Gesundheit2

Nah. He's decades ahead of your typical guru. But still decades behind me. I agree.

He's American, you need to convert to inches.

What is, does not have the ability to allow or disallow. It just is what it is.

The only scenario that I can imagine myself using such features would be if there were a number of constant trolls and/or spammers, which luckily isn't the case. It's a useless feature, to be honest, especially at this scale. This forum has only like a couple dozens of regular users. The rest are occasional guests. I think this feature should be disabled until the regulars are 3 figures at least.

I literally said "degree". How did you get black and white from that? Anyway, I'm not going to respond to everything you said, cuz it's mostly assuming I have an anti-government position, which I'm not. I'm neither pro-government, nor anti-government. For me, it is what it is. The position that I hold, however, is anti-corruption, which sadly is not shared by most people, including Leo. Leo holds a more fundamentalist pro-government position, which is not really advanced, it's Blue/Orange at best in terms of SD.

Suffering is man's problem, and man needs to find solutions to it. God is irrelevant here.

It depends on context. It cannot. Government is not some separate entity that operates on its own. It's just human beings. When you say the government can do this or that, it's not the government that is doing anything, but the people. Without the people, there is no government, but there can be a people without government. So, when the government starts an effect, do you really believe that the effect is meant to help the collective? Or that it's mainly for the individual government officials? The answer to this question is the degree to which corruption is spread in any country. In reality, I can guarantee that any effect that starts from within the government is not meant to help the collective. Helping the collective has become a side effect and a marketing tool. It's not what governments are about anymore. There are pros and cons to each having a system vs. not having a system. For example, without a system, I can take my own rights by my hand. And with a system, my rights could vanish due to bribery. I'm not for either, the example is just to illustrate my point, and it would be pointless to discuss all the pros and cons in detail, because having a system is largely not a choice. And puts it in the hands of a few, which has pros and cons. It's not an ideal to worship. Well, guess what? Self-regulation is always happening, it did not stop with the invention of modern government, and it won't stop today or a million years in the future. But you can stay drunk and hold on to your government fantasies until corruption eats your country from the inside out without you even knowing.

The big bully the small everywhere, because of corruption, not lack of development. You need to get this. I'm pretty sure you're thinking of a mafia here, not a regular business. With a regular business owner, if he is harmful, he will get threats, a beating, or a killing. Or if it's not that bad, he will simply lose clients and self-defeat. All of this is self-regulated. No need for a government. Governments only put that procedure into an official protocol. I would say you're aiming too low. You should not be just happy to have a working government. You should be seeking a less corrupt, more conscious, and more functional one. If you raise your standards, the government will improve. And vice-versa. That's the feature of democracy. The government works for you, not the other way around. If you don't watch your employees, they will slack off. Just the nature of the beast.

In an underdeveloped country, if you blatantly allow your customers to be harmed you will be dead. It's basically the same thing, but without having to go through government protocols. Society always auto-regulates itself regardless of how sophisticated or corrupt its government might be. Government can be a nice addition, but it's not what creates the effect. I think you're idolizing government, especially that of developed countries. Developed governments are more organized and structured, but that has its pros and cons.

At that point, it would be silly to think that it's my pov. How could it be mine if I'm moving in and out of it without personal agency or decision?

Okay, I read the OP, and here's my answer: I think us humans mainly differ from animals in that we have the ability to use our imagination for various purposes, including putting ourselves in other people's shoes, aka empathy. This ability varies from one person to another, but it's basically there for most people, at least as a seed or a potential that can grow. Some animals show certain levels of empathy, but they're very limited compared to a human. Our brains are smart enough and can allow imagining similar scenarios that aren't experienced exactly before, the brain does this assimilation through approximation. So, with this particular aspect that is called empathy, we are capable of guessing what it would be like to experience conditions that differ from our own, but are still somewhat relatable. The more diverse experiences we have stored in our brains, the stronger this ability gets. The more we develop as species, the stronger our empathy gets. Now, what does this have to do with occupying a certain body and a pov? Well, considering my "rooms" theory, I believe that if we evolve enough, at a certain point in time, we will be able to shift our presence in between bodies and povs. And it will be like going out of your room, and inside another one next to it. The further we develop, the farther the room. Other beings do this already, but we cannot see them. They live at energetically higher levels than us, and are able to enter and exit our bodies whether we notice them or not. Some of these beings are basic, like anger or happiness for example. And some of them more complex, like psychosis, schizophrenia, and paranoia. I'm not very fluent in this energy talk, that's just my basic understanding. It could be right or wrong, but it's interesting.

Sorry for being off topic. I haven't read the OP yet

If what you're saying is true, then awakening is impossible and I shouldn't even try to awaken. And I don't just mean shouldn't in the practical sense, but also in the moral sense. If this dream is absolutely perfect as you claim, then it is meant to remain that way and the illusion should not be destroyed, not that that is even possible to begin with as I stated earlier.

You don't really know that. Nothing in life suggests that the stories my mind comes up with are false. In fact, just the opposite. Everytime I go outside, my home remains when I come back. I consider that a counter-proof for solipsism. Solipsism is a story that doesn't hold water, while other stories do. At least, as far as I'm concerned as a human.

@Leo Gura I agree with what you're saying, but it's a strawman. I'm not saying more corrupt governments control the flow of ideas less, nor the opposite. The degree of control can vary depending on context, yet that degree is rarely determined by the collective interest, even though that's what is claimed, and what should ideally be the case. Indeed, a democracy generally gives the collective more power and influence over the government than a dictatorship does, but that's not how corruption is measured. Development is not an antonym for corruption. It's just not the correct metric. The correct metric for corruption is hypocrisy/integrity, and how much of each you possess. Do you really mean what you say? Or are you just saying stuff to deceive me for some personal gain? Consider that a dictator could have higher integrity than a democratically elected president. That dictator might exercise a high level of control over his people because they're idiots and he knows better than them. That doesn't make him a corrupt leader, in fact just the opposite. What would make him corrupt would be doing the exact same thing, but this time for his own personal gain in the name of collective interest, cuz that would break the social contract without technically breaking it. It would look like looking after the people's interests, but it would be merely a show that has positive side effects, which is what's happening today and I'm pointing at, regardless of government. On the other hand, a democratically elected president who is corrupt could use free speech to gain votes, distract everyone from the real issues, deceive for some corporate money, etc. while claiming that he's only about freedom and democracy. Weaponizing democracy for personal gain is what would make him corrupt, not democracy itself. Similar to a dictator who would weaponize his absolute authority for personal gain. Personal gain vs. collective interest is the crucial factor here. It is what determines how corrupt a leader/politician is. That said, in a democracy like America, it's absolutely stupid to give up one's authority for the government. Rather, the government should always feel like they're walking on eggshells with the collective, because the collective is allowed that much power. When the collective gives up their authority to the government, that's when it becomes corrupt. And the more, the worse. Preserving the government should never be the ultimate goal, and collective interest should never be a side effect. The collective comes before the government, the government is just a made up tool for the actual collective. But that's an ideal world, and unfortunately, reality is the opposite.

It depends on how corrupt the government is, which typically is an indicator that reflects how corrupt its people are on average. What you're saying is true in an ideal world where governments care about both themselves and their people. But the world isn't ideal, it's deeply corrupt. And woke culture is definitely not any less corrupt, although it can look so for some, and therefore be more deceiving.

I think this belongs in the fun section.

But my model suggests that you are somewhere inside the room, not the room itself. I don't know, honestly. Maybe I should start considering this possibility more. That's not necessarily the case. If I turn off the radio, that doesn't mean the radio station doesn't exist.

@Migue Lonas I was talking about people in general. I don't generally deliberately seek out to meet new people. New people come my way, and I rarely close the doors at anyone. But yes, I'm in a scarcity with girls, how did you know?

Hold your breath for one second, that's not how the game is played. I didn't ask for a solipsism teacher, rather you wanted an argument against solipsism. Did you consider my argument carefully? Well, that's basically the point. And I don't see any hint or flavor of solipsism in there.

I don't generally avoid anyone unless they're actively and openly toxic/harmful to me. And sometimes I put up with those even. And if I cut someone off, it usually means that I've tried everything I can to keep the connection but failed.

The biggest absurdity is that these idiots are not cancelled enough and still allowed the freedom to speak in public. Green is to blame for not being strict and tough enough about such free-speech violations.

So now you're using lack of importance and irrelevance to cancel the truth. I'll add that to the list. By the way, who in the world said anything about cancelling the left?! Can you point to such a being or quote them here? You're just imagining that cuz you're afraid that your worldview might not be as great as you want it to be. You're scared of refining your worldview and coming up with a better one that sees the problems with wokeism and transcends them. You're scared of your ideal version.