Citizens Liberty Organization / 🌎 Global Channels / 💭philosophy-chat

Zoomer, there comes a time that you just have to walk away and let them deal with it, as shitty as that sounds. You can talk until you’re blue in the face, but if they don’t want to stop doing that because they’ve learned it gets them the attention they want, there’s nothing you can do to help them if they don’t want to help themselves, no matter how hard you try. She wants attention. Point blank.

Thanks guys.

“if i don't let them in then maybe me dying wont affect them that much. cus they'll start to care less n if i have no one to care ab me then ill have even less of a purpose.”

Her response to me telling her to let a therapist and her family in.

Sure as hell sounds like she just wants a reason to die.

“you think i wanted it to come to this? cus i didn't but i really have no choice. “

Other people care and can get her the appropriate care. Push that and you may have to tell someone.

Told her mother.

Good call.

That was the best thing you could have done honestly.

Mental health is complex and there needs to be a support system of people.

you can't physically do anything to "save" her and i'm sure you already know that all you can do is offer support and resources from professionals that can help her if she really is suffering from a nasty chemical imbalance in her brain (because thats really all it is). you certainly can't force her to get help so all you can do is offer to maybe bring her to see a therapist or tell her about the hotlines that are out there. Keeping her family in the loop is best because at the end of the day shes their responsibility shes their family

but at the end of the day she has to voluntarily choose to go seek help from someone who can help her overcome any feelings a hopelessness or anxiety or any of the other feelings that come with depression, she can get accurately (hopefully) diagnosed and treatment.

Hey Zoomer, coming from somebody that's had that stuggle with depression and hopelessness, I can tell you that you did the right thing speaking to this chick's mother. However, in the future - don't start being a supportive figure for someone with mental illnesses and just dip out of nowhere.

Truth ^^

> Hey Zoomer, coming from somebody that's had that stuggle with depression and hopelessness, I can tell you that you did the right thing speaking to this chick's mother. > > However, in the future - don't start being a supportive figure for someone with mental illnesses and just dip out of nowhere. @CowboyLeone#0794 I haven’t dipped. I’m supporting however I can, I just needed to vent as it was getting aggravating as hell. I told her mother and I’m fairly sure her mother is going to get her professional help.

@John Public I slept with my ex’s older sister who sought me out and she got engaged a week later and is preggers, slight chance it could be mine but I doubt it.

Theory of mine. Human society exists in a constant cycle of violent segregation of tribes, eventual integration, peacful coexistence, ideological clash, open violent seperation, rinse and repeat. We are destined to never have a political or societal model last more than 100 years, due to a variety of factors such as greed, wealth, and the inherent herd mentality

I think 100 years may be a little short. China showed us that dynasties usually last 300 or so. Of course, if all depends on how strong the foundation is. In the Information Age, where everything can be transmitted in fractions of a second, it does make sense that those “dynasties” would last for shorter and shorter periods of time, especially as populations, and, more importantly, population *density* continues to increase. All assuming a relatively free flow of information, accurate or otherwise.

That being said, 70 years between major wars does seem to be about average, so I can see where 100 years would be the reasonable benchmark there.

Major wars here being defined as conflicts like WWI and WWII, where multiple actors mobilize multiple armies in open conflict. Although I think the days of that have passed us by for the most part. Fourth generation warfare seems to be more or less the norm now.

Violence is part of nature humans are part of that too things we describe as inherently evil are more or less not. (with the exception of pedophilia) Subjugation of humans isnt an evil thing either it is truly natural. I know it sounds like im trying to push some racial eugenics but im not it more or less the fact that all of are history is humans subjugating each other over and over. But nowadays we dont so now we are trying to break the cycle and in doing so there will be a learning peroid for the masses to catch up on. I noticed that virtue signaling is a form of subjugation nowadays its a subliminal way to say "look at that human hes different from us now shun him hate him for being different" its no different from when we called each spics niggers wopps mics and crackers. The whole system we built even on the founsing fathers had a caste/class ideaology embedded into it. Because as jordan peterson realized ever thing has a hierarchy. Amd until we break that mentality then we can become the star children we were meant to be colonizing star to star.

We need conflict in order to thrive

Everyone says you can’t find joy without having faced challenges. But wisdom comes from conflict and suffering. If we aren’t faced with conflict then we have no encouragement to improve our community, and will fail to thrive.

And not thriving will force you into conflict. The longer you wait the suffering will get worse. Everyone has a breaking point. The longer we wait to end this oppression the worse it will get for the next generation. Our goal as humanity should be bettering the next generation.

Is it wrong of me to end a relationship of 2 years because I felt I wasn't respected like not constantly but when it happened it was bad? To an extent I know it was the right choice but why do I have regrets. Sorry guys I wish I could just talk to someone but I know nobody close to me will listen or care enough.

It depends in what ways did she disrespect you?

And its ok we all have those days of big sad

And also did you try to work through and comunicate tge disrespect or did you freak or clam up?

@BlurRodriguez just because we're committed to "radical change" and the like doesnt mean that you won't find someone here to talk to

@BlurRodriguez A relationship should challenge you, but leave you feeling whole. If you felt disrespected enough to leave, it was the right call. A partner should not disrespect you. Sometimes it’s just incompatibility. Sometimes it’s worse.

We might fall in love 3-5 times before we find the right one

https://youtu.be/jPu92-yC2ew

Alright gents, it has been a while but boy oh boy do I have an elephant sized dump for y'all. So I've seen some post recently about the need for criminal justice reform and of course we all share a general distrust if not out right loathing of the government. I have a feeling this is gonna get some reactions and i welcome them as always

The Tribunal of the Republic We demand the creation of a "Tribunal for the Republic," comprised of 2 Citizens  elected by each state who shall each serve for a single term 6 years. If further time is needed to complete its mandate, they shall be held on the year closest to the expiration of the current term. The Tribunal of the Republic shall only remain in existence for however long is required to submit final reports of evidence on all of the accused and shall not exceed the duration of 18 years regardless. The members of the Tribunal shall receive a stipend for personal expenses and no other form of payment of any kind from any source except those sources that predate their election. The Tribunal for the Republic will be tasked with investigating all former members of Congress, including their family members, Congressional staff and their family members as well as any and all former members of Congress still alive at the Foundation of the New Republic. The Tribunal will investigate and collect all evidence related to the charges of Treason, corruption and all other crimes committed while seeking and or holding public office by the accused.

Treason shall include acts of violating the oath of office that all members of Congress freely swore to uphold. This documentation and all evidence uncovered shall be submitted in separate reports to the Supreme Court, along with the charges being brought forward in the name of the people. When needed, the Supreme Court shall be responsible for recommending to the New Congress that a temporary lower judicial body be formed that will conduct the fair and impartial trails of all those accused of Treason, corruption or any other crimes that evidence is found of. This lower court will be charged with deciding if the evidence contained in the Tribunals report is of sufficient veracity that a reasonable person would be convinced of the guilt of the accused. If found guilty of Treason; and if after an appeal, that can only be raised to dispute the facts presented and available at the time of the original trial, the accuseds guilt is reaffirmed, the punishment shall in all cases be death by hanging; to be carried out on the grounds of the State House the member represented.

No payment shall be made to and no honors shall be conferred upon the family of those found guilty of Treason. However, no punishment or denial of Liberty shall be enforced on the family of those found to be Treasonous. No members of the family of those found guilty and executed for Treason shall be eligible for public office for the length of 65 years. They may join the Armed Forces, but shall be ineligible to receive a commission as an officer. The estate of the executed shall be confiscated and any heirs will be eligible to receive only such material possessions that would be unsuitable for sale by auction, or those items that can be proven to have compelling sentimental value to the heir. All other assets and possessions of the executed shall be auctioned, and all monies used to offset the cost of the Tribunal or towards payment of the national debt.

@here

I had to stop at this point due to family life but id like to hear your thoughts and any other steps towards judicial/elective reform

this sounds like ur on to something

I think its critical that we, as a movement have well thought out and clear, detailed plans and processes for our goals. And we should be as bold and forthright as possible so we can always say that we've been for this from the beginning.

I also feel that the more "extreme" we go at first, the better. One because we garner support from even more people but the second reason is that if we "soften" approach we can be seen as willing to compromise so long as we still make a change. The process is long to be sure but must start somewhere

> We need conflict in order to thrive @TwiddleDick this is why we must reframe the conflict to us against the universe and work together to conquer space rather than fight our petty squabbles.

"Shall not be infringed" got ignored, I think that any other words on paper are going to last just as long. That was written in 1776. 161 years later, it was infringed upon. Also the citizens chosen for the Tribunal are literally just the guys who can afford to campaign for a spot; it says nothing at all about their skill at investigation, motivations, or honesty. You're just going to have 100 rich dudes standing in a room getting richer off of taxes in addition to any sources of income that they had prior to becoming a tribunal member.

The entire bill of rights is largely ignored

I think the problem is the federal government, and I don't think amendments to how the fed operates are going to fix anything there. I think the best way to move forward would be to disband the union. Create 50 countries with standing alliances. Every state already has its own house, senate, etc. and does what the Federal level does... but smaller. If a state politician becomes a tyrant, you go to the capital and you water the tree of liberty. You know that a state politician lives in the state, you know they have only the resources of that state at their disposal, and the fraction of people you'd need to convince to revolt is infinitesimal. If a federal politician becomes a tyrant, you fight a brutal civil war for 14 years just to /maybe/ reinstate the federal level as the status quo again. You don't know where the federal politician might be, they have the strength of the entire union behind them, and you need to convince approximately 98 million people to revolt.

`🇧 🇦 🇱 🇰 🇦 🇳 🇮 🇿 🇪`

Also if you disband the union, suddenly our movement becomes leagues more powerful. Illinois outlaws scary black rifles? The movement can assemble in any adjacent state and bring their force to bear against the offender. What do we do if the Fed outlaws scary black rifles? Now we're separated outlaws with little to nothing in the way of a plan of attack.

@Saint Karsus I take your points and agree largely with them. However it is only with a plan that anything is going to change. These are not small or trivial suggestions and I know you know that. But to suggest a complete overthrow of and disollution of the union is realistically impossible. Shoert of scenarios that negate anything but a free for all. My approach is not by any means perfect but an attempt to get started. As for the election of the council I have a feeling that should this become even close to possible the entire paradigm of political activity in the US will change. Imagine how much would have to have changed to get to the point of even holding elections for the purpose of hanging corrupt politicians. To assume a world where we could get to that poiny alone means we would be less likely to suffer under the whims of the rich

Respectfully, I think the breaking of the United States into Individual States is much more realistic than suggesting the creation of a public office which will execute congressional members. Your own idea hinges on nothing short of an overthrow like what you describe mine to unrealistically require, as no sitting member of congress would vote yes to install a new power above them whose sole purpose is to be their guillotine. All things being equal, if both of our ideas were brought before me as little folders and someone said 'Pick one, and this will happen", I look at yours and see no effective change. Your idea *relies* on those 100 members of the Tribunal being good and honest men who will execute their office faithfully. *You and I are here discussing this because for 244 years, that faith in good and honest men has failed and erroded*. You are clearly thinking critically and speak well but I don't see anything promising in your proposition, I'm sorry.

I appreciate the compliments and sadly agree that given our current situation, nothing will change. However I still have a small amount of hope that it can. As for the 50 nations idea I see little more than generatjons of warfare in that. Each state does have a republican form of government but the chances that Ohio will withstand an invasion of Tennessee troopers with georgia making moves to annex florida all just leads to blood in the streets. I don't know how things are going to play out but for now I'm dreaming the dream within the framework we have

I can't see territory wars happening in the modern day. Russia still does it for unclear reasons, and Palestine and Israel are always on the cusp of it for religious reasons, but land for the sake of land doesn't appeal to or help rulers anymore. There would be no reason for any state to impede on any other, even illogical ones such as "Muh holy land" simply don't work in North America. Not to mention Canada and Denmark have had an actually legitimate land dispute over Hans Island for several decades. They just replace each-other's flag every few months and leave some export goods on the island. The standing alliances of The States would be enough to maintain state borders and prevent conflict for several hundred years, at least. And that's not discounting how many of our movement would see a declaration of war between two states and interpret it as a tyrannical bid for power, leading to the self-same watering of The Liberty Tree that a firearms ban would warrant. This would again be easier than trying to muster a force to eliminate a federally declared war on, say, Canada

Edit: Corrected "Dispite" to "Dispute" lol

You know graphics are designed to be simple representations of a point; not the keywords of a gothic history novel.

Random thought Its 2020, and I still have to pay the governemnt for a permission to own a piece of safety equipment that reduces decible output and decreases accuracy...yes a suppressor.....

Saw this on FB. Apparently from a book called American Nations. The OP was wondering if it’s a possible cultural difference between regions as to why we can’t seem to ever get along as a country for any extended period of time. Certainly an interesting theory, and one that would make a fair bit of sense, considering that differences always lead to conflict of there are no other outside incentives for it, IE, resources and such.

Definitely worth at least hearing the theory

> Saw this on FB. Apparently from a book called American Nations. The OP was wondering if it’s a possible cultural difference between regions as to why we can’t seem to ever get along as a country for any extended period of time. Certainly an interesting theory, and one that would make a fair bit of sense, considering that differences always lead to conflict of there are no other outside incentives for it, IE, resources and such. @Schweet-T Check out Mark Kreslins. He's got an interesting historical take.

Return your fucking shopping carts

"OP was wondering if its possible that cultural differences cause conflict" Biggest understatement i've ever heard

This guy gets it

Live each day as if it could be your last, leave no buisness unfinished, no plans incomplete, and no thanks left unsaid.

The reason for government, the human "need" for leadership and a group association, comes from a desire for safety. It's biologically hard wired into mothers and fathers to protect their young at all costs. Add in the wisdom of strength in numbers and you get the tribes of ancient history. Add in need for resources that are not available and greed, then you have the recipe for conflict between tribes. Those who had the best ideas for feeding, sheltering and protecting the tribes became leaders. Through the eons this evolved, as humans evolved, into societies controlled by the most powerful people. Humans traded a portion of their freewill and the skills for independent survival for security and prosperity under the rule of the powerful "elite." Eventually, knowledge of how to survive and prosper once again spread beyond the powerful rulers in the form of education. This lead to the evolution of society in the form of revolution and enlightenment, giving birth to common consent of rule by law instead of decrie. The citizens chose their rulers, or leaders, through democratic methods. This functioned well until a new form of elite rose to power by controlling the means of survival and prosperity; these new rulers were, and are today, the wealthy business owners. In recent history, governments have attempted to place limitations on these new aristocrats through regulation and governing bodies. However, because of the human desire for prosperity and the folly of greed, the wealthy were able to ensure their position of ultimate power through various forms of bribery that continue to this day.

Now we find ourselves in a new period of enlightenment. The common man is once again crying out against his rulers. His eyes have been opened to the freedoms he has lost and the abuse of those in power. We, here, endeavor to find a remedy for his plight. Our society must evolve to preserve the protection of our prosperity and future that the rule of law and government provide, while ensuring the sovereignty of our freedom and freewill. Our forefathers began this grand experiment with a similar mindset and created the best solution they could with their combined knowledge of history and human nature. Unlike our forefathers, we are not venturing into uncharted territory. By following their footsteps and studying the path they forged, we can avoid the pitfalls they could not have seen. The generations that preceded our own allowed our consent to be governed to be squandered. Therefore, inorder to ensure the generations that follow our own do not have to suffer the same, we must make the change that will protect their freedom and freewill. Because our parents did not. So our children will not have to.

anyone wanna have a debate on objective morality and where is comes from?

Im game. Define the term "objective morality" as you see it. Lets start with the basics👍

@Dyld0mc

Objective morality - The "universal" definition of right and wrong.

but what makes wrong wrong and right right

What actions of one justify laying down your morals to defend those same morals

One of the best beginnings of this debate is the end of another in the following quote, Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling... Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all. *Andrzej Sapkowski, The Last Wish*

The morality debate is often centered around what is commonly considered wrong and what is considered pure and right, and what is acceptable. Objective Morality is the ideal, utopian standard to which the most pious person claims to strive for, and that which the ignorant judge others by. It is an unobtainable standard based on a strict split between what is philosophically righteous and what is philosophically abhorrent based on the traditions and norms of a society.

So I look at from a historical perspective(surprise). I'm of the belief that all morality began as simple survival. Once upon a time, in the long, long ago, all humans lived in tribes. These tribes had a hierarchical structure with a leader at top. This leader was generally the strongest, most fit male. And more often than not, in this tale, he became leader by way of disposing of the former leader. And this continued. The strong would overpower the weak, the weak would die, then the strong would in turn become weak himself. Until, one day, a wise, or perhaps an evil, leader came to power. He rose as all before him had, but, he saw that fact. And, being a creature endowed with the instict for self preservation, he devised a plan. He spoke to his tribes young men. The young men that he knew would grow to one day overtake him. And he said " yes, leaders can be killed, and their power taken, but, I must tell you of the terrible fate that awaits those that would dare kill a KING. For, of course it is just and sometimes needed to end your enemy, if you strike down your leader, then, when that fate is visited upon you in turn, you suffer not just the pain of the death. No. You continue on, out of your meat prison, to face the eternal and everlasting pain and torture of those whom you have killed to gain power. All the ancestors who ruled and were overthrown by murder await your eternal "soul" so that they might cast upon you unimaginable suffering. The only way to prevent this most terrible of fates, of course, is to not overthrow the KING. If he is allowed to lead until he dies of age in his sleep, his powerful spirit shall not seek yours out for everlasting damnation. So I say unto you, young men of my tribe, guard my life with your own so that once you die of age or injury, you may enjoy the peaceful slumber that awaits."

@Dyld0mc

@harbinger76

Hmm, that seems to be more along the lines of how divine right came about, and the manipulation of superstition into religion.

Ah a little of it all. Killing BaD is the oldest objective morality decree

Some of the earliest examples of oral history being written down are the Hebrew histories, primarily those that make up Genesis. Thou shalt not kill came from the tribe teaching the young to not kill their kin.

It wasn't until the Advent of kings that what you're saying came about. And that is written there, and I'm sure in other cultural histories as well.

Basically, killing your own tribe is bad, killing your father bc you are strong and he is week is bad, then killing your leader is bad bc he is more wise than you.

And so on

But it all comes back to there being behaviors which are generally accepted in a society and behaviors that are not.

As a broad generalization about the liberty movement and how I've seen if function, or fail to. I've realized one of the growing issues we face. We have solid ground to stand on right now, but we keep looking for the next piece of solid ground ignoring the fact we are slowly sinking where we stand