Yeah perhaps it is a good example of how people get their back up when their beliefs are criticized. I like Bigfoot and the paranormal and I don’t much appreciate it being called a scam. But I still don’t think you’re interpreting your comments and part in all of this as charitably as I have been on my side.
My interpretation isn’t unreasonable. Saying ‘Do not promote mythology or ideology as reality’ sounds prescriptive, as though you’re making a strong recommendation about what people should or shouldn’t do, especially in the context of your initial comment (discouraging spending money on a Bigfoot convention). Thank you for clarifying that is not what you meant.
I think we’re still at an impasse in how we define scam, but that is ok.
“Do not promote mythology or ideology as reality” implies that you’re saying it should be stopped.
I’m just saying this is a simple misunderstanding and I’m really trying to come to some understanding with honest debate - I’m not approaching this to troll, just to understand. Willing to let it go!
Hey man it’s possible I could be misunderstanding your viewpoint but what I am hearing is: People are pushing beliefs that you think harm people.
My basic counterpoint to that is: No one forces anyone to believe anything. People are allowed to believe what they want.
If you believe harm is caused do you think anything should be done about it?
“The people who push books and TV shows and stuff to convince others…” would be the quote.
I think there’s a difference in liability sure. Financial pyramid schemes are where people choose to invest their money but then that money is misappropriated. The scammer takes money for a service and doesn’t do what they said they will do with it.
If I choose to bet my life’s savings on GME and purchase the shares then yeah that’s my own fault (as long as insider trading / pump and dump on the other side has not occurred). No matter what people “pushed” me to believe (as long as this doesn’t cause violence or harm to others), the responsibility on following through with those beliefs is mine.
Just like I said if someone is leading a paid Bigfoot wilderness excursion into the woods then yes I think there could be an argument for their liability if people die on their tour. Just as there’s liability if people die skydiving or bungee jumping.
If someone tells me Bigfoot is out in the woods on Christmas Eve and as an adult I choose to believe them that is my choice, not theirs.
I’m just saying we have to be careful calling ideologies dangerous or saying that people are being “pushed” toward things - lots of people argue that LGBT and trans ideology is dangerous. I think they’re ridiculous bigots for saying that but we have freedom of expression in most western countries. If I want to be able to freely express my opinion, other people have to be able to freely express theirs.
What I’m saying is: adults are responsible for what they believe.
No one can enable an adult to do anything. They are adults who make choices.
Who is anyone to tell people that they can’t publish a book or make a piece of media (as long as the topic is not illegal). That’s some authoritarian shit right there.
I think we can go down a really deep hole of all of the dumb shit that people die from because they believed something false that was sold for a profit. Apart from what we as a society have agreed upon as the most abhorrent opinions/beliefs and have legislatively banned, I’m really not comfortable with branding media or books as dangerous (see all the book banning nonsense going on in the US).
No matter what way you slice it - it’s their choice isn’t it. Adults are allowed to do what they want, even if it’s fringe, and people can’t stop them.
People are allowed to express and sell points of view that I disagree with as long as they’re not inciting violence or directly causing harm to people. People are allowed to listen. I am only responsible for myself and my choices.
And just because these people made poor choices, it doesn’t mean that everyone into the topic would do the same. I think it’s less that they believed in Bigfoot and more that they were unprepared for the wilderness.
No one told them to go into the woods in the dead of winter. They weren’t on a paid wilderness tour. They chose this for themselves and got into trouble. It’s unfortunate that it happened at Christmas.
It’s kinda like religion though right? Who is anyone to say it’s not true. It’s kind of mean to shit on what other people are into or what they choose to believe as long as they’re not hurting anyone else. There’s no evidence on the Bigfoot topic that we know of at the moment, but there are tons of scientific discoveries that happen. They didn’t know about Lyme disease until 1982.
Should beliefs be separated from state and science decisions - absolutely.
The paranormal is interesting to think about and discuss. There are grifters but there are grifters everywhere, no matter what topic you’re interested in. These guys took it too far but hey that’s humanity for ya - people also die from autoerotic asphyxiation, bungee jumping, and free solo climbing, none of which I’m interested in pursuing for myself.
Meh just let people have their fun and their beliefs. People die doing all sorts of stupid shit.
It’s not like they’re health quacks or chiropractors who actually take money and can hurt people. It’s not RFK causing an anti-vax measles outbreak.
You do understand how your example is different though, right?
By “end-of-life” home I’m assuming you mean hospice, which is absolutely not the same as medical assistance in dying (MAiD). I don’t know the story, however, hospices exist in many countries. Hospices do not provide “very basic [medical] care” - they are there to manage pain, manage symptoms to an extent, and provide a comfortable space for that person to die. If the family did not agree that their family member should have been in hospice they needed to seek a second opinion. Hospices are not there to cure someone’s medical condition. If you go into one it is because you are imminently dying.
The mistake of the medical staff in putting this person in hospice is not the same as someone who is of sound mind, learns that they have a terminal disease, and chooses for themselves to go through the medical assistance in dying process.
MAiD is a process with multiple checks and balances with multiple levels of oversight. You are able to opt out at any time prior to the final event.
Have you ever had to watch a family member decline though? What about a pet? How did you treat that pet? Did you prolong their suffering and watch them slowly die unable to eat or drink or did you do something about it so they did not have to suffer? Why are humans different if they themselves, sound of mind, choose to end their own suffering?
An acquaintance of mine’s relative chose to go this way due to ALS. It was their choice and the last year was hell on the family, even though the relative had selected assisted dying.
Before modern medicine, how exactly do you think they handled grandma who was losing her marbles and lived in a one room farmhouse with the rest of the family? Especially if they’re violent and nasty. Is it right to withhold care/food/water and let nature take its course? Is that murder? Was there murder or suicide? Lots of this stuff has happened throughout history within the privacy of a family. People were likely more “religious” back then but we didn’t have the regulations or medical oversight to document things as such. Likely they just told people that their relative died of natural causes, buried them on the family plot and were done with it.
It is hell to witness the pain and confusion someone you love has when they have a degenerative disease and the Herculean effort it takes to care for someone in a condition like this. A family simply cannot do this alone without paying an exorbitant amount of money for medical and support staff - around the clock.
It’s like anything else in history:
Wouldn’t it be a good thing to “de-stigmatize” suicide? So people can talk about it and we have more of a chance to intervene with people who do not have a lethal disease?
Everyone I have encountered who brings up “suicide is never an option” in relation to issues like this has never had to witness it. I’m 100% going out this way if I ever have a lethal disease.
Oh yeah it won’t happen all at once though. He’s going to test it bit by bit to make everyone else flinch. Then probably try to install a series of rules that effectively neuter it.
It’s the way Russia does it - the institution still “stands” but is beaten into ineffectual submission by a series of a thousand cuts. He’s got Turkey, Hungary and possibly Romania and Italy to back him up in this regard.
I’d add: he’ll probably threaten to pull out of NATO if the rest of the countries continue arming/aiding Ukraine.
It’s certainly one perspective but I don’t think it’s the only possibility.
It’s been a long time for testing and no one seems in the loop. Why lie about it.
Also the military has testing sites - why over populated civilian areas? Why not say they’re running a military exercise and loop in law enforcement at the very least?
Why also the sightings of similar “drones” in the UK?
Why do they “go dark” when chased?
If it was US military why did they prevent a medical helicopter from taking off? That seems highly unnecessary and cruel.
It’s super interesting that there are reports that a bunch of drones were following a coast guard ship.
Interestingly civilian drones get disabled around these NJ ones. Apparently they can’t fly and have issues.
That doesn’t seem like it’s enough money to pay an enormous hospital bill.
I think he’s just going to go to Russia for the fuel.
I’m probably wrong, but I’ve been speculating if the plan is:
“No troll, no troll, you’re the troll!!!” <- the audacity of this energy lol