0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So what do you all think? what rights should be included in the soverignity of consciousness package?
We would need to make fake news a crime,
One way to answer the question of where the Corona virus originated is to ask who had the needed resources and the need to develop such a virus in the lab?
Does anyone remember the Russian collusion delusion narrative;
Quote from: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 04:12:23So what do you all think? what rights should be included in the soverignity of consciousness package?We would need to make fake news a crime, since bad information and data can never lead one to the correct reality conclusions,
Free speech also needs to be part of sovereignty of consciousness.
Defining truth is not always easy, especially in new areas of study, as well as in development work; developing new ideas. Freedom of speech allows everyone the opportunity to brain storm possible data and analysis, so we can all have a better chance at finding the best ingredients. This is different from freedom of the press since the press has more protections from accountability for telling the truth as well as the lie. This may need to change if we want a consciousness bill of rights. When FaceBook and Twitter censors free speech; allows some POV's, but not for all POV's, this is called data stacking. It is designed so the wrong conclusions will be reached, based on the one side available and/or allowable data. Since information is food for the mind, FaceBook becomes a type of slaughter house; killing what it sees as sick animals so they can sell bad beef. This slaughter house may need an investigation. The way you deal with fake news and it's bad data, is to not judge it in the moment, even if your gut and experience tells you it is selling you bad meat. Rather one should try wait for say one month to a year, so there is water under the bridge. The reason is, bad news and lies get out of the starting blocks faster than the truth. More people seem to want to believe the worse than the best, since worse makes them feel better about themselves. The lies always starts out fast, but it cannot complete the race, since it is bad food for thought, and it will make you sick, eventually. However, even bad food takes some time before it makes gives you diarrhea. Truth will stay fresh, but it takes time until the contrast is clear on the toilet. Typically what happens, initially, is those who are most eager to eat bad food, will use this data as part of their reasoning train. This logical synthesis of the data is similar to a scientist making an equation that fits the data. They will then look for further proof, via predictions made by the final equation. However, since bad food will make you sick, this is never achieved. However, it still may take some time to get past denial and accept; water under the bridge.
Does anyone remember the Russian collusion delusion narrative; rotten pork. Even with stacking the investigation deck; 20 angry Democrats lawyers, they still ended up with a spoiled food product, due to the bad starting ingredients. Those who initially most eagerly ate at that diner, went through a phase of hugging the porcelain princess, before feeing better. This is what information food poisoning can do. Say you were a young adult. You have been fed bad information food, from an early age, via the educational system. If you eat bad food all the time, from childhood, you may get used to the taste, since that is all you know. Your body may even get used to digesting it without always being on the toilet, afterwards. This is like living in a third world country, where good food is scarce and sicknesses are high. Many will get sick and never recover; partisans with blinders. Others will learn to spice up that bad food, so it tastes better; activists and rioters. All types of problems can be traced back to a bad information food supply, that has been spoiled and/or contaminated by our fellow humans, seeking power and money. The question is why don't we allow the biological food suppliers to make false claims about the purity of its food products, since we allow this with the information food supply? The biological food suppliers will harm the body, while the second harms consciousness. One answer is we have a body bill of rights to protect the body from poisons in the food supply, ed but we do not have a consciousness bill of rights for poisoned food for the mind.
A consciousness bill of rights should include a commission on information purity, using a time delayed standard, since the lie always gets out the starting blocks, faster, and can fool those used to and who crave bad food.
Disagree rather then seeking a world without fake news, which will inherently make people more gullible people should be taught to think more and analyse information.
Drugging people is a crime under human rights law currently anyway.
We would need to make fake news a crime, since bad information and data can never lead one to the correct reality conclusions...When FaceBook and Twitter censors free speech; allows some POV's, but not for all POV's, this is called data stacking.
Quote from: OPDrugging people is a crime under human rights law currently anyway.What do you do with people who insist on doing it to themselves?
- Do you treat them as criminals? - That doesn't seem to have been too successful!
Quote from: Jolly2 on 20/02/2021 18:45:25Disagree rather then seeking a world without fake news, which will inherently make people more gullible people should be taught to think more and analyse information.If we could do that, it would eliminate fake news. What would be the point of posting fake news if nobody believed it?
Puppy the people in power are the biggest spreeders of fake news. They use it to start wars further their agendas, and generally as a means of social control. To make fake news illegal, will do nothing more then basically mean the outlawing of the truth under the current power structure, your suggestion will just make things worse.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 20/02/2021 18:45:25Puppy the people in power are the biggest spreeders of fake news. They use it to start wars further their agendas, and generally as a means of social control. To make fake news illegal, will do nothing more then basically mean the outlawing of the truth under the current power structure, your suggestion will just make things worse.Science demonstrates that the truth in nature can be revealed.
Why not use the methods of science to determine the truth versus the lie the it comes to con artist and fake news?
Science is not a quickie decision maker based on the winds of emotion and opinion.
This is why I suggested, water under the bridge, so there is enough time for all the data to tell us if this was truth or fake?
Time also allows for cooler head who can move away from emotion and evolve to reason.
For example, the Congressman Schiff from California, said he had direct proof of Trump-Russian collusion
, almost from the beginning of the accusation. If you take a short term emotional approach, to fake news and lies, you may have blindly accepted this. There was so much media and "expert" analysis and support. His claim got an investigation in motion, which seemed to reinforce the lie. They would never investigate if it was not true and a leader has actual proof; right ?
However, here we are years later and he has never presented his proof. One may have been fooled by the con, due to early emotions,
but as a scientist, the longer term data, tells me that jail is now appropriate, since Schiff tried to sell contaminated food for thought,
for personal gain. Time has a way of reaching the truth. The lie comes out of the starting blocks fast, but it cannot finish the race if the race is long. If Trump did not have such high prices defense lawyers the time scale may have been short enough to perpetuate the lie so the lie could win the race.
Science, however, plays long ball and will change its mind as the data becomes more complete. There is no tim limit. Picture if Schiff knew, up front, he would be punished for running such a scam. Do you think he would fall on his sword for the cause, or would he have lied to his peers to get out this future trouble?
The fact that fake news never included this long term data of no proof, but has continued to plug the original short term induction, is proof to me, they were will accomplices to the lie and may need to need to pay.
If a factory discharges chemicals into the drinking water and denies this, do we take them for their word? Or do we investigate if people are hurt in the process?
Freedom of the press is a honor is and not an obligation.
Freedom of the press did not mean freedom to lie,
although a liar may spin it this way. It was design to prefect the truth from power such as lying Schiff. What I would do, as punishment for this serious lie, is take away their press credentials, and open them up for liable and slander litigation.
One made example would work, quickly, to get the rest in line. Even if they lose their press credentials, they can still have freedom of speech, but will now be like you and I, who has to be careful what you say or else, victims can sue. This will not happen as long as the con artist like Schiff, make the laws. Laws can be designed to protect these criminals as well as their lies.
Schiff was never investigated for lying about something so serious, due to this very reason. What I suggested could help thin that nasty herd, since liars will not be able to help themselves, but to lie. The mind can never be free, if it is fed bad data that is made socially acceptable by other bad data. Science cannot work this way to determine the truth. The former is anti-science. If I force climate science to accept bad data could we ever tell the truth, The answer is yes, when the chickens come home to roost; hard reality kicks in.
Do you guys realise that all the "bad things" you are talking about are already illegal?That may not stop them being done, but nor would more legislation.
the House Democrats added an election pork barrel amendment which would force the tax payer, to pay politicians 3 times what they get in donations. If you donate 400 dollars to candidate X, they will get to skim, $1200 from the general tax fund.