That is NOT what I said. You are twisting my words. I never said "I know you are wrong," nor did I imply that I knew that to be true. I said explicitly that the evidence suggests. That is not me "knowing," that is me seeing substantial evidence that supports a different position.
Whatever the Truth is, Is what It Is. I don't know it, I don't profess to know it, but I can follow evidence, and I can see when a conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence. That has nothing to do with "knowing truth," that is simply how the act of reason works. ANYONE using logic, based on the same premises comes to the same conclusion. That is what logic is. It is not mutable. Logic is not truth however, logic is just a self-consistent language. The conclusion relies on the premises. If the premises are shown false, or premises are missing from the logical construction, the conclusion is also false. To test premises or determine if you are missing something important you must be willing to look at the evidence in earnest.
If you can learn to appreciate the depth of the difference between "knowing" and "the evidence suggests," perhaps you can better appreciate the evidence itself.
Why bother sharing if you have no way to know if any of it is true?
How can you know that anything is True? The Truth is Whatever it is. The best we can do is investigate the evidence and see where it leads. We can only do that if we look in earnest at all of the evidence.
If you release the need to believe that you know the truth, you can engage in honest investigation. Once you "know" it, you lose that capacity.
You made a lot of matter of fact statements for someone who doesn't know or trust anything.
I tried very hard to qualify my statements as "the evidence suggests." This means it was my assessment of the evidence I have seen. The "statements of fact" were just that, facts. Facts are not "truth," they are reports of events. I showed you the teenciest, tiniest bit of evidence, just to see what would happen. You didn't even engage with it in the slightest. There is so much more evidence to support my assertions if you were genuinely interested in seeing it.
If I thought for one second you would dig in yourself, taking on the investigation in earnest, I would bring certain other pieces to your attention. You aren't.
People who are "awakened" are always amazed that so few see "the obvious truth" of the corruption in [insert evil entity here]. The reason people don't see is because they refuse to look in earnest. If they look at all (which they generally don't), they only look to justify their current beliefs, never digging deeper than the surface where they can explain it away. If they can't explain it away they dismiss it as "irrelevant" or "obvious lies."
This is how the world remains in slavery, and how all the worlds fuckery actually happens, by our desire to hold on to "what we know to be true." That desire is exploited to maintain control.
I don't think that is reasonably contestable. There are examples literally everywhere. It's basically the definition of the word "propaganda:" the creation of belief to exploit a population.
Believing something is true doesn't make it true.
I don't think that is reasonably contestable either. Every single person on this planet believes something is true that you do not. The vast majority believe many, many things that fall into that category. Either they are wrong, you are wrong, or everyone is wrong. Those are the only options.
People's beliefs have been exploited to keep them in slavery.
See any act of recognized slavery, and how the masters have created and retained the belief within the minds of all of their slaves that they are owned. You can't hold on to a slave that recognizes their self-agency. What slave owners do to people who reject their mastery and can't be broken (beliefs changed) is kill them. Those people die, but they die free.
A person can only be truly enslaved by their own choice, even if they don't realize they are making that choice.
A person can (in general) always choose to die, thus there is always a way out, there is always a choice, even if both options suck. Choice means self-agency. Slavery means no self-agency, thus slavery is always a choice (and doesn't really exist except as a state of mind).
There may be exceptions to "always a choice" (MKUltra e.g.), but in general, I assert this as a reasonable premise.
It is possible that people could believe that they are free, but they are not. The belief that they are slaves (a necessary belief by premise 4) is hiding from their own awareness, locked deep within their minds; within contradicting beliefs that they don't really think about as contradictions (or think about at all).
This assertion is probably not something that most people would agree with, but the evidence for this assertion abounds. If you would like examples, look outside.
If we assume that these premises are true, is it possible that people believe that they are free, when they actually live in slavery, because they know that they are free? In other words, is it possible that the box that contains them and enslaves them is a function of their belief that they are free, coupled with the unseen but conflicting beliefs that enforce that false belief of freedom?
If so, then exploiting that belief, that "knowledge," and encouraging such a set of beliefs that create the opposite of the truth would be the reason people are enslaved. In other words, if people did not have the belief that they are free, they would no longer be slaves, or at least would have the opportunity to break free by rejecting the belief and thus their Masters.
This outline is a restatement of my last sentence, the sentence you are protesting in your response.
That is NOT what I said. You are twisting my words. I never said "I know you are wrong," nor did I imply that I knew that to be true. I said explicitly that the evidence suggests. That is not me "knowing," that is me seeing substantial evidence that supports a different position.
Whatever the Truth is, Is what It Is. I don't know it, I don't profess to know it, but I can follow evidence, and I can see when a conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence. That has nothing to do with "knowing truth," that is simply how the act of reason works. ANYONE using logic, based on the same premises comes to the same conclusion. That is what logic is. It is not mutable. Logic is not truth however, logic is just a self-consistent language. The conclusion relies on the premises. If the premises are shown false, or premises are missing from the logical construction, the conclusion is also false. To test premises or determine if you are missing something important you must be willing to look at the evidence in earnest.
If you can learn to appreciate the depth of the difference between "knowing" and "the evidence suggests," perhaps you can better appreciate the evidence itself.
Why bother sharing if you have no way to know if any of it is true? Who do you think you are fooling?
You made a lot of matter of fact statements for someone who doesn't know or trust anything.
Spare me the word salads, Mr. Know Nothing.
How can you know that anything is True? The Truth is Whatever it is. The best we can do is investigate the evidence and see where it leads. We can only do that if we look in earnest at all of the evidence.
If you release the need to believe that you know the truth, you can engage in honest investigation. Once you "know" it, you lose that capacity.
I tried very hard to qualify my statements as "the evidence suggests." This means it was my assessment of the evidence I have seen. The "statements of fact" were just that, facts. Facts are not "truth," they are reports of events. I showed you the teenciest, tiniest bit of evidence, just to see what would happen. You didn't even engage with it in the slightest. There is so much more evidence to support my assertions if you were genuinely interested in seeing it.
If I thought for one second you would dig in yourself, taking on the investigation in earnest, I would bring certain other pieces to your attention. You aren't.
People who are "awakened" are always amazed that so few see "the obvious truth" of the corruption in [insert evil entity here]. The reason people don't see is because they refuse to look in earnest. If they look at all (which they generally don't), they only look to justify their current beliefs, never digging deeper than the surface where they can explain it away. If they can't explain it away they dismiss it as "irrelevant" or "obvious lies."
This is how the world remains in slavery, and how all the worlds fuckery actually happens, by our desire to hold on to "what we know to be true." That desire is exploited to maintain control.
We remain in slavery by rejecting Jesus Christ and His Church.
I don't think that is reasonably contestable. There are examples literally everywhere. It's basically the definition of the word "propaganda:" the creation of belief to exploit a population.
I don't think that is reasonably contestable either. Every single person on this planet believes something is true that you do not. The vast majority believe many, many things that fall into that category. Either they are wrong, you are wrong, or everyone is wrong. Those are the only options.
See any act of recognized slavery, and how the masters have created and retained the belief within the minds of all of their slaves that they are owned. You can't hold on to a slave that recognizes their self-agency. What slave owners do to people who reject their mastery and can't be broken (beliefs changed) is kill them. Those people die, but they die free.
A person can (in general) always choose to die, thus there is always a way out, there is always a choice, even if both options suck. Choice means self-agency. Slavery means no self-agency, thus slavery is always a choice (and doesn't really exist except as a state of mind).
There may be exceptions to "always a choice" (MKUltra e.g.), but in general, I assert this as a reasonable premise.
This assertion is probably not something that most people would agree with, but the evidence for this assertion abounds. If you would like examples, look outside.
If we assume that these premises are true, is it possible that people believe that they are free, when they actually live in slavery, because they know that they are free? In other words, is it possible that the box that contains them and enslaves them is a function of their belief that they are free, coupled with the unseen but conflicting beliefs that enforce that false belief of freedom?
If so, then exploiting that belief, that "knowledge," and encouraging such a set of beliefs that create the opposite of the truth would be the reason people are enslaved. In other words, if people did not have the belief that they are free, they would no longer be slaves, or at least would have the opportunity to break free by rejecting the belief and thus their Masters.
This outline is a restatement of my last sentence, the sentence you are protesting in your response.