Evidently the Efilist believes there is such an imbalance. But is there? How can you establish that these measurements are reliable, and persuade people with the opposite intuition that these quantitative judgments are correct? — Cabbage Farmer

My last post and possibly a visit to this forum so do not bother creating a reply for which you expect mine or me to read it.

If all the horrors of life on this planet aren't enough to persuade someone that imbalance is very real, what can possibly any Efilist do to change that. It's like persuading a hard creationist that he is delusional and that his beliefs do not reflect the reality. Efilism is way too pessimistic, way too dark and nonappealing for many to even consider giving it a rational thought. I've witnessed some people in the thread forgetting the fact that most people are driven by emotions not logic. To look at Efilism objectively is to turn off or have under control your ego, your emotions, and most people can't do that. Many people naturally distance themselves from the negative content, they don't want to see or hear about it.

On the basis of my own experience, including my experience of the lives of other people, I would reject the Efilist's claim that life is more "negative" than "positive" on balance. — Cabbage Farmer

So millions of humans across the world starving each day until many of them drop dead, according to your experience of their lives, you concluded that it's ok, their severe suffering is worth all the daily positive stuff in your, mine and lives of millions of other humans (except millions of other humans)? A few million kids dead of hunger each year is worth your, mine and yearly happy time quota of others (play time with our own kid/s, eating delicious food, sex time, being entertained by books, movies, games, being creative, you name it...?)

Why stop there? All the other millions of humans in severe physical and mental pain each day (countless varieties and durations there, each horrific in its own way ), are worth your, mine and the daily happy time quota of millions of others?

Why stop here? The immense suffering in the animal world, the horrific experiences of millions of sentient animals on this planet per day as well are worth our daily happiness quota? Do we care about animals or we decided they do not matter?

Ultimately, is a daily severe suffering of a single hungry Yemeni child worth your daily happy time quota? Daily severe suffering of a single sentient animal? Your logical honest answer would be NO. Your delusional dishonest illogical ego-centric emotional would be YES.

Efilism is about suffering within all life on Earth (all life in the universe for that matter).

All this brings us to the ultimate point that kind of eliminates all criticism of Efilism - how can one be truly happy and joyful in life while millions of other humans and other sentient animals are unhappy, in severe often long duration suffering? You can't, unless you are oblivious to it (one being oblivious to it is one's problem) or just sociopathic. Because not to be sociopathic is to be genuinely bothered by the severe suffering of countless others around you, and to be genuinely bothered by the severe suffering of countless others is to be unable to be truly happy. Logical conclusion: there is no true positive as long as there is negative, thus the asymmetry is real. In our society, most people are OBLIVIOUS (some more some less), indifferent to the suffering of others. Their problem, doesn't make the suffering any less real.

On the grounds that the Efilist's assessment seems completely unfounded to me, and utterly lacking an objective basis, I would reject your claim that Efilism is "logical". It seems more like an unwarranted intellectual projection motivated by something like the pain of depression or the fleeting pangs of disillusionment. — Cabbage Farmer

By now hopefully you realized or are starting to that nothing could be further from the truth. Where do you think "Life is cruel" phrase comes from? From the balance or reverse asymmetry?

I don't believe I've ever heard of this view before. My response here is directed at the characterization of the view I've just gleaned from this thread and from a glance at a few search engine hits.

Perhaps you can recommend a more thorough treatment of Efilism, in which the concerns I've raised might be addressed? — Cabbage Farmer

For someone exposed to it for the first time, your response is very predictable, expected. Once you hear more, once you go much deeper, it all makes sense in the end.

I can recommend but please, be warned, I had a fairly optimistic view of life before I discovered Efilism. There's no turning back now. Once you learn how to ride a bike, you can't unlearn it. All delusions are now gone and I see life for what it truly is, a purely mechanical, overly cold, cruel, pointless, and I see humans as even more illogical. Part of me wishes I never came across this "stupid" double slit video of his, while a part of me is satisfied to have learned more hard truths about reality.

I was in my own bubble doing just fine and then Gary showed up and fucked it up, popped it with a giant needle. I discovered Gary/Imendham, the author, via one of his physics videos (his criticism of the double slit experiment), accidentally. Took a listen, the guy though looks like a kook, seemed to make sense. For a long time I listened to his physics videos/channel and had no idea that he does philosophy as well, that he has a YouTube channel (Inmendham) with hundreds of videos on philosophy. The guy is a long time YouTuber. Has videos on economics, religion etc. as well. It didn't take much time to realize this man is exceptionally intelligent and knowledgeable, extremely logical, exceptional thinker absolutely worth listening. Then I discovered that he came up with Efilism, defined his own philosophical view and gained following. I personally find him to be the humanity's treasure, if not the biggest philosopher of our time that may be understood in some distant future if one exists for us at all. The biggest of the hidden gems I ever came across.

I tried to expose a good friend to Efilism via Skype chat and I failed epically. A stupid move in retrospect, for start because the guy has some serious health and mental issues and is all about positive, is pro-life etc. He doesn't like horror movies, games, you get the idea. The worst kind of a person to expose to Efilism. Of course, he got so emotional about it, so upset that I had to cut the discussion soon after it began even though he is more intelligent than me, more educated, well read and at the very end I did "catch him" with few arguments he appeared to agree with. I can only imagine what full exposure or showering from Efilism would've done to him emotionally.

The way I see it, from personal example, this is life-altering stuff. Forget about life-altering movies and other such bs, this is the real shit. These 2 links were in my intro comment but moderator/s removed them, and it is for the better. People should search for more info themselves. But since you asked, I'll be evil and let you either choose to continue living in whatever bubble you have made for yourself and forget about Gary, Efilism and all of it, or allow Gary to show you "how deep the rabbit hole goes". The choice is yours.


Explanation of Efilism on Gary's website: http://www.efilism.com/


A YouTube list of videos of Gary that goes into details https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYbbEbovUH4&list=UU7YEhpAPFqBbQcdmAomrcXQ&index=1

But instead of discussing this you chose to characterize me as delusional. — khaled

Well again, you've chosen yourself to so clearly characterize yourself as delusional, as someone with a very poor reasoning by bringing out that shockingly silly question, not knowing the answer to it. Such an obvious logical answer to it yet you were unable to answer it. And that's the problem with people like you, failing to think logically.

So they look for the most pessimistic outlook they can and pick that one thinking that makes it true. I think it's very sad. — khaled

What's sad is that you just won't stop revealing yourself won't you? So just like that, in total darkness, one day I said, hell, what's the most pessimistic outlook out there? Efilism? Great, let's support that "red button".....for no reason whatsoever other than that it being the most pessimistic must make it true. This is your poor reasoning at work again.

I know you were jesting but this sounds bizarre to me. This forum had a philosopher guest here who thought a bit like you (life is suffering, only preventing it matters) named David Pearce and even he suggested we create technology to alleviate those who suffering instead of omnicide. Why don’t we do that instead of mindlessly murdering people? At least it seems more realistic, your idea is a pipe dream no offense. — Albero

Well, there is that alternative solution, to somehow remove the suffering from the equation but that's the stuff of science fiction isn't it. As you well pointed, even Effilism is with the omnicide, it certainly won't happen voluntarily, ever.

And Albero, we are discussing the suffering of all sentient life on this planet and elsewhere. Sentient animals included. Don't be ego-centric.

As khaled mentioned, this is why if you end up with such bizarre conclusions if you think pleasure is irrelevant. You also never answered my question about consent and how it makes no sense with this system. It seems you think “oh, well the people who are suffering only matter, making them happy is pointless” so under your system we NEVER have any reason to fulfill positive moral duties, only negative ones like “murder people instead of trying to make their existence happier.” It’s like pressing a button to kill all homeless people who nobody will ever mourn when you could’ve just housed them. You keep saying life is suffering and that pleasure doesn’t matter, but you still haven’t given us a good reason as to why this is so. — Albero

I never ever said that pleasure is irrelevant. The point has always been the asymmetry, way too much negative often far more intense than the positive can ever be. Thus the positive isn't worth the negative.

Again with people, people, people. You are ego-centric so of course you cannot understand the logic behind Efilism. Think of the suffering elsewhere other than your own and of other people and you might be close to getting it.

Ah yes. The infamous "You disagree with me therefore you are deluded" defense. One that is known for promoting truth seeking and unbiased investigation. Agreed, it is impossible to argue with someone who believes that the opposition is wrong by virtue of them disagreeing with him — khaled

You really disagree with that fact, now with me. I didn't invent it, I don't like it, but it's there. How much ones eyes will be opened standing in front of this "monster" and how far one is ready to go in terms of the solution, depends on the individual obviously. You or the majority just isn't willing (some perhaps unable to for other reasons) to face the fact and accept the most ethical solution.

I won't bother asking you what makes you so certain the whole world is deluded and the select few efilists aren't because it doesn't seem like something you actually have support for. — khaled

Another revealing statement, it really is, you have poor reasoning my friend. You don't know why that might be the case? This might be a shocking discovery to you, are you ready? Most people are not driven by logic but emotions. You can see ample proof of this everywhere, including right here, right now, shown by you and others like you. And you are surprised why Efilism in particular is a view of a tiny minority?

Efilism is a disturbing cold nonappealing non the less very logical philosophical view. People naturally distance themselves from the negative. To expect it to be accepted by a large number of people is, delusional khaled. Most people can't accept the simplest most harmless of logics on the surface.

You yourself just literally proved that you are delusional.

Please, no more, I'm leaving the discussion, I do get people like you, it's fine, I know it's hard to accept the scary truth and all, it is what it is.

It would be as trivially easy as you listing bad ones. To what end?
The only reason I referenced your list was to point out how little thought you actually put into the positive ones. This speaks to my main point against you so far which is the skewed way you are looking at this. Focus on negative, ignore or marginalize the positive.
Skewed by your own subjective sense of the issue. Thats fine, whatever floats your boat. Other people do the same thing but vice versa.
Your argument isnt based in logic, its based on your pessimistic sense of the world. Im not saying you aren’t making use of logic, just that you do not have the objective, logical basis you think you do. — DingoJones

Well, all we can do is go in circles, you shout subjective, I shout objective, you shout subjective again, on and on. Same with the other guys here. So, perhaps we should stop, at least I will. I appreciate that particularly you went extensive on the matter, among the first.

.....but then they say you’re a psychopath if you don’t press a button that murders everything even if people don’t want to die? How does that make sense? — Albero

Yes, not to press the famous red button that terminates all life on this planet (and others where suffering is vast) in an instant would make you the biggest baddest most awesome psychopath ever.

The thing that pisses people off concerning Efilism and Anti-natalism, and righly so, is that you try to re-package your subjective negative valuation of life into some kind of objective and logically inescapably conclusion about the value of life.... — ChatteringMonkey

Oh boy, here we go again. Subjective, subjective, subjective.

"life as a whole on this planet is predominantly suffering." is not a subjective valuation, but an entirely objective. If so far you haven't discovered an ample amount of proof that backs this fact, I suggest getting outside of that secure colorful bubble you live in once in a while to see the reality for what it is.

If you think the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters when it comes to evaluating ethics, and you also think that life is mostly the former, then yea obviously you’ll end up with efilism which is why I find it so boring.

Thing is though, I haven’t met anyone who holds such simple beliefs.

if it's sound it's sound.
— RAW

Well, it’s valid. Idk about sound.

I accept logic no matter how unappealing it may be.
— RAW

Logic needs premises. You picked weird premises and ended up with weird conclusions. Surprise! — khaled

Yes, life as a whole on this planet is predominantly suffering. As you are unable to accept this "weird" (the word you've chosen here is revealing ) premise, this simple fact, any further conversation is pointless. You too have fun living inside that beautiful bubble of delusions until it pops. It's something to envy in a way, wish I could turn off like that and ignore the cold cruel reality.

I don't think you'll ever see a sensical counter-argument. You've chosen how you wish to perceive the world. Likewise, I won't ever see a sensical argument in support of Efilism (or Antinatalism for that matter). — Hermeticus

Yeah, the way things went so far, I share the same opinion on the counter-argument. I have not chosen to wish anything, I accept logic no matter how unappealing it may be.

I believe you that the world you live in is a terrible and cruel place full of suffering. The world I live in is not though — Hermeticus

I see, what to say, enjoy living inside that beautiful soap bubble you created. Just bare in mind, one day it will pop...

RAW DingoJones is just going to say things like "Creating art, love, relationships, writing, creativity, etc". You left yourself opened on the positive side as you only mentioned physical pains and not emotional/abstract (or at least more complex) pleasures. — schopenhauer1

I hope not, that would be disappointing. We'll see. Yes, the lists can be extended, having physical and emotional feelings on both sides.

Btw I checked some of the links you provided, went through last few pages of the first thread, debate between 2 guys, interesting stuff. Might join later...

That is your subjective experience. Many others have a very different experience of life. In regard to my experience, I can not agree with a single one of those statements.

The answer is simple though: Everyone knows where the "exit" is. No one can force anyone to play the game. Just don't go assuming that others subscribe to your world view and want to take any part in the ideas that Efilism comes up with. — Hermeticus

You too with the "it's entirely subjective". Never mind, opinions are heard, I appreciate them all even though I haven't seen any sensical counter-arguments to Efilism.

There are better presentations of the same ideas. Gary's funny sometimes in his lack of self-awareness, though.

The actual arguments themselves are straightforward and uncomplicated, and I mostly agree with them. I suppose I could probably raise some objection, but it's a pain to disentangle the actual arguments from the mental illness. I have better things to do. — darthbarracuda

I hear you, do agree more or less, Gary often gets so mad and animated that I can understand why someone would dislike his way of presenting these ideas.

What is completely subjective?
— RAW

Peoples ideas about whats good or bad about life and which ones are worthwhile tradeoffs. Thats going to vary greatly from person to person. — DingoJones

I have to strongly disagree with the whole "it's entirely subjective" assertion. The facts don't support that at all. What are the facts? People share common feelings about what is bad in life, what is good. Everybody agrees that pain and suffering is bad, the opposite or the absence of is good, more than that even better. So right of the bat you make a false incorrect statement that just doesn't hold water. There is an objective consensus among all of us that say cancer is bad, that losing your legs is bad etc. same consensus exists for many if not all the other bad things in life. Why is that? Because we all "occupy" the same kind of bodies, same anatomy, have same brains, senses, living in the same reality, experiencing more or less the same things on a daily basis in life, all of which produces the same kind of feelings in each one of us. Most of the feelings you had so far, I had them too, sadness, anger, happiness etc. My angry state of certain intensity is equal to your angry state of same intensity, and so on and forth.

A little girl having her entire hand chopped off by an axe is an extremely painful terrible event we can all agree on, there is no great variation here to be expected, someone feeling that such event is not that big of a deal. It is absolutely false and dishonest to claim otherwise.

I mean, examples are infinite. 10 random people from the street of any age and gender, cut a small finger from each person, they will all scream in pain, noone will laugh or be indifferent but experience the same kind of pain, of same level, intensity. One will not feel "greatly" less pain than others.

Even if we accept that certain things are bad to everyone, it still wouldn't resolve anything about what bad things outweigh what good things and vice versa. — DingoJones

So in this extension of your previous thoughts you kind of admit that what you said earlier is incorrect but still you insist on "it's entirely subjective".

The whole point is the asymmetry, the undeniable fact that the bad can get so incredible bad, so unimaginably bad, profoundly terrifyingly bad experiences that cannot be compared intensity wise to anything on the positive side. A female person, being kept in chains in some basement for her entire life, being raped, beaten, verbally abused etc. from the age of a little girl to an old woman only to be brutally murdered in the end, cannot possibly be justified by all the happiness in the world.

This is all subjective. Each individual will have feelings and opinions about which of these things outweighs the others. Many people think having kids is worth the hardships of parenting, others do not.
Also your examples are completely one sided. All the negative ones are death and horror and the positive ones are almost all petty and fleeting.
Remember when I said you exalted the negative over the positive? Well thats what you’ve done here. Every point you are making is skewed towards the negative and thats your own subjective opinion about how the bad outweighs the good. That's true for you, but not for everyone.
You must be a pessimist in order for your arguments to work, and not everyone views things that way. — DingoJones

Again with the "it's all subjective". Each individual will have nearly the same feelings about all of those things precisely for the reason/s I stated prior. Let me put it again, a subjective feeling by each of us of being torn apart by a pack of apex predators would be the same, we can all agree even in the absence of such experience that it's a profoundly terrible painful experience to go trough. Same goes for the other things in the negative list. The positive list? A subjective feeling by each of us of having an orgasm for example, is the same. My subjective experience of orgasm cannot possibly be "greatly" different than yours. It's one and the same thing.

So, we have consensus regarding both sides yet somehow, somehow, comparisons we do would be entirely subjective and greatly different. That's nonsense.

It really appears to me that you just subconsciously admitted that the asymmetry is true but consciously you refuse to accept it. Because I listed some of the greatest pleasures a life can offer (missed eating a delicious food) and yet you still think the bad side is far overweight. It really does look like an admission. Lets check this. Let us you do the positive list. Can you list about the same number of positive things I listed that aren't "petty and fleeting". Name positive feelings that, to you, are more intense and lasting than what has been listed or if you will, as intense and lasting as the examples on the bad side listed.

This depends on the person. Also, refer to my point about your skewed examples. Like look at your two lists, you picked some of the worst things you could think of for the negatives and the positives you picked sex and sex and work and “child” and sex again and a video game…
Do you honestly think you’ve made fair comparisons here? If those are the best things that you think life has to offer then you either lack imagination or need to broaden your horizons considerably and I mean that in the kindest, most helpful possible sense. — DingoJones

Again, let's see your positive list that would establish the balance to say the least. Please, name 5-6 things that aren't petty and fleeting.

Yeah, it's a nice creative educational (you learn a lot about a lot of different things) job, perhaps one of the best in the world. I'll remove the the link and images if you don't mind, not sure if it's allowed.

So, what do you think of these views
— RAW

Mainlander and his "Philosophy of Redemption" seem to me to be a deep investigation into the introspectiveness of human pessimism, with the aim of transforming it into a motivating force for Man's own will - "Wille zum Tode" aka "Will to Death" -.

Mainlander's philosophy may seem extremely and utterly "dystopic", however this is not the correct reading of his work. Philipp seeks, through pessimism, an answer to the end of all the sufferings that arise with existence itself, and his logical conclusion was that, instead of deluding ourselves with a "perception of life" towards the future, we - humanity - should fully embrace the fact that "non-life is the state with the least possible suffering, as it is absolute" and thus make existence itself a little more tolerable.

Efilism in particular
— RAW

It's pretty cringe, like any YouTube-based philosophy.
— darthbarracuda — Gus Lamarch

Ok but this is not an argument. It's just lame. I don't care if a particular philosophy comes from a drunk guy on a toilet seat, if it's sound it's sound. Care to put a little more effort and explain why exactly Efilism is "cringe", both of you?

Gus you said Efilism is a "modern interpretation" of Mainlander's work. What exactly is wrong about Inmendham's interpretation of it?

I've shown you mine, lets see yours? :lol: — Pop

I mostly do hard surface/tech designs but began doing some creatures too.

I see. So, what do you think of these views, Efilism in particular?

For sure, for me, every painting is that masterpiece - the one just beyond my reach, that takes everything out of me, that is the best I can do, at that particular time. And when it is finished, if it ever is, then I move onto the next similar such struggle. — Pop

Of course, as a professional concept artist I can relate to that, to me every new concept piece is a personal masterpiece, the best I can do at the moment.

It's not just about me, it's about every sentient being on this planet. The suffering is vast, I'm unavoidably exposed to its existence and I don't look forward to having to experience it again, and again...

:-) Thanks.

How would you even begin measuring these things? They are completely subjective. — DingoJones

Can you be more specific, measure what, pain against pleasure? Consider this, an orgasm, having a wild sex with Charlize Theron, you being lucky you got the dream job, a child, a girl you wanted, PC to play a video game you really like -VS- you being eaten alive by a pack of lions, torn apart slowly by a giant bear, freezing to death, having your limbs cut off and living for the rest of your life with PTSD in a wheelchair unable to do anything without assistance, I mean I can go on and on and more disturbing?

Which side of the two is sensationally stronger and more life impacting?

What is completely subjective?

There are people who are in objectively negative circumstances that none the less feel like the good outweighs the bad. Likewise there are those in objectively better/positive circumstances that none the less feel the bad outweighs the good. — DingoJones

A person suffers in life but feels it's worth all the good stuff in it?

I'm not getting what you're trying to say here or what's the importance of it to what we're discussing here. I'm talking about life as a whole, taking every sentient being into account, not just some guy that had a terrible car accident and is in heavy pain but is still happy because his 3 kids survived without a scratch and are enjoying life. It's a bad deviant argument.

I think this is just what I said: exalting the negative, focusing only on the negative. — DingoJones

Yes but the way you say it sounds like the negative is focused on and raised way above the scale just...because. As if there are no good reasons to do so. Aren't the 3 reasons listed sound, logical? It would be useful to hear a clear explanation why none of the 3 are true.

For instance, the reason why negative feelings are far stronger (2.) in intensity than positive lies in the fact that them being very strong prevents animals (us included) from "fucking around with their bodies", makes us all avoid hazards, taking seriously even the smallest hazards because even they hurt as hell and are undesirable from the point of preserving ones life (think of it, a simple small needle getting inside your body produces a significant pain, not to mention other far more painful experiences), thus keeping our bodies undamaged and in one piece as much as possible. Positive feelings do not need to be of same strong intensity but just enough to make you do the necessary stuff, eat food, enjoy taking a dump, have sex etc. There is no reason to have eating a food a pleasure higher or at the same level as the orgasm, does the job at a much weaker intensity. Much stronger positive feelings would be counter-productive in fact.

What's the point of efilism? — tim wood

The way I understand it, it's an extension of the Anti-Natalism - immoral for people to have kids, Efilism - immoral for any sentient being on Earth and possibly beyond to have kids. Life is mostly suffering, the positives are not worth the negatives, a single child in a long severe pain due to a cancer or whatever is not worth all the happiness on Earth, and beyond, and if there is a red button in front of you that terminates all life in the Universe in an instant, you are a psychopath not to press it, kind of a point.

It does sound absolutely crazy and extreme but if you manage to dive deeper into it open minded, putting immediate reactions like disgust etc. aside and under control, and look at it solely through logical lenses, for me at least, you can't help but admit it makes sense, for some more for some less maybe.

What are my thoughts on Elifism? Its fucking dumb. (you asked, thats my thought on it.) Like Antinatalism it depends entirely on putting the negative in a lofty, exalted status and ignoring the positive altogether. — DingoJones

I appreciate the honest opinion. Isn't the imbalance between the 2 at the core of it, the observation that the negative, the suffering is 1. far greater / numerous 2. sensationally far stronger, 3. durationally far longer than the positive?

My point is, there really appears to be a reason or a number of them, some I listed, to put the entire negative at a much higher status than the entire positive, not to say that the 2 are almost incomparable.

Also, Im calling it now: RAW is here to plug his stuff, not for discussion. — DingoJones

Didn't get this? If you mean what I think you mean, absolutely not.

Reminds me of Eastern religions and Gnosticism: being born on Earth is a mistake, gotta get out of the cycle of reincarnation. Reach bliss by extinguishing desire (sounds a bit like a contradiction). — litewave

Was thinking of reincarnation recently, how scary, for the lack of a better word, it is that essentially the same sentient I within all the sentient species ( a bird I, a lion I, a human I), is to play the same cruel game of life over and over again, a whatever bird species "I" suffers, eventually dies, but another same bird species "I" jumps in,...and so for all the sentient species, all the I "types" are persistent, reincarnated over and over again, prisoners of the loop...

People believe the minority that live a life of suffering are a reasonable sacrifice for everything else life has to offer. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yeah, I don't see how one can justify that either. Watch how quickly they change their minds when they end up in the suffering team, and that team in reality, is made up of the majority.

Have you heard of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I haven't, just checked it, the summary, very interesting and related. Thanks for mentioning it. I'll definitely look into it more a bit later.

When you stop posting nonsense on my threads and mentioning me in your comments, you got it. :ok: — Xtrix

Based on your childish immature unfounded unnecessary rudeness and arrogance from the very first reply on, but more because of your very poor reasoning (maybe few others spot the irony you've created here and have a good laugh as I did), rest assured I'll stay the fu*k away from your threads and comments on this forum.

Just ignore me from now on, ok?

If I may be honest - What were you thinking? How come you fuc*ed up so bad? Are you out of your mind? Why so evil?...are the kind of questions I'd choose from. But what I'd really say to him is just - Fu*k you.

I've seen worse. — Outlander

:-) You've been outside the torture chamber, witnessed even worse?

Yeah, because we’re all convinced you two care about scientists being abused. If you are, then it’s funny you should exclude the more glaring example: the case of Dr. Fauci, who has received numerous smears and death threats for months, for doing nothing more than giving the current medical understanding, over and over again. Or the thousands of others — like the head of the CDC and its other employees. — Xtrix

So just because I didn't name names, didn't give particular examples which are countless, but was speaking in general, I'm somehow dishonest? What a silly incorrect conclusion you've come to.

July 5th, 2021; less than two weeks ago, I had a dream; I was in a big house and two silhouettes appeared in a dark lit room in front of me, as I was looking out the opened door of the room I was in; unable to move. The silhouette on the right pulled a semi-auto pistol and shot the silhouette on the left in the head; then I woke up panting. I walked into work and said I had a really f****d up dream to my boss; and the next day (7/7/21) Haiti's President was assassinated.

Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. Now for the dream I just had. — Engel

Not sure why you see this as coincidence or why you think there's a connection? There are hundreds of deaths in the US alone per day from guns, and to think of the entire world. Just because that assassination was televised or had news coverage, and because the figure is well known, you think it's maybe related to your dream? That makes no sense.

.I can still remember when I was in elementary school I was in class then had a deja vu of my mate pointing to something on the floor but unlike most of my deja vuS I knew what exactly was gonna happen after that and it happened the same as I remembered — BARAA

To what duration was your "prediction"? What happened after lasted for how long, that you knew before time so to speak?

Could be. You see cycles everywhere so maybe it applies to the Universe itself. I hope it doesn't, that would be boring to say the least.

I hope not, no thanks.

Most people see themselves as good. This is just not the case. I think we are born with both potentials but tilt towards evil. Anything too add? — Caleb Mercado

We live in a society that rewards psychopathy, morally bankrupt people. The gooder you are in this society, the worse off you'll be. That's the game. In general it's a cruel reality we're in, full of suffering, each of us contributes to one way or the other. So yes, most of the "good" people are actually bad when you take into account many many things.

Well said.

Indeed, it's scary and tragical that many well intentioned scientists receive various negative labels for giving their professional opinions on the matter just because it doesn't fit the widely accepted narrative.

It's bs to me.

Will live in insane cheaty competitive profit driven society so one has reasons to be skeptical about everything.