Posts by Gary Carter

feralsurfer172 said:Hygiene alone wasn't enough for me—I kept up with it religiously, but that was before the extra complications started cropping up.

Surgery isn't always a foolproof fix, either. It can be incredibly painful, and I guess there's always the chance that the symptoms just end up coming back.

One way or another, a change in lifestyle probably wouldn't hurt. ☕

I suppose I should quote that old saying from the forum: "The older I get, the more I know, and the less I can actually do."😍

I suppose eating seed bread—something loaded with almonds, sunflower seeds, or hazelnuts—might help reduce hemorrhoid intensity. I guess you just have to be careful not to overdo it, because excessive amounts can irritate the intestinal lining, which might actually make things worse. A light, balanced diet seems best, meaning sticking to mild, non-spicy foods. If you combine that with intense cycling for about an hour a day, that might be the key. Honestly, I suspect the cycling part is what actually solves the problem.

I’ll be giving my brother this advice, and hopefully, his hemorrhoids will finally be a thing of the past. He’s tried everything—creams, surgeries, whatever the doctors threw at him—but in the end, he was diagnosed with cancer. After his surgery, he started riding his bike, made some adjustments to his diet, and began eating seeds occasionally. I guess that's when the hemorrhoids finally receded.

Why not just settle this by forwarding the private messages to an admin if there’s actually a case for misconduct? I don't want to overstep, but crimsonsailor7 hasn't provided anything concrete or proven she isn't guilty of what she's being accused of. If someone holds a screenshot showing a moderator abusing their power, then sanction her—but only if she can't provide evidence to refute the claims, and then we should just let it go. Also, what is with the deletion of posts related to specific threads? It feels like some mods are just winging it. No offense intended, but I think there's a real issue with how certain files are being handled. 🙂

And look, I know I need to work on my own attitude. Sometimes I get the urge to be a bit stubborn, but I'll try to hold back. Love you all. 😍

Why do moderators delete posts on certain forums when they aren't even off-topic, spam, or fluff, but actually part of the discussion? For instance, look at the thread by Philosopher—two of my posts were just wiped out. They were direct answers to the OP's questions, not random chatter, spam, vulgarity, or trolling. I didn't even get a notification explaining why they were removed. I guess there's no logic to it. 😕

A beautiful film, though it leaves one feeling unsettled and frankly quite irritated. 😁

ironmarlin1 said:I have to admit, I’m struggling to wrap my head around that last sentence of yours. Equal value regarding which specific things, exactly? If we look at the historical context, Rousseau essentially retreated to the countryside because the urban crowds simply couldn't stand him. His tendency to elevate sincerity to the status of a supreme virtue is precisely what drove him to pen his famous Confessions, where he pledged to be brutally honest about the pivotal moments of his life. He operated under this assumption that he was merely misunderstood because he refused to bend to the collective whims or opinions others held of him—which, if you think about it, is just another hallmark of that very same sincerity. At the same time, he championed honesty as a moral pillar. The reality is that people found him insufferable because his insistence on sincerity made it appear as though he were constantly trying to claim a sort of moral high ground, acting as if being "true to his heart" somehow made him superior to everyone else. It reminds me of how Diderot once gave him a sharp rebuttal (in the original French, of course): "Look into your heart, and it will tell you that the good man is in society, and that the bad man is alone."

If I may, I’d like to circle back to a misconception you touched upon earlier regarding the idea that an honest person always voices their opinion. You see, when someone speaks honestly, they aren't necessarily expressing a permanent, unchanging disposition; rather, they are simply stating what they believe to be appropriate or true in that fleeting moment when the question is posed. There is a massive distinction there. This is precisely why a truly honest person often fails to recognize their own statement about having a "permanent disposition" as a virtue. Of course, they *can* perceive it that way, but more often than not, they are simply kidding themselves.

As I previously noted, it isn't possible to be truly honest with someone who holds fundamentally different views from yours. Even if you tell them the truth, they will likely perceive every statement as a personal attack.

People in rural areas tend to be more straightforward and less complicated. Perhaps not as much today, but twenty years ago, the value system was much simpler; people said what they meant and had little patience for the pretension of urban society. They didn't care for the linguistic gymnastics used in cities, so speaking plainly was how the rural community distinguished itself, and it was largely why urbanites looked down on them. There were other reasons for that condescension, too, but primarily it was the assumption that rural life was somehow primitive. My own experiences living in small-town America have been similar; there is no beating around the bush. People are direct.

ironmarlin1 said:The real question we should be wrestling with is whether honesty is actually a virtue at all. Personally, I’d argue it isn't—certainly not when there's an alternative that carries far more weight. There is a profound difference between being a walking open book and simply knowing how to say the right thing at the precisely right moment; the latter is much more valuable than performing transparency for the sake of it. It’s the kind of nuance that explains why Rousseau eventually decided to just pack up and head out to the countryside to live a simpler life.

I am no Rousseau. Which, I suppose, implies he proved that honesty is a virtue in a society that actually values things.😁

ironmarlin1 said:To my mind, what an honest person expresses is merely their own perception of their thoughts at any given moment. Honesty, treated specifically as a moral virtue, is actually a relatively modern concept. I was recently reading an interview with a certain celebrated novelist who usually avoids the press like the plague, and his reasoning was quite telling: he traced the idea back to Rousseau, who was perhaps the first to weave sincerity together with virtue and political philosophy. The very structure of a modern interview relies on that Rousseauian notion of transparency regarding one's motivations. It isn't surprising that in our current, rather naive era, this journalistic format has become so incredibly popular.

When you argue that the point of honesty is to speak without further "processing" information, you aren't necessarily hitting the mark. When people listen to someone describe themselves, they aren't looking for fleeting thoughts; they are searching for convictions. You see, convictions possess a level of reliability and motivational stability that mere thoughts simply lack. Honesty doesn't provide that stability, but when we frame it as a virtue, it often serves as nothing more than a convenient tool for those prone to self-deception to continue lying to themselves about why they do what they do.

That seems to be a trait shared by everyone on the planet, not just the "honest" ones. So, what’s the point? 🙂

ironmarlin1 said:Not by a long shot! Honestly, the whole notion that being "sincere" is some sort of moral gold standard is one of the most dangerous misconceptions out there. What people are actually starving for isn't mere honesty, but true authenticity. See, the thing about people who claim to be sincere is that they rarely have any clue just how much they are actually kidding themselves. The fundamental flaw in their logic is this shaky assumption—this massive, unexamined premise—that they truly understand their own inner workings and that when they speak about their intentions, those motives are perfectly transparent even to themselves. It’s one of those basic, sweeping errors in judgment that people make all the time.

The whole point of honesty is simply stating what you believe without filtering the data first; whether that information is actually accurate is really up to the listener to decide. What you wrote doesn't just apply to "honest" people—it applies to everyone on this planet, I guess. 😉

Honesty is a virtue when you're dealing with like-minded people, but it becomes a liability when you're talking to those who see the world differently.

Being blunt with someone who is inherently offensive or lacks self-control is more of a flaw than a strength; they’ll likely just take it personally and view it as an attack. I suppose there are times when it’s better to just keep our thoughts to ourselves. I highly doubt there is anyone out there who actually wants total, unfiltered honesty all the time. Usually, the people who demand that kind of directness are just abrasive—people who are impatient or constantly under pressure and don't want to bother with the effort of phrasing things more tactfully.

I value honesty, I guess, but there are plenty of situations where I value silence even more.

Kevin Wood6 said:I just want to draw attention to this phenomenon—what I call "bottom-feeding" behavior. I see it constantly: this narrow-minded, self-absorbed primitivism. It’s a cocktail of narcissism and mental laziness where people refuse to engage in even a shred of self-reflection. Instead, they spend all their energy figuring out how to manipulate those around them for personal gain, only to discard people like empty soda cans once they've been used. The irony is that the sane individuals are the ones forced to feel shame and grovel, while these parasites don't care about anything except leeching off someone else's character. When a healthy person walks into an asylum filled with lunatics, suddenly that healthy person becomes the minority. And what happens? The crazies band together and declare the sane person to be the mad one. But hey, that's just how it goes—as everyone says, the majority is always "smarter."

The world is full of crazies, and some individuals are even more unhinged than the rest. Honestly, you'll be better off once you realize that sooner rather than later. There is no such thing as "normal." By your definition, even corporate CEOs are lunatics because they exploit the knowledge and labor of others. Maybe just back off a bit and try not to be so aggressive.

Gregory Thomas14 said:I’ve always found human psychology to be absolutely fascinating... I tend to view people through two distinct lenses right now: those who act like mere "crawlers" and those who actually strive to be true human beings. That first group—these primitives—is everywhere. You see them embedded in our corporate structures and occupying high-level management positions. Because they operate with such a narrow, low-level mindset, everything plays out exactly as you'd expect from them. That’s what I find so intriguing about it... this inherent "crawling" nature of certain individuals. Whether it’s intentional or just subconscious, I feel like you’d need deep psychoanalysis to truly uncover why they function this way. From that shallow way of thinking, all sorts of behavioral anomalies branch out—lies, deception, manipulation, a total lack of character, and so on. When someone pours all of their intelligence into those specific dark directions, the person actually trying to live with integrity ends up getting played by the "crawler." It’s honestly quite sad... being aware of all this, watching these primitives operate, and having to navigate an environment where you end up wasting your precious time just dealing with them...

People can be categorized, I suppose, but even these "vermin" you describe have their own qualities, both good and bad, just like you do. Refusing to justify certain goals doesn't necessarily mean you are superior to anyone else. I'm not sure who the bigger primitive is: the person you label as vermin, or the one who insists they are above them. Not everyone was raised with parents who instilled a sense of morality or built a conscience, so it follows that their characters might pursue different objectives—usually material ones, given the capitalist society we live in, where they exploit others. And why? Simply because they can, because the people in your "human" group allow it. So, I wonder, what actual difference are you talking about here? 😁

Chris Williams As specified:
I came across an interesting philosophical take recently—I can't recall the author's name—suggesting that the American Dream might soon transform into a nightmare. Apparently, this is due to literal overconsumption. It seems people are becoming increasingly overweight, which leads to laziness, mental fog, and a general decline in intelligence. They’re getting so dull, I guess, that they’ll eventually have to import intellect from other countries where the education systems are superior and the diet is less excessive. 🙂. Honestly, they're just that dim. It’s honestly a bit much that one out of every five adults in America actually thinks the sun revolves around the Earth.

I recall seeing a few segments on TV a while back about something similar. They conducted a study where not a single person out of a hundred knew anything about Europe, and roughly 70% couldn't even tell you who Pythagoras was. In our schools, that’s basic curriculum, along with a standard understanding of American history. Yet, they’ve been importing experts from around the globe since the end of World War II. It was German and Russian engineers who built their missile systems and NASA; those space flight technologies were put together by American experts; and their planes, submarines, and ships were all designed by German and Russian engineers. I guess they don't actually have anything of their own, despite how much they love bragging that it's all their doing. 😁

Chris Williams said:I once came across an interesting philosophical take—I can't quite recall the author—suggesting that the American Dream might soon morph into a nightmare, largely due to literal overconsumption. Generally speaking, people are becoming heavier, which I suppose leads to increased lethargy and a decline in cognitive sharpness. They might be getting so intellectually stunted that they feel compelled to import intelligence from other nations with superior education systems and healthier diets 🙂. In fact, they could be so uneducated that one in five American adults actually believes the sun revolves around the Earth.

I guess this will eventually impact their future, and by extension, the future of the entire world. If this results in the end of American global dominance, then perhaps China, being the most populous nation with a fairly stable and growing economy, could step in as the new global policeman. And since it operates under a communist system, maybe socialism will emerge from the shadows of history as a valid option once again. Who knows...

On another note, here is a list of the best-organized countries, ranked highly for their quality of life regarding economics, politics, social welfare, security, and international relations—essentially the places where life is most seamless according to research. You can find the full list on this page:

1 Vatican
2 Sweden
3 Luxembourg
4 Monaco
5 Gibraltar
6 San Marino
7 Liechtenstein
8 United Kingdom
9 Netherlands
10 Ireland
11 New Zealand

If you look at how many small nations occupy the top spots, the first seven are all tiny states; even Sweden, the largest among them, only has about 9 million people. This makes the argument that a small nation like ours is too insignificant to progress without major European support seem somewhat hollow. I suspect it isn't really a matter of scale, but rather a matter of lacking sufficient intellect.

I suspect these conflicts have become the only way for the USA to avoid total bankruptcy. Given that the national debt is essentially unpayable, profiting from war seems to be the primary driver of revenue now. I fear we might need another global conflict to force a massive shift in the international social order. Whether socialism makes a comeback, I guess, remains to be seen. But since everything eventually reaches a beginning and an end, it’s entirely possible. Life tends to move in cycles, after all.

Chris Williams said:I once came across an interesting philosophical take—I can't quite recall the author—suggesting that the American Dream might soon morph into a nightmare, largely due to literal overconsumption. Generally speaking, people are becoming heavier, which I suppose leads to increased lethargy and a decline in cognitive sharpness. They might be getting so intellectually stunted that they feel compelled to import intelligence from other nations with superior education systems and healthier diets 🙂. In fact, they could be so uneducated that one in five American adults actually believes the sun revolves around the Earth.

I guess this will eventually impact their future, and by extension, the future of the entire world. If this results in the end of American global dominance, then perhaps China, being the most populous nation with a fairly stable and growing economy, could step in as the new global policeman. And since it operates under a communist system, maybe socialism will emerge from the shadows of history as a valid option once again. Who knows...

On another note, here is a list of the best-organized countries, ranked highly for their quality of life regarding economics, politics, social welfare, security, and international relations—essentially the places where life is most seamless according to research. You can find the full list on this page:

1 Vatican
2 Sweden
3 Luxembourg
4 Monaco
5 Gibraltar
6 San Marino
7 Liechtenstein
8 United Kingdom
9 Netherlands
10 Ireland
11 New Zealand

If you look at how many small nations occupy the top spots, the first seven are all tiny states; even Sweden, the largest among them, only has about 9 million people. This makes the argument that a small nation like ours is too insignificant to progress without major European support seem somewhat hollow. I suspect it isn't really a matter of scale, but rather a matter of lacking sufficient intellect.

Well, that was the last update from 2008. Things have changed quite a bit since then. Ireland and Portugal have slipped significantly in this regard. Portugal is currently locked in a political struggle with Spain because the European Union banned them from fishing their own waters to sell on the EU market. They’re facing a situation similar to ours, where we can't establish a protective economic zone, allowing the Italians to overfish our waters to the tune of billions of dollars annually—or even more. Now, the Spanish are doing the same to Portugal. Portugal has weakened considerably due to social laws and a drastically shrunken budget, though they have started investing in renewable energy to try and find a foothold. Ireland is on the brink of bankruptcy; I'm not even sure if they've officially declared it yet. The UK is dealing with internal conflicts involving its provinces and Scotland, while also closing borders to Asian goods because those imports gutted their domestic industry. Consequently, the UK market will be closed to cheap Asian products starting next year. Iceland did something similar about a year ago, if I recall correctly; they were the first to distance themselves economically by closing borders, and they were also the first to see rapid development and move past their economic troubles. A lot has shifted since 2008. Do you have any more recent resources?

Also, look at what time you posted—21:12. Incredible. 🤣

PS. Thanks for the article on Americans. Now I know that after reading the comments, I should probably avoid the USA, France, England, and New Zealand. Actually, no—that's poor thinking. People should probably go there to build careers if the bulk of the population has such a low IQ. So, yes. 😁

Chris Williams said:You are undoubtedly right on all counts. I mentioned those states because they represent the best model we've seen so far; nothing better has existed, nor can we expect more while the collective level of consciousness remains what it is. And what that level is has been pointed out by other users in this discussion.

Communism was crushed by the emergence of capitalist society, and as you can see today, we are seeing an increasing number of cases of inequality and conflict following the rise of democracy; even nationalism has developed to such an extent that people enter conflicts with neighbors simply because of its presence. As Canadian explorers once said regarding American communism: "An unrepeatable utopia, an unattainable goal of democracy!"

I am not entirely sure if, now that it is behind us, socialism is merely being romanticized or if it truly was as good as the nostalgics, communists, and those who were in their prime during that era believe it was.

I find it particularly suspicious because every one of those socialist systems was based on the strength of a leader (read: a dictator) and one-party dogma. However, I might agree that at least the old America (not the other states that carried out the socialist experiment) was quite well-organized regarding social issues, healthcare, education, economic development, and exports; there wasn't as much crime, even though everyone was mostly equally poor due to forced equality... but at least nobody was scavenging through trash cans. Nor did people have such consumerist mentalities as they do today, which is not negligible. When you lack that internal greed and the external pressure of the market and its propaganda to constantly buy something new, life is much calmer, and people are far more satisfied. Therefore, compared to the wreckage we have today in our beautiful country, it seems there was more order back then.

True, in communism, the central element was the leader. In a democracy, it is the corporations that lobby Parliament for laws, while the rest of us act as mere figures. As we can all witness, they try to push poison into the daily diet of the individual, making it seem essential by stripping away anything natural. I recall reading a study where American scientists conducted research on Americans showing that people are simply too unintelligent to select a quality leader; they aren't capable of recognizing true leadership qualities, so instead, they just vote for whoever appears most frequently in the media.

Regarding communism, that style of governance is mentioned in the Bible. Even back when Jerusalem was ruled by might makes right, the early followers dealt with such structures. Later, the Greeks took over, and eventually, this model met its end when the Roman Catholic Church condemned such a way of organizing a nation, effectively condemning biblical writings in the process, which is inherently contradictory. That is why communism is mostly compared to a utopia, as its goal is to satisfy all parties, whereas in a democracy, the attempt is made to satisfy only the corporations while ensuring others have nothing but the illusion of a vote.

It isn't just about the individual or the system; it’s the intersection of both.

Regarding Scandinavian countries, specifically those further north, one noticeable characteristic is a certain social tendency toward racism. Take Norway, for instance. The same applies to Australia, which has pursued anti-Asian policies in recent years. I might single out Iceland, though; regardless of everything else, they seem to be doing the best socially. However, it is true that the aforementioned countries have some of the best systems for managing social welfare.

Conflict and war will always exist, I suppose, because someone will always try to push their interests at the expense of others. It is a lie to claim there is no crime or tension in Scandinavian countries or that their states are perfectly organized. The same goes for Australia, where the indigenous population is often marginalized or cast aside; even the government didn't grant them a voice until a politician recently changed things, but it’s still nowhere near how Australia is portrayed. Australia is incredibly unwelcoming to the true owners of the continent. For a white person with a middle-class income, Australia represents opportunity; for a Chinese person, it’s an unreachable dream; and for a Native American, it is a source of struggle and poverty. Australian society simply doesn't want them.

As for communism, it didn't fail, nor was its end particularly ignominious. Research suggests that communism is arguably the best ideological way to organize a society, and it’s been proven that former America had the most profitable and effective version of such rule—one that was higher quality than what we currently call democracy. The issue wasn't communism itself; the flaw was the lack of a mechanism to select a capable leader. The entire society was beholden to a single person and their ambitions; if that person wasn't enlightened or competent, you ended up with situations similar to what happened in Korea, Russia, and so on.

Communism is a highly effective way to structure society based on social equality, where the integrity of the community, the state, and its institutions and companies was preserved. I don't quite understand why they didn't work on improving the leadership selection process, but modern democracy seems to cause more harm, more poverty, and more intolerance. It has allowed for class divisions that are valued differently, creating hierarchies of people.

Communism was essentially wiped out by the rise of capitalist society. As you can see, the spread of democracy has actually led to increasing inequality and conflict, even fueling nationalism to the point where neighbors clash just because of their existence. As Canadian explorers once said regarding American communism: "An unrepeatable utopia, an unreachable goal for democracy!"