RE: The Daily Meme #1164!
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
No... One cannot say that someOne is consenting when under duress.
Are You consenting to being robbed, handing over Your money, when a gun is pointed at Your head?
I am not sure where to place probabilities on this "demiurge/archon" thing. I don't need it to explain what I see.
And only under duress do I do anything You listed (and much of it, never - I don't need permission!). I can assure You, They need Our consent, else They would just run over Us roughshod.
The unEthical thing is that They do not get fully informed consent, and often take "implied consent" when We don't say We do not consent.
0
0
0.000
You're treating consent as though it only means freely agreeing to something. Enslavement doesn't need your enthusiastic agreement. It only needs you to accept its hidden rules as the boundaries of reality. The gun is the obvious form of coercion. I'm talking about the part where you eventually point the gun at yourself. the parts that are rarely seen and unperceived by the conscious mind.
You don't need to believe in the Demiurge to see why people so often enforce upon themselves limits they were taught to believe were unavoidable.
Consent is only valid when it is fully informed.
If someOne shows You the part that says You will get X amount of money but does not show You that by taking X You give up Y which is 10 times the X amount...
Are You consenting to giving up Y if You take X?
Yes, the moneyed psychopaths in control on Our planet (by virtue of money) have been indoctrinating Us from birth, propagandizing and lying to Us, with the groups of Us groomed to create divides, beneficial tech that threatens profits/control is hidden, and Our medicine, land, food, water, air, education, electromagnetic environment, and information flow have been deliberately degraded - because They can buy it all with Their money.
And You would suggest We somehow are consenting to this, with Most so indoctrinated that They cannot see it?
Don't be blaming the victims.
“Fully informed” sounds absolute, but in practice nobody is ever fully informed about the consequences of a decision. You can be informed about what you know, but you cannot possess every relevant fact, hidden motive, future consequence, or unintended effect. If that's the case then consent never existed and never will. So if valid consent requires complete knowledge, virtually nothing qualifies as consent.
Not knowing what's happening consciously doesn't mean you're not still participating in the system or helping it keep going.
I'm not saying victims are morally responsible for being deceived. I'm saying that lack of conscious awareness doesn't mean the mechanism isn't operating through you.
If every participation in the system can be explained as something you were forced into, then what would ever count as consenting to it? If nothing can count as consent because there is always some circumstance, conditioning, need, fear, dependency or lack of information behind it, then what exactly are we calling consent in the first place?
We needn't get pedantic. "Fully informed" means when the One(s) on the other side of the deal have offered all pertinent data They have, in a clear and concise way.
It does not mean that every possibility is known.
Who decides what is pertinent? According to whome?
I think we're getting closer to my point. If consent requires all pertinent information, clearly presented and understood, then yes, there is a possibility of consciously consenting to the Demiurgic order.
However, that doesn't mean everyone participating in that order has consciously consented to it. Some can participate without knowing what they are participating in, even if "fully informed".
That's the part I'm talking about. The things operating beneath conscious awareness. The things You don't know to question because You don't even know they're there.
So I'm not saying everyone consents to the Demiurge. I'm saying consent is possible, participation is possible without conscious awareness, and those aren't necessarily the same thing.
Seriously, do We need to get pedantic? LOL!
My point is that the Ones who do not have all the data have not consented. And yes, Most are in thrall, under the moneyed psychopaths in control on Our planet (by virtue of money)'s indoctrination. But participation in what One thinks is reality does not = consenting to the reality.
I don't think I'm being pedantic. I'm simply explaining what I meant.
I'm not saying participation = consent. I'm saying participation can happen without conscious awareness, and that's the part of the Demiurgic order I'm talking about.
I understand your definition of "fully informed," and I understand that You're saying someone without the pertinent information hasn't consented. That's fine.
I'm just taking the discussion one layer deeper: what about the things a person doesn't even know to look for? Who decides what information is pertinent in the first place?
That's all I'm getting at. You don't have to agree with it, but I don't think asking the question makes me pedantic.
Well, I see what Your're saying. I'm just pointing out that consent is something They need, and They will play with "implied consent" which most often is not valid consent.
Like They will put out a TV show "telling Us" what They plan to do - but it will appear as fiction. But when We do not say We do not consent, They take it as that "implied consent."
It's not even close to consent.
Ethically, They would have to say, in clear and certain terms, "Here are Our plans." Then, if We do not say We do not consent, it can be taken as implied consent.
Very true. It goes with what Plato said. "Your silence gives consent." Which is why we have to make it clear to them that we don't consent. But sometimes words are not enough because they don't care for our consent and apply them anyways, them violence has to be called into the discussion. But only as a last resort.
Posted via HiveSuite
I say "I do not consent" so often these days it's amazing! LOL!
And yes, They are unEthical Ones...