Princess Arabia

This is obvious, but surface level thinking. Hate can only come from loving something else and people have different sides to themselves. Ever stop to think a part of someone is hating another part and is using the part they love to destroy the part they hate. What part of a person is it that hates themselves. If that person sees themselves as whole, there would be nothing outside of that whole to hate. So saying someone hates themselves you have automatically divided that person into 'here I am, but there's a part of me that hate the other part". This is what she was trying to point to.

Forget about the AI Leo bot I shared. I read your conversation with gpt-4. It's still missing the point. People are acting from selfish intentions is still on the surface level and trying to explain away why people do what they do. The bigger message here is that God or whatever you call it, is inherently good (not selfish) and is acting through EVERYONE. It just it manifests in different ways and appears to the limited relative mind as bad but nothing bad can come from something that's inherently good without it being "filtered" in some way and can only be perceived by a limited perception as bad.

Beautifully said, thank you.

Ok thank you, I'll check it out.

Beautiful video.

Yes, I touched on it briefly and they even asked me to explain my stance, but they just couldn't see it. I found myself having to keep saying I'm not condoning atrocious behavior and just turned the topic around. Money, power and greed is a surface level understanding on the reasons why dictators act the way they do. Most people are influenced by these things on different levels but we have to go deeper to understand why.

https://chatgpt.com/share/670d6194-db74-8012-a4f7-de8129510d47 I used it to test what it says about People acting from good intentions.

https://chatgpt.com/share/670d6194-db74-8012-a4f7-de8129510d47 This is what Leo AI bot had to say in summary about everyone acts from good intentions.

The heading of the post is a bit misleading as this is not about me spreading Leo's teachings and then having people disagreeing. It's about a conversation that led to a topic that Leo did a video about and could have been used as an explanation, if understood correctly, as to the point i was making in the discussion. Leo is the only person I've been exposed to that has spoken about this topic in such detail and was only using his teaching/video/explanation as a reference point. A POINT THAT I ALSO AGREE WITH because I also can see the depth of what the message was about. This thread is also an example how one can get misunderstood and the details get misconstrued. If you read the post and understood it properly for what it was saying and not what you thought was the case, you would have realized that this isn't about the teachings of Leo but about a conversation I had and used a teaching from Leo's perspective to get my point across. Like using an example of what you're trying to say. This wasn't about you are God and it's all an illusion and you're imagining everything and you will never die. It was a deep conversation but about normal affairs of the world that turned to dictators and how they were bad people and I was trying to show how everyone is actually acting from good intentions; and i found myself having to explain that away but it wasn't well received. Wasn't about spreading Leo's teachings and saying I've stopped spreading Leo's teachings a long time ago isn't what this is about. Sometimes why I write such lengthy posts is so I can make myself clear by sticking in the details i find necessary to accomplish that, but people still read and interpret however they feel and misses the whole point anyway.

This is not about mentioning Leo. It's about having a conversation that led to a topic on a video he made and was trying to use it as a reference. If I knew of another video to reference, i would have done the same with that video. How many videos are there on this topic on yt that one can just reference to off the top of your head.

This topic is being misconstrued. No one is speaking about what's good or bad, and if the actions of people are good or bad. What you described is obviously atrocious, but that's not what the message is about. Watch the video in question and you will see what the post is pointing to. This is why I think Leo is very brave and courageous in putting himself out there with radical topics like these where his is vulnerable to being misunderstood and people misunderstanding the messages he tries to convey. What you've written here, and every thing else under the sun that humans commit unto each other still doesn't stray away from the message that their intentions were still coming from a place where they thought they were doing good but it's not the type of good that we're used to in the description of the word. Don't for once think I'm condoning any of these heinous actions but delving into the psychology of why.

I'm through with that sly, cunning, fox of an ego there. I'm responding to the assumptions you're making about why women post pics online and assuming things. And giving unsolicited advice to men on how to read things and projecting your own boundaries and beliefs. Anyone reading ALL your comments, can tell what you've written here is not ALL you're doing.

Yeah, I eat them once in awhile, I just don't make it a habit.

I've read enough to know you're telling people how to run their relationships as if they're not adult enough to do so. Also, you're assuming women are looking for validation and whatever else you're assuming. Some are, some are not. How will you know which ones are and also SO WHAT. It's just another way to do what you've also done at one time another in your life. SAUGHT VALIDATION. Who cares. I don't see them murdering people and doing mass shootings, go focus on how to stop those and leave people and their relationships that didn't ask you anything alone.

Love you. Now go watch some more Nero.

Are you aware plenty of men love for their women to show off their bodies. YOU ARE PROJECTING YOUR BELIEFS UNTO THE WORKD ABOUT SEXY PICS ONLINE. I've had men make suggestions to me to do stuff I'm not comfortable with and they were respectful men who cared about me. They just didn't see anything wrong with it. They just thought I was beautiful and could do that stuff too. Plenty of high caliber men and men of means, social status, respectable men who love women, enjoy women and are well established some if them love it when their beautiful women show classy sexy pics of themselves online. I'm sure there are also men of these calibers who don't. I only mentioned those things to make the point that it's not disrespectful, low-life, dirty or abusive men etc that will encourage their women to do this because they donlt respect them, it's men of all categories. Usually it's secure men who have businesses to attend to, have an established life and are taking care of their women who don't give a shit about these issues. It's dusty men who are insecure and don't have much going for themselves who do and who wastes time and energy about this petty things in life.

Don't even bother mentioning this. The clever mind will find all types of reasons why it's a different story. Men don't realize thyre the ones projecting their sexual beliefs unto women. They don't realize that for some women posting sexy pics is like posting a pic in a winter coat. To them it's just fucking posting a pic. Women have sexy bodies, they post a pic and that's it. If you didn't do an interview to ask her her reason for posting that pic, you're projecting and assuming. Period. Same goes for men

Nice, I'll just move when there's a hurricane coming. Better yet rain. For $10,000, why not and rent it out.

You're just used to seeing hardships in life and thinking that's how life's supposed to be. I'm not speaking about human's drive or success rate or what motivates them. We are creative beings by nature and the same way that survival is a motivational thing to get people to move their ass to support themselves, being creative can also be motivational to get things done. Suffering also drives people to suicide, depression and lethargy. Most people after a certain age get sick, why you think that is. Half the United States are on medication and most are obese not to mention the ones in mental institutions and the ones on drugs. These conditions are in massive quantities, so I'm not just referring to a few. Can't be productive while mentally challenged and it's tough when you're physically ill. Suffering is not what motivates people, in fact it's the opposite. It might motivate them to want to change their lives but so does happiness, having lots of energy, will and a healthy drive to do so. It's easier and more pleasing to the body and psyche to do it from the latter while getting the same results.

Resilience is unisex. You just haven't been around women from Third World Countries. They are the most resilient there is, especially from Haiti. Resilience is not an inherent trait, it is learnt, it's a skill. Both men and women can learn this equally. It doesn't take physical strength. You can be as physically weak as a mouse and still be resilient. Nature didn't make people resilient experience and being in a lot of hard times can make one learn how to bounce back easier than some no matter the sex. Please Google the nature of resilience and you'll see what I'm speaking about. It's not a man's trait.

All this you're talking about is just weasel deasel. I don't see women running around town crying and all men being able to help themselves. Some men are living in mommy basements and gf couches eating popcorn and playing play stations and some women are tough inside and don't depend on a soul for anything. Plenty of men everywhere dependent on others for support and plenty of women all over supporting themselves. We need to realize how we're just wrong in all our assumptions about how we think people are, including myself, so I'm not singling you out. Women don't need to cry to get support from others, all she needs to do is ask. If men are capable of helping themselves so much we wouldn't see so many stories upon stories upon stories of men leeching off of women for support. Plenty of examples of everything all over the world.

That's it. Nothing more is needed. Everything else is tuxedo's on a suit. Life goes on, joyful learning goes on, knowledge goes on, whatever people do goes on, respecting others goes on, relating to others kindly and lovingly goes on, society goes on and trying to impact the world through whatever means goes on. Once you can do all that and everything else from the place you mentioned above, one will be peaceful and be at ease with whatever comes their way, even through the challenges. Don't have to look for ways to cope or need outside sources to feel fulfilled. Peace and fulfillment is already the case and all that needs to be done is to see the world for what it is.....a shit show. Just joking, but you get the drift - the stage show that it is.

I wasn't literally judging a man's reputation. I was merely giving an example of how the word weak could be used in a sentence that could describe a man's actions. Anyway, all im saying is the word weak is weak, but it's definition varies and can be used in different contexts. No need to go further as I understand your stance and your use of the word weak and it was meant to be in the physical sense. Thanks for the convo.

This is just giving reasons why women are stronger emotionally - besides the point. Reasons why isn't the essence of what I was addressing. I think most people would agree with this. Only someone living on Mars wouldn't, that men are physically stronger than women. The word weak can be used as a description in various ways, it's best for the sake of interpretation and reader's understanding you specify to avoid miscommunication. "his driving skills are weak", "her knowledge of history and the way she expressed it was weak", "that password is weak". A man's reputation can also be easily damaged. Liable to break or give way under pressure could be referred to a male giving a public speech. These definitions, of which there are plenty more variant examples, can be applied to men. Your definition of the word weak, is just that, your definition. The word standing on it's own of even used to describe a particular sex without context, leaves the reader uninformed on what the writer actually means. It is not automatically understood. I totally agree that women are physically the weaker sex, but there are areas where they do show strength that way surpasses males.

Except for toughness, I agree those are character traits that shows strength. There are also others. Saying women are weak and leaving it at that to me implies women have no strength in any area. Showing toughness can mean anything and is a very vague word to use to describe strength. Someone acting tough could mean they feel weak inside and feels the need to show toughness to mask that, that's why I excluded that. Resilience and courage are straightforward words but they aren't subjected to only the masculine or even most; that can come from any gender and also equally distributed. Character is also vague and interpreted in many different ways but using this word in any way still refers to either sex.