Rokazulu

Why not consider the consequences of limiting the free will of an individual into the moral equation?

A disease that causes all those things? Or should we just add that onto the hypothetical?

If you are born as a human, you have a 100% chance of dying and suffering.

Will they spend their whole life without purpose, just because they have a disability that causes them to suffer? For me, I know nothing is fixed. Anything can be changed in reality. If I desired kids, I would have them. If this is about other people having kids, I would not restrict them.

If you are eating a wheat that makes you feel pain. I can only suggest to not do that.

Who am I to say they cannot? Who am I to say that there is no cure?

It is more like training someone to touch the moon with a stick.

You are speaking about eugenics. Nothing said could justify this. Any perceived benevolence, is misplaced.

I will translate the tweet: "I use to vote for oligarchy blue, but they started acting like fascists, so now I am voting for oligarchy red."

Your cause is definitely noble, but being disappointed by the circumstances will not help you as much as continuing your passion at whatever capacity you can. I don't mean to sound dismissive, because of course, it is alright to feel as you need to. It is only, that whatever opening you have is all you can inherently work within the confines of our physical reality. And somewhere in there, has to be a solution that will reveal itself in time. It may come from an unexpected place or as a collective effort. But, it will certainly come if you don't give up on your desire for a better world, and a better life. Stay alert to all potentials, and never be stressed if the answer is not immediately before you, as of yet.

Once existence, always existence. Death, in this case, is an illusion before you. Letting go of control, is surrendering to the control you already have.

It isn't based on nothing. Your worth is inherent to existence. If you weren't worthy, you would not have been granted an existence by the All (God). Like a lattice spun of a single thread. If you were to cut out any section of it, the whole thing would fall apart. Just as the whole of reality would cease to be without your consciousness.

When you are able to choose your preferred state of being, within any circumstance.

Morality is relative to the standards of the individual which is heavily influenced by the society around them. Some like to surrender into their immorality on this basis, making it easier to live the life they desire, without any of the hiccups involved in the idea that there is karmic consequences to all of our actions. A karma that is entirely self-imposed by our free will to make more preferable decisions. Morality is definitely a strong word to use. Something highly evolved beings would not even use. The paradox is, that highly evolved beings reside within highly moral societies. By choice, and by the blissful freedom that surrounds them in their society.

I have always had a soft spot for Earthbound which was released for the SNES in 1995. It is about a kid in modern times, who unlocks his psychic potential to save Earth. The game's charming art style, humor and wild music/environments made me create a similar game of my own. I deeply connected with the spiritual aspects, as well (such as learning the meaning of "Mu") and it always give me a warm feeling when I am reminded of it. It's too bad Nintendo keeps cancelling the fan remakes.

Infinity is a bigger concept than thought can grasp. Infinity constantly evolves towards new worlds, new experiences, and new consciousness. Reaching planes of reality that we can't even possibly imagine, right now. Consciousness will continue to evolve towards varying realities. Any repetition that would happen only appears as a repetition. But, no true repetition can ever take place.

No individual on Earth would be fit for such a task. Authority over anyone is a flawed premise created out of an anarchy within a divided self. An Autocracy within the self has to be obtained for all. For we all are interconnected neurons, each imbued with a unique role.

They are morally and legally obliged to, they just choose not to. Julian Assange only published the information, he was not the one who obtained it. Journalism is not a crime. The case should have been dismissed a long time ago. However, I do see your point that this is all wishful thinking.

Yes, but why do they focus on Julian Assange instead of their own criminal activity? Their real standing means nothing to them. The knowledge is out there, and no one has been held accountable, except someone who had no involvement in the activity— Julian Assange. They aren't taking this seriously at all. They are protecting no one and upholding nothing in their reputation.

As far as I can tell, that information is only classified because it shows clear examples of criminal activity. Julian Assange is clear of any offense. If the government doesn't see that, it is only to protect themselves from the consequences.

This is the site: https://www.minds.com/

The proposed system within that document, actually calls for a random jury to be selected by users who have to reach a consensus of whether or not that mods acted in good faith with the network policy in their bans. Seems rather simple to me, but if it is an open source system, new ways of moderating can actually be implemented and voted on if the community finds them to be more efficient or more fair.

If they desire balance, they have to make the time. Why would they be any less capable of anyone else, in making a good decision? What knowledge does a moderator have, that others do not? Not paying workers a good wage also solves some problems for a CEO. But, we are speaking about more people than just the platform's owner. You would value convenience over fairness and balance?

The site does not have to subscribe to the viewpoint of bad faith people. They can do a number of things to show they do not subscribe to their point of view, such as warning signs over any topic not in alignment with the website's image, but is allowed because it is not yet a call to discriminate or use violence against anyone (Spotify, Youtube, Facebook pretty much do this with COVID-19, as an example). These people remain a minority, and unless we help them out of their trauma (which causes such negative beliefs to occur) then they will remain a minority and perhaps be absolved in time. The community decides what is acceptable conversation and what is not. I still don't quite see how having less people making those decisions, is more balanced than not doing so. If we say it is, we have to discuss why a dictatorship or oligarchy is not as preferable as a democracy.

Each sub-reddit usually has several mods. Those mods can decide which threads stay and which leave. This means, the banned portion of these communities are driven to their own sub-reddit echo chamber. Sometimes the overall reddit moderators decide to take down those sub-reddits as well, to drive them off the site.