Don't say what you believe about vaccines

[Consept]

1 hour ago, TDLH said:

As long as you are unwilling to entertain these possibilities, there cannot be an open healthy discussion from a more Meta platform, IMO….

OK but here's the thing I completely accept the issues with government and big pharma, its not a binary thing that you're either with the government and big pharma and therefore for the vaccine and if you're against government and big pharma you should automatically be against the vaccine, this in itself is very limited thinking. Its kinda like saying when the government made seatbelts mandatory you were against it because you don't like the government or car companies. 

What would should do if we're to.have a discussion is recognise what's likely to be true. If you don't want to listen to scientists and experts that's fine but leads to a difficult conversation because conceivably any point thrown up by scientific investigation should be thrown out. 

@Yidaki

I agree everyone thinks they're right but if I'm understanding your proposal I think you're saying that if someone thinks they're right we should honor the values that led them to that viewpoint. That could be OK if there wasn't an iminant threat (don't look up the movie makes a good point on this) but the thing is if there is or even if its not iminant but important, then there have to be decisions made that people not be happy about but are the best decisions for everyone. 

As I mentioned seatbelts are a great example as people protested about them being mandatory and questioned science etc but obviously we can see and probably could see at the time that they would save lives. 

So my proposal would be to have critical thinking about topics, this would actively have to be taught from a young age, but again even teaching critical thinking is disputed by certain groups lol. 

 

[TDLH]

24 minutes ago, Consept said:

What would should do if we're to.have a discussion is recognise what's likely to be true. If you don't want to listen to scientists and experts that's fine but leads to a difficult conversation because conceivably any point thrown up by scientific investigation should be thrown out. 

You are completely missing what I am saying!  Not once did I say that scientific investigation should be thrown out!  In fact, I am suggesting scientific investigation should be considered from all angles.  With no Government, Political, Media, Big Pharma influence.  No fear of funding cuts, censorship etc…  An investigation that includes all aspects from world science (not just western science.) that includes the physical, psychological, spiritual, natural, chemical, quantum perspectives, regardless how outlandish it may seem.  It should also include a regional and worldly political science perspective. 

The greatest discoveries in Human evolution happened outside the box.

Twenty years from now they will be scratching their heads wondering what the hell were we thinking? why didn’t we question the collective rabbit hole we descended into? Etc.

That’s not happening because of narrow minded ideological and political extremism on both side of the fence! 

You are still caught up in Pro-Vax vs Anti-Vax narrative, I am speaking above that narrative.

 

[Consept]

13 minutes ago, TDLH said:

You are completely missing what I am saying!  Not once did I say that scientific investigation should be thrown out!  In fact, I am suggesting scientific investigation should be considered from all angles.  With no Government, Political, Media, Big Pharma influence.  No fear of funding cuts, censorship etc…  An investigation that includes all aspects from world science (not just western science.) that includes the physical, psychological, spiritual, natural, chemical, quantum perspectives, regardless how outlandish it may seem.  It should also include a regional and worldly political science perspective. 

The greatest discoveries in Human evolution happened outside the box.

Twenty years from now they will be scratching their heads wondering what the hell were we thinking? why didn’t we question the collective rabbit hole we descended into? Etc.

That’s not happening because of narrow minded ideological and political extremism on both side of the fence! 

You are still caught up in Pro-Vax vs Anti-Vax narrative, I am speaking above that narrative.

 

lol ok i get it you think very meta as youve pointed out a few times now (joking). Anyway we seem to be talking past each other because I agree with most of what youre saying. My only point is that to have the discussion you have to include the scientific consensus position (ie vaccines are effective with some minor risks). The problem with discussions on here or anywhere, is that the science bit is basically ignored or fervently argued against, meaning that you cant really build a discussion from it if you dont recognise that in the first place. But it doesnt seem like youre doing that  

[Danioover9000]

   Can we at least agree on the following facts?:

   That the virus can kill people.

   That the virus kills by over stressing an underlying or existing health issue? death by strong correlation? Not just damaging the lungs.

   That there are some people who have survived not once, but multiple infections from the virus?

   That the mRNA technology in Pfizer, is the best and latest defense vaccine wise?

    That the sting in the needle is what you fear more than the vaccine?

    That you are mistaking Pfizer for a older traditional vaccine that has heavy metals?

    That the vaccine has side effects?

    That the delta between risks of virus is higher than risks of vaccine side effects?

   If you can't agree on these, then you are too polarized and dogmatic to go meta.

 

[Danioover9000]

@Yidaki    Technically, there's always scientific consensus with few disagreements. The main issue is which scientific consensus is correct and valid?

[Consept]

12 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

   Can we at least agree on the following facts?:

   That the virus can kill people.

   That the virus kills by over stressing an underlying or existing health issue? death by strong correlation? Not just damaging the lungs.

   That there are some people who have survived not once, but multiple infections from the virus?

   That the mRNA technology in Pfizer, is the best and latest defense vaccine wise?

    That the sting in the needle is what you fear more than the vaccine?

    That you are mistaking Pfizer for a older traditional vaccine that has heavy metals?

    That the vaccine has side effects?

    That the delta between risks of virus is higher than risks of vaccine side effects?

   If you can't agree on these, then you are too polarized and dogmatic to go meta.

 

52 minutes ago, TDLH said:

 

@Danioover9000 

Exactly, great list btw, if we dont all accept basic points then we end up arguing over them which is of course pointless because these points have already been sorted out, at least by actual statistics or better scientific minds than ours. If these are accepted then you can go meta, otherwise its like talking about physics with someone who believes in flat earth. 

[tsuki]

The green, relativistic mindset understands that all things, including science are constructs. The problem is when green goes too far in this thinking and puts science on the same level with, let's say, opinions about choice of clothing, or taste in the opposite sex, or even food. Yes, we invented science to serve social needs, and it does precisely that. Serve social needs, by normalizing the way in which we approach problems. Not all approaches to problems are created equal because some of them are effective, and some of them aren't. It's cute to argue that within the scientific paradigm of effectiveness, science is the most effective tool, as long as we don't have hundreds of thousands people killed. This argument is useful if you actually apply it to yourself, not when you point fingers at people (the green game par excellance).

The other problem with forums like this is the delusion that we are actually solving anything by discussing it here. Our consensus here has literally ZERO impact. It would be much more productive for everyone to inspect their own life and arrange it according to one's understanding of the world. People would benefit much more if you actually wore a mask next time you went to buy groceries than convince some infidel that your POV is the correct one.

It is not possible to convince someone to go up a stage. All growth is directed from within, when a person feels stuck and honestly inspects one's life. If you ever wanted to communicate with someone that is stuck on a lower stage, this is never done by demonizing them. Especially Green should be aware of this, as they have gone through a lot of stages and have the experience of being blue. If you want to be effective in communication across stages, you have to first accept them within yourself, so that you can speak from that stage that you were embodying at some point. Green does not understand this because it does not actually embody its relativistic understanding. It sees that societies are made of groups of influence, and does not see this within themselves, how they are fragmented internally, on the level of the psyche.

And finally, to re-iterate, not stating one's views is not the way of tier two. This is some centrist green agenda that tries to avoid hurting people's feelings in the name of some abstract virtue masquerading as equality. People are equal in the face of rules that govern this world, like they die to COVID regardless of their political views, or fall prey to shadow when they repress themselves in the name of cultural values. People suffer equally and their will to live and flourish is equal, regardless of where they come from and should be treated with respect. Equality is not about being right regardless of what one is saying. Everyone has the right to have their own opinions and arrange their inner world to their liking, as long as this does not endanger the people, or the environment around them. Hell, they are even allowed to arrange their interior in a way that makes THEM SUFFER. This is still okay, albeit difficult to witness in people we love. But not all perspectives are created equal and should not be treated as such.

Edited December 30, 2021 by tsuki

[Yidaki]

27 minutes ago, tsuki said:

The green, relativistic mindset understands that all things, including science are constructs. The problem is when green goes too far in this thinking and puts science on the same level with, let's say, opinions about choice of clothing, or taste in the opposite sex, or even food. Yes, we invented science to serve social needs, and it does precisely that. Serve social needs, by normalizing the way in which we approach problems. Not all approaches to problems are created equal because some of them are effective, and some of them aren't. It's cute to argue that within the scientific paradigm of effectiveness, science is the most effective tool, as long as we don't have hundreds of thousands people killed. This argument is useful if you actually apply it to yourself, not when you point fingers at people (the green game par excellance).

The other problem with forums like this is the delusion that we are actually solving anything by discussing it here. Our consensus here has literally ZERO impact. It would be much more productive for everyone to inspect their own life and arrange it according to one's understanding of the world. People would benefit much more if you actually wore a mask next time you went to buy groceries than convince some infidel that your POV is the correct one.

It is not possible to convince someone to go up a stage. All growth is directed from within, when a person feels stuck and honestly inspects one's life. If you ever wanted to communicate with someone that is stuck on a lower stage, this is never done by demonizing them. Especially Green should be aware of this, as they have gone through a lot of stages and have the experience of being blue. If you want to be effective in communication across stages, you have to first accept them within yourself, so that you can speak from that stage that you were embodying at some point. Green does not understand this because it does not actually embody its relativistic understanding. It sees that societies are made of groups of influence, and does not see this within themselves, now they are fragmented on the level of the psyche.

And finally, to re-iterate, not stating one's views is not the way of tier two. This is some centrist green agenda that tries to avoid hurting people's feelings in the name of some abstract virtue masquerading as equality. People are equal in the face of rules that govern this world, like they die to COVID regardless of their political views, or fall prey to shadow when they repress themselves in the name of cultural values. People suffer equally and their will to live and flourish is equal, regardless of where they come from and should be treated with respect. Equality is not about being right regardless of what one is saying. Everyone has the right to have their own opinions and arrange their inner world to their liking, as long as this does not endanger the people, or the environment around them. Hell, they are even allowed to arrange their interior in a way that makes THEM SUFFER. This is still okay, albeit unfortunate. But not all perspectives are created equal.

Yes, it is right. Not all perspectives are equally valid and thorough. Nevertheless, there is always some kind of "signal", even when there is lots of noise. A wise solution might be to recognize what are the key values from which people, as mistaken as they can be, are operating. It would be something like "steelmaning" their propositions, instead of "strawmaning " them. And from that place we can think of a possibility of global collaboration towards some shared goal. It is very difficult, and I don't know if it is even possible...

 

[Consept]

6 minutes ago, Yidaki said:

Yes, it is right. Not all perspectives are equally valid and thorough. Nevertheless, there is always some kind of "signal", even when there is lots of noise. A wise solution might be to recognize what are the key values from which people, as mistaken as they can be, are operating. It would be something like "steelmaning" their propositions, instead of "strawmaning " them. And from that place we can think of a possibility of global collaboration towards some shared goal. It is very difficult, and I don't know if it is even possible...

 

We can experiment though and i agree, steelmanning is definitely the way to go although as you say can be very difficult.

Why dont you list some relevant anti-vax talking points and then steelman them. For example the vaccine is killing 1000s of people

[TDLH]

57 minutes ago, Consept said:

scientific consensus position

Who, what, where, when and how does the scientific consensus get decided?

Does the Government decide?  Does Big Pharma, the Scientist, the media, the politicians decide?

Is there an open vote?

Have all the facts, all paths, all aspects of humanity been equally evaluated and presented?

Are hidden agendas, self interests, greed and corruption been contemplated and brought out into the open to weed out corporate, political, and personal influences that may hinder a free and unobscured scientific consensus?

This is not as simple as most people would like to believe.  I have no objection with a vaccine, if it is done for the right reasons; with dignity, integrity, and compassion, but is it the only solution?  Are we so lazy that we have given up and resigned to the fact that whenever a new variant appears we just spend billions in booster shoots to stick into 8 billion people every couple of months?  Is this really the direction you want to go? 

Whatever happen to doing antibody and titer covid testing at a global scale, just to name a few options among several?

Just to make my self clear, I have taken the first two vaccines.  I am not anti-vax, but that doesn’t mean I am willing to blindly jump into the Rabbit hole and believing everything the Government, Media, Big Pharma, and the scientific consensus are dishing out either.  Putting all your eggs in the same basket and not questioning these institutions is no better than Spiral Dynamic Blue worship and dogma, IMO!

[Consept]

12 minutes ago, TDLH said:

Who, what, where, when and how does the scientific consensus get decided?

Well a scientific consensus technically would mean all the scientists within that field agree upon something, within science obviously there are disagreements and different findings, the consensus would be achieved after all that has taken place. But of course this could be one part of the picture, in terms how that consensus might be implemented or acted upon could be down to different bodies. If that then gets skewed by media, governments or big pharma i dont think thats sciences fault, but of course it is a factor that has to be considered and questioned. But again for it to even be questioned you have to have a starting point of something that can at least be agreed like things in the list above. This is the point of a nuanced discussion but you seem to making it binary, im not saying put all your eggs in the basket of the government, im saying we have to have a start off point of things that can be agreed, thats it. 

[Danioover9000]

@tsuki

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

The green, relativistic mindset understands that all things, including science are constructs. The problem is when green goes too far in this thinking and puts science on the same level with, let's say, opinions about choice of clothing, or taste in the opposite sex, or even food. Yes, we invented science to serve social needs, and it does precisely that. Serve social needs, by normalizing the way in which we approach problems. Not all approaches to problems are created equal because some of them are effective, and some of them aren't. It's cute to argue that within the scientific paradigm of effectiveness, science is the most effective tool, as long as we don't have hundreds of thousands people killed. This argument is useful if you actually apply it to yourself, not when you point fingers at people (the green game par excellance).

The other problem with forums like this is the delusion that we are actually solving anything by discussing it here. Our consensus here has literally ZERO impact. It would be much more productive for everyone to inspect their own life and arrange it according to one's understanding of the world. People would benefit much more if you actually wore a mask next time you went to buy groceries than convince some infidel that your POV is the correct one.

It is not possible to convince someone to go up a stage. All growth is directed from within, when a person feels stuck and honestly inspects one's life. If you ever wanted to communicate with someone that is stuck on a lower stage, this is never done by demonizing them. Especially Green should be aware of this, as they have gone through a lot of stages and have the experience of being blue. If you want to be effective in communication across stages, you have to first accept them within yourself, so that you can speak from that stage that you were embodying at some point. Green does not understand this because it does not actually embody its relativistic understanding. It sees that societies are made of groups of influence, and does not see this within themselves, how they are fragmented internally, on the level of the psyche.

And finally, to re-iterate, not stating one's views is not the way of tier two. This is some centrist green agenda that tries to avoid hurting people's feelings in the name of some abstract virtue masquerading as equality. People are equal in the face of rules that govern this world, like they die to COVID regardless of their political views, or fall prey to shadow when they repress themselves in the name of cultural values. People suffer equally and their will to live and flourish is equal, regardless of where they come from and should be treated with respect. Equality is not about being right regardless of what one is saying. Everyone has the right to have their own opinions and arrange their inner world to their liking, as long as this does not endanger the people, or the environment around them. Hell, they are even allowed to arrange their interior in a way that makes THEM SUFFER. This is still okay, albeit difficult to witness in people we love. But not all perspectives are created equal and should not be treated as such.

   Great post on the perspective of stage green. 

[a7xKingz]

This is my first post here and I'm going to say right off the bat that this is a wonderful topic.

The concept of veering off from content is an important one imo.

It is crucial to understand how people think, why they think certain ways, the motivations of the common man, the ingrained programs in humans, etc.

This is about fear. In fact it's the biggest vulnerability that man has, the fear of death.

Of course this stems from the concept of duality, of feeling separate, me vs. the world. There's a self preservation aspect here that Covid has activated like wildfire.

Since this fear is so heavy, in my opinion it easily induces bias in people. It easily produces willful ignorance, the inability to think clearly, the inability to have an open mind, and the reason is because this self preservation program is so strong.

Take a look at your news feed, fear fear fear, delta delta delta, omicron omicron omicron, vaccine vaccine vaccine, it's pretty bizarre to me.

To answer your question, the correct way to analyze a situation is to collect as much data as possible, from UNBIASED sources, without interference of your self preservation mechanisms, in order to make sound and intelligent decisions.

There's data everywhere fyi, there's tons of data on vaccine effectiveness (not just Covid), there's tons of data on vaccine safety and adverse events (again, not just Covid), there's tons of data on various repurposed drugs or Pharma made creations and the effectiveness/safety of such compounds.

Data is everywhere.

If we were to solely focus on DATA, this pandemic wouldn't be a big deal and in fact probably wouldn't exist anymore.

The problem is the other stuff, the unconsciousness of man and a lack of resolution of the trauma a lot of us have been faced with throughout our lives.

It is difficult for one to even think about other people if they're so wounded and definitely if they're unconscious.

So to understand this situation we have to start there. We have to understand that most people are unconscious and have unresolved traumas.

This includes the people that run Big Pharma, this includes the people that run our governments, this includes the scientists, this includes the doctors, this includes the judges, this includes everyone.

The issue is that we look at these people like deities without realizing that they're human as well and that they carry their faults too.

"But all the scientists are saying", where is this coming from ? Your news feed ? And who's controlling that, because someone definitely is.

And what is the possibility that whoever is controlling the narrative that's circulating, whether it's someone or a group of people, are unconscious beings with unresolved traumas ?

What is the possibility that you yourself is missing this point because you yourself are unconscious, have traumas, and have your survival mechanism on full blast right now ?

I really think what's going on now is unconscious people manipulating and toying with other unconscious people, both aggrandizing and feeding into each other's faults.

The sensible way of handling this is to have a group of people, extremely conscious and healed, analyzing the situation, looking at every single piece of data, and coming up with a solution.

There's no other correct way. Humans are too faulty and you won't be able to rely on most to give your unbiased data and answers.

Edited December 31, 2021 by a7xKingz

[Yidaki]

9 minutes ago, a7xKingz said:

This is my first post here and I'm going to say right off the bat that this is a wonderful topic.

The concept of veering off from content is an important one imo.

It is crucial to understand how people think, why they think certain ways, the motivations of the common man, the ingrained programs in humans, etc.

This is about fear. In fact it's the biggest vulnerability that man has, the fear of death.

Of course this stems from the concept of duality, of feeling separate, me vs. the world. There's a self preservation aspect here that Covid has activated like wildfire.

Since this fear is so heavy, in my opinion it easily induces bias in people. It easily produces willful ignorance, the inability to think clearly, the inability to have an open mind, and the reason is because this self preservation program is so strong.

Take a look at your news feed, fear fear fear, delta delta delta, omicron omicron omicron, vaccine vaccine vaccine, it's pretty bizarre to me.

To answer your question, the correct way to analyze a situation is to collect as much data as possible, from UNBIASED sources, without interference of your self preservation mechanisms, in order to make sound and intelligent decisions.

There's data everywhere fyi, there's tons of data on vaccine effectiveness (not just Covid), there's tons of data on vaccine safety and adverse events (again, not just Covid), there's tons of data on various repurposed drugs or Pharma made creations and the effectiveness/safety of such compounds.

Data is everywhere.

If we were to solely focus on DATA, this pandemic wouldn't be a big deal and in fact probably wouldn't exist anymore.

The problem is the other stuff, the unconsciousness of man and a lack of resolution of the trauma a lot of us have been faced with throughout our lives.

It is difficult for one to even think about other people if they're so wounded and definitely if they're unconscious.

So to understand this situation we have to start there. We have to understand that most people are unconscious and have unresolved traumas.

This includes the people that run Big Pharma, this includes the people that run our governments, this includes the scientists, this includes the doctors, this includes the judges, this includes everyone.

The issue is that we look at these people like deities without realizing that they're human as well and that they carry their faults too.

"But all the scientists are saying", where is this coming from ? Your news feed ? And who's controlling that, because someone definitely is.

And what is the possibility that whoever is controlling the narrative that's circulating, whether it's someone or a group of people, are unconscious beings with unresolved traumas ?

What is the possibility that you yourself is missing this point because you yourself are unconscious, have traumas, and have your survival mechanism on full blast right now ?

I really think what's going on now is unconscious people manipulating and toying with other unconscious people, both aggrandizing and feeding into each other's faults.

The sensible way of handling this is to have a group of people, extremely conscious and healed, analyzing the situation, looking at every single piece of data, and coming up with a solution.

There's no other correct way. Humans are too faulty and you won't be able to rely on most to give your unbiased data and answers.

Thank you for your post 

[Yidaki]

7 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

 

I read this article:

https://consilienceproject.org/an-infodemic-plaguing-the-pandemic-response/

High level analysis

 

[Nahm]

10 hours ago, Yidaki said:

in his episode of conscious politics has talked about the challenge that represents to be able to design a government and policies that integrate all people, because you cannot kick people out of society (as you can do in a club or other collectives entities). So the question here remains the same: How can we move towards a collective approach that integrates, rather than divides people?

Of course it is not easy, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are

Love where you’re coming from. Is this possible in an authoritarian platform? 

[Danioover9000]

@Yidaki

1 hour ago, Yidaki said:

I read this article:

https://consilienceproject.org/an-infodemic-plaguing-the-pandemic-response/

High level analysis

 

   Thanks for the share, Leo also shared that same website in his blog post on misinformation and information warfare.

[roopepa]

Would be good that both 'sides' acknowledge what 'a side' serves, which is fear and projection.

[Consept]

11 hours ago, Yidaki said:

I read this article:

https://consilienceproject.org/an-infodemic-plaguing-the-pandemic-response/

High level analysis

 

Skimmed it but yes it seems to be a good analysis 

[TDLH]

19 hours ago, Consept said:

lol ok i get it you think very meta as youve pointed out a few times now (joking).

Good morning Consept, thanks for pointing that out.  Yes, the word Meta was misused in a lot of the opinions and thoughts I shared. Lol

Going Meta would normally imply going beyond 3D levels of conscious and awareness to most.

And even that could be debated! Lol

Take care!