced attribution of moral responsibility to both Israel and Palestinians. Advocates for depoliticized moral clarity: “Israel committed genocide, Palestine committed terrorism. Period.” Proposes that acknowledgment by a large public can pressure enablers to change behavior. Strength: This model aims to depolarize discourse by drawing moral boundaries in equal terms. It rightly emphasizes that clarity and shared consensus can be a catalyst for international or domestic pressure. Limitation: It risks flattening the asymmetries in power, agency, and systemic structure. By asserting equal responsibility without equal context (military power, statehood, international support), it may obscure the mechanisms that make one actor vastly more capable of destruction and impunity than the other. 2. Zazen’s Systems Critique Zazen’s Core View: Argues that the U.S. is the structural enabler of Israeli impunity. Distinguishes horizontal development (material, technological) from vertical development (moral, ethical). Emphasizes that asymmetric accountability leads to asymmetric power consolidation and further violence. Urges focusing on levers of influence, not just surface actors. Strength: Deep systemic analysis that traces power from battlefield actors to geopolitical structures. Effectively challenges assumptions that modernity or liberal democracy equates to moral superiority. Rightly points out that moral development is not guaranteed by institutional development. Limitation: Could be read as downplaying Palestinian agency, even when acknowledging structural oppression. There's a rhetorical risk in emphasizing structural causes to the point of appearing to absolve non-state actors of their moral responsibilities. 3. Leo Gura’s Civilizational Hierarchy Framing Leo’s Core View: Argues that Israel is a "lesser evil" due to being more “civilized,” governed by law and constraints (even if selectively). Frames conflict outcomes in terms of “civilization vs. barbarity,” with survival as the arbiter of moral legitimacy. Strength: Points to institutional differences and behavioral norms in warfare (e.g., IDF aborting missions to avoid civilians). Invites pragmatic evaluation of regimes based on comparative harm reduction. Limitation: Relies on an uncritical civilizational metric that confuses development with morality. Risks legitimizing structural violence when done by “civilized” actors while condemning reactive violence as inherently more evil. Neglects the colonial origins and moral relativism that underpin such “civilized evil.” 4. The “Greater Evil” and Asymmetric Warfare Debate Multiple users (Raze, Zazen, Twentyfirst) challenge the idea that more developed nations are inherently more moral. They note: Israel's historical and ongoing use of disproportionate force. The selective application of international law. The moral danger in using “standards” that privilege state violence over insurgent violence, when the latter may be more understandable (though not necessarily justifiable) given systemic oppression. This aligns with: Frantz Fanon’s and Hannah Arendt’s theories on violence: that oppressed populations often resort to violence when peaceful channels are structurally closed. Realist critiques of international law, which point out its selective enforcement and geopolitical bias. Final Synthesis To effectively hold all parties accountable: Direct Responsibility: Moral clarity about atrocities should be affirmed. Structural Accountability: Systems that enable atrocities must be scrutinized, particularly U.S. support structures. Asymmetric Contextualization: Accountability must reflect material and institutional asymmetries (power, resources, international protections). Ethical Consistency: Moral standards should apply across contexts, but with contextual nuance (e.g., state vs. non-state actors). Policy Levers: Targeted sanctions, arms embargoes, and international legal mechanisms must include enablers, not just perpetrators. Do you want a proposed model of how a multilateral accountability framework could look (e.g., involving a UN-mandated mechanism, ICC jurisdiction, and trade conditionalities)? You said: Yes and also suggestions for individuals or small collective groups to assist A Multilateral Accountability Framework for governments and institutions. Actionable Recommendations for Individuals and Grassroots Groups seeking to promote justice and accountability. 1. Multilateral Accountability Framework Objective: Create a scalable and enforceable mechanism that addresses the actions of both direct perpetrators and structural enablers of large-scale violence, like the Israel-Palestine conflict. A. Core Mechanisms Level Instrument Description Legal Universal Jurisdiction & ICC Empowerment Reinforce the mandate and reach of the International Criminal Court (ICC) with binding jurisdiction over war crimes, regardless of state ratification, through a revised UN Security Council resolution. Include enforcement provisions for state and non-state actors. Economic Targeted Sanctions & Arms Embargoes Impose smart sanctions (asset freezes, travel bans) on political/military leaders responsible for war crimes, from all sides. Implement arms embargoes via binding UNSC resolution (with automatic renewals and independent verification). Diplomatic Multilateral Conditionality Agreements Link bilateral trade, aid, and security cooperation to human rights compliance. E.g., require demonstrable progress on civilian protections and humanitarian access as conditions for military aid or financial loans (modeled after Leahy Laws, but globally applied). Verification Independent Observational Force Establish a neutral UN or BRICS-backed "Accountability Corps" composed of civilian monitors, legal experts, and forensic investigators to document violations, verify compliance, and issue regular public reports. Conflict Resolution - Regional Negotiation Bloc with Enforcement Authority Create a regional dialogue mechanism (e.g., Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, EU, U.S., BRICS observers) with power to propose binding solutions, mediate truces, and enforce arms suspension agreements with third-party monitoring. 2. Suggestions for Individuals and Small Collectives These actions are designed to work within the limits of personal agency while leveraging broader systemic influence: A. Educate, Frame, and Amplify Host teach-ins, reading groups, and public forums that examine the structures of violence (e.g., arms trade, UN vetoes, IMF conditionalities) rather than just focusing on visible atrocities. Emphasize distinctions between horizontal (technological/economic) and vertical (ethical) development in public discourse. Use precise, system-aware language: avoid "both sides" flattening but articulate asymmetry without absolution. B. Targeted Advocacy Lobby politicians, especially in supplier states (U.S., Germany, UK, France) to end unconditional arms support. Join or support campaigns like: DAWN MENA, Jewish Voice for Peace, Democracy for the Arab World Now. Stop Arming Israel (UK) or CodePink (U.S.). Push for city-level resolutions (e.g., boycott-related procurement policies) as symbolic yet momentum-building acts. C. Material Solidarity Support reconstruction efforts and medical aid through vetted organizations (e.g., Medical Aid for Palestinians, Palestine Children’s Relief Fund). Fund independent journalism and legal monitoring bodies (e.g., B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, Forensic Architecture). D. Platform Resistance If you control or influence a platform (social media page, university club, podcast, etc.), create space for historically marginalized perspectives and long-form context—countering misinformation and narrative reductionism. E. Strategic Civil Disobedience Engage in disruptive nonviolent actions where appropriate: sit-ins, protests at weapons manufacturers or government buildings. Use legal leverage (e.g., human rights litigation, FOIA requests) to expose complicity by local institutions in enabling arms transfers or foreign policy decisions. Final Thought Accountability is not a zero-sum game—it must be multi-scalar. To address state-sponsored violence or terror, accountability must scale from the personal to the planetary. Effective action requires a distributed network of pressure: governments, institutions, and people.

@zazen That is the crux of it. How do we do hold all parties accountable for their actions. It is the perfect question to ask and ask repeatedly. With the majority focus on Israel and Palestine, and not to negate your perspective, a secondary focus on those fueling and supporting the conflict. For one, we acknowledge it. Right here and now, you and me. That Israel is responsible for a genocide. Palestine is responsible for a reprehensible act of terror. We don't go any further than that, we keep it simple. We don't make excuses for either country; we put them at the top of the list, directly responsible for making those events happen. They are personally recognized for it. For two, once an understanding like that is agreed on by a large enough group of people, political pressure mounts. Though we don't have to ever agree on every detail zazen, (we never will ) we do need to agree on that much for it to stick. That political pressure slowly influences the secondary parties to stop enabling the behaviour. Again I am not equating anything, there is no excuse here (that's the point) I am stating exactly in clear terms what both parties are directly responsible for in this period of violence. --- As for the deeper question on how to help, or the how of something, which is a noble one, let me offer that below:

1, The world may say ethnic cleansing is morally wrong but they do it anyway because, for the most part, they are not stage green. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns It's easy to condemn something and do nothing. 2, The US is one of several suppliers of arms; if they withdraw, someone else will arm Israel. It doesn't solve the problem; in fact, the only leverage they have over Israel is that they supply arms. to the extent they don't step over a line. If the US did, Israel just goes to one of these 25 countries, or others, or independent contractors. https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/01/11/the-25-largest-arms-exporting-countries-and-who-they-sell-to/ They are far from the only dealer they can buy from. This is why I put blockades higher up on the list of topics to focus on. Besides, if they did, they would lose a major strategic interest in the region, at a time when BRICS are expanding all the time, which would be a misstep. Especially nearing the possible 'official' start of a larger conflict across the globe. 3, If anything, the US having 700 bases weakens their ability to focus on Israel. If they had 5, those 5 would get their full focus. Shall we estimate a dozen in the region? It's more their aircraft carriers which project power. 4, The weight of history does not support your assertion that the west is responsible for most of the wars. This is sadly your bias. I mean we could do a breakdown, but let's accelerate that topic: I'll refer to large periods of history, you'll point to specific regional conflicts in a recent time frame (while also citing things that go back 100's of years), I'll go to wikipedia and link all the conflicts BRICS have been involved in, you'll try to justify it, and at that point I'll probably get tired out :D, which is what usually happens. We can start there instead this time? Me justifying western conflicts from their historical perspective, you are justifying BRICS conflicts from their perspective, with me continuously bringing you back to the 6 human needs that drive all of humanity and reminding us all humans have fundamentally the same drives. Then i'll add on top that authoritarian regimes rule through more violence than liberal regimes, so it's a constant state of increased violence day to day, and we'll argue that vs larger-scale conflicts, etc. This is where I say you don't apply systematic thinking to western nations. You probably could, you could entirely put aside bias of them, take their perspective, and explain it. I do this with Russia sometimes when I want balance. I don't know enough about China to do it effectively, though, only surmise it. 5, UN resolutions won't restrict Israel much. Though i agree for what its worth. I wish they would restrict countries more. We could have an authority greater than nation states, stopping wars and enforcing diplomatic negotiations and a mature, neutral resolution. But the problem is, it's set up to require all the people from different fractured groups to agree. I mean we can't even agree, and I've got respect for you. This is just a micro of the macro. Voting is just a poor way of coming to a conclusion, we'd vote differently, but we could draft something with both our perspectives in and implement it. 6, You brushed over the main point I was trying to make. That you are not putting enough emphasis on holding Israel accountable for Israel's actions. You defended Palestine, when my comment was largely intended toward Israel at this moment, as they are the aggressor. To the extent Palestine was the aggressor, yes they need to be held accountable for that also. But i'll go further, we should start looking at them both collectively in this case. So blockade the region, the entire region, from getting arms. Negotiate with the entire region at once. These kinds of things. Make continued trade contingent on both sides stopping violence. I would rather a multinational force kept the peace, but now I am shooting for the stars. We have to, we absolutely have to put the main accountability on the parties involved, no matter how they are doing what they are doing, or who is enabling it. This is the critical misstep not being made. - Parents enabling their childs drug use are not doing anyone any favors, but if the kid was held accountable for taking the drugs, that would start to build that inside themselves, which is why prison sometimes works for example.

Yeah I wasn't equating cities to being ugly, they can be, but there are some fine ones out there. But I disagree that all things are beautiful. Unless you are going to say all things are ugly, in which case you are making a purely relativist argument, and okay. If not: In life there are certain things which create beauty without logical thought due to there being an existing framework for it; one is the golden mean ratio , creating natural symmetry. This is a natural occurrence in plants, animals etc but applies to all things. Another is the harmonic sounds of certain sounds and symbols. This is why a lot of feminine names have an 'a' on the end, or have 'ell; in them for example, due to our language structure, these tones evoke certain responses when spoken or seen. As for your comment here: Standing or sitting where you are right now. Anger lust happiness boredom laziness every feeling is in your fov. Wether you choose to react to one is up to you. Yes but I wouldn't override my anger and call it happiness, for example, nor would I override my established framework for ugly and call it beautiful for the sake of telling myself it's possible, I already know it's possible, I created it.

I know I misread my apologies. I deleted it but not fast enough I should be working, and i'm splitting my attention, it was an engaging chat though.

To be clear, creation isn't the logical focus of the mind, though that can direct it, it's the direct state and experience happening right now. So with no mind, there is no focus, or framework, and thus creation becomes everything.

True. Creating the current thing is more fitting a term.

They never started Leo. You are arguing a temporal reality that doesn't exist. Its only observable because you create it. You'll just create the next thing. Maybe as a slug, maybe as a being that can shift between realities at will, or maybe as Leo Gura mk2, only this time as a vegan

Okay. So when death occurs, it is your contention that you won't be observing it? I can't dispprove you obviously, only point to the multitude of times i've been out of body, and communicated this to the self. *Or better yet, you won't become the entire universe itself. Which is what happened last time.

I'm sure you know mind is a concept you've invented Leo. The death of mind is something you've invented to frame this concept of mind. Proof is also, the concept of a universe is also. This is why I say this philosophy, while extremely beneficial in things like assisting to dissolve egoic conflicts, is ultimately a framework in of itself. How will something that never existed in the first place go anywhere, end or start? How will anything die that didn't exist to start with.

Mind is a concept in your mind. X or Y is a concept in your mind. Reality just is. Anything you put over the top of it, labels, definitions, reactions you put there. Then we get stuck trying to convince what we consider or define as 'others', that other labels and definitions are correct or not. Here for example, most people on the forum don't realise this one, maybe it'll be helpful. It's not selfish because there is no self, its the complete dissolution of the self. Then after that, it doesn't get easier. Because you get to be construct aware, that is every single thing that ever happened in your life was created by you, all the things you've assigned as trauma, or bad, or painful (and all the good stuff too), you created. That is impossible for most people to accept, because it defines their identity and concept of self. Which ultimately doesn't exist. ^But all of that, including the initial reaction I had, was me attempting to convince you (my reality) how I decided to frame reality was real, even if I stepped back and tried to macro it. So Solipisism isn't there yet, but its a damn good framework (claiming to not be a framework ) It's closer though, I understand that much. *Also i'd contend it was more individualist in nature than collective, whereas the spiral dynamics model is more collective in nature. So its an interesting pairing here.

Beautiful is the resonance of the letters and symbols in your mind, or the symmetry of an image or its proximity to the golden mean. As an obvious clear example: We'd struggle to equate the word Xngggakaka to beautiful, or a very distorted image pattern, even if we tried. This is why many feminine names have certain tones and sounds, also why certain people appear beautiful universally. - Not attractive—that's a different factor, but beautiful. *Some of this helps demonstrate how language structures shapes reality. We can certainly go against this innate harmony and structure, to say anything is beautiful, but it doesn't negate that it exists when we attune to it. A bit like you can ignore nature and live in a city, but when you start focusing on nature again, there it will be.

Everyone lives in different realities because reality is entirely constructed in your own mind by your senses, filtered through perceptions, and often identity; Represented to you by your beliefs, convictions, opinions, and patterns etc. Further than that its a reflection of you, though most people resist this because they resist themselves, and as mentioned elsewhere, something you'll probably agree with, people not wanting to take accountability or responsibility for their own lives. What they say they want isn't always what they want. Often emotions can rise and fall, and its often the man's role to give them space for that, and at best, when you know them well, help them express or move through them when they want to. I enjoy a partner also helping me through emotional states, so I don't confine this to one gender. Because men are visual beings, we tend to picture this strength and stability as a well-muscled guy, but in reality, its better represented by internal order, empathy, and focus/discipline. - It's very helpful for a man to engage his body, it makes you feel stronger, gives you energy and confidence, which is then reflected in your interactions and externally. Nobody knows what women want as a collective, because if you interviewed 20 women and asked them, they'd all have different answers. I would say both perspectives can be observed. Because I hear plenty of people say what @Alexop says, online mostly, not where I live. So there are obviously plenty of people who hold this view, and then I hear plenty of people say what you say, mostly online, addressing those online. In my real life, people say things like: There is no loyalty anymore. (Both genders tell me that) They worry about their personality meaning people won't like them, when actually its their weight, for example. It's quite common to avoid addressing something by using a scapegoat, or just hiding behind it as a fear to go out and try. They've given up on relationships because too many failed, or they are happy in relationships because they found the right person. Or they come in beaming, happy because they are in love. Its all temporal. None of it really extends past the next relationship, only whatever belief they carry with them, which they should drop because the next person could be entirely different. And give them entirely different negative/positive experiences. But I will say loyalty seems a harder thing to find these days in the younger generation, at least where I live they tell me that. That's a big factor hurting the birthrate right now, and contributing to family breakdown and thus the negation of positive gender roles. The lack of loyalty people express, and the ease of finding other partners, plus the wealth of choices at their disposal. But again, should I hold that belief outside of where I live, probably not no. *Economic pressures and modern society not prioritising family being other huge factors obviously.

1, Goals Stabilizing an Income Stream so I can concentrate time on other areas of my life. 2, Expanding Areas of my life that need work. 3, Taking accountability and removing any remaining victim patterns or behaviors I have. 4, Creating the reality that I want, through focus, emotional state regulation and any remaining integration necessary.

Progress: 27/05/2025 Creation of a Chat GPT Team, and Project Coordination templates that I can trial different projects with. Using different specialists as and when needed. This leverages my ability to swap between perspectives inherent in stage yellow, integrate them as I have done all my life, while playing to my love for technology, psychological patterning and cutting-edge development. Also incorporating aspects of challenge and visual progress within the project. Essentially representing me, if I were a business task. Grasped understanding of the macro trend, that the expression of masculinity inherent in authoritarian regimes, their populations, and their wars is the same reflection of the hatred of expression of liberal behaviours, their wars, and their populations. This has allowed me to fully integrate all aspects of this line: Masculinity only functions healthily when based on internal order, not external expression. Thus, full accountability remains paramount for a healthy mind or a healthy society. I feel this was one of my remaining patterns that rebelled against different expressions of order when it came in different forms, because I hadn't fully equated how both sides of this are showing the same thing to me.

Arguing morals about a population is often a waste of time. You are arguing with a still small segment of the population (stage greens) using a moral or ethical framework that differs between different countries. I know you are capable of systematic thinking, not just capable, but in social and political dynamics, extremely skilled, but you only apply it to those countries you identify with. Despite their attempts to cling to power. The US hasn't effectively been the world's police for about 20 years. The countries involved in these problems have to start taking responsibility for their own positions and actions. Otherwise, nothing will ever improve. Its exactly the same with people's personal life. Macro/Micro, especially now most of all, its part of what is being shown. So laser-focused on Israel, Palestine, and the groups involved. Yes arms to these countries and the political, cultural or religious influence of those countries surrounding them play a factor, but its got to be put lower on the scale of accountability and responsibility than those directly involved, else guess what, Israel will always feel like they had less agency in this than they do too! And nothing changes. If people don't assign accountability to someone, there is no pressure to take it. --- Now i've appealed a quasi green-yellow argument, because yes I used morality or at least ethics there too Someone is always going to ship arms to warzones. So you can try to block individual countries, but you'd be better off advocating for blockades of the borders, and even better off addressing the hostilities themselves, calling for the arms. Even better off addressing the fears that cause the hostilities and even better off addressing the pressures that cause the fears. Arms < Blockades < Hostilities < Fears < Pressures Causing them | Additionally Belief Structures Contributing to the pressures --- The other thing on full display is that healthy masculinity has to rest on internal order, rather than external expression. I.E get things stable at home, rather than look to attack your neighbors or blame anyone else. *NB At full accountability and responsibility for personal actions weapon shipments would naturally be lessened as a result, because nobody else could hide behind the victim excuse for one example, they'd be carrying the cost of it themselves and actually want to do so.

Never had a penny to my name mate and I get called one of the kindest people you'll meet... somedays. If I help people that person thinks of me as 'kind', and the next person I refuse to help because I weigh their request to be unreasonable will think of me as 'mean'. I don't place much value on these labels, only that the act of helping makes me experience a positive feeling, unless its causing me suffering, in which case I weigh whether the suffering was justified or don't do it again. *On reflection, I can see why you'd say I am seen as kind when I have resources and by implication, mean when i do not.

Well not exactly no, but the point isn't to argue the definition; I might as well shout at the wind. It's to show you the conflicting definitions that exist under such a label. To highlight some of what you are facing and how to counter or deal with it. This comes out in the interactions with people. I don't know how much you agree that you create the reality you exist in, the outside reflects the inside in terms of conflict, as an example, but on a practical level, because you'll be assuming one behavior, identity label, or pattern links to another. Among other things. I don't doubt you meet a lot of Karens, Darrens, and fragile people in life. I don't personally, because I live in a conservative countryside area in the UK, which is more hardy by its nature. Living off the land, a lot of workmen etc. Politeness is important here and linked to what we call nice. You can be polite and unkind as an example, but again, the definitions aren't important; only showing the differences are. Though I take the meaning of her video, i've seen and commented on it before. I generally think this is one of her poorer videos, as its basing what she's saying on subjective labels, which will definitely change from one culture, country even region to the next. Ditto her containment video for similar but even more definable reasons, where the phrase 'providing protective space' wouldn't carry all the negative connotations the word containment does. I generally find Teal's videos on outward society lacking in this area, whereas her videos for the internal state of a person are significantly better. If you were dealing with a population that didn't get as hung up on egoic identity or labels, then it wouldn't matter as much, but you are. Which is where some of what you call childish behavior is often displayed. So you can engage with it, argue with the child (which won't go well), educate, side step, lead by example, help them, whatever, but argument rarely works well with the childlike aspects in human psyche. - Because you'd have to engage the childish aspects of yourself (or sink to that level) to do so often times.

Thank you for sharing that. I agree with much of it; it's helpful to establish. It goes to the problem you are facing in dealing with people, at least in part. For me nice means: Helpful, sincere, and polite. If i were to boil it down. So the problem comes when you communicate that nice people are bad; inevitably, there is conflict on the meaning of a label. This also comes about in nonverbal interaction.

Who is they? Its good to define this. do you mean feminine men? Not really, I mean it'd help your argument to separate out feminine men from unstable men, you'd get a lot further with a lot less push back also. Because rather than attacking identity, provoking an egoic response to defend it, you'd be highlighting the instability inherent in many men who rely on emotion over logic. One reason to start us off is that they are quite dangerous; they have the physical capacity of a man while possessing less of the stable restraint. But this also goes to my above points. Mean is an emotion, or at least its a characterisation of an act from an emotional point of view. Being mean for mean's sake makes little logical sense. You can be decisive, protective, embody leadership qualities, logical, strong, emobody endurance, discipline, focus etc and be entirely neutral in your emotions. Its the same way defining someone is nice is an emotional observation, because logic doesn't really care about tone, only the equation and result. *I will add that if masculinity is to mean anything lasting, it has to rest on internal order, not just outward expression. This is a big lesson the world is going through in many aspects on the meta level too. **I am also reminded that stability from a masculine perspective is about integrated emotions governed by principles not reaction. Neutrality is perhaps a flaw when I approach things with a high reliance on logic alone.

It's interesting and a reflection of our current society, where mean is now equated to masculine and nice to feminine. Seems arbitrary. Yet for hundreds of years, people practiced decorum, discipline and manners while remaining masculine.

I understand your point but this isn't directly comparable. People do address smoking, hunger, heart disease, cancer, there is wide recognition of the dangers, education on the subject, psychological or counseling help, and often funded social programs to help. There is less social awareness of the reoccurrences of covid and its impacts on health, but of greater importance, I am not sure we have learned many lessons required for the next large-scale outbreak. You talk about bird flu as one of many candidates. *I also think those directly responsible either died from infection or the serious repercussions of doing that under the Chinese government. My only grievance was they never warned the world. My uncle did, but outside of accidents, people rarely die of one thing; it's many contributing factors. And you could make the case the same was true for him.

It would require addressing things like: 1, The breakdown of international relations between the current world powers of the time. Probably the most significant factor to influence all world problems. 2, Either quarantine measures in China or the food safety of its markets, depending on which perspective you believe. 3, Authoritarian governments' inability to speak about things that challenge their authority publicly, and I am speaking from America, Europe, Asia everywhere the world over because almost every government is unbalanced towards right-wing authoritarianism. 3a, The poor reaction time of many countries in addressing an outbreak with a lockdown because of short-term economic concerns being placed higher than health concerns; this is true in most countries. 3b, China's government's inability to admit the extent of the virus or the outbreak initially. This is implied by point 3 but needs further highlighting. I blame them in part for the death of my uncle as a result. 4, The breakdown of the world's biosphere leads to fewer cures and more virus outbreaks as a natural result. 4a, Addressing environmental concerns over economic concerns. Touched on below. 5, The overpopulation of the world, which removes natural barriers to infection by clustering populations closer together or making them more interconnected. Nobody likes population control terms, but if we don't do it, nature does it. 5a, Engineering an economy to where population levels are not key to success. 6, Conversely, the alleged overly severe measures taken by certain governments effectively condemning millions to death. That's a start off the top of my head.

@Hojo A far better approach is to wait till you are calm, then punish them. This teaches the child discipline, not anger, which is a quality that will propel their life far beyond anything else you could offer them. Then give a proportionate response to whatever they did so they learn. Having experienced the complete opposite to what I describe, I can tell you the results leave someone in fight/flight/freeze and reactions which don't differentiate between leaving an item out of place and being truant, or as an adult, receiving an offhand comment and someone throwing a punch. Failing a grade on a test or crashing your car etc. But discipline, focus and understanding who they are is everything in life, and if you can teach them those three things, their entire life will be beyond what I can describe.