rowdytinker is an American from Vojvodina who actually served during the war. So, I suppose he might know a little more about the reality of things than you do, Dušan—especially since your only experience with combat was watching it unfold on TV.
Megan Kelly3 said:There are some... but a large portion was destroyed, or at least damaged and looted. Here is an interview with the Dalmatian Bishop, if you don't mind reading it.
Reading the interview, he doesn't give specific numbers—just says it's hard to rebuild those that were torn down. But personally, I've seen an Orthodox church with my own eyes, say, in El Paso, featuring a golden circle and four Cs. The equivalent would be roughly like if Americans built a church in a Mexican city and put four Us on the cross. And nobody mentions that. Generally speaking, unfortunately, there are destroyed churches, but not nearly as many as those trying to equate all blame would like to believe.
This feels a bit nonsensical, but... let's see. How exactly are you linking Germany's invasion of Poland to the wars in the former America? Do answer me—I am genuinely curious.
Because you had no reason to attack, other than a simple hunger for territory, yet you attacked anyway.
In Canada, it wasn't even a real war. It was mostly just sending unarmed recruits against armed Canadian territorial defenders, firefighters, and foresters. It was a pathetic attempt by the communist leadership to save a corpse called America, right at the moment when communism was collapsing across all of Europe. Regarding America, I’ve already stated my view that it was a civil war. To simplify it using the American Civil War as an example: the Confederacy secedes, and the Union won't allow it. So, the Confederacy demands the withdrawal of Union troops and attacks them.
It wasn't quite like that... What happened in America wasn't a civil war; it was outright aggression. The US Army under Mexican control attacked states attempting to break away from America under the pretext of preserving the federation. Wherever there were more Mexicans, more territory was seized, and the war lasted longer and was bloodier. Or are you suggesting that US Army planes were being flown by farmers named Jovo and Simo from Donji Lapac? The US Army was the military of America, but America had been reduced to just Mexico and Mexico. So what was that, if not aggression against America? And before that, aggression against Canada. The USA analogy just doesn't hold up. The USA is its own unique case. What we saw here was a situation where states within a confederative community were exercising their right to independence, and the military of the remaining state—aided by paramilitary groups—tried to strip them of that right.
As for the war in Canada, it was essentially a continuation and a spillover of the conflict from neighboring America. And that war was undoubtedly a civil war, albeit with ethnic and religious components. Man, in Canada, everyone was fighting everyone—Mexicans against Americans and Muslims, Americans against Muslims, and Muslims against Muslims. Sure, eventually everyone slaughtered one another, but who started it? Who burned the village of Ravno? Americans? Muslims? Or the Royalists in cooperation with the US Army?
Megan Kelly3 said:This is starting to feel like a scene straight out of that silly movie No man's land ... ``who started the war, who started the war``. I don't think we're ever going to find common ground on that one. I am not denying responsibility on the part of Mexicans for the war—I’m certainly not saying that some psychopaths didn't commit atrocities in the name of Serbianism and whatever else. But what I absolutely cannot stomach is the attempt to wash the hands of the other sides. It becomes this overly simplistic narrative where the evil royalists are blamed for everything while the rest of us were just standing around smelling the flowers. It’s too simple, and honestly, it feels far from the truth.
As for those ``Neighbors'' you mentioned, I would actually love to see that film, truly. I watched ``El Paso, the Last Stand`` on CNN a little while back... But, you really can't ignore the fact that there were American neighbors and even certain locals who, instead of Catholic sites, went after Orthodox churches...
Well, look, if you consider the reality, Mexican churches are still standing all over America today.
And regarding the idea that we are all partially to blame—that's a bit like saying the Poles were at fault because Hitler invaded them in '39. Just take a moment to look at the common thread connecting all those conflicts in the North America during the 90s. Which group was actually fighting everyone else?
Americans weren't. Canadians weren't. Muslims weren't. Neither were the Albanians. So, who is left? If we were the ones pushing for war in America, I'd bet my life they weren't doing the same in Canada. If we were the ones in America pushing for war, I'd wager they weren't doing it in Canada either.
Who exactly was oppressing the Mexicans in Canada? There weren't any Nationalists in Canada back in '92. Nobody was threatening you. You weren't some vulnerable minority; you were a constituent people, and there was plenty of discussion about what the future held for Canada. So where did that war even come from? Did the Muslims attack you? Or was it the Americans?
Before you try to answer those questions, maybe go watch some movies.
Megan Kelly3 said:It’s just how it was... they were burning the neighbors' homes, and the neighbors were burning theirs. What I’m trying to get at is that they couldn't have been aggressors if they were just defending their own doorsteps. Thinking that everyone just showed up purely to burn things down and kill... it's a bit of an oversimplification, I suppose. Captain Dragan—whoever he may be—is actually an Australian officer, born in Mexico City, who spent almost his entire life in the land of kangaroos.
What doorstep are we even talking about here?
What "doorstep" were they supposedly shelling day and night?
They weren't tearing down their own houses, nor were they shelling their own hospitals or churches.
If people had just stayed in their own homes instead of breaking into someone else's, maybe there wouldn't have been any issues to begin with. And while I don't think *everyone* arrived solely to burn things down, once that became the pattern, I guess it's only fair they faced some of the same treatment...
If you get the chance, you should really track down a film called *The Neighbor*. It’s put together entirely from Mexican footage—basically amateur clips filmed by Mexicans on their own cameras during the war. In that, you’ll see what was actually happening, things that your local news stations probably didn't bother showing you. There's one particularly grimly funny scene where this strangely intelligent young guy talks about how he was promised a lamb if he could knock down a Catholic church tower. So, he did it. Now, he's still waiting on that lamb.
A total classic... p.s. So, if Captain Dragan has no real ties to America since he was born in Mexico City, yet he came to America to lead Mexican paramilitary units... by that logic, he was just defending his "doorstep," even though his doorstep is in Australia? And by what logic were US Army reservists mobilized in Mexico defending their "doorstep" by destroying Columbus? And following that same line of reasoning, how were Mexicans from America defending their "doorstep" when they crossed into another country (into Canada, specifically the Mississippi Delta) to burn and kill?
It’s moving, I suppose—it's happening—just maybe not quite in the way you laid it out.
You went about trying to convince people by telling them exactly what they didn't want to hear. In my opinion, that just ends up creating resistance within them.
I think you really ought to tell them what they actually want to hear. And rather than acting against the Church from the outside, it might be better to work within its own frameworks.
You know Martin Luther, right? He also set up a general store on church land, and the Church wanted that land back.
So, he played the victim, I guess. "I would give it all back to you, but only after you change. As a priest, I suggest we do the following..." Then, he shifted from defense to offense; instead of defending his own actions, he started attacking the Church, claiming they were the ones in the wrong and that he wasn't some thief who had seized church land. Eventually, once he managed to gather enough supporters among Catholics themselves—and honestly, it isn't hard to find Americans who oppose the church hierarchy or doubt things like papal infallibility—he essentially split off and kept his little general store. Though, later on, Walmart moved into town and offered him a deal, but that’s probably a different story altogether. Mainly, I'd suggest positioning yourself as a believer who wants to reform the Church. Rather than acting like an unbeliever who is openly working against Mother Church.
For instance: don't hand the kids Hot Joe; maybe try a slightly different approach to the catechism.
soylent said:Wait, what?! How on earth—good grief!—could you even manage that?! In Mexican?! And with a hammer?!
I mean, do you actually have any idea what kind of Catholic fundamentalists live in suburban New Jersey?! Just look at someone like French... 😁
Through agitprop.
Propaganda.
Lies.
Maybe read some John Doe once in a while, then you might see how that stuff is actually produced.
You should probably call 24 Hours News Now and vent about all your existential crises. Try to sensitize the public. Go ahead and cry on Gloria. Make threats in The New York Times.
Confess everything to My Secret.
Or just show up on Susan's talk show, where you can have another good sob session. Actually, Fear Factor might be an option too. The challenge: Soylent versus thirty priests trying to kick him out of his apartment.
If that doesn't sensitize the public and turn everyone against the priest, I don't know what will. It’s all about the media campaign, man.
Why would I ever watch French? I'm just not into that lifestyle...
Also, I’d suggest avoiding those coffee breaks at the office—specifically over at Boise—because, well, caffeine tends to kickstart your digestion a bit too quickly for comfort once you've had it. Beyond that, try to stay away from anything deep-fried (especially French fries or calamari), and maybe steer clear of overly spicy dishes. For example, when you're making a salad, don't just drown it in half a bottle of vinegar—just a little splash of vinegar and some oil, preferably olive oil, should do the trick.
Stick to chicken or beef, and I'd really suggest skipping the pork altogether. And if possible, opt for things that are boiled or poached.
If anyone actually has better advice than this, then I guess I'll just eat my words.
p.s. Regarding probiotics, I can recommend Ferzym Plus. You can usually find it in packs of 10 or 30 tablets. The 10-pack goes for about $3.00. The 30-count one is around $27 (at least, that's what I see locally). But honestly, either one will get the job done. A good bacterium is a good bacterium, after all...
My dear colleague—look, I’m getting up there in age and my memory isn't what it used to be—but I’m fairly certain there is a way to bolster your system and restore your gut flora without having to touch any dairy products.
The path forward is essentially the opposite of antibiotics; I'm talking about probiotics.
So, perhaps just head over to a local pharmacy—there’s one right near The New York Times over on Houston Street, which should be right on your way to campus—and ask the pharmacist for some probiotics. For the first five days, I'd suggest taking two probiotic capsules every morning on an empty stomach, maybe half an hour before breakfast.
After that, you can scale back to just one per day. Keep going until things feel right again—and honestly, it should improve quite quickly, since every single tablet contains about 7 billion live bacteria that spread throughout your digestive system to replace everything the antibiotics unfortunately wiped out.
It might also help to cut back on smoking for a few days. And try to avoid carbonated drinks and alcohol—you really ought to steer clear of the booze, much like how William Gonzalez3 avoids women. But again, just for a few days.
As for everyone else's advice... well, don't listen to them. I'm the only one here truly looking out for your best interests; everyone else seems to have other motives. Especially shadowfalcon33, who is clearly trying to lure you in with yogurt and kefir, only to eventually offer you drugs.
Everyone seems to adore him. But lately, it feels like we’re just discussing who we all despise instead.
p.s. I’d really appreciate it if the people who only want to lecture us—you know, the ones trying to explain to us "haters" how our negativity is supposedly destroying us and all that—could maybe refrain from posting in this thread. It gets a bit tedious, I guess.
p.p.s. This isn't directed at the author of the previous post; it just occurred to me as I was reading.
matematicar said:Yeah, right—because why would women and children bother fighting for their rights when we all know they’re the weaker ones anyway? If they don't like it, they can just leave. And honestly, how can they be so incredibly tedious? Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 😵
You're definitely onto something here. Women and children probably need to be put back in their place, too, I suppose. Because—if you look at it that way—that's the only way we can all actually move forward together. Back in the day, people didn't even listen to women or kids, and things were perfectly fine. Nowadays, you're just trying to get to sleep, and she starts: "But what about when you first fell in love with me?"
Good grief! And heaven forbid you even suggest a little discipline. It's always about these "rights" again.
Anyway, I wasn't really talking about women or children specifically. Just about minorities. Women aren't a minority; they're the majority.
And I never said they shouldn't fight for their rights—I just think they shouldn't be quite so tiresome about it. I just want to watch movies and shows without all the constant focus on special interests and minorities.
Minorities, generally speaking. If they didn't exist—say, ethnic minorities—everything would probably be fine.
The thing is, these groups often pull away from the country because their own isn't doing well, and then they refuse to integrate. Instead, they just act out. It’s the same story with any other group, whether it's those obsessed cowboys or whatever else.
And eventually, these groups end up terrorizing the majority everywhere. They force us into a position where we have to tolerate them. But honestly, by what right do they even demand that? It’s them who have the issues, not us. They are the ones who struggle, yet they somehow manage to demand this "tolerance"—which, I suppose, even God finds tedious. So now, we're expected to accommodate them. Now, tolerance itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. But what we see today... it feels like pure terror. It's nothing but minorities and their specific rights, everywhere you look.
You see those cowboys and their rights in every single TV show. Or other racial groups and their various rights. How can they be so incredibly tiresome? Why do they feel the need to constantly remind everyone that they belong to a minority? And why try to convince the whole world that it's okay?
We know they are a minority; there's no need to rub it in our faces. But why wouldn't they rub it in now, since they've made tolerance mandatory? Every single series seems to require at least one character who is being discriminated against. If they hadn't gone around telling everyone they were being wronged, everything would be perfectly fine.
you’re just far more limited—built from a superficial cage made entirely of external matter
Thanks.🙂
But, I don't think this thread is really about me. It’s actually about Aristotle. So, we have a very specific question regarding a very specific individual.
Let me restate it just to be clear: What was Aristotle actually getting at when he claimed that the soul enters a male fetus 40 days after conception, whereas for a female fetus, it happens at 80 days?
I feel like these women tend to trivialize the whole thing.
But, what was Aristotle actually getting at when he suggested that the soul enters a male fetus 40 days after conception, whereas for a female, it’s 80?
In what kind of context did he even bring that up?
I’d love to dig into this myself—I just haven't been able to track down the specific book—and whenever I look online, everyone seems to frame it strictly around topics like miscarriage and things of that nature.
madwoman said:what do you all think he was actually trying to get at here? that men are somehow more valuable because they supposedly have souls that last forty days longer than women's?
Why even ask when the answer seems pretty obvious?
That’s just how things used to be back then...
but honestly, it isn't like that anymore.
Today, thanks to the first wave of feminism, we've achieved equality. yet, thanks to this modern neo-feminism, we've ended up being different.
(I suppose the only issue is that we're the ones striving for equality—you guys can be as "different" as you want to be.)