Posts by wiredfalcon2

Just because you "had a run-in with some guy on a forum" or "lack the willpower" doesn't mean you actually went out there and proved anything. Your little claim that you've got "reason" and therefore know when something is a bible allegory doesn't answer a single real question. Like, why is something in the Bible an allegory? Why isn't something else? Why was something once seen as literal and now suddenly it's an allegory? Why would God even bother putting allegories in the Bible in the first place, and how does God feel about people who interpret those allegories differently? Of course you don't have answers to that. Honestly, how could you? There aren't any real answers to give because the Bible is just a deeply contradictory fairy tale, not proof that God exists. If anything, the proof is that God doesn't exist—at least not in any logically consistent way. So we're back to the original point: why do atheists care about God's judgment? It’s because you guys just refuse to look at the evidence before ignoring it. You skip the hard questions, pretend they don't exist, and then—suddenly—the stuff you can't escape from (the stuff actually written in the Bible) magically becomes an allegory. And when that doesn't work out, you hide behind this esoteric concept of "common sense" that doesn't even exist.

Look, let me show you how common sense actually works. Suppose you and I are living in a cabin in the woods, and at 2 AM, someone starts pounding on our door. Based on the sound, it sounds like an axe hitting wood. Is it common sense to let them into the house, or should we keep the door locked?

Amy Bennett said:Maybe the core truth that this allegory is trying to communicate for your salvation is actually more important than listing off dry, technical facts. There's really no point in just going in circles here. I've already explained that people in the Bible didn't just see everything as an allegory simply because science contradicted it. I honestly don't get why we keep recycling this—it feels like we're just repeating the same argument over and over regardless of what I'm saying. It's just not getting us anywhere.

Nah, because allegory is way more open to interpretation than just plain old facts. Getting an allegory right takes a certain level of intellect and life experience—if you don't have that, you can totally misread things and—boom—there you go, straight to hell. And what happens when you finally show up at Saint Peter's gate and say, "Oops, my bad, I totally misinterpreted the 'thou shalt not kill' part, so I ended up slaughtering 7 million French infants," and you think that's gonna count as a valid excuse to get into heaven?

Amy Bennett said:It’s pretty simple—when you read the text, just like you would any other book besides the Bible, you don't run into these kinds of problems.

Look, if I'm reading a fairy tale, fine, I get it—it's an allegory for something. But if I'm reading instructions on how to avoid ending up in hell, nothing should be an allegory unless it explicitly says so. Believers who claim parts of the Bible are allegories aren't doing it because God told them it was an allegory. They're doing it because real life and science contradict the Bible in a billion different ways, so to make reality and the Bible play nice together, they just label things that clearly aren't true as "allegory." Anyway, you didn't answer a single one of my questions, so here they are again:

Why would God ever tell the world through His followers that He made Earth in 7 days if He didn't? Why say people were living 700-800 years ago if they weren't? Why say a burning bush can talk if it can't? Why say Moses parted the sea if he didn't? Why say Earth is at the center of the universe if it isn't?

Why wouldn't the Bible just say Earth isn't the center of the universe, or that it actually took billions of years to form? Would God be any less God if He had taken billions of years to create it?

Amy Bennett said:I can—I was an atheist for most of my life. But honestly, it isn't simpler or more beautiful. There’s just no sense to it, and it actually feels completely at odds with how we experience ourselves and the world we live in.

You didn't comment on the post I was actually referring to.
The question was: if God wants people to know Him and respect Him, why doesn't He just prove Himself to everyone individually? Why would He expect people in the 21st century to rely on inconsistent, unreliable, and primitive records from centuries ago that have been edited countless times by who-knows-who? If He is all-powerful, it wouldn't cost Him anything to prove His existence. Is the point that we should respect God and be "good" (because, let's be real, everyone would listen if He made His presence unambiguous and clearly dictated the rules 🤷) or is it that He's testing our naivety—or should I say, our stupidity?

How could He have expected any different from people before the 21st century? Are we somehow special, requiring something extra to convince us, as if we possess something they didn't?

And I don't buy the idea that everyone would fall in line if He just showed up. The entire Bible actually tells stories to the contrary. It feels a little silly to look at these things totally out of context, and then make these claims in the same conversation where we mention the Fall—which happened precisely because people ignored what God told them. On the other hand, I'm not even sure what would satisfy many people's need for proof of God's existence. I mean, even if all the stars in the sky rearranged themselves tomorrow to spell out "I am the Lord your God...", the question is how many atheists would actually be convinced. Some might, sure, but let's not kid ourselves—there's a whole drawer full of "secular explanations" for a phenomenon like that, ranging from mass hallucinations or some magician's trick to aliens messing with us, plus the whole spectrum of other possibilities. Also, it isn't clear that God "wants" rules to be followed blindly; if He did, He wouldn't have created us with free will (regardless of whether you personally believe in free will, I'm speaking within the context of the Christian narrative). The point is about living a moral life because it *is* a moral life, not just because some rules dictate it. It's about a genuine desire to return to God and align one's life with Him. Maybe those who truly seek find exactly what they are looking for. Perhaps God is always there, but we've closed ourselves off. Maybe we don't see Him because we've become too alienated, even from ourselves. The problem with the atheistic approach is that it searches for God with a magnifying glass, looking for spectacular material evidence. If you're going to look for God, the only "laboratory" that works is the one inside your own mind.
Quote:>

Yeah, and what about Arabs and Asians? Does their Islam, Shintoism, or whatever else they follow hold the same weight as Christianity—or are they destined for hell because that "almighty" God somehow missed the memo about how many billions of people have multiplied on this side of the globe? Maybe He just overlooked them.

I don't think everyone is just headed for hell. I think we really need to unpack what "believing" actually means here. Does someone who is Roman Catholic only on paper believe any more than someone who truly lives and practices Islam? Does a person truly believe if their faith is reduced to nothing more than a verbal profession? Does a person feel genuine remorse when they say they repent, or is it just a hollow word? Or is true repentance something much deeper and different? There’s no denying that massive religious traditions exist worldwide—and I’m certainly not going to tell you they are all identical—but I do believe these traditions generally point in a similar direction. This brings to mind a quote that has always resonated with me:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

It isn't hard to imagine that several different paths might lead to the summit of that mountain.

wiredfalcon2 says:
This is exactly my point—you believers take what science has proven to be baseless nonsense and turn it into an allegorical story just so you can say, "Oh, nobody actually believes that literally." Five hundred years ago, you would have been burned at the stake for suggesting the Earth wasn't made in seven days, and no one would be spinning tales about it being an "allegorical version." If God wrote the Bible through His followers—which is what faith tells us—then either everything in it is literal truth, or God doesn't exist. You can't just pick and choose which parts are allegory and which aren't based on whatever suits the current generation of believers. Why would God ever tell the world He created the Earth in seven days if He didn't? Why say people lived 700–800 years ago if they didn't? Why say a burning bush can speak if it can't? Why say Moses parted the sea if he didn't? Why say the Earth is the center of the universe if it isn't? Etc., etc...

See, that's the kind of "pure logic" you guys refuse to accept. And since you won't engage with it, we end up having these discussions centered on value judgments just to try and bring you closer to understanding the depth of your own misconception.

Who says an allegory isn't truthful? If I recall correctly, I even mentioned that calling something an allegory doesn't make it untrue. And how do you distinguish between allegory and literalism? Well, you read the text with understanding. I don't see people struggling this much to differentiate between literal and allegorical elements in almost any other type of literature. As for the idea that it’s "all or nothing"—either everything is literal truth or God doesn't exist—that’s hardly worth debating. Even if the entire Bible were just something humans dreamt up, that wouldn't mean God doesn't exist. I've said this before, and I honestly don't get why it keeps coming up. Finally, addressing the core of your argument: it simply isn't true that people only started calling these things "allegory" after science "discovered" the reality of things. People have debated these concepts forever. Regarding the seven-day creation specifically, a quick Google search or checking the first result on Wikipedia would show you that->https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allego...ons_of_Genesis

The opening chapter of Genesis tells a Story of God's creation of The Universe and humankind as being accomplished over The course of six successive Days. Some Christian and Jewish schools of thought ( such as Christian Fundamentalism) interpret these passages quite literally—basically believing each "day" lasted a full 24 hours. Others (like Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestant denominations) tend to view the narrative more allegorically—arguing that the core purpose is to explore the bond between humanity, the creation, and the Creator, rather than providing a literal historical timeline. To them, those six days might just represent vast stretches of time.

Genesis 2 Records a second account of creation. By chapter 3, we meet a talking serpent, which Christians understand to be Satan in disguise. It’s interesting to note that this kind of symbolism is embraced even by Christians Who believe The Story as a whole is based on an actual historical event . [ citation needed ] Many Christians in Ancient Times regarded the early chapters of Genesis to be true as both history and allegory.[1]

Other Jews and Christians have Long considered The creation account of Genesis as an allegory even prior to The development of modern science and The scientific account based on The scientific Method. For instance, we could look at two notable examples ara Christian theologian Augustin of Hippo Who in The 4 th century argued—for purely theological reasons—that God actually brought the entire universe into existence all at once, rather than following the literal six-day sequence;[2] or even the 1st-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who suggested it would be a mistake to pin creation down to six days or any specific timeframe at all.[3]

Of course, this brings up some deeper questions about what an allegory actually is—questions that, honestly, I think both of us struggle with. You seem to feel that calling something an allegory makes it a fiction, whereas I’ve always felt that allegory and truth don't have to be at odds. There are also questions regarding history itself; personally, I believe these narratives shape our very history, but I don't necessarily mean the world was built in seven literal 24-hour days. It’s more about how these stories use symbolism to capture the essence of what actually took place.

So why aren't the parts you think *aren't* allegories also just metaphors? If we're just gonna cherry-pick how we interpret the Bible whenever it suits us, then fine, my interpretation of the whole thing—Old Testament, New Testament, whatever—is that it’s actually just a manual for a toaster. Yeah, there. That’s my take. The Ten Commandments? Just an allegory for how to operate an Iskra toaster, specifically the ZX 277. model. Following your logic, you can't prove me wrong. You can't prove the Bible isn't just a glorified instruction booklet for kitchen appliances.

Amy Bennett said:Of course I do. Primarily, I have an intuition telling me that God exists, I have my own personal experiences, and—of course—I have the arguments that various theologians and philosophers have used throughout history.

Huh? So God is good simply because God is God? That's some top-tier argumentation right there.

Yes. God is Good.

I'm still waiting for you to explain the logic behind that. If human intuition just means attributing things we don't understand to a higher power, then sure, I agree with you there.

Human intuition suggests a higher power exists regardless of whether people can actually explain or comprehend it. On the other hand, the logic is straightforward: God is the transcendent source and the foundation of everything else that exists; without Him, nothing else could even be.

Maybe some people aren't at that level, while others definitely are. First, you complain that we lack any arguments, and then you back it up with a heavy dose of nebulous ideas that you can't even defend.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. It should be obvious that people here don't believe God created the world in seven literal human days. These are allegorical accounts—which doesn't mean they aren't true—that use symbolism and similar devices to give people insight into the essence of things.

Well, in the beginning, there was no evil. Evil entered the world through the Fall. You could think of it as the world being knocked off its axis. The goal now is for the world to return to God—it's the process that humanity and the world have to go through. That's how the whole cosmic story begins, and it ends with Judgment Day and the restoration, where the world finally returns to harmony.

Maybe you could also comment on this post?

Well, I'm just commenting on that specific post—if I've got the right one.

That’s exactly my point. You believers take something science has already debunked as total nonsense and just rebrand it as an "allegory" so you can claim "nobody actually believes that." Give me a break. Five hundred years ago, they would've burned you at the stake just for suggesting the Earth wasn't made in seven days, and nobody would've been sitting around talking about how it was all just a symbolic version. Look, if faith tells us that God wrote the Bible through his followers, then it's all or nothing. Either it's all truth, or God isn't real. You can't just pick and choose which parts are literal and which parts are "allegory" depending on whatever way suits the current generation of believers. Why would God bother telling the world He made the Earth in seven days if He didn't? Why say humans lived 700 or 800 years ago if they didn't? Why say a burning bush could talk if it couldn't? Why say Moses parted the sea if he didn't? Why say the Earth is the center of the universe if it isn't? Yeah, etcetera, etcetera...

See, that's the logic "per se," but you guys won't touch it. And since you refuse to deal with it, we end up stuck talking about "values" and "perspectives" just to try and bring you down to the level of your own delusion.

Once they realize they can't actually prove God doesn't exist, the strategy shifts. They start painting God as some kind of monster just to try and convince believers that their whole faith is total bullshit. If you people would just admit there's zero logic behind it and accept that God isn't real, we wouldn't have to waste our time arguing over whether your deity is evil or not.

Look, if you believers were actually capable of having a conversation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the "evil God" angle;

- God made the Earth in seven days.
- Nope, and we’ve got the data to prove it.
- Can I see the evidence?
- Yeah, here it is.
- Okay, fine, you're right. The Earth is billions of years old and everything in the Bible is nonsense. You win, God isn't real, my bad.

Larry Walker24 said:Did Judith or some death metal song help anyone actually grasp reality? 🤦🤦

What does media literacy have to do with reading a book?

Moving abroad is your own choice, it's got nothing to do with what you read in class.

bug, analyzing what you read is what helps you wrap your head around reality by building the habit of critical and analytical thinking regarding any given text, not just one specific book, like I already said. Your cognitive ability is clearly so limited that you missed the point: people who vote for the Republican Party in the Midwest (which basically gutted the region) and then cry about having no jobs before fleeing to Ireland lack the basic logic to connect "Republican Party = ruin," much like how you're rambling here about moving abroad being unrelated to reading. 🤣

Your cognitive ability regarding what you read is zero, which is pretty obvious from your line of work. But hey, don't bother reading anything; reading is clearly for idiots.

Honestly, I’m losing it over Larry Walker24 claiming his required reading didn't do squat for him during his biotech degree. Like, what a complete waste of tuition. If you can't see that literature isn't about passing a lab exam—it's about actually understanding how the hell the world works—then you're beyond help. It's the same nonsense you hear from parents whining that books are useless, while their little golden children can't even articulate *why* they think something sucks. These kids have zero media literacy; they can't critically analyze anything thrown at them, let alone grasp basic cause and effect. They end up voting for the Republican Party blindly, then pack their bags for Ireland because everything in this country is a total mess, etc., etc. But sure, let's pretend that learning how to think critically about a text is some totally useless skill that has nothing to do with navigating life. Apparently, being able to process information is just dead weight in the real world.

Justin James10 said:I mean, where does Bulgaria even fit into that? One good round of neoliberal reforms and suddenly they're catching up to us in no time. 🕺

But hey, we can always keep telling ourselves that life here is just better and that our highways are superior, right? 🕺

Just start a business then. Go boost the GDP.

restlesssurfer97 said:Maybe this would be right up ruggedjackal46's alley

Great job with these articles. Repecki just recaps three measly stats and completely dodges the actual question from the piece, "How did they pull it off?" Just another day in journalism, I guess.

Justin James10 said:Well, there’s no substitute for barroom philosophy, is there? 🙏

He’d probably just swap the wine for whiskey anyway. ☕

The big shipyards were basically "privatized" just to satisfy some bureaucratic red tape from overseas regulators, nothing more than a way to keep the higher-ups happy. In reality, they’re still living off government guarantees. If you look at the situation in places like Savannah or Mobile, things are supposedly heading toward privatization, though the leadership there keeps whining about state subsidies and cutting deals behind closed doors—I know plenty of engineers who work for them, including some former colleagues of mine. As for the major yards out East, those are first-class scams. It’s like one yard swallowed another and then claimed it was a private takeover. Who actually owns these companies? The whole thing is incredibly murky. It looks like most of the ownership sits with certain players who used shell companies to siphon off the very funds the government was pumping in, using that cash to buy up the majority stake. At the end of the day, they’re all just living off the taxpayers. That is how you handle shipyard privatization the American way.

So what, we gotta sit around waiting for aliens to drop in and run a legit privatization process for us?

restlesssurfer97 said:Give me an actual example here, like what specifically are you talking about regarding those countries we’re all trying to emulate—you know, the ones where economic freedom is way higher than what we deal with here in the States?

Honestly, thank God our government stepped in and seized control of Giant Food Corp.

I didn't quite catch that. What are you getting at? Which example? Of what?

restlesssurfer97 said:Give me an actual example here, like what specifically are you talking about regarding those countries we’re all trying to emulate—you know, the ones where economic freedom is way higher than what we deal with here in the States?

Honestly, thank God our government stepped in and seized control of Giant Food Corp.

Look at what happened with companies like ExxonMobil—it wasn't some freak accident where the government just decided to rot from the inside out. A private corporation walked in and bought them off. Plain and simple. You read these threads and you’d think everyone believes private owners are some kind of saints who couldn't dream of a bribe, but that's just naive. When you have weak institutions like we do here in the States, a massive corporation can bend the system to its will without breaking a sweat. And this grand plan of yours? This idea that more and more privatization is going to somehow "strengthen" the nation? It's a joke. All it does is leave the door wide open for these guys to corrupt the state even faster down the road.

Justin James10 said:To be more precise, we should call it a "minimalist" state. After all, legal certainty is one of the absolute pillars of capitalism, isn't it? And that level of stability requires an efficient government—if not a strong one, at least!

Look, an efficient legal system is the backbone of any society that actually works, whether you’re running a hardcore capitalist machine like the US or something a bit more moderate. But honestly? Let's stop beating around the bush and focus on one specific word: precision.

It’s an interesting point. Especially when you use a specific term like "shipyards," even though some of them have already been privatized—something I’m pretty sure you and restlesssurfer97 both knew. When you guys were typing out "shipyards," you weren't just regurgitating memorized talking points like someone who doesn't have a clue how this industry works. You actually know the ownership structures behind these American shipyards. Right?

Look, if you’re gonna sit there acting like an absolute expert on shipyard ownership structures without actually knowing how they work, you just look like a total moron. It’s honestly embarrassing—like someone who thinks they understand the entire economy just by scrolling through some random influencer's Facebook feed.

Justin James10 said:I’m not necessarily calling for a massive, overreaching government; I just believe it should focus on its actual purpose rather than trying to run a fertilizer plant.

Alright, fine. But how exactly do you think a weak government is supposed to take down some billionaire who’s basically doing whatever the hell he wants?

restlesssurfer97 said:See, man, nobody can really argue with what you wrote here, but at the same time, it doesn't do much good because you're talking about theories. They might be 100% correct, but they don't actually offer a roadmap for solutions.
The reality is that the most advanced societies are usually the ones with the most economic freedom. Why bring up water filtration, but stay silent on things like shipyards or the interstate highway system?

So, tell me, how exactly would you handle the mess with the petrochemical plants, the shipyards, or the highways?

Look, there’s no one-size-fits-all fix for these problematic companies. Every single one needs a different play. Honestly, there are plenty of outfits where it makes zero sense for the government to hold any stake at all. Even this current administration—and the last one, for that matter—basically admitted that. In cases where the government's slice is under 20%, they're practically begging to just hand the shares over to someone else. Take pro sports, since we're already looking at the paperwork. You see stuff like that when a local municipality swaps out a tiny 9% stake in a team like the Miami Heat with some private investment group. It's all just numbers on a page.

Look, I’ve never messed with companies like ExxonMobil. Honestly, I don't give a damn about how much product the country actually needs from them, what the government’s stake looks like, or whatever their investment cycle is doing. None of that matters to me. If I started lecturing about the petrochemical industry right now, I’d just be spouting total nonsense and running my mouth like Justin James10, who clearly doesn't have the slightest clue what actual scientific research even looks like.

Look, regarding the Interstate Highway System—privatizing that would be an absolute train wreck. We’ve already seen how that plays out with certain private sectors in the States. Nobody is going to touch the highways unless the government guarantees them a specific revenue stream. And that’s the trap right there: if traffic dips below that threshold, taxpayers end up footing the bill for some private corporation's bottom line. It's a joke. The move here? You gotta restructure the debt if you can, and then just pay it off. Period. Once that weight is off our shoulders—and honestly, we should be clear of it in a few years—the highway system becomes a profitable entity, which it basically is already (if you don't count the massive interest payments on construction). After that, you just focus on making the whole thing more efficient. Stickers, transponders, vignettes, whatever works. I have no clue what kind of tech or apps will even exist in ten years, but the payment system needs to be seamless, fast, and secure. These roads were built to last fifty years or more, not five. You don't build infrastructure like this just to let it go bust the second things get bumpy.

Look, when it comes to these shipyards, everyone’s playing a completely different game. You can't lump them all together. For starters, the major players like the ones in Mobile or San Diego have already been privatized—think big names like General Dynamics or Huntington Ingalls. I'm assuming you're aware that the government isn't sitting on the majority stake there anymore. Honestly, if you actually understood how the ownership structures work for the rest of the industry, you wouldn't be grouping them all under one umbrella. Suggesting we need to "re-privatize" yards that are already private? That’s just a massive, epic failure to grasp what's actually happening on the ground. Just a bunch of empty buzzwords being thrown around. ☕ Look, regarding that shipyard situation... honestly, they just need to privatize the whole thing with a solid strategic partner. It’s long overdue. I mean, GE is already floating around as a potential buyer, so why wait? Just get it done.

Justin James10 said:How is the government responsible when the legal system fails to function? It isn't, obviously! After all, the government's job should be providing legal certainty, not just focusing on manufacturing fake fertilizer or instant soup packets, right? 👍

So, what you’re saying is you need a massive federal government stepping in to fix all this? 🙂

restlesssurfer97 said:How exactly would you fix any of that?

And honestly, what does the existence of shitty bosses in the private sector even have to do with the topic we're talking about?

Look, if privatization is your magic bullet—and let's be real, it is—then the fact that private owners are full of absolute garbage means your big "fix-it" idea is dead on arrival. That’s the whole point here.

restlesssurfer97 said:Let me lay it out simply for you again, you basically have Option A and Option B.

Option A is a proven, absolute fast track to disaster.

Option B—even though it’s been shown to work in plenty of developed nations—doesn't come with a 100% guarantee of being better, let's put it that way, since I can't sit here and mathematically prove to you that Option B results in progress, even though I’m totally convinced it does and it works in most major democracies.

But you keep picking Option A. And honestly, that’s exactly why we’re stuck in this rut, where we all know things are broken, but nobody is actually ready to change, nobody wants to deal with the shifts, and nobody wants to push through the reforms. So we just stay here and rot.

I assume it’s obvious to you by now that in any functioning society, the government actually carries some weight.

Justin James10 said:Vekjo, I already gave you my take on how a functional rule of law actually works! 😉

You’re completely ignoring the marketing play with Opara. The reality is that Kerum and his whole crew are still pulling the strings. Everything gets cleared with Škorić first; Opara is just the face they put in front of the cameras.

And don't even get me started on the state-owned companies, Vekjo... seriously, all of them. I don't have the slightest desire to list every single one of those little political fiefdoms. Pick whichever one you want. Just to give you an example—look at Kraft Heinz. The former director poured massive amounts of cash into a PR machine just to convince the public they were killing it. In reality? Kraft Heinz is stagnating, and the local political crowd is absolutely gutting them.

Seems like there's no winning this argument, so I'll catch you when Oprah's term is finally up.

Justin James10 said:I lived there for six years, keeping close ties with family and friends, so I’m constantly visiting San Francisco. I know firsthand that whole lineup of "controversial" entrepreneurs and politicians from the area. 😉

I just pointed to one specific example for your research, but honestly, they are everywhere and things are looking pretty grim. 😉

To highlight the biggest issue: take any state-owned corporation at random—they are essentially shells. Dow Chemical is probably the most glaring example. You'll hear the director openly admit that they exist solely to serve themselves. 😉

Look, you don't actually live in Miami like I do. I still hang out with opposition politicians who can't stand the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, plus my job and interests basically revolve around studying politics—specifically local stuff. What I can tell you, without any spin, is that everyone tied to Opar because they work in his council or public offices, and used to be connected to Baldasar—who was a worse mayor—and Kerum, is supposedly worlds apart from him.

Justin James10 said:I lived there for six years, keeping close ties with family and friends, so I’m constantly visiting San Francisco. I know firsthand that whole lineup of "controversial" entrepreneurs and politicians from the area. 😉

I just pointed to one specific example for your research, but honestly, they are everywhere and things are looking pretty grim. 😉

To highlight the biggest issue: take any state-owned corporation at random—they are essentially shells. Dow Chemical is probably the most glaring example. You'll hear the director openly admit that they exist solely to serve themselves. 😉

What list of research? Name them. You can't just make categorical claims without proof; that's just talking nonsense, not an argument. For all I know, I have enough research to prove you're a total bear instead of a human being.

Justin James10 said:I lived there for six years, keeping close ties with family and friends, so I’m constantly visiting San Francisco. I know firsthand that whole lineup of "controversial" entrepreneurs and politicians from the area. 😉

I just pointed to one specific example for your research, but honestly, they are everywhere and things are looking pretty grim. 😉

To highlight the biggest issue: take any state-owned corporation at random—they are essentially shells. Dow Chemical is probably the most glaring example. You'll hear the director openly admit that they exist solely to serve themselves. 😉

So, you don't even know a single other state-owned company besides ExxonMobil and Caltrans, since you can't name ten off the top of your head.🤣

Unaccountable questions:

Alright, let's see Justin James10 explain how the government is to blame for these scenarios:

- You get hired at a company where the boss says you'll have a 3-month probation, then a one-year contract if you perform well—but after 3 months, he praises you, then just gives you another 3-month extension instead of what was agreed upon?
- You do the work as a subcontractor, but it becomes impossible to actually get paid?
- Your boss won't let you take your vacation when you want to, even though you're legally entitled to it?
- Your boss doesn't pay you the salary you agreed on?
- A private entrepreneur you bought supplies from for your business delivers products that are lower quality than what was promised during the deal?

Justin James10 said:Your marketing pitch just fell flat. It’s quite literally the same group of people running the show, but oh, suddenly Opara is such a saint! 🙏

What has he actually changed? He did some minor cosmetic touch-ups over in Žnjan, and that’s about it. Though, let's be honest, Žnjan is still an outlier for the city.

If someone less abrasive than Bandić took over tomorrow, everyone would be singing his praises, wouldn't they? It wouldn't matter at all if the exact same crowd continued to run everything behind the scenes.

Wait, do you even live in San Francisco?

Besides, you’ve still got plenty of questions left to answer.

Justin James10 said:Honestly, those VEKO companies are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I call them fictitious because their entire existence serves one purpose: creating cushy jobs for cronies and funneling money into shady offshore accounts. Isn't it obvious what they're actually doing?

Look, sorry, but Dow Chemical actually does what they say on their tax forms, and so does the Department of Transportation. They aren't just there to funnel cash into shadow accounts. You kept claiming you had a million examples like this, yet you keep circling back to the same three stories. Where are the other hundred thousand companies you're talking about?

Justin James10 said:Trying to fix a tiny water filter when you’re dealing with a massive, bottomless money pit like Dow Chemical is just a losing game.

I find it absolutely fascinating how most people are fully aware of how broken things are and complain about it constantly, yet they never actually see the system itself as the culprit. Any real attempt to overhaul the structure just triggers this immediate whining about "neoliberal capitalism." In the end, everyone seems perfectly content with the status quo, and the whole conversation just dissolves into ridiculous grumbling. Everyone wants to pin everything on corrupt politicians—as if finding a few sturdy aliens to take over would suddenly make everything perfect! But it won't work that way, will it? The real engine behind the corruption and chronic inefficiency is the system itself, not just some individual actors. Even if the exhausted public finally manages to kick out someone like Milomir Bandić (if that day ever actually comes), someone just like him will step right into the void. They might have a slightly different management style, but at the end of the day, the machinery remains exactly the same.

The difference between how Baldasar ran San Francisco versus how Opara does it? It’s night and day. Seriously. You're just talking nonsense again.

brightpilot6 said:Yes, trust. That’s really the crux of it. Social capital in America has been systematically eroded for our generation, and I fear the next one—and the one after that—won't even realize something like this ever existed. You can see the decay everywhere, from voter apathy at the polls to the way we conduct our day-to-day business interactions.

The dismantling of the concept of community in favor of forced individualism is also a fascinating phenomenon, regardless of the reality we live in. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to call it an agenda.

Exactly. Trust is basically non-existent right now, and honestly, can you even blame anyone? It’s not just the government, either—even in private sectors that have absolutely nothing to do with federal overreach, people are looking over their shoulders. Everything feels shaky. Anyway, I'll let Justin James10 explain how the government is supposedly to blame for these specific cases:

So you land this job, right? Boss tells you straight up: three months on probation, then a one-year contract if you don't screw everything up. Standard stuff. You grind for three months, kill it, boss gives you all kinds of praise, feels like you're winning... and then they hit you with another three-month extension instead of the year-long deal you actually signed up for. Just keeps moving the goalposts. Total joke.
So you pull off the job as a subcontractor and then... nothing. Just total radio silence when it comes to getting paid. It’s a joke. You do the work, you deliver, and suddenly everyone’s acting like they don't know who you are. Honestly, it feels impossible sometimes. You're left holding the bag while they just sit on your money. Total scam.
So, your boss is being a total pain and blocking your vacation even though you’re technically within your rights under labor laws? Honestly, what a joke. You know the rules, you've earned the time off, but they just sit there playing gatekeeper like it's their job to ruin your life. It’s such a classic power trip. If you actually follow the handbook, you should be able to walk out that door and head to the beach, regardless of how much they whine about "coverage" or whatever excuse they're throwing at you this week. Don't let them steamroll you.
So, boss isn't actually cutting you the check he promised? Classic. Just typical corporate nonsense. Honestly, I’ve seen this movie before and it never ends well. You think you're part of the team until the money talks, and then suddenly everyone's "reviewing the budget" or whatever bullshit excuse they're throwing at you today. It's a joke. Total scam.
So, you bought some gear from a small business owner for your company, right? Everything seemed fine during the pitch—they were talking a big game, promising the moon. But then the stuff actually arrives at your office, and it’s total junk. It’s nowhere near what they promised when you were signing the contract. What do you even do with that?

blah, blah, blah... same old story.

Justin James10 said:Vekjo, you could look at things like the World Giving Index or similar studies 😉

As for those "phantom" corporations... just look at companies like US Steel or even some of our struggling local manufacturing plants. These outfits are chronically unsuccessful; honestly, nobody even bothers pretending they can turn a profit anymore. It’s become the standard operating procedure to run at a loss while expecting the government to bail them out. At this point, the sole purpose of these ghost companies is simply to maintain the status quo.

Then there's the second category: the railroads, the interstate highway systems, and so on. These are also chronically failing enterprises where the only real objective is to provide cushy jobs for political appointees.

The World Giving Index isn't some deep scientific study, it's just statistics—basically, they call or talk to about 1,000 people a year in a specific country and hit them with these three questions:
Which of the following three charitable acts they had undertaken in the past month:

-helped a stranger, or someone they didn’t know who needed help?
-donated money to a charity?
-volunteered your time to an organisation?

Then you get the results. This point you're trying to make, which the World Giving Index doesn't even support, is that in countries with strong social safety nets, people donate less. That's just nonsense, both according to the actual giving index results (just look at Scandinavia or Canada... they're at the top) and the fact that the survey never even asks "would you donate less if social services were better?". Plus, there are like seven other things that drive charity motivation—how efficient the recipient is (if a country has an organization that actually gets stuff done, people give more), tax breaks for donations, whatever. Also, volunteering is part of the social culture and vibe, and honestly, where there's a strong social net—lots of public projects needing hands—people tend to volunteer more. Besides, Americans always step up whenever they need to donate for a sick kid or something else (remember how everyone was helping out during those big floods?), which totally flies in the face of your theory.

Justin James10 said:Vekjo, you could look at things like the World Giving Index or similar studies 😉

As for those "phantom" corporations... just look at companies like US Steel or even some of our struggling local manufacturing plants. These outfits are chronically unsuccessful; honestly, nobody even bothers pretending they can turn a profit anymore. It’s become the standard operating procedure to run at a loss while expecting the government to bail them out. At this point, the sole purpose of these ghost companies is simply to maintain the status quo.

Then there's the second category: the railroads, the interstate highway systems, and so on. These are also chronically failing enterprises where the only real objective is to provide cushy jobs for political appointees.

Do you even know what the word "fictitious" means? I doubt it. A company that actually does what it's registered to do isn't fictitious. If you and I started a company claiming we make toilet paper, but we didn't actually make any and just used the business to get a residency permit in a certain area, then yeah, that would be a "fictitious company."