Posts by lonegardener

Beauty is simply whatever brings joy to the heart.

cosmicgull52 said:As the legally and fairly elected 46th President of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden, stated, the state possesses the atomic bomb.

As the highly respected and insightful cosmicgull52 has written here multiple times, this is the single most foolish thesis regarding the Second Amendment as it is currently implemented. With today's legally available firearms, citizens cannot defend themselves from tyranny. To make this argument valid, Stingers, Javelins, and grenades would need to be available at Walmart.

The only true purpose of a semi-automatic rifle, besides hunting, is mass murder. And, naturally, idiotic posing on social media and at fascist truth rallies. Any other form of self-defense in real-life circumstances can be handled with a handgun.

Honestly, that isn't exactly a groundbreaking observation.

To put it plainly, that logic is just as flawed as saying "a locked door won't stop a professional thief." (Which is a pretty terrible excuse for why you shouldn't bother locking your door at all).

The same applies here. It is undeniably EASIER to prevent tyranny when people are armed than when they aren't. Firearms act as a massive deterrent. No aspiring tyrant can establish absolute control without a whole army of enforcers behind them. And regardless of what technology those enforcers might have, it's always going to be easier to suppress an unarmed population than one that is armed. Therefore, being armed absolutely makes sense as a deterrent against tyranny, regardless of the "theoretical possibility" that a tyranny could still emerge despite it.

Zachary White19 said:Saying something is a fact can be true or false, just like any other claim. When you call it an "undeniable fact," you're basically asserting that the fact itself is indisputable. It’s like saying it’s an undeniable fact that it's an undeniable fact. That’s just the top tier of logic right there... and that's just how it is.

lol

Terry Martinez10 said:Precisely.
When you have true collaboration or synergy, you generate added value, meaning the total output ends up being greater than just the sum of its individual parts; we could simplify that as (2 + 2 = 5), or, if things go sideways and you get a counterproductive effect, we could just say (2 + 2 = 3).

But that math is really just a *metaphor* for the idea, not an actual mathematical equation.

Jonathan Kelly8 said:Your link claims synergy means the whole is greater than the sum of its parts—essentially saying 2 + 2 = 5 in mathematical terms.

Look into Gestalt theory. We often perceive entire patterns or configurations rather than just individual components. People sometimes simplify this by saying, "the whole is more than the sum of its parts," or even use that "2 + 2 = 5" analogy.

A more precise way to put it would be: 'The whole is something else than the sum of its parts, because summing is a meaningless procedure, whereas the whole-part relationship is meaningful.'

The whole is fundamentally different from the sum of its parts—summing is a meaningless procedure, while the relationship between the whole and its parts is what carries actual meaning.

I’ve mentioned this before, but let me try one more time.

The idea of 2+2=5 can be viewed at best as a metaphor—a poetic way of expressing that the total exceeds the individual pieces. It doesn't mean there is any logical context where 2+2 LITERALLY equals 5. It's just a shorthand for that "extra something" that emerges from the combination itself, which then changes the final result. If we wanted to be more "mathematically precise" about the concept of synergy, it would look like this:

2 + 2 + f(2+2) = 5.

To put it simply: you take two of something and add two more, PLUS an additional factor that arises from the union itself (that’s our f(2+2)—the "function of the sum"). That gives you five. Of course, in this specific scenario, it just means that function happens to equal 1.

Matthew Jackson2 said:I have a question for these 31 individuals—those who apparently believe they’re always right—and I mean this sincerely: when you're sending your kids off to school in the morning, do you bother putting a helmet on them just in case they trip and hit their heads on the sidewalk? If you don't, I genuinely want to know why. Is the risk really not high enough for you to take even the most basic precaution? It seems absolutely reckless to me, frankly.

If headquarters told everyone they had to wear helmets all day long—because you never know when a fall might happen and the consequences could be serious—you can bet some people would be forcing helmets on their kids from sunrise to sunset.

Sam Wright21 said:The catch, however, is that natural immunity isn't a permanent shield either, and the price of admission—actually getting sick—is significantly higher. A neighbor was telling me just yesterday about an acquaintance who caught COVID; he was laughing it off at first because it seemed like a mild case. Fast forward a few months, and the man is in a coma with failing lungs.

Let's get back to the kids.

When it comes to children, the "side effects" of COVID are statistically negligible in almost every scenario.

I honestly don't see the logic in rushing kids to get an experimental vaccine when we have no idea what the long-term impact might be—especially when we're trying to "protect" them from a threat that barely touches them.

Ginger Rogers said:The reality is that the vaccine only uses a tiny fraction of the virus.

Exactly. You’re essentially training your body to react only to that specific fragment—the spike protein—rather than the entire virus itself.

That means if a mutated version of the virus comes along, all it takes is one small change to that specific "fragment" to make all that vaccine protection useless.

Now, this is a simplification, but the bottom line is that the natural immunity gained from actual exposure provides a much more robust defense than what you get from a vaccine.

Amanda Jackson5 said:As Robert Torre puts it, the real question isn't whether there’s anything waiting for us on the other side, but rather whether we’re actually living while we're still here.

None 😁

steelridge58 said:I honestly couldn't care less about potential aliens, because if you ask me, we should be much more worried about us humans

But why is that? 😍

Amanda Jackson5 said:I don't see it either.

I’m honestly struggling to see why everyone is so convinced this isn't safe. It’s entirely possible that any plausible aliens out there aren't looking for a physical takeover, but rather a spiritual one. For some reason, capturing our souls might be far more valuable to them than just seizing territory. They could be aiming for a kind of cosmic evangelization to "save" us, or who knows—I can probably come up with a dozen different scenarios along those lines. To borrow a thought from Unamun, maybe their goal isn't actually to defeat us, but simply to convince us. Or, if you want to get really weird about it, maybe they’re just massive fans of humanity. We might actually be the cult classic civilization of the universe. Even Jesus might have been an alien for all we know; wasn't that basically Däniken's whole argument?

Fair enough, though I might have missed your point regarding "deception." It sounded a bit like you were suggesting we need to be wise 🧐 so that superior aliens won't trick us, or something along those lines. I’d argue we probably wouldn't be capable of being wise enough in that scenario; if those superior beings actually wanted to deceive us, they would succeed. Even in your line of thinking, maybe Hegel was an alien. 🤣

Amy Bennett said:Besides, if there were aliens capable of crossing those impossible interstellar gaps, they would have already crossed them and arrived here. Since they haven't? Well, bye-bye, aliens.

In my view, aliens are largely a byproduct of how we've secularized the spiritual realm. We tend to take profound spiritual experiences and filter them through a materialistic lens, interpreting them as contact with foreign technological beings.

Wait, what do you mean by "already"? Why couldn't it have happened a million years ago, or maybe a million years from now?

Just think about it—what if WE were the ones to bridge those gaps? Say, around the year 2400 or something. Wouldn't someone far away from here, living back in the year 2300, look at us and say, "If aliens existed, they'd already be here"?

Amy Bennett said:Aliens don't exist—and even if they do, they aren't ever going to set foot on Earth.

The only real link to dialectics here is the idea of the Antichrist—viewing him as the inevitable outcome of materialist dialectics or, if you look at the bigger picture, just how the cosmos unfolds itself. Honestly, when you look at the Catechism, its stance against this kind of progressive vision of history is pretty blunt and clear.

I don't quite see why God would need any kind of middleman when it comes to self-knowledge—to me, His self-awareness is eternally axiomatic, almost by definition. If it weren't, we wouldn't even be talking about God in the first place. It is interesting, though—even within that messy Hegel-derivative logic—that you manage to pull something insightful from it: the idea that a person can only truly know themselves through God.

Look, I can't say for certain that they don't exist... but here is what I am sure of.

If aliens showed up on Earth TODAY with the intention of "conquering" us, they wouldn't need any kind of "deception."

I mean, if a civilization is advanced enough to bridge those unimaginable interstellar distances, they certainly wouldn't struggle to just crush us with raw, brute force. That’s actually the biggest flaw in that movie *Independence Day*. That story could really only end in two ways:

1. Total annihilation of humanity—basically turning us back into primitive cave dwellers without a civilization.
2. A second wave of even more advanced aliens arriving, who happen to be at war with the first group and, for some inexplicable reason, decide to "side" with us.

@Nea, why on earth would you actually "change your pessimism" if you were absolutely certain about eternal oblivion? What’s the logic behind "trying to find something interesting in everything"?

It feels like the exact opposite to me: if I knew for sure that eternal oblivion was a fact (and honestly, I'm about 99.5% convinced right now, lol), I’d become even more pessimistic. I certainly wouldn't feel like looking for the silver lining in anything.

That said, we should probably point out a bit of ambiguity in the Freudian question. When he asks "what would you change about your life," it isn't clear if he means changing things *now*—from the moment you "realize" eternal oblivion exists until you die—or if he means looking back retrospectively, like "if you could be reborn with that knowledge from the start." It seems like you're interpreting it in that second sense, which is why you mention "youth," but even that feels backwards to me: you can't turn back the clock. No matter how I spent my youth, my "now" remains the same. Of course, that assumes we ignore the actual consequences a certain lifestyle might have on your current situation—though I think you've overlooked that too. You seem to be focusing strictly on experiences or "missed opportunities," rather than practical things like, well, "if I had saved more money, I'd actually have some cash now," lol.

Amanda Jackson5 said:It feels like most of you are just taking it for granted, assuming that if an afterlife actually exists, Jesus would somehow be wandering around there too. That wasn't my intention at all, nor did I expect anyone to take the path of least resistance—it’s like everyone wants to find Jesus, but they haven't even figured out what they’d bother asking him.

That is such a strange objection to make. No one actually assumed a figure like Jesus *had* to be there, but honestly, the concept of "Jesus" isn't any weirder or more far-fetched than the idea of an afterlife itself. So, bringing him up fits the spirit of the question perfectly. And it's not true that we wouldn't know what to ask him; if he really were there, the first thing I'd want to know is why he stays so low-profile—basically, why does it feel like he was made up?😬

As for asking "ordinary" people—like ancestors, old acquaintances, or historical figures—I have to admit I can't think of much that I'd find particularly fascinating to ask. 😬 One thing I do know: I'd look Oswald in the eye and ask, "Hey man, did you actually pull the trigger on Washington, D.C.?" 🤣

Bill Gates is a big proponent of the idea that we can offset global warming by releasing reflective particles high up in the atmosphere. It immediately brings to mind a plot from a game I remember playing, Transartica

Back in 2022, the planet was struggling with Hollywood Global Warming. To find a way in order to cool down The Earth, Professor John Merrick decides that nuclear weapons ara The Solution. The plan was to detonate nukes at the poles to create massive clouds of dust and steam, effectively blocking out the sun to chill the globe. That’s exactly what went down, but the math was off—the clouds grew far larger than expected, cooling the planet so drastically that it triggered a new Ice Age. With the World in a Deep freeze, civilization collapsed. Nice work, Merrick. Fast forward to the year 2714, and the world remains frozen; humanity is just barely clinging to survival, and the sun has faded into nothing more than a myth.

🤣

...And the sun continued to Shine
its benevolent Rays across The top of The opaque Cloud Layer,
hidden from human eyes.
The sun continued to shine.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Man, remember that feeling? Your buddy next door gets his hands on a 286, while everyone else is still struggling with their Spectrum or Commodore setups—trying to manually adjust the azimuth on a cassette tape just to get a game to load, lol. We’d all basically move into his apartment just to play. His mom must have been thrilled with all us hanging around... 🙏

Street Rod
Dune
Alone in the Dark
Dungeons & Dragons

LOL, I remember those days vividly 🤣

Amanda Jackson5 said:Mine has evolved too, though if I really sit down and think about it, maybe it hasn't actually changed that much. Come on then, just tell me—what's your absolute favorite right now? Or better yet, give me your top three from the last five years.

Well, it's been ages since I've actually "tried out" games—not that I keep up with the scene—so it's hard for me to say what my "best" has been in the last five years (let alone a top three), especially since I haven't really played anything lately besides Diablo.

Even Diablo didn't come close to blowing my mind the way the original Civilization once did. Or, a few years before that, Dungeon Master. 😁

It’s much easier to impress a kid than an adult... plus, something "completely new" always feels more striking than something that's just an evolution of what already exists. Still, that first impression isn't everything; I think I actually spent more time playing a certain fantasy clone of Civilization (Master of Magic) than any version of Civilization itself.

Eric Newman75 said:That’s pretty spot on, nice job. I seem to remember the actual game being a bit more visually polished—and definitely harder—but hey, that’s just how it goes. I guess all those little details depend on which specific arcade cabinet you were playing.

Maybe. My memory also tells me it "looked better" back then. 🤔

The thing is, I haven't been able to find any mention of a more famous, later "clone" of this original. It might have been some obscure cabinet—maybe something released years later when the genre was already dying out, even though much more advanced games were already hitting the scene (like the legendary OutRun 😬).

I mean, if that advanced clone of the original Space Invaders popped up around the same time as OutRun, it wouldn't be surprising if it slipped through the cracks and stayed undocumented. I can't even find a trace of it on Google.

Eric Newman75 said:When you start talking about those old-school arcade cabinets, Scramble definitely holds a special spot in my heart, right up there with the legends like Pac-Man and Space Invaders. But honestly, there’s this one game I can't quite wrap my brain around the title of, though man, it was incredibly addictive. You pilot this little spaceship, trying to pick up speed while dodging these "bosses" that are guarded by layers upon layers of obstacles. These shields are arranged in circles, maybe five or six levels deep. And the coolest part? To dodge the constant barrage of projectiles, you could actually fly right off one side of the screen and just pop out on the opposite side. That seamless loop—that whole continuum thing—was just so unique.

I think you're thinking of Star Castle. 😁