Page 221 of 221 FirstFirst ... 121 171 211 219 220 221
Results 2,201 to 2,206 of 2206

Thread: What we think we know so far

  1. #2201
    I see the NZ government actions in a different light. The media clamp down as far as I'm aware has been all about suppressing the video the killer live streamed as he murdered over 50 people.

    I don't know want the laws are in other countries but in the U.K. - You are not allowed to show people dying on television. That may seem barmy when films and tv shows seem to revolve around violence and death.
    For a broadcaster you are not legally allowed to show a real death.

    Live streaming has changed all that. Now anyone with a webcam can broadcast what they like. That's only really happened in the last few years. Jihadis showing beheadings - content that is offensive and downright evil, and other footage like the video of the Christchurch killer can be spread without any problem at all.

    So kinda of counter to what we might think we have a new type of media, social media which is almost completely unrestricted. Facebook and google make billions but we all know are staffed by a handful of people. There are not enough staff protecting the users. Letting this type of footage go viral normalises it.

    The Uk changed the advertising regulations for gambling, about ten years ago, after intense pressure and lobbying from the gambling industry claiming that U.K. firms couldn't compete with online competitors from overseas. Gambling ads are on the Tv all the time now and the result - a complete normalisation of gambling among the young. The figures released about the number of school children gambling in the U.K. is now collosal.

    There is definitely a balance to be struck between freedom of speech and some kind of protection of its abuse by negative influences
    Last edited by Longeyes; 03-24-2019 at 04:31 AM.

  2. #2202
    Lead Moderator calikid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    8,724
    Blog Entries
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Longeyes View Post
    I see the NZ government actions in a different light....

    (Snip)
    There is definitely a balance to be struck between freedom of speech and some kind of protection of its abuse by negative influences
    .

    Balance would be nice.
    Unfortunately on such emotionally charged subjects we frequently find ourselves on a pendulum swinging wildly from one extreme to another. Without some perspective gained by time to reflect and input from the public, IMHO we end up with decisions on censorship that fail to address the root problem's cause and have negative far reaching implications that may result in unintended consequences.
    The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
    progress. -- Joseph Joubert
    Attachment 1008

  3. #2203
    Quote Originally Posted by calikid View Post
    .

    Balance would be nice.
    Unfortunately on such emotionally charged subjects we frequently find ourselves on a pendulum swinging wildly from one extreme to another. Without some perspective gained by time to reflect and input from the public, IMHO we end up with decisions on censorship that fail to address the root problem's cause and have negative far reaching implications that may result in unintended consequences.
    Agreed knee jerk reactions are often damaging.

  4. #2204
    Quote Originally Posted by pontificator View Post
    Just placing my thoughts here, based on current information to hand, written in past tense based on prior learned information.

    During the early portion of the 21st century, growing discontent with increasingly erratic weather patterns resulted in political chaos. The two sides concerned in each case and nation wished for action, one for action by addressing the problem, the other by ensuring their economies would survive at "any" cost. This schizophrenic approach ultimately resulted in the election of demagogues, where they would attempt to address the problems of the populace through piecemeal adjustments which would never be enough to address the underlying problems causing the disintegration of civilization. To the background of an ever increasingly unstable climate, this resulted in an economic war that would culminate in a physical confrontation between the major powers of the era, and their vassal states. At a later point in time, this would become known as "the war of contracts", an artificially created situation that would allow the entrance of third-parties. The result of that time is still undefined.

    2020, 2022, 2025. If you're not prepared before 2020, you'll never be prepared.
    Quote Originally Posted by pontificator View Post
    @Fore, The Advisor's reappearance cannot be that many years out now, 4 or less, right? I am under the impression this will be post-fall, you thinking of looping back again or will you let things pan out this time? (I have a suspicion that you looped back into a different scenario this time around, thus you can run into "yourself" on a different run in the same timestream.)
    an interesting couple of years...

    reading back a few pages a getting caught up...

    -----------------------------------------------

    the resonance point occurs in 2025, the military has been aware of this since the '90s. Multiple militaries have been preparing for this from the perspective of a world war determining resource allocations over the next 500+ years.

    i,e, 2025 becomes a year where humanity collectively decides its directional focus or timeline trajectory.

    to explain: we are currently in a rebound or snapback in deviant(multiple) time streams. some call it a Mandela effect, essentially specific continuity points are being non-linearly shifted. What you believe happened 5 years ago can easily be displaced to have occurred 10-15 years ago before re-stabilizing. The streams were disrupted in 2010 to provide humanity the best possible outcome against entities who had this world within their crosshairs. whereas the original drop date was in 2045, this has been pushed back to 2060. it basically bought humanity about 15 years.

    In 2010 the lines and continuity points were shifted between 1985 and 2045 some were accelerated while others were decelerated within a bounded universal space matrix. The effect was something akin to a gravitational assist or slingshot, over multiple continuity points, affecting timeline trajectories to expand or smooth out certain events over a great amout of space. ie what should have occurred over a 15 year period now occurs over a 30 year period of time allowing for a wider transition between events. The catch being the past must also expand creating voids or restabilization (displacement) pockets.

    a good example of this is the '83 challenger disaster gets pulled forward to '85 while the Columbia disaster gets displaced from 2010 to 2003.
    resonance at an individual level will shift the recollection across the displacement window.

    2025 is where these displacement windows achieve very tight proximity and unified timelines begin to transition or manifest into a collective trajectory (continuity re-stabilizes)

    the price for this adjust has been paid for over the last 5,000 years, through the destruction of many (voluntary) family lines.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    for the record.
    When it comes to permission-based claims over knowledge

    Knowledge is not owned by anything or entity it is acquired via a consensus of ideologies, determining how a set of information should and/or should not be interpreted.

    Given the same set of information, your trajectory or focus on how it should be interpreted is where the claim aspect is being determined. There is no direct claim over the set of information, however, how it is interpreted provides a consensus into the manifestation of an emerging reality.

    For those like Fore, he can teach you to build a house. The set of information he imparts to accomplish this task is inherently benign in of itself. Even the act of or utilization of this knowledge is benign. It is like trying to claim the land you walk on or use belongs to you. If you provide the interprtation of information (knowledge) of your own free will then the outcome does not belong to you i.e. you cannot lay claim to houses being built using this knowledge. You might upfront set a contract for specific payment prior to knowledge being imparted i.e. tuition, appenticeship. You could limit how it is propagated thru crertin promises of non-disclosure prior to the knowledge being imparted.

    You cannot impose a limitation on another if you immerse them in an environment wherein they will learn certain tradecraft regardless of any predefined contracts. It is like expecting a carpenters son to not learn how to work with wood when their entire upbringing is comprised of helping their father in the woodshop. Trying to swear him to secrecy after the fact is not enforceable. How he choose to use this knowledge however is a personal responsibility. He can freely open a school teaching carpentry skills. How his students choose to use this knowledge is not his responsibility but once more passes on to the individual who sought to acquire this knowledge. As with any rule there is an exception wherein knowledge is passed on with attached interprative perceptions. For example passing on knowledge which would knowingly degrade a final product for personal gain. This can be taught as something which should not be done, at which point responsibility passes on to the student if they choose to uses it to build inferior products.

    another example:
    A martial arts teacher can teach a student to break bones, for self-defense purposes, he is not responsible if his student decides to use this acquired knowledge to bully others or for other nefarious purposes. However, he is responsible if he teaches these skills with the intent they are to be used to harm specific or pre-defined individuals. Note: an army could be trained due to no specified or predefined individuals are being targeted i.e. national/tribal self defense. However if you specify the training is to be used against some pre-defined enemy then you hold a responsibility for the harm caused by the teachings. An ongoing national self-defense situation does not apply to training against pre-defined enemies.

    As a student if you seek knowledge simply to expand what you know, then it remains benign, If however, you are acquiring knowledge with the intent to harm others then you hold the responsibility should you ever use this knowledge to accomplish such an intent. With a caveat of this knowledge being sought, acquired, and used to stop entities currently inflicting harm upon you or those you love falls under self-defense rules.


    when it comes to the question of why the focus is similar to a claim, it basically comes back to the story of the wolf you pay the most attention to emerges as the victor of the internal battle we face between what we feel is right or wrong. --- it is sort of like voting for what you want your reality to be like...

    i.e. focus on what you believe to be the right thing to do!!!



    *WM*
    Last edited by WildMage; 04-08-2019 at 07:34 AM.
    sit on the edge to watch something unfold with a force we cannot control but communicate with

  5. #2205
    On a side note: I had reached out to Fore to see whether he's all right. He says he's fine and not to worry.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
    - Charles Darwin

  6. #2206
    Quote Originally Posted by Garuda View Post
    On a side note: I had reached out to Fore to see whether he's all right. He says he's fine and not to worry.
    Nice to hear he is alright!!!
    sit on the edge to watch something unfold with a force we cannot control but communicate with

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •