who519 t1_jdwkks0 wrote

Are they going to send Jackboots to every single person's house? The beauty of a general strike is you just stay home, you don't even have to gather in the streets. Sure they may send a few groups to make people leave their houses, but they can't do that for the entire country. If you tried to fight them with peashooters, you are going to get massacred. They have cruise missiles, Apache gunships, tanks, chemical weapons, etc...etc...if they are truly a tyrannical government like Russia, they will just kill everybody whether they have a gun or not. But if they have no one to run the factories or feed the army, or keep trade afloat, they are literally powerless. It renders military aggression completely impotent.

Edit: Look what Russia has done to the very well armed citizenry of the cities of Ukraine, they have blown them to shit. The cities are rubble. The military of Ukraine and the equipment being donated to them by the West is what is keeping them in the war, not a bunch of their citizens taking pot shots with AKs.


who519 t1_jdw000m wrote

Yet another person who has watched too many movies. The elite love you guys, they feed you bullshit all day long and you can't get enough. Look at Russia, they have done much worse than bunker bombs on their neighbors and send their own citizenry into the meat grinder without training or weapons. A tyrannical government will do whatever they hell it wants and your peashooter isn't going to stop them. And though I repeat this line ad nauseam on Reddit, your gun is far more likely to hurt you or someone in our family than to save you. Every study has shown this. let go of the fantasy.

The real weakness of any government is economic production. If nobody goes to work and people stop buying specific goods, the government literally grinds to an immediate halt. Sad to say but a general strike combined with boycotts are your greatest weapon, not as cool as a John Wick movie, but far more realistic.


who519 t1_jc7soms wrote

This isn't really true, if a pharma company created a cure for cancer it would make them an insane amount of money because it would be universally used with no competition. As it is now, cancer treatment is full of competition. This conspiracy theory doesn't really play out. A more likely conspiracy theory, if a pharma company created a cure would be that company investing in marketing sectors that cause cancer, tobacco, alcohol etc...because then they be creating their own customers.


who519 t1_j39myzd wrote

In non-local consciousness theory the brain is a receiver. So without the brain the body would not be able to function any better than a radio with no signal.

Why wouldn't the same consciousness apply to our ancestors, or dogs, or lizards or anything else? Why is the only conscious experience you can conceive that of modern humans? Several different species have shown all kinds of conscious indicators.


who519 t1_j39gg0x wrote

You missed my point entirely, there is no judgement but your own. You view your life and you see both the good and bad you have done. There is no score, only the realization that you could have done better or worse. The people who experience this, express it more as a learning experience than a judgement. You express disdain for amoebas and trees without knowing a single thing about their experience as beings. It is arrogant to determine because those two examples aren't like us that they could not have a conscious life.


who519 t1_j38sg7k wrote

They are all over Reddit, many Atheists are horrified by the possibility of an afterlife. As for who is morally repugnant, unfortunately there are some on both sides of the argument. As for your assertion about Earth being a testing ground for those who hang out with God, I suggest you look into some eastern religions, or even better look at the accounts from those who have had near death experiences. What they come back with is very similar to Mitchell's epiphany, a sense of oneness and love and there is judgement, but it is only of the self and does not come from a higher authority.


who519 t1_j37p57u wrote

I think there is a counter argument that many hope there is no meaning at all. The very idea of meaning scares the shit out of them, because if they have wasted their lives, they will not just enter a dreamless sleep when their biological life is over, but instead wake up face to face with the choices they have made.


who519 t1_j24qr42 wrote

Again I am just thinking of a "Sin" as something that negatively impacts our society, not as good or evil. Greed is very interesting in this regard. Greed started civilization. After all the first farmer was tired of gathering, and wanted a reliable source of food that would actually be end up being more than he needed. This success just reinforced the behavior and led the hypothetical farmer to seek power over others with his wealth and make them farm for him...and on and on and on, until we ended up where we are now. Was it wrong for the farmer to seek a reliable source of food? No, but it lead us to where we are now and if we continue on this trend, we will literally destroy our ecosystem completely.

So while not "wrong" ethically, greed inevitably leads to negative consequences for humanity. If our culture or biology had some brake on greed (some cultures have...see the Hawaiian tradition of Kapu (Taboo) as an example, maybe we would have slowed our technological advance, but prospered none the less. Instead we went with "quick and dirty" and it is now costing us dearly.


who519 t1_j210nni wrote

While true, in many cases this excuses cruelty to some degree. If you notice someone in your life suffering please help them it will be good for both of you.


who519 t1_j20teoo wrote

The problem is for the most part those natural psychopaths are our ruling class because their behavior is rewarded by the current structure. To be clear I am not espousing communism, just a regulatory structure focused on rewarding our other virtues and penalizing greed. Heavily regulated capitalism is probably our only option at this point.


who519 t1_j1zw72w wrote

Ok, so let's say your are google, and you create this wonderful thing that meets an unmet need and makes you a ton of money. Then others see they could do something similar to make their own market share...you know what happens next, google/apple/coca-cola/mcdonalds etc...etc...do everything they can to annihilate the competition. They don't want to share that market, they want to own that market. Literally anything that threatens their growth will be destroyed, including politicians.

Capitalism even if you ignore its abuse of workers has to provide Profit to shareholders. The only way to continually get profits is to cut the costs that actually make your product good, healthy, useful etc... etc... So the endgame for the consumer is a shittier more dangerous product. Greed runs it all into the ground eventually.