Posts by Harold Doyle3

Casey Gomez said:When you’ve got sheep, you’ll never run short on wool. ☕

👍 Pure genius!

frozengardener7 said:I am simply wondering whether a clean break is necessary or if gradual change is the way to go. If you make a sudden cut, there is an expectation that you have established entirely new rules, and then it becomes your duty to stick to them without fail. On the other hand, gradual change involves working on yourself alongside those aforementioned ghosts of the past, slowly rising above them.

Which approach is superior?

It doesn't work like that... there isn't a "better" option.
You are who you are. Some people decide to scale a mountain via the most brutal, jagged route possible, while others just pick the easiest trail.
Still, if you actually want a fresh start, you have to finish the old journey first... if you don't close that chapter, you aren't starting over; you're just wandering aimlessly at a crossroads.

frozengardener7 said:I’ve been debating whether to post this under Psychology or Philosophy, but one specific quote—one I'm sure most of you know well—pushed me toward the latter.

"You cannot escape yourself."

Does that mean the whole concept of a "fresh start" is just empty rhetoric?

Look at the thousands of people who claim to have started over. Some quit their addictions, some switched careers entirely, others worked on controlling their temper, and so on.

Is it truly a new beginning? Or is it just an upgrade of the existing self? Whether we care to admit it or not, the past isn't erased; it follows you like a shadow.

Was it actually a 180-degree turn, or was it just a slow, incremental process of mastering oneself?

Barra already gave us the answer to that.

@ Kimberly Perez82 ...Where on earth were you back in '91?

Kimberly Perez82 said:Look, I completely agree with you, I really do. But honestly, I can see how sensitive everyone is being in here, and people are jumping to conclusions that weren't even my intention. All I was trying to suggest—and please, bear with me—is that we should probably allow Putin some sort of way out. He needs a concession so he doesn't look like a total loser to his people at home, which might actually help de-escalate the threat of a nuclear war. That's truly all I meant.

Wrong. We should give Russia an exit strategy so they don't end up looking like complete failures—not just Putin. Surely the nation matters more than one man...

Jessica Rivera37 said:Honestly, I can’t even begin to wrap my head around the sheer level of Russian stupidity.
From the very beginning, it was painfully obvious that their entire strategy was a total disaster. They didn't have nearly enough troops, and they fell for this delusional fantasy that the local population would be rolling out on red carpets to welcome them. But let's just set that aside for a moment.

Now we’re seeing this massive mobilization of absolute nobodies across Russia. And the big question is, what are they actually going to equip them with? What kind of morale can you possibly expect from people like that? Not to mention the immense pressure this puts on the government when soldiers start coming back home in body bags by the thousands. But again, let's put that to one side.

Even if we entertain the idea that this is some sort of brilliant tactical maneuver—that it might somehow tip the scales in Russia's favor, though I am firmly convinced it won't because they lost this war a long time ago—let's look at the hypothetical. Suppose they "win" through sheer, bloody attrition, annex all those newly formed territories, and the Ukrainians are forced to sign a ceasefire. Even in that insane scenario, Russia still loses. The sanctions aren't going anywhere, they've lost tens of thousands of lives, and they're left with tens of thousands of disabled citizens. What does the future even look like for a country like that once the weight of those sanctions starts truly crushing them? Right now, they're struggling to manufacture a basic damn car; imagine where they'll be in two years. Europe isn't going to forget this, and Ukraine certainly won't. They'll be living under the constant threat of unrest from a deeply dissatisfied population.

The simple truth is that even if they were to win—which, again, I don't believe they will—they are already finished.

P.s. Just take a look at the registration data for Russian vehicles here and across Western Europe. Every so often, I'll spot a registration that is clearly Russian, even though someone has tried to hide it by peeling off the flag from the plate; you can still recognize them instantly just by the specific font used for the letters and numbers.

Look, it isn't just about being "stupid." It's more like they haven't grasped the reality yet—that Ukrainians aren't just fighting for their own soil; they are indirectly fighting for the future freedom of the Russian people too. Once that sinks in, it'll hit those who fled to the West before the mobilization orders even started (if it hasn't already). Americans have always encouraged various nations in this way; after all, we are essentially the children of Europe.
If Ukraine wants a seat at the table in NATO or the EU, they're going to have to meet every single requirement. And that includes the tough stuff—dealing with corruption and protecting minority rights... things we've seen play out many times before...

Are we really going to wait until they hand over every single nuclear warhead before the sanctions on Russia finally get lifted?

Jerry Clark72 said:Bottom line: if cows don't stop farting, we're screwed.

Dinosaurs were farting way more than that.

Sooner or later, we’re going to have to walk away from most fossil fuel energy.
It’s basically just millions of years of stored solar energy that we’re releasing all at once right now, which heats up the planet—not to mention the nasty byproducts of combustion making it even harder for Earth to cool itself down.
The ideal move is tapping into solar power via panels. That way, as a planet, we stay in thermal equilibrium. Whatever low-entropy energy hits the Earth gets emitted back out as high-entropy energy into the rest of the sky, excluding the sun. (Plus, plants store a bit of that energy too.)
If more energy from the sun is hitting the Earth than we actually need, then honestly, just paint your roofs and other accessible surfaces white to reflect it back.
This war in Ukraine is probably going to accelerate our departure from fossil fuels, giving us a fighting chance to avoid boiling ourselves alive through global warming.
If things heat up, you can expect massive populations from countries near the equator and at low altitudes to start migrating toward the poles or higher elevations where temperatures are tolerable and the ground stays dry. (Russia might actually look like a pretty attractive destination for people moving from the south, though they probably won't bother asking permission before showing up.)
We can also expect a surge in technological progress, which usually happens right after a crisis hits.
If we fail to make the jump, then frankly, we’re evolutionary scrap.

darkdriver said:A total mess is still just a total mess, no matter how many times you read 😉

A hundred million Chinese people and Indian people 🤦

darkdriver said:Wait, a hundred million?
I was just talking about a hypothesis regarding Ukraine, and they have, what, maybe 40 million people total?
I honestly don't get the logic here—like, if Vladimir ends up wiping out a million Ukrainians and their gear, why on earth would millions of Ukrainians flee to the very country that just destroyed their people? You know, Russia?
Man, I'd really love for someone to explain that one to me.

You really need to pay closer attention when you read, then you won't need everything explained to you.

darkdriver said:How exactly does a nuclear arsenal not help when you're facing a country that only has conventional weapons?
Hypothetically speaking, if Vladimir decides to just wipe them off the map using a single tactical strike of just a few kilotons against those million Ukrainian soldiers—even if they all managed to gather at once along with their HIMARS, Javelins, Stingers, and everything else—what can Ukraine or the West actually do about it, besides slapping on the 58th round of sanctions?

It doesn't help when you have a hundred million refugees flooding into your borders... how are you supposed to hold them back (or control the chaos) if you've got an enemy staring you down in the West at the same time?

If Vladimir decides to play nuclear roulette, it’s no different than if he just started dropping bombs all over Russia; the only difference is the labels on the casings will be in the Latin alphabet.

Look, I’m a political amateur here, so bear with me while I throw out a few questions...
From a purely strategic standpoint: shouldn't the Russians be playing nice with the West instead of picking a fight? If climate change keeps accelerating—which, let's face it, is becoming our reality—they're going to end up with hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indian, and Arab people pressing against their southern borders looking for living space. Obviously, you can't just sit there and watch people perish from the heat, but there needs to be some kind of management. You can't have a total stampede. Russia couldn't handle that alone... but with some Western cooperation, it might actually be organized. Nukes won't solve a migration crisis. The US has Alaska and Canada to retreat to, then there's Europe Scandinavia, Greenland... even Antarctica...

Secondly:

The Russian aggression in Ukraine is essentially creating an "Israel x 15"!
The Ukrainians have access to NATO weaponry and direct experience fighting the Russians. They are going to become the finest soldiers on the planet. Plus, they are brilliant engineers and technicians; they'll figure out how to merge the best tech from both sides to build world-class hardware...
In my opinion, Russia is making some massive strategic blunders...

If this global warming thing keeps trending upward, the only places left for Europeans, Chinese, Indians, or Arabs to actually survive might end up being Scandinavia or Russia. Americans already have Canada and Alaska tucked away, while those folks in the southern hemisphere can look toward Antarctica... honestly, all the effort of some musician won't matter, and even if you had 100,000 atomic bombs, what's the point? You'd just be using them to commit mass suicide.
Unless Russia adapts, its fate is already sealed.

👍

Let me bring this back to center stage.

Look, if we’re going by that old saying, "If a grandmother had a penis, she'd be a grandfather," then obviously that one little detail is what makes the difference.

No single gender holds a monopoly on nobility... both sides are equally capable of being noble-minded.

From an evolutionary standpoint, differences exist, BUT those differences serve as advantages for both sexes.

A quick little allegory for you:

Think about choirs. You have all-male choirs and all-female choirs. You also have mixed choirs, but those are made up of male and female members—not some strange "mixed entities." That’s exactly why they sound so beautiful and harmonious.

Now, don't get me wrong, "mixed entities" can still make for world-class soloists.👍

Laura Jones56 said:I didn't really become "transphobic" until after watching several "don't be transphobic" videos, once I saw what kind of situations were actually involved. There are probably perfectly fine trans people out there, but these specific representatives have done more to alienate people than to help them. Much like they've done with the gay community. For me, I just need to look at how that trans person presents, and everything becomes clear.

And credit to those who think in terms of the spirit. 🤷

Isn't he the one who came up with those pelvic floor exercises?

The man thinks anatomy is just a suggestion.

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose I struggle to grasp the logic behind the idea that a woman inhabiting a male body could be considered identical to a woman inhabiting a female body.🤷
How far would society actually go in practice when it comes to accepting a trans woman as a woman?
To me, it all seems quite clear if I just sit back and let my mind wander for a moment without overthinking it too much.
It really isn't the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't pretend that it is.

Using Hegelian logic—where the woman is the idea.

Maybe you should try taking a hit of something to calm down; you wouldn't need to bark so much just to hold a conversation.

At the start, you have one word.

ruggedraven36 said:So, how does one actually "act" like a man (or a woman)? Is it in picking cherries, collecting stamps, grabbing a coffee, watching sparrows through a window, walking down stairs, or even knowing how to capitalize a sentence? Is it in reading the debate about whether to put cheese in the fridge, or listening to Robert Flack? How do you suddenly become "masculine" or "feminine" in all those endless little actions—and a million others besides?

Like this.

Jose Edwards16 said:Matt Walsh is the creator of the documentary What is a Woman?
The film hits screens on June 1st.

If you’re wondering—and it is a bit of a weird question, I guess—what "woman" actually means and why some guy would make a whole movie about it, the answer is pretty straightforward.
Basically, while participating in debates with transgender individuals regarding how they define "woman," Matt Walsh kept getting told that the term can't actually be defined—or rather, that they don't know what a woman is. So, Walsh eventually asked: if people identifying as trans women can't define the term "woman," how do they even know they are trans women? I mean, the phrase "trans woman" is just two words joined together to create a new concept.
To get from "woman" to "trans woman," you really have to understand what both "woman" and "trans" signify first.

Here is the trailer for the Walsh film. A lot of folks in the LGBTQ community have already labeled the doc "transphobic" just based on the trailer alone, even though
the footage shows Walsh interviewing people with all sorts of viewpoints (including members of the LGBTQ community) and getting various responses—like one person saying the term "woman" could mean anything, or that there are women with penises and men with vaginas. There was also one guy who, when asked "How do you know you're a man?", just answered bluntly: "I know because I have a penis."

YouTube Trailer What Is A Woman

IMDB

It's the question you're not allowed to ask. The documentary they don't want you to see.

One woman told him that "only a woman can answer the question of what a woman is." Walsh then asked her: "So, are you perhaps a cat?" She said, "No."
Then Walsh asked: "Well, can you define what a cat is, then?"

Meanwhile, over on Twitter, members of the LGBTQ community are tagging the trailer as "transphobic" and trying to get it taken down—though it hasn't worked so far.

I find it interesting that Walsh gets branded a "transphobe" just for questioning the very premise of the film's title.
Also, if members of the LGBTQ community don't know (or maybe just won't) give an answer to the question of what a woman is, are we all supposed to just accept that view and say starting in 2022:
"The term woman is undefinable; we don't know what it signifies."

Just to be fair and listen to the other side, there have been plenty of critiques and attacks on the Walsh film, so here is one:

Transphobic Ad Asks "What is A Woman?"
YouTube

Right in the first minute, this YouTuber (Jamie) expresses shock at Walsh joining a march and asking the protesters: "What is a woman?"
By the second minute, when the trailer shows someone answering "Because I have a penis" to the question "How do you know you're a man?", Jamie doesn't even comment.
I guess he just didn't like that straightforward answer.

Jamie then goes on to say: "Trans women aren't men who became women; they are women who became trans."
Just a quick thought: how did these trans women become "trans"? We end up right back at the same spot where you need to define "trans" and "woman."

Jamie continues by calling Walsh's questions "bullshit" and repeats that the documentary is transphobic. ☕

Matt Walsh responded to him in his own video:
trans YouTuber Responds to What is a Woman
YouTube MW

Addressing Jamie's question about why "that dude" is asking women at a protest "what a woman is,"...
Walsh asks Jamie how he (Jamie) knows he (Walsh) is—well, a guy. He's like, "I didn't actually say I was a man anywhere in the documentary."
And honestly, that’s the first major contradiction from the LGBTQ crowd—I mean, first they claim "woman" is an undefinable concept, but then they spot Matt Walsh on screen and start lecturing him for being a man leading a march of women. So, the LGBTQ community immediately identifies Walsh as a man—and they clearly recognize he's among the women on the march.
Wait, how does that work—if we aren't allowed to define certain terms?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the term "woman" is easy enough to define, just like "man" or "trans woman." I mean, when we see someone, we don't usually struggle to tell if they're a man or a woman. It feels like the LGBTQ population just blurs the definitions to push a specific agenda.

And Walsh hit them with a point at the end too: "Jamie, in your ten minutes of commentary on my trailer, you didn't even answer the question I asked: What is a woman, how do we actually define that term?"
That's the second big contradiction right there.

Finally, Walsh explains his actual goal with the film: What is a Woman.
Explanation

He says, somewhat ironically, that the documentary will actually be incredibly useful and eye-opening for the LGBTQ+ community, since they insist they can't define what a "woman" is.
Another contradiction!

There's more to it, I guess, but this is just a starting point for the discussion.☕

A woman is whatever a man wants her to be—physically and spiritually.
A man is whatever a woman wants him to be—physically and spiritually.

The problem is, they both have no clue what they actually want from one another.