Posts by Larry Moore83

Thomas Nelson25 said:Let's say technology finally unlocks a whole new economy—where resources and energy just aren't an issue anymore. Think along the lines of that Star Trek model.

We'd still probably need some kind of global government, though I don't see it being a democracy at the top level—maybe we keep the democratic stuff for local governance instead.

As for the "spiritual awakening" or whatever you all call this "shift in consciousness"... that’s gonna take generations. It's a slow burn. That said, there's definitely been a trend moving in that direction since the late 70s. We're nowhere near a critical mass for massive societal shifts, but it's enough to keep things relatively peaceful for now.

But look, we both know how it goes—one major crisis hits and people revert back to animals. It all comes down to survival.

But who is actually manufacturing these crises?
How does the mechanism work, really? You just shout "Crisis!" into the void, and suddenly everyone comes running with their gifts and solutions, right? 🤣

It makes you wonder... isn't there someone out there who is simply addicted to the chaos? 😁

I’ve always believed that peace belongs to women. 🙂

Hmm... it seems we're looking at a world where good and evil exist side by side, simultaneously.
How does one even begin to draw a line between them—and more importantly, is there actually any point in trying? I mean, what’s stopping us from just deciding the distinction doesn't exist at all? 😁

Hmm... I wonder, what would you even make of si nou ivl? 😁

@ Maria Robinson2
It feels like I’m falling into that old trap again—where I start piling on adjectives to describe someone, and suddenly, it feels less like an observation and more like... well, like I'm being unfair. Is it just me, or does over-describing a person always seem to drift toward the negative? It’s as if once you start attaching labels, you inadvertently start building a case against them. Good morning, everyone. Or perhaps it's already afternoon depending on where you're sitting—I tend to lose track of the hours when I'm deep into a project. Anyway, just wanted to say hello. It seems like we might have hit a bit of a snag here—just a single word hanging there in the void. Are we looking at a typo, or perhaps just a momentary lapse in thought? It’s funny how sometimes the simplest things can feel like a complete mystery when they lack context. Was there something specific you were aiming to ask or share? I'm all ears, truly—if you could just expand on that little fragment, I'd love to dive into whatever it was you had in mind. Not great. Honestly? Just not good.Well, if we look at this from a strictly mathematical perspective—and I mean really dive into the numbers—we could actually approach it this way... +ManIt seems like we’ve hit a bit of a snag here—the thought just trails off, doesn't it? It’s like starting a sentence with such intention, only to have the momentum vanish halfway through. Are we looking at an "either/or" situation, or was that just a momentary lapse in focus? I find myself wondering if there was a deeper point intended behind that simple choice... or perhaps it was just a typo. Either way, I'm standing by, ready to pick up the thread whenever you're ready to weave it back together. Man.But then again—if that's how things truly play out—the individual, the actual human being, just... disappears entirely. It’s almost as if they cease to exist at all.

Come on, Larry Moore83—give me that vocative case! :D

@wearyowl29
Is it just me, or are we diving headfirst into conspiracy territory here? :D

@copperpanther27
What kind of interests does he actually have—aside from his own personal ones, I mean?
Me, you, him, her, it—we're all just talking about people, aren't we?
We, you, they—it’s all the same, really. Just people.
What would that even look like? It’s funny, isn't it? How we can spend so much time trying to define who someone is—their labels, their roles, their little boxes—only to realize that at the end of the day, they are just... a person. A stranger. Someone existing entirely outside our own perception. I was thinking about this earlier today—perhaps it's just the coffee talking—but there's something almost haunting about the concept of an "outsider" or a complete stranger. We navigate through crowds in places like Chicago or New York, brushing shoulders with hundreds of people, yet most of them remain absolute mysteries to us. They have entire lifetimes, deep sorrows, and complex joys tucked away behind a neutral expression, and we simply pass them by. Is it possible to ever truly *know* someone? Or are we all just a collection of passing glances and polite nods to one another? It makes you wonder if we focus too much on the surface level, don't we? We categorize people so quickly—friend, foe, colleague, acquaintance—but beneath all that, there is just the raw, unvarnished reality of a human being. Just a soul moving through the world, independent of our opinions or our needs. It's a humbling thought, really. To be a stranger to everyone, and for everyone to be a stranger to you.Wait, did I miss something? Just a question mark there—are we starting a new thread, or was that just a little nudge to see if anyone's actually awake? :D

Jeffrey Fisher5 said:It seems as though evil holds the reins of this world—not by accident, but by design—utilizing its most effective instruments: people.
Yet, even in such times, darkness doesn't claim every soul; there are plenty of individuals who push back, refusing to simply opt into being wicked.
The sycophants serving those darker powers? Well, they’re usually quite eager to get their hands dirty.
I can't say I'm surprised by them, per se, but it always leaves me feeling rather heavy-hearted when I see how many people have lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Their moral compasses have become so blurred—intentionally obscured, I suspect—that they truly believe they are doing good, when in reality, they are inflicting harm on themselves and everyone else.
It’s that old cliché, isn't it: the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
At any given moment, an individual has the capacity to trade away everything they hold dear in exchange for malice.
One cannot be forced to be purely evil unless they have already made that choice for themselves. When someone appears to be acting under duress, it really just means they haven't found the strength to resist—regardless of how steep the cost of that resistance might be.

But people aren't instruments of evil—in fact, they aren't really instruments of anything at all.

Jeffrey Fisher5 said:It seems as though evil holds the reins of this world—not by accident, but by design—utilizing its most effective instruments: people.
Yet, even in such times, darkness doesn't claim every soul; there are plenty of individuals who push back, refusing to simply opt into being wicked.
The sycophants serving those darker powers? Well, they’re usually quite eager to get their hands dirty.
I can't say I'm surprised by them, per se, but it always leaves me feeling rather heavy-hearted when I see how many people have lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Their moral compasses have become so blurred—intentionally obscured, I suspect—that they truly believe they are doing good, when in reality, they are inflicting harm on themselves and everyone else.
It’s that old cliché, isn't it: the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
At any given moment, an individual has the capacity to trade away everything they hold dear in exchange for malice.
One cannot be forced to be purely evil unless they have already made that choice for themselves. When someone appears to be acting under duress, it really just means they haven't found the strength to resist—regardless of how steep the cost of that resistance might be.

Evil holds no dominion over any individual.

Jeffrey Fisher5 said:It seems as though evil holds the reins of this world—not by accident, but by design—utilizing its most effective instruments: people.
Yet, even in such times, darkness doesn't claim every soul; there are plenty of individuals who push back, refusing to simply opt into being wicked.
The sycophants serving those darker powers? Well, they’re usually quite eager to get their hands dirty.
I can't say I'm surprised by them, per se, but it always leaves me feeling rather heavy-hearted when I see how many people have lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Their moral compasses have become so blurred—intentionally obscured, I suspect—that they truly believe they are doing good, when in reality, they are inflicting harm on themselves and everyone else.
It’s that old cliché, isn't it: the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
At any given moment, an individual has the capacity to trade away everything they hold dear in exchange for malice.
One cannot be forced to be purely evil unless they have already made that choice for themselves. When someone appears to be acting under duress, it really just means they haven't found the strength to resist—regardless of how steep the cost of that resistance might be.

Anderson?! Grim?! Tolkien?!
What are we even talking about here?

Jeffrey Fisher5 said:It seems as though evil holds the reins of this world—not by accident, but by design—utilizing its most effective instruments: people.
Yet, even in such times, darkness doesn't claim every soul; there are plenty of individuals who push back, refusing to simply opt into being wicked.
The sycophants serving those darker powers? Well, they’re usually quite eager to get their hands dirty.
I can't say I'm surprised by them, per se, but it always leaves me feeling rather heavy-hearted when I see how many people have lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Their moral compasses have become so blurred—intentionally obscured, I suspect—that they truly believe they are doing good, when in reality, they are inflicting harm on themselves and everyone else.
It’s that old cliché, isn't it: the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
At any given moment, an individual has the capacity to trade away everything they hold dear in exchange for malice.
One cannot be forced to be purely evil unless they have already made that choice for themselves. When someone appears to be acting under duress, it really just means they haven't found the strength to resist—regardless of how steep the cost of that resistance might be.

Talking about "the masses" in such absolute terms... quite fittingly vague, isn't it?

Jeffrey Fisher5 said:It seems as though evil holds the reins of this world—not by accident, but by design—utilizing its most effective instruments: people.
Yet, even in such times, darkness doesn't claim every soul; there are plenty of individuals who push back, refusing to simply opt into being wicked.
The sycophants serving those darker powers? Well, they’re usually quite eager to get their hands dirty.
I can't say I'm surprised by them, per se, but it always leaves me feeling rather heavy-hearted when I see how many people have lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Their moral compasses have become so blurred—intentionally obscured, I suspect—that they truly believe they are doing good, when in reality, they are inflicting harm on themselves and everyone else.
It’s that old cliché, isn't it: the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
At any given moment, an individual has the capacity to trade away everything they hold dear in exchange for malice.
One cannot be forced to be purely evil unless they have already made that choice for themselves. When someone appears to be acting under duress, it really just means they haven't found the strength to resist—regardless of how steep the cost of that resistance might be.

Who still clings to that cliché?

Jeffrey Fisher5 said:It seems as though evil holds the reins of this world—not by accident, but by design—utilizing its most effective instruments: people.
Yet, even in such times, darkness doesn't claim every soul; there are plenty of individuals who push back, refusing to simply opt into being wicked.
The sycophants serving those darker powers? Well, they’re usually quite eager to get their hands dirty.
I can't say I'm surprised by them, per se, but it always leaves me feeling rather heavy-hearted when I see how many people have lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Their moral compasses have become so blurred—intentionally obscured, I suspect—that they truly believe they are doing good, when in reality, they are inflicting harm on themselves and everyone else.
It’s that old cliché, isn't it: the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
At any given moment, an individual has the capacity to trade away everything they hold dear in exchange for malice.
One cannot be forced to be purely evil unless they have already made that choice for themselves. When someone appears to be acting under duress, it really just means they haven't found the strength to resist—regardless of how steep the cost of that resistance might be.

I disagree completely.

Jeffrey Fisher5 said:It seems as though evil holds the reins of this world—not by accident, but by design—utilizing its most effective instruments: people.
Yet, even in such times, darkness doesn't claim every soul; there are plenty of individuals who push back, refusing to simply opt into being wicked.
The sycophants serving those darker powers? Well, they’re usually quite eager to get their hands dirty.
I can't say I'm surprised by them, per se, but it always leaves me feeling rather heavy-hearted when I see how many people have lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Their moral compasses have become so blurred—intentionally obscured, I suspect—that they truly believe they are doing good, when in reality, they are inflicting harm on themselves and everyone else.
It’s that old cliché, isn't it: the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
At any given moment, an individual has the capacity to trade away everything they hold dear in exchange for malice.
One cannot be forced to be purely evil unless they have already made that choice for themselves. When someone appears to be acting under duress, it really just means they haven't found the strength to resist—regardless of how steep the cost of that resistance might be.

Well, thanks for that insight... really.

Jeffrey Fisher5 said:It seems as though evil holds the reins of this world—not by accident, but by design—utilizing its most effective instruments: people.
Yet, even in such times, darkness doesn't claim every soul; there are plenty of individuals who push back, refusing to simply opt into being wicked.
The sycophants serving those darker powers? Well, they’re usually quite eager to get their hands dirty.
I can't say I'm surprised by them, per se, but it always leaves me feeling rather heavy-hearted when I see how many people have lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Their moral compasses have become so blurred—intentionally obscured, I suspect—that they truly believe they are doing good, when in reality, they are inflicting harm on themselves and everyone else.
It’s that old cliché, isn't it: the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
At any given moment, an individual has the capacity to trade away everything they hold dear in exchange for malice.
One cannot be forced to be purely evil unless they have already made that choice for themselves. When someone appears to be acting under duress, it really just means they haven't found the strength to resist—regardless of how steep the cost of that resistance might be.

So, what you're saying is they have to "decide" to go through with it? To consciously choose a path that requires an immense amount of effort... an effort that simply isn't worth the outcome.

Evil people?!
Let’s call them villains instead! A villain—if we are being precise—doesn't just fail to rule the world; first off, they can't even rule themselves. They have zero self-control, which means their capacity for governance—and I mean that in both the literal sense and the way we used to talk about "behavior" grades back in elementary school, which, let's be honest, hardly anyone took seriously—is nonexistent.
A person who loses control over themselves (for whatever reason, and I won't dive into the messy details of motives or impulses because, frankly, it's a nauseating subject to me) automatically disqualifies themselves as a functional human being—in other words, they become a villain. At the same time, they isolate themselves; they alienate everyone around them until they are left drifting in this strange, villainous sub-reality. To put it simply, if we were to say a villain "rules" anything at all, it’s only within that isolated little bubble of theirs—a world devoid of actual people, where they are their own greatest enemy... constantly accusing and blaming everything and everyone else for their situation, while never once looking in the mirror. Their sense of responsibility? Also absolute zero.

People, in a general sense, aren't villains. And villains, fundamentally speaking, aren't people.
People govern; villains don't. Let's try to wrap our heads around that concept for a moment. 🙂

Joshua Jones35 said:People commit evil both intentionally and unintentionally. There’s a specific breed of person who does wrong quite consciously, yet they don't view it as "evil" at all—they see it as "good." In their warped logic, if an action serves their own interests, then it’s inherently right; what happens to anyone else is just irrelevant noise.
Technically, anyone can choose to be a villain to turn a quick profit. If you decide to stay on the straight and narrow, that’s your own burden to carry, I suppose.
Then again, there are plenty who feel backed into a corner. They aren't out to cause harm because they have some deep-seated desire for chaos; it's usually a matter of lacking resources. They end up screwing over individuals or, say, every single employee at a major corporation like Amazon just to keep their heads above water.
Personally, I suspect most people don't actually experience malice as a path to happiness. Most seem to only find true satisfaction when they're doing something decent. It’s possible—though perhaps a bit cynical of me to say—that people only cling to being "good" because they’re too weak to handle the alternative. If we all had the stomach for it, maybe everyone would choose evil just because it makes life easier.
But as for those who lean into malice with full awareness... does the darkness really satisfy them enough to replace everything else? Is it truly possible that being bad is the only thing that actually makes them happy?

It turns out they aren't even doing much of anything at all—not really.

Joshua Jones35 said:People commit evil both intentionally and unintentionally. There’s a specific breed of person who does wrong quite consciously, yet they don't view it as "evil" at all—they see it as "good." In their warped logic, if an action serves their own interests, then it’s inherently right; what happens to anyone else is just irrelevant noise.
Technically, anyone can choose to be a villain to turn a quick profit. If you decide to stay on the straight and narrow, that’s your own burden to carry, I suppose.
Then again, there are plenty who feel backed into a corner. They aren't out to cause harm because they have some deep-seated desire for chaos; it's usually a matter of lacking resources. They end up screwing over individuals or, say, every single employee at a major corporation like Amazon just to keep their heads above water.
Personally, I suspect most people don't actually experience malice as a path to happiness. Most seem to only find true satisfaction when they're doing something decent. It’s possible—though perhaps a bit cynical of me to say—that people only cling to being "good" because they’re too weak to handle the alternative. If we all had the stomach for it, maybe everyone would choose evil just because it makes life easier.
But as for those who lean into malice with full awareness... does the darkness really satisfy them enough to replace everything else? Is it truly possible that being bad is the only thing that actually makes them happy?

How is it even possible that the exact same thing can be two completely different things—something wonderful for one person, yet something utterly terrible for another? It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it? You look at a single action, or perhaps a single policy, and depending on who you ask, you get two diametrically opposed realities. Is it just a matter of perspective—that classic "eye of the beholder" argument—or is there something deeper at play in how we process our own interests? I find myself wondering if we ever truly see things objectively, or if we're all just filtering reality through the lens of what serves us best... or what hurts us most.
For instance—an apple is an apple, right? At least, that’s how it seems on the surface to everyone watching... but then again, maybe we aren't even talking about the apple at all. Is it ever really about the object itself, or is it always something deeper?

Joshua Jones35 said:People commit evil both intentionally and unintentionally. There’s a specific breed of person who does wrong quite consciously, yet they don't view it as "evil" at all—they see it as "good." In their warped logic, if an action serves their own interests, then it’s inherently right; what happens to anyone else is just irrelevant noise.
Technically, anyone can choose to be a villain to turn a quick profit. If you decide to stay on the straight and narrow, that’s your own burden to carry, I suppose.
Then again, there are plenty who feel backed into a corner. They aren't out to cause harm because they have some deep-seated desire for chaos; it's usually a matter of lacking resources. They end up screwing over individuals or, say, every single employee at a major corporation like Amazon just to keep their heads above water.
Personally, I suspect most people don't actually experience malice as a path to happiness. Most seem to only find true satisfaction when they're doing something decent. It’s possible—though perhaps a bit cynical of me to say—that people only cling to being "good" because they’re too weak to handle the alternative. If we all had the stomach for it, maybe everyone would choose evil just because it makes life easier.
But as for those who lean into malice with full awareness... does the darkness really satisfy them enough to replace everything else? Is it truly possible that being bad is the only thing that actually makes them happy?

It seems like nobody can pull it off. Or maybe—and I’ve spent a lot of late nights pondering this—it's just that the right circumstances haven't aligned yet? It feels like we're all searching for that one breakthrough, that singular moment where everything finally clicks, but instead, we just hit these walls. Is it a lack of will, or is it something deeper—something baked into the system itself? Honestly, it feels impossible for everyone right now.

Joshua Jones35 said:People commit evil both intentionally and unintentionally. There’s a specific breed of person who does wrong quite consciously, yet they don't view it as "evil" at all—they see it as "good." In their warped logic, if an action serves their own interests, then it’s inherently right; what happens to anyone else is just irrelevant noise.
Technically, anyone can choose to be a villain to turn a quick profit. If you decide to stay on the straight and narrow, that’s your own burden to carry, I suppose.
Then again, there are plenty who feel backed into a corner. They aren't out to cause harm because they have some deep-seated desire for chaos; it's usually a matter of lacking resources. They end up screwing over individuals or, say, every single employee at a major corporation like Amazon just to keep their heads above water.
Personally, I suspect most people don't actually experience malice as a path to happiness. Most seem to only find true satisfaction when they're doing something decent. It’s possible—though perhaps a bit cynical of me to say—that people only cling to being "good" because they’re too weak to handle the alternative. If we all had the stomach for it, maybe everyone would choose evil just because it makes life easier.
But as for those who lean into malice with full awareness... does the darkness really satisfy them enough to replace everything else? Is it truly possible that being bad is the only thing that actually makes them happy?

It’s a curious thing, isn't it? Those who simply refuse to engage—those who choose to stand on the sidelines rather than step up—they rarely take responsibility for the outcome. Since they never actually took action in the first place, they feel they have nothing to answer for... as if inaction itself is some kind of perfect shield against accountability. How can one be blamed for a failure to act when the choice was never made to try at all? It seems like a convenient way to dodge the consequences of one's own hesitation.

Joshua Jones35 said:People commit evil both intentionally and unintentionally. There’s a specific breed of person who does wrong quite consciously, yet they don't view it as "evil" at all—they see it as "good." In their warped logic, if an action serves their own interests, then it’s inherently right; what happens to anyone else is just irrelevant noise.
Technically, anyone can choose to be a villain to turn a quick profit. If you decide to stay on the straight and narrow, that’s your own burden to carry, I suppose.
Then again, there are plenty who feel backed into a corner. They aren't out to cause harm because they have some deep-seated desire for chaos; it's usually a matter of lacking resources. They end up screwing over individuals or, say, every single employee at a major corporation like Amazon just to keep their heads above water.
Personally, I suspect most people don't actually experience malice as a path to happiness. Most seem to only find true satisfaction when they're doing something decent. It’s possible—though perhaps a bit cynical of me to say—that people only cling to being "good" because they’re too weak to handle the alternative. If we all had the stomach for it, maybe everyone would choose evil just because it makes life easier.
But as for those who lean into malice with full awareness... does the darkness really satisfy them enough to replace everything else? Is it truly possible that being bad is the only thing that actually makes them happy?

They really don't have to.

Joshua Jones35 said:People commit evil both intentionally and unintentionally. There’s a specific breed of person who does wrong quite consciously, yet they don't view it as "evil" at all—they see it as "good." In their warped logic, if an action serves their own interests, then it’s inherently right; what happens to anyone else is just irrelevant noise.
Technically, anyone can choose to be a villain to turn a quick profit. If you decide to stay on the straight and narrow, that’s your own burden to carry, I suppose.
Then again, there are plenty who feel backed into a corner. They aren't out to cause harm because they have some deep-seated desire for chaos; it's usually a matter of lacking resources. They end up screwing over individuals or, say, every single employee at a major corporation like Amazon just to keep their heads above water.
Personally, I suspect most people don't actually experience malice as a path to happiness. Most seem to only find true satisfaction when they're doing something decent. It’s possible—though perhaps a bit cynical of me to say—that people only cling to being "good" because they’re too weak to handle the alternative. If we all had the stomach for it, maybe everyone would choose evil just because it makes life easier.
But as for those who lean into malice with full awareness... does the darkness really satisfy them enough to replace everything else? Is it truly possible that being bad is the only thing that actually makes them happy?

Look, you're talking about the whole lot of them, not just a subset—and frankly, this majority of people aren't even truly human, if you think about it.

Joshua Jones35 said:People commit evil both intentionally and unintentionally. There’s a specific breed of person who does wrong quite consciously, yet they don't view it as "evil" at all—they see it as "good." In their warped logic, if an action serves their own interests, then it’s inherently right; what happens to anyone else is just irrelevant noise.
Technically, anyone can choose to be a villain to turn a quick profit. If you decide to stay on the straight and narrow, that’s your own burden to carry, I suppose.
Then again, there are plenty who feel backed into a corner. They aren't out to cause harm because they have some deep-seated desire for chaos; it's usually a matter of lacking resources. They end up screwing over individuals or, say, every single employee at a major corporation like Amazon just to keep their heads above water.
Personally, I suspect most people don't actually experience malice as a path to happiness. Most seem to only find true satisfaction when they're doing something decent. It’s possible—though perhaps a bit cynical of me to say—that people only cling to being "good" because they’re too weak to handle the alternative. If we all had the stomach for it, maybe everyone would choose evil just because it makes life easier.
But as for those who lean into malice with full awareness... does the darkness really satisfy them enough to replace everything else? Is it truly possible that being bad is the only thing that actually makes them happy?

They wouldn't. Honestly, being "evil" sounds like far too much work just to find a moment of bliss.

Joshua Jones35 said:People commit evil both intentionally and unintentionally. There’s a specific breed of person who does wrong quite consciously, yet they don't view it as "evil" at all—they see it as "good." In their warped logic, if an action serves their own interests, then it’s inherently right; what happens to anyone else is just irrelevant noise.
Technically, anyone can choose to be a villain to turn a quick profit. If you decide to stay on the straight and narrow, that’s your own burden to carry, I suppose.
Then again, there are plenty who feel backed into a corner. They aren't out to cause harm because they have some deep-seated desire for chaos; it's usually a matter of lacking resources. They end up screwing over individuals or, say, every single employee at a major corporation like Amazon just to keep their heads above water.
Personally, I suspect most people don't actually experience malice as a path to happiness. Most seem to only find true satisfaction when they're doing something decent. It’s possible—though perhaps a bit cynical of me to say—that people only cling to being "good" because they’re too weak to handle the alternative. If we all had the stomach for it, maybe everyone would choose evil just because it makes life easier.
But as for those who lean into malice with full awareness... does the darkness really satisfy them enough to replace everything else? Is it truly possible that being bad is the only thing that actually makes them happy?

This is getting so tangled up... it's almost like saying the mere fact that I am breathing makes me dead—it’s just complete nonsense, isn't it?

@Raymond Anderson81
Evil doesn't rule anything, and it certainly doesn't rule the world.

Edward Price6 said:Jedranjak really plays a huge role here—it's all about making sure the bigger players get to flex their muscles and dominate the conversation.

I mean, they could have just thrown in the Starship Enterprise... you know, like that scene in in the dark. 🤣

👍

The Mission to Mars... is that even the right title for that little flick? 🤔
Everything about it worked for me—well, almost everything—except for that ending. 😁
And then there’s Apocalypse Now... 🤣...it felt as if they just tossed in those Jedranjak ships in some desperate hope that someone might eventually step up to film a sequel. 🤦

I have to wonder—does everyone actually grasp the nuance here? Can we all truly distinguish between a society and a herd, or a pack, or even just a mindless mob...😬

Anthony Robinson10 said:http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/con...tivity-to-pain

More on that...🙄...honestly, I’d probably act like Bill Gates trying to stay composed while a bunch of hyperactive toddlers were running circles around me.

But look—if we aren't entirely sure whether we're right, why not just go out there and prove it? 🤷

Raymond Peterson81 said:Reading Joseph Wright4's description, I got the impression that his take on multiculturalism involves a certain kind of relativism—though he frames it under the banner of accepting diversity. To me, though, this just feels like yet another instance of left-wing cognitive dissonance. It makes no sense to advocate for tolerance while simultaneously conditioning that tolerance on a "whatever happens, happens" attitude.

What kind of tolerance is this, really? What exactly is being promoted here—just letting things run wild if I understood him correctly? It sounds like selective moralizing being rebranded as cosmopolitanism, broad-mindedness, or pluralism—all tucked away behind long-winded sentences and demagoguery. Essentially, the rules aren't applied equally to everyone. For some groups, traditions are just mundane things that can change on a whim, but for others, those same customs are treated as sacred obligations that we must respect if we have any shred of decency or culture left in us.

That isn't rational.

Let’s drift back to that hypothetical village scenario for a moment. Australia House 5, the Japanese people. In rural Japan, there's a custom where doors aren't locked because merchants leave fish for their neighbors in the morning; if they find a door locked (since they wouldn't want to leave the fish out on the porch), they interpret it as a message saying, "you aren't welcome," which they view as an insult.

Do they have the right to demand that all doors be kept unlocked in the name of multiculturalism, simply because they feel oppressed or discriminated against otherwise?

Oh, they absolutely have the right to make the demand.
You file a Request, and there you go—you've exercised your right.
The concept of a "right" isn't really the issue here; everyone has rights, so why even argue about that? Rights aren't much of an argument in themselves. It’s more about the obligation—as in, who is obligated to accept the submitted Request? Or rather, who is responsible for taking that Request once it's received and promptly crumpling it up to toss into the trash at the Water and Sewerage department? That's the real question. 😁

And they just keep spinning these endless excuses: multi-culti, multi-this, multi-that... 🤦
It sounds like some sort of nonsense jargon—just hollow fluff wrapped in fancy packaging. 🤣

Maria Robinson2 said:We aren't doing that—we're human beings, after all.

Well, of course we are human.
Besides, stating the obvious feels a bit... I don't know, totally anachronistic at this point, wouldn't you agree? 😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:It’s just me and a guy wearing a three-horned hat fighting against God... though not against Christ, since he was basically a communist.

🙂

🙏
I hadn't heard that one before.
But tell me—did anyone ever go around shouting, "Hey, Comrade Jesus!"? 🤔

Maria Robinson2 said:Maybe this will actually matter to someone at some point—I guess. If they’re really planning to print zodiac signs on everyone's driver's licenses, they might as well just include whether you're a believer or an atheist while they're at it.
So, I guess we could actually start asking ourselves who—or what—these divisions would even serve.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I’ll happily take the atheist stance against Vatican City, but you, my friend, can be whoever you want to be. Honestly, it’s your call. As far as I know, there isn't a contract signed with the devil in Canada... so you should be fine for now... at least until those fanatics start showing up in much larger numbers.

So, what you're saying is... we should be arming ourselves? Is that really where we're headed? 😁
In that case—I’ll just grab my five-pointed star, pin it right to my headband, and let's go!🎉

And then there’s this whole business of declaring oneself...😵
Who actually needs a census on how many atheists or believers are out there?
It isn't like you can go apply for a job based on being an atheist—as if there were some specialized niche waiting for someone holding a first class certificate. 🤣
I mean, really, who is this for? Being an atheist, or, well, the alternative, obviously. 😁

I don't know...
Forests, leaders, mountain trails... you've got to keep moving... but if you end up face-down in the ocean, there isn't much walking left to do.
How does that even work? 😕

Gerald Hill said:The Vjedrogonja was described in legend as a mere man, and since we all know what a human looks like, the concept is simple. For instance, do you believe in Mark from Pancip? I don't need to "believe" in him; there is almost certainly a man named Mark living in Pancip right now.

So, by that logic, we're all Vjedrogonja (ha!).
🙂

Joseph Bailey41 said:Well, that’s just great. Not that I have anything to show for it anyway. 😬

Ouch...🤣...well, I guess I saw that coming—it's probably going to be one of those days, isn't it? 🙂