CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Morgan Cook10 › Posts

Posts by Morgan Cook10

231 posts shown.

Daniel Garcia24 said:But let’s set aside the clergy and all those other distractions for a moment..

One interesting pattern I’ve noticed regarding this topic—and it seems to apply to quite a few people—is that their actual day-to-day lives haven't shifted an inch because of the crisis. Their income remains steady, their living conditions are unchanged, and some are even managed to 😁 more than before. Yet, the second they catch a headline on CNN claiming the country is in a state of emergency, suddenly this becomes their entire world, and they act as if they are personally caught in the middle of 🤷

Then again, it isn't exactly surprising; Americans can be steered quite easily by the right narrative. It’s a predictable cycle: we’ll head to the polls at the end of the year to exercise our democratic rights, only to spend the next four years complaining about the outcome, before the whole loop starts all over again.

Honestly, I’m pulling in more money now than I was before the crash... which, when you really step back and look at it, is kind of wild. Unfortunately, it’s never been better.😍
Honestly, I’d give anything for some of Mary’s water... I wouldn't even dream of heading out on a trip without it.
Germany and its Americans in Close to Politics ·
Melissa Peterson19 said:Quote:

Ramiz Amidža says:
Look, buddy, dial it back. Whatever you're consuming, cut down on it. Being this tense and hysterical isn't healthy.

As for the "land of Protestantism," the statistics tell a different story:

Despite recent losses in adherents, Christianity is still by far the largest religion in the US, with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) comprising 29.9% [10] as of 31 December 2008 (down 0.3% compared to the 30.2%[12] in the year before) of the population and Roman Catholicism comprising 30.7%

Peace, brother.

I mostly drink top-shelf Riesling and Chardonnay, rated around 18.50. They help me relax. And I’m not tense—I’m just sharp as a razor, which is clearly problematic for such a sensitive group. Ha, because that's exactly what you lot were looking for!

Allow me to doubt your statistics. Your source is manjkav. Tell me, where exactly did Martin Luther nail his 95 theses to the door? Only then can you cast doubt on the Protestantism of this country.

When it comes to the Catholic vs. Protestant split, Germany is sitting at roughly 40/60. So, calling it strictly "Protestant" or "Catholic" is a bit of a stretch.
Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology ·
Rachel Stewart36 said:So, I'm an engineer. Guess I should've used some actual systems theory terminology to make my point—at least from what I know of it. Might have actually closed the gap between our two perspectives if I had.
Besides, even engineers need to tap into "emotions"—unless you’re just a mindless drone. Real engineering requires creativity, inspiration, and imagination... which are mostly "irrational" territory anyway.
Anyway, moving off-topic—anyone know what kind of penalties we're looking at? Happy holidays, I guess. 😉

Look, fauxpersona... I’m not hating on your theories... honestly, on a macro level, I kind of see where you're coming from. But you can't just apply those theorems to dating... which is what this thread is actually about. You can't start talking about "conditional static-dynamic social structures" when we're discussing whether or not a woman is going to want to sleep with you. It’s way more straightforward than that... if you're driving a Mercedes, she's in; if you're riding a bike, she's out!😁 ...or maybe she'll still say yes!
Rachel Stewart36 said:So, I'm an engineer. Guess I should've used some actual systems theory terminology to make my point—at least from what I know of it. Might have actually closed the gap between our two perspectives if I had.
Besides, even engineers need to tap into "emotions"—unless you’re just a mindless drone. Real engineering requires creativity, inspiration, and imagination... which are mostly "irrational" territory anyway.
Anyway, moving off-topic—anyone know what kind of penalties we're looking at? Happy holidays, I guess. 😉

The thing about being an engineer is that there's one reality check you don't get in the liberal arts... you can be as creative as you want, lean into your emotions, and pitch whatever wild theory you like... but you're never going to make a rock fall upward. If you catch my drift. That’s why people in STEM tend to stay a bit more grounded than others... might be boring, but that's just how the math works.
Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology ·
Rachel Stewart36 said:I think you’re totally misreading my point. I’m not talking about some "concrete" right to choose; I’m talking about freedom within a static-dynamic social structure. I mean the actual possibility of exercising that freedom while playing by the "rules of the game" the system sets. Your example—saying you can't choose to buy a Ferrari or a Porsche, but you *can* choose what to do with the cash you actually have—is just looking at freedom through a narrow lens. You're missing the "higher order" logic based on the abstract definition of freedom I'm discussing. Donna Garcia42 actually touched on this in post # 172 when she talked about unequal starting positions. Looking at your exchange with her, it seems you're still approaching the concept of choice (which is synonymous with freedom in my terms) from a much lower level of abstraction, so I doubt there's any point in continuing this debate.😉

Chatterbox Quote

And that’s only true by definition; in reality, every single human action is conditioned by emotion or impulse to some degree. Consciousness—the intellect—is inextricably linked to will (which is essentially driven by emotion). Any attempt to mechanically strip that organic unity apart just results in a broken outcome.

I'm not talking about just being aware that choice exists—I'm talking about how messy and difficult it actually is to exercise that freedom.

I feel like we’re just spinning our wheels here. Honestly, dragging this conversation into "higher order principles" feels more like a philosophy seminar than a thread titled "Women are Villains, Men are Saints." I've never really had much patience for philosophical deep dives or pseudo-scientific theories—they just aren't my thing. If you're actually trying to convince me that free will is an illusion, why don't you do something useful with that knowledge? Give me a hot stock tip on the NYSE instead.
Rachel Stewart36 said:I think you’re totally misreading my point. I’m not talking about some "concrete" right to choose; I’m talking about freedom within a static-dynamic social structure. I mean the actual possibility of exercising that freedom while playing by the "rules of the game" the system sets. Your example—saying you can't choose to buy a Ferrari or a Porsche, but you *can* choose what to do with the cash you actually have—is just looking at freedom through a narrow lens. You're missing the "higher order" logic based on the abstract definition of freedom I'm discussing. Donna Garcia42 actually touched on this in post # 172 when she talked about unequal starting positions. Looking at your exchange with her, it seems you're still approaching the concept of choice (which is synonymous with freedom in my terms) from a much lower level of abstraction, so I doubt there's any point in continuing this debate.😉

Chatterbox Quote

And that’s only true by definition; in reality, every single human action is conditioned by emotion or impulse to some degree. Consciousness—the intellect—is inextricably linked to will (which is essentially driven by emotion). Any attempt to mechanically strip that organic unity apart just results in a broken outcome.

I'm not talking about just being aware that choice exists—I'm talking about how messy and difficult it actually is to exercise that freedom.

Look, I’m an engineer by trade, so believe me when I say there isn't much room for feelings in my line of work. Try writing code based on your emotions and see what happens—you'll get kicked right in the teeth. If you decide to swap out a semicolon for a colon just because it feels more "artistically expressive," the whole software crashes. The only place where emotions actually have a seat at the table is in the funny comments you leave in the script.
Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology ·
Donna Garcia42 said:I find myself in agreement with you there, though my intention was merely to illustrate how certain people, caught in a web of unfortunate circumstances, face choices where every possible outcome looks grim from an outside perspective...

I prefer to view those various factors as defining the parameters within which a choice can be made... and that by influencing those very factors, we might actually shift the boundaries of that framework... 😁 I wouldn't call myself an extreme determinist, but I do believe certain variables are set in stone...

Because every stereotype, by its very definition, is flawed. Let’s be honest, we all rely on them; they're practically necessary for navigating the world without losing our minds. However, making an accurate assessment requires much deeper scrutiny—because you will rarely encounter an individual who fits every single requirement of your preconceived notion about them, let alone when you factor in the sheer complexity of a human being...

That seems to hinge on the assumption that the only truly rational choice is one entirely stripped of emotion, under the premise that women are more emotional than men. Yet, emotions are vital to any decision-making process at all—in fact, some argue that without emotion, human action wouldn't even exist. We end up back at the fundamental question of what rationality actually is, leading us once again to the inevitable conclusion that we are dealing with far too many inexplicable constructs here... 😁

Don't get me wrong—I’ve got nothing against determinism or fatalism. Call it whatever you want. But the problem is that if you lean too hard into either one, the whole concept of "guilt" just evaporates. You have to be careful with those terms; they aren't exactly great tools for building any kind of functional society.
Donna Garcia42 said:I find myself in agreement with you there, though my intention was merely to illustrate how certain people, caught in a web of unfortunate circumstances, face choices where every possible outcome looks grim from an outside perspective...

I prefer to view those various factors as defining the parameters within which a choice can be made... and that by influencing those very factors, we might actually shift the boundaries of that framework... 😁 I wouldn't call myself an extreme determinist, but I do believe certain variables are set in stone...

Because every stereotype, by its very definition, is flawed. Let’s be honest, we all rely on them; they're practically necessary for navigating the world without losing our minds. However, making an accurate assessment requires much deeper scrutiny—because you will rarely encounter an individual who fits every single requirement of your preconceived notion about them, let alone when you factor in the sheer complexity of a human being...

That seems to hinge on the assumption that the only truly rational choice is one entirely stripped of emotion, under the premise that women are more emotional than men. Yet, emotions are vital to any decision-making process at all—in fact, some argue that without emotion, human action wouldn't even exist. We end up back at the fundamental question of what rationality actually is, leading us once again to the inevitable conclusion that we are dealing with far too many inexplicable constructs here... 😁

Look, I honestly think stereotypes can be pretty useful because they’re usually just a buildup of actual information over time. There’s this one line I came across that really stuck with me: Expect the clichés, and you’ll never have to deal with the disappointment.
Donna Garcia42 said:I find myself in agreement with you there, though my intention was merely to illustrate how certain people, caught in a web of unfortunate circumstances, face choices where every possible outcome looks grim from an outside perspective...

I prefer to view those various factors as defining the parameters within which a choice can be made... and that by influencing those very factors, we might actually shift the boundaries of that framework... 😁 I wouldn't call myself an extreme determinist, but I do believe certain variables are set in stone...

Because every stereotype, by its very definition, is flawed. Let’s be honest, we all rely on them; they're practically necessary for navigating the world without losing our minds. However, making an accurate assessment requires much deeper scrutiny—because you will rarely encounter an individual who fits every single requirement of your preconceived notion about them, let alone when you factor in the sheer complexity of a human being...

That seems to hinge on the assumption that the only truly rational choice is one entirely stripped of emotion, under the premise that women are more emotional than men. Yet, emotions are vital to any decision-making process at all—in fact, some argue that without emotion, human action wouldn't even exist. We end up back at the fundamental question of what rationality actually is, leading us once again to the inevitable conclusion that we are dealing with far too many inexplicable constructs here... 😁

Rationality is basically defined as being stripped of all emotion. In a perfect world, the most logical choice would be one completely devoid of feeling. But let’s be real—in the actual world, I allow for some emotional input, just to a certain extent. I draw the line at letting people use their feelings as an excuse to dodge accountability for what they've done. I'm big on using real-world analogies to make a point, so here's one for you: you can't expect a woman to sit there and play the victim after her husband has cheated on her fifteen times.🤷 Men tend to be way more logical about this stuff... once a woman cheats on them for the first time, some guys might let it slide, but most will just walk away and never look back.
Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology ·
Donna Garcia42 said:@Morgan Cook10: I find myself unable to agree with you, primarily because your argument rests on the flawed assumption that everyone begins their journey from the exact same starting line...
Even if we were to brush aside all the obvious environmental pressures—things like systemic poverty or a desperate need for immediate income that might force someone to drop out after just three years of high school when they actually had aspirations for college—there are still those innate, personality-driven factors at play. An extreme extrovert and a deep introvert simply aren't operating from the same baseline, which means that even under identical circumstances, they won't arrive at the same conclusions...

Gender carries its own set of distinct characteristics as well. Since you brought up the issue of domestic violence, you're likely aware of how cycles of abuse tend to perpetuate themselves through generations; men who were victims often grow up to become aggressors, while women who experienced abuse frequently end up marrying them. Furthermore, there's the tendency for men to approach problems through a more pragmatic lens, whereas women lean toward emotional processing. These gender differences, when layered atop all other variables, fundamentally shift one's initial standing in life...

As for your comments regarding rationality, I honestly can't take them seriously. Humans aren't rational creatures by nature; therefore, your own reasoning isn't entirely objective either, as it remains susceptible to various stereotypes and categorizations... including the ones you've presented here, which, at first glance, come across as quite chauvinistic and misogynistic... 😁

Alright, I'll give you this much: not everyone starts with the same hand. But we need to be really careful about how we define "freedom of choice." For instance, I don't have the "choice" to decide whether I buy a Ferrari or a Porsche... I just have the choice of what to do with the money I actually have. Let's get back to the actual topic. Most women don't have the "choice" to marry Tom Cruise or Leonardo DiCaprio... but they do have the choice of whether or not to marry a specific person. My point is simply that everyone is responsible for the consequences of their own free will.

Now, look... if you're telling me that freedom of choice is just an illusion because we're all driven by these external forces you mentioned, then why wouldn't my stereotype—the one you just criticized—be wrong too? It’s the same logic: if victims of violence usually divorce and abused women often marry abusers, then it follows that men are more rational than women. Call it "gender differences" if you want.

Look, I'm happy to walk back my stereotype, but only because the core principle is that people are equal and free, and thus accountable for their actions. But if we're playing by those rules, that applies to everything, not just my stereotype. Just like a murderer can't claim they didn't know killing was illegal, a woman whose husband abuses her for years can't claim she had no choice but to leave him after the very first slap.

And if anyone thinks I'm off base... I'll just circle back to my original question: does anyone here have a list of women who don't have the choice to say no to sleeping with me?
Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology ·
Rachel Stewart36 said:Maybe read a bit closer and catch the context next time. I never said the right to choose doesn't exist. Of course it does, it's just heavily conditional. A person's actual freedom depends on a mountain of factors: wealth, looks, education, bank account, social circles, family background, soft skills... Just look at the "privileges" handed to a high-end architect versus a local welder; compare what's available to one vs. the other. The first guy has a vastly larger—though still limited—range of freedom to basically engineer his own reality.

Your idea that "choice is the natural state while everything else is an attempt to reduce it" only works if we're talking about how things *should* be. But looking at "how things actually are"? It's just a long history of the masses fighting for the crumbs of freedom that the "oligarchs" deign to toss down—that's pretty much the standard human story. The notion that people were once truly free and now everyone is equally trapped is absurd. Nowadays, we just have total freedom of "consumption." Actually, that freedom is practically mandatory. For most people, "freedom" is nothing more than a well-packaged illusion.

Ironic, sure, but honestly? Often true. This "civilization" we think we're living in is mostly just a polished illusion. We call ourselves a civilization, but really, it's a system built on the rights of the strongest. Rights and freedoms are mostly just convenient words on paper—usually reserved for a tiny, hand-picked minority.

Look, alongside the natural right to choose, there’s also this thing called "consequences"... which is exactly what everyone tends to forget the moment their choice doesn't turn out the way they wanted.

Take your architect and welder example... at some point, both made a choice. One chose to go to a top-tier design school, and the other chose to finish vocational training after the 10th grade. This is particularly pronounced here because, over the last 50 years, our society has essentially provided free education to everyone. Or take the case of a woman being abused by her husband... her choice would be either to stay and hope he changes—getting a certain sense of security in the process—or to leave him, which stops the abuse but simultaneously sacrifices the stability her life with him provides. Rationally, you'd pick the first option... but then again, I've never really viewed women as rational beings.
Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology ·
Jeffrey Rivera2 said:I missed this part.😁So why doesn't a man's junk require an attractive body surrounding it? Hair matters, sure, but breasts and a good physique are clearly the two most important factors.

A dick needs to be surrounded by a fat wallet... the body is honestly totally irrelevant!
Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology ·
Rachel Stewart36 said:And here I was thinking this was actually a legit PDF—unlike that mess from Lyles. 🙄

Look, this is a pretty heavy PDF, even if the subject matter itself isn't exactly groundbreaking. I was just throwing out a specific example to push back against that one sentence I totally disagree with.🤷
You’re claiming that the "right to choose" doesn't actually exist... which just isn't true. If you really want to know where I stand: having a choice is the default setting for life. Everything else we deal with is just various attempts to chip away at that freedom, one way or another. Sometimes it's a subtle nudge, sometimes it's a sledgehammer, but it's always an attempt to limit our options.
Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology ·
Rachel Stewart36 said:It’s funny how everyone loves debating "rights" and "freedoms"—as if they’re some universal guarantee—while totally ignoring the fact that these things are basically just nominal labels. Honestly? It’s more accurate to call them privileges, since whether you actually get to use them depends on a massive pile of external factors. Treating "freedom of choice" as a default setting for everyone is just delusional. Freedom is really just the flip side of power, and we all know how power actually gets handed out in a stratified society. You can talk about feminism all day, but unless you start from "how things should be," talking about "how things actually are" makes the whole effort feel pretty much futile. Feminism—just like any other theoretical construct—can't just ignore the reality of human nature and its built-in drive toward hierarchy.

Regarding that bolded part... give me a list of women who don't have the right to choose not to sleep with me... photos included if possible.☕
Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology ·
Jeffrey Rivera2 said:You think you're funny.

Wait a second, we "fought" for this? Bullshit. Women aren't actually that powerful, because if they were, they would be much more influential.

Don't go like that... p**** is incredibly powerful. Granted, it works best when it's paired with a great body.😁 For what it's worth... what man has ever achieved anything significant using just his dick?
Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology ·
It’s not like women are villains and men are saints... honestly, women are pretty much incredible and wonderful right up until they hit about 25... that’s when things start going downhill. But men? Men stay exactly the same from the time they're thirteen until the day they die.
Hypothetical war between Mexico and Mexico in Close to Politics ·
Ethan Morales22 said:You’re forgetting one massive thing: the Mexican military industry is running 24/7 right now. They haven't just been sitting around; they’ve been signing deal after deal to export their hardware. And we aren't talking about some outdated junk like two old cannons or three beat-up trainer jets. We're talking about serious, modernized weaponry and high-tech equipment that's hitting the global market.

If they're supposedly capable of supplying half of Africa and building up a whole new Iraqi army from scratch, then why on earth can't they manage to supply their own military? It makes zero sense. ☕

.

Look, I don't want to downplay the Mexican defense industry—I actually think it’s pretty solid, even if the tech feels a bit dated. But honestly, they aren't making anything groundbreaking. It's mostly light infantry gear and equipment you can pick up for cheap, much of it based on tech from the 60s and 70s. The heavy-duty, high-end systems that actually make an army a powerhouse? Mexico simply doesn't produce those... and they realistically couldn't.
Hypothetical war between Mexico and Mexico in Close to Politics ·
I see people are still obsessed with "what if" scenarios...
Just eyeballing it... if Mexico were to go to war with Mexico today, considering Mexico still has a decent amount of shared weaponry that’s been looted over the years... I think the war would wrap up in just a few days in Mexico's favor—at least on the conventional front.

But here's the thing... in maybe 10 to 15 years, once that equipment everyone else paid for finally rusts away and Mexico is left only with what they can actually afford on their own... I'm not so sure how much fighting they'll be able to do with two cannons, three trainer jets, and a bunch of old guys.
The struggle of 200 families in Close to Politics ·
Angela Cox said:He never actually said that. It’s a complete misrepresentation taken out of context from an interview conducted by Nenad Ivanković back in the early '90s. At the time, he was working as a correspondent for The New York Times in Washington, D.C., interviewing Franck Harmon and drawing a comparison between America and Japan, where the economy is essentially controlled by just 200 families.

The whole thing is definitely a stretch. What Franjo was really getting at was the need for America to build up its own capitalist class to act as the engine for national growth. I mean, let’s be real—what’s the harm in having 200 versions of someone like Warren Buffett? If we had even 20 of them, unemployment would basically be a myth in this country.

But then, look at what actually happened afterward... and that's where the idea gets ugly. Those "200 families" didn't just turn out to be your typical white-collar crooks; if we're being honest, they were just plain old incompetent amateurs.
The struggle of 200 families in Close to Politics ·
redstag said:I’m just spinning my wheels here, but I might as well let the right side of the mill run for a bit 😁
The whole myth about having 200 powerhouse families? It’s total garbage. Why? Because they don't exist. Just imagine if America actually had 200 Todorichs. Even if I personally didn't care for their style, you can't deny we'd have a damn respectable economy. But look, if I had to choose between that vision and what we're stuck with now, I’d take those 200 families in a heartbeat. What we have right now is a complete joke. Besides, having 200 solid families would provide a foundation strong enough to actually run a normal political game—where Social Democrats could actually act like Social Democrats instead of being forced to pivot toward a Smithian Liberal market and implement all these anti-social measures just to jumpstart the economy.
So, Frank’s idea isn't necessarily trash, it's just the execution that sucks. 👎
Let’s see if anyone actually has something intelligent to say for once...

The issue with the "200 families" concept isn't the concept itself... practically all Western nations run on similar models. If you look at the 200 wealthiest Germans, you'll see they essentially form the backbone of the German economy.

The real problem is that Francis thought he was the one who got to decide exactly which families made the cut.
George W. Bush: Ronald Reagan was surrounded by spies... in Close to Politics ·
Joseph White5 said:Well, here we go again—yet another take on history from our outgoing president.

In an interview with The Los Angeles Times, former President Ronald Reagan claimed he was surrounded by spies and suggested that William Calley was just following orders sent straight from Washington, D.C.

"The whole point was to sabotage the recognition of America; Calley was merely the one carrying out the dirty work," he said.

"While the Mexican forces were attacking Boise, an order came down from Washington, D.C. to liquidate every Mexican remaining in town. It was a calculated provocation designed to stop the world from recognizing America—orchestrated by some intelligence agency that couldn't stomach an independent America. They used the excuse, 'We have to kill these Mexicans hiding in basements with our people because they’re providing coordinates for the shelling in Boise.' Honestly, though? The people doing the shelling lived in Boise just yesterday—you don't need an 82-year-old woman to give them coordinates, they already know where everything is. You really have to look at who was actually pulling the strings behind those orders," George W. Bush remarked.

George W. Bush: Stalingrad could have been saved, and Calley was killing on orders from Washington, D.C.

The older this Mason guy gets, the more nonsense he starts spewing.🤷
What’s even scarier to me is how many Americans actually swallow this stuff.
What motivates our local anti-Americans? in Close to Politics ·
Mark Nguyen6 said:Well, it looks like one of our liberals has passed away—I guess that’s that. 😁

Look, Djoka is fine... you definitely can't label him some ultra-nationalist radical. He's nothing like those other guys mentioned above who have zero loyalty to the country.😁
What motivates our local anti-Americans? in Close to Politics ·
bluecobra27 said:Once a "progressive" American reaches that state of post-national nirvana, their most natural habitat becomes Mexico. It's funny how this supposed state of high-minded globalism never actually leads anyone toward Europe or the West; instead, they always just hop right over the border to Mexico. Malicious people might say that when an American sheds their national pride, they basically just become Mexican.😁

Interesting theory... but why wouldn't they just become some liberal Mexican like Djoka Balasevic instead of a nationalist?🤔