Consept

I think most people that get into conspiracy theories are looking for truth. But they reality is the world is very complicated and nuanced, CTs offer a very simplified way of looking at the world, where there are good guys and bad guys, evil vs good. This is very appealing as it offers a way to understand the world which we all crave, I think there's an anxiety of not knowing. To be clear many other ideologies offer this, religion, politics etc. I think real truth seeking starts with the acceptance of not knowing, being OK with not having an all encompassing world view. Accepting the anxiety you feel of not knowing and being cool with it. From this point you're not tied to any ideology and can take in new information without it having to make it fit into an already established theory. If you notice this is why most CTs spin off and get bigger and bigger because new information has to be explained within the context of a theory. If you're seeking truth you will have to hold multiple ideas in your head at once and not favour one over another just because it fits a narrative. So for example yes Pfizer are trying to make money from their vaccine, but also yes the vaccine will save many lives.

Genuine offer - we can video call and talk through some stuff. Im currently studying to be a financial advisor and have also run businesses for the last 15 years and not had a job for the last 8 years. DM me if you want to set something up

It's out of context though I'm saying that as a potential criteria for making decisions in place of a government. As in if you make a lot of profit and also impactful decisions, these decisions you make can affect that profit positively or negatively, now you may not use this for your benefit but I think the temptation to is a risk. Its like if you're a judge and you have to make a legal decision in regards to a family member, obviously your judgement is going to be affected even if its unconsciously. In terms of just making a profit I don't have anything against it.

There is no matter

@captainamerica I didn't say anything against profits. This dialouge is going off in a lot of different directions and we seem to be talking past each other, you've said a lot but I don't actually know what your point is. Are you making the argument that wealthy, poweful individuals shouldn't be taxed?

Dismissive avoidant and yeah it does line up I would say, I always feel like i want someone there but just kinda in the background

But yeah in theory, after a country has met is expenses etc if there's a profit then yeah you can have a tax I don't see a problem with that, I mean probably they'll make sure they spend all their money

I take your point which as I understand it is if the wealth is concentrated in one country, should that countries wealth be redistributed amongst other countries within the global community. A utopian answer might be that yes all wealth should be redistributed. But of course that would be a complex thing to just impart, having said that there is more responsibility on countries like the US to offer aid, military support etc to less wealthy countries. Regarding being taxed on an individual level for one each person within the system has tacitly agreed to it, so once you've made money you can't just turn around and say I don't want to contribute anymore, if you do then you are free to go to Puerto Rico or wherever and pay less tax if you choose. But in theory you have used the US system and people to make your money, it wasn't done in a vacuum. Also this money that you are being taxed in theory should help others also become successful.

I'll answer your question but answer mine first, as its more relevant to the topic. What is the criteria, apart from being extremely wealthy, for an individual to be able to make decisions that affect a mass amount of people?

The point is fine in that yes you can make the argument that animals suffering is just as important as human suffering, but then the problem with it is that any topic involving human suffering can be dismissed, at least until you sort out the animal suffering issue. If we talk about modern slavery the counter will be "well animals have it worse so...", obviously theres a purpose to talk about human issues regardless.

I havent heard its 90% but I think it's something to do with people doing it for power or just because they had the opportunity rather than they're sexual preference is kids. If you think about it like people in prison mostly they may not be gay but there's a lot of rape and gay sex going on. It kind of makes sense because even incels don't really rape at least I haven't heard of that being a common thing, so it's usually a power dynamic being played out in most abuse cases.

No ones saying it should be celebrated or trivialised just seen as a mental health issue if they want to get help and then obviously a criminal issue if need be. I think whats interesting about him is that he can look at these controversial issues generally without the emotional, moral perspective that most people talk about it with, also hes willing to do this in public. If you look at previous controversial issues, lets say the war on drugs, unless you were 100% against drugs there was something wrong with you, there was no room for nuance. Now we can see there absolutely has to be nuance which has led to drugs legalised and literally used for medicine, as well the drug issue has vastly improved. This is the thing with public discourse and politics, there are certain talking points where they only come up to say how wrong they are, but the problem is you need to accept the problem first to have any chance of improving it. A lot of the time the emotional attachment people have to an issue skews their objective perspective of it. So in the case of mrgirl i think being detached is actually a great way to discuss things and i think as people like him get more popular youll see the emergence of more yellow people coming through.

Im not necessarily comparing it in this instance im just saying that sexual orientation is hard/pretty impossible to change, think about it wouldnt pedophiles want to change their sexuality considering how much trouble it can cause. I think any sexuality is probably psychological and biological, it appears that with pedophiles its more psychological as in their development has affected them especially if theyve been abused, but ultimately youre still left with the same question of what to do with them. I dont know how you can judge pedophile animals but you definitely get pedophile, incest and everything else with animals. Incest is very common with dogs and wolves btw. Also historically its been part of various human cultures, even today some tribes still have traditions around it. Obviously im not condoning it im just saying that theres an argument to be made that it occurs naturally. The problem with this is that if you do ostracize them then no one would admit to being one and they wont get treatment that could help them and also potentially save kids. If you seperate pedophilia from child abuse then you can treat the pedophile without judgement. Its like if we take your example and we say all the people looking at terrorist content we're going to lock you up in case you act on it, what would happen? Theyd stop looking at the content or talking about it but theyre still going to have the same obsession, wouldnt it be better to let them talk about it and then help them by maybe deprogramming them or whatever works in that instance?

Lets assume you cant treat them, there are conversion centers for gay people and they dont really work. If you mean treat as in stop them from committing abuse, im sure there are a good deal that dont and there are some that probably need treatment to not go down that road, the ones that do abuse or are likely to obviously put them away from the public. So the question remains, the ones that are just in public and dont commit any abuse, what do we do with them? Do we leave them to get on with their lives or is the risk too much?

One way to think about this is to imagine that whatever type of person you're attracted to, man, woman whatever, is seen as disgusting and evil by society, not only that but you yourself know you can't engage in any kind of relationship with them because its harmful to the other party. So from this point of view, how would you want to be treated and what do you think would help you not engage in potentially damaging behavior to vulnerable people?

@captainamerica so what would an individual need apart from being rich to be able to make decisions?

Yes you're probably right America is too powerful but that power is still within a system. The question I put forward is should an individual rich person within a hypothetical country be able to make decisions over a system. Difference being in theory a system can be affected by individuals through voting or getting involved in politics, a billionaire isn't voted in he's just rich, you can argue about the system being effective or fair. So I'm not making a point necessarily I'm just asking if power should be given to the rich to make decisions or should a government make them? it's an either or question.

Lol you probably didn't mean it but that came across really patronising. Either way my point still stands if you want to engage it. To clarify I'm saying from an individual country perspective, within that country there will be rich people and there will be elected officials or system of government. The question is should the rich people make decisions that could affect the country or should the system prevent them from doing it and make the decisions themselves?

Why not just engage in the conversation, otherwise youre basically just posting statements and looking for people to disagree with you and then attempting to insult them by giving sarcastic answers to normal questions. I'm not trying to 'win' by making you look stupid and making me look smart as you seem to think, im genuinely interested in your take on what i posted

Society is extremely difficult to manage, in terms of balancing 'freedom' with protecting people from others but also from themselves. Thought experiment type thing but do you think the following examples are limits on freedom or unethical as it stops people making a choice themselves and also if not or if so why? - Vaccines for when you go abroad, Malaria, tetanus etc one could make the argument you should be free to travel without having a vaccine that youre not sure of Restrictions for driving ie having to take a driving test, wear a seatbelt, follow signs etc one could make the argument that if you know how to drive you dont need the government telling you that you have to follow their rules. Banning of trans fats or having sugar limits or sugar taxes on certain foods, one could make the argument that you can monitor your own health and you dont need the gov telling you how much you should eat esp if they dont really care or promote a healthy lifestyle. Smoking, you should be allowed to smoke anywhere and it is a restriction of freedom not to be able to, its also not fair that its heavily taxed esp as we are aware of the damage it does now and we want freedom to choose to do it in moderation.

Isnt the issue more about having a few unelected people making decisions that potentially could affect a lot of people?

I guess ultimately the question seems to be, who can do a better job at managing money for the betterment of society? Is it the wealthy corporation owners or is it elected individuals within a democratic system? Traditionally corporation owners having more power has led to disastrous consequences but there maybe an argument that the corporation owners of today are more leaning toward green and may genuinely want to help mankind. However a counter would be when they have had a lot of power and responsibility they either haven't been able to handle it or have been quite underhanded in their action eg Facebook and Cambridge analytica. For me systems are essential as no one person holds all the power, the democratic system has many holes and things that need to be worked on but the intention is a system rather than individual power. It also feels like a throwback having, essentially Kings of industry ruling over us. I think I'd probably more accepting if musk had a basic income and used all the money for the betterment of society rather than even making a profit.

You guys should watch succession if you haven't already. Watching it you get the sense that billionaires today are basically what Kings were previously, instead of a kingdom they have a corporation. Unlike Kings they don't have ultimate rule the government prevents it but even that line can be pushed. At the moment the government is the only thing protecting us from the United States of Elon.

This is a bit of a personal one but if anyone wants to give advice I'd appreciate it. So my family is highly dysfunctional, I won't go into all the ways but one way it manifests is a kind of insult based humour, which seems to be about making the other person feel bad or react in some way, it's about laughing at the person rather than with them. It also includes telling the same embarrassing stories in social situations, stuff like when you were a kid and scared or whatever. It's mainly done by my step-dad but mum and brother also get involved. I have done it before but I try and be aware of it and catch myself, but there definitely is the thought to do it because of the environment. The thing is they are all highly sensitive, quite insecure people, meaning that if you insulted them they would dwell on it and it would really affect them. Its because of this I don't really do it even though I could. But the reason for the anger is that I realised I was constantly tip toeing around their feelings and they don't give a fuck about mine, they go put their way to try and embarrass or wind me up, it's not that what they're doing in of itself wind's me up, it's more the fact that they're trying to do it. Just for context I am completely independent from them so I don't live with them or need them for anything but I would at least like to communicate or spend time with them without having this dynamic. I have a sister as well and she's nothing like that and has also recently moved out. I have thought of a couple options but as this is a bit of an emotive subject just wanted to see if anyone could look at it more objectively

Nah dont get me wrong i dont want them to be different or at least ive accepted they are who they are, the anger is because of their effect on me and me obviously not setting appropriate boundaries. what do you mean by the last sentance?