Basically, we're looking at shares handed out to people whose homes were leveled during the war. The original owner likely passed away, so the shares moved into an estate—which is why they're showing up as standard Berkshire Hathaway and Marriott International shares with their specific account codes.
I tried digging around online but came up empty. If this stuff is even still valid, I'd love some insight. Does anyone actually know what these shares represent now, or who I should even call to track them down?
Steven Clark2 said:According to certain experts, the etymology of this word within Columbus's journals[1] has two distinct roots. The first is the one I just mentioned. Members of the Arawak tribe used a word canibal to describe their enemies, though that was actually a linguistic misunderstanding of the word cariba. The second root stems from the Latin *canis*, meaning dog, which links back to the Cynocephali—those dog-headed monsters documented in scientific literature ranging from Pliny the Elder to Isidore of Seville and various other chroniclers of monstrous races. When Columbus's interpreters told him that men with "dog-like snouts" lived further east and "ate human flesh," and Columbus simultaneously heard the name the Arawaks gave their enemies, he translated the latter based on the prevailing scientific belief that "similarities are the foundation of all knowledge." The phonetic similarity between the Arawak term and the Latin roots describing monstrous carnivores convinced Columbus that they were indeed describing the same creatures.
The issue isn't quite so simple when you examine this etymology. Columbus truly believed he had reached India and the domain of the Great Khan; consequently, in his mind, the "caniba" were none other than subjects of the Great Khan who must have been neighbors to the tribes he encountered. He believed they possessed ships and would come to capture people, and since those taken never returned, the locals were left to believe they were being eaten.
This particular perspective on the New World gained traction very quickly, which is why this specific word was so easily adopted instead of the Greek terms that already existed for cannibalism. But the story doesn't end there. The narrative of cannibals—or people who consume their enemies—was popularized far more by Columbus's own letters (in which he details these accounts), which were published in 1493 and the following years in four different languages of the era (Latin, French, German, Italian, and Spanish). In these letters, Columbus simplified the complexities of his travels and everything occurring there, yet it seems the focus remained fixed on the "cannibals" of the Caribbean, perhaps due to the existing legends of man-eaters passed down from Herodotus. For a wonderful and detailed explanation including a critique of Columbus and his encounters in the Caribbean, I highly recommend looking at Peter Hulme's book Encounters : Europe and The Native Caribbean, 1492-1797 (pdf). Regardless, the term was embraced across America and Europe almost instantly.
Drawings of cannibals—it is quite interesting that you brought that up. By the late 16th century, visual culture was becoming incredibly influential in Europe, which explains why there were so many depictions of New World cannibals circulating at the time. Take, for example, this image produced by Theodor de Bry (who is famously known for his depictions of the New World). You might also examine this sculpture by Leonhard Kern from around 1650. Furthermore, consider this picture from 1621, which depicts Columbus's fleet under attack by cannibals.
__________________________
Notes:
[1] To clarify, we are actually referring to Columbus's journal from his first (out of four total) voyage, which survives through manuscripts provided by Bartolomé de las Casas. This is a significant distinction because Columbus's original journal is lost, as is the very first transcription of it. It is highly probable that de las Casas's transcription was copied from the original Columbus journal held at the monastery in San Pablo back in 1552, and that is the primary source we rely on when discussing the journal from his first voyage.
Sure, ritual cannibalism is a real thing—specifically consuming the dead (take the Fore people in Papua New Guinea, for example; nobody even knew they existed until the 1930s), where women mostly handled the funerary eating part. But honestly? I think these illustrations are pure propaganda and nothing else.
I find it hard to believe a whole crowd of natives would paddle out in straw boats with spears to attack ships while simultaneously prepping a BBQ back on the shore.
Plus, cannibalism triggers protein diseases similar to Mad Cow Disease. It’s pretty much impossible that even "primitive" groups wouldn't have figured out that eating each other is a massive social no-go.
Not sure if this is the right spot for this, but here goes: I’ve been hanging around this forum forever, and I was wondering if there’s an archive somewhere where I can dig up posts from like, fifteen years ago. My bad if I’m throwing this in the wrong thread and accidentally trolling someone.
Brian Young76 said:I think you're making one fundamental logical error here. You seem to believe that if you haven't had a personal experience with something, then it isn't real and doesn't exist.
The truth is, you haven't personally experienced the merging of science and spirituality, nor have you explored spirituality through experimental scientific methods. That’s fine, I guess, but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist. 😉
Actually, even someone like Stephen Hawking fell into that same basic logical trap. In his final book, he wrote about his belief that God does not exist. It seems to me that simply because he lacked a personal experience of knowing God, he concluded that God wasn't there. It’s quite fascinating, really, how one of the greatest intellects in physics could make such a foundational error in logical reasoning.
What I find even more compelling is how essentially the entire scientific community decided to just ignore Ramanujan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan)—not in terms of his actual theorems, but in terms of his methodology. Without any formal education, this man simply prayed to God (well, his own version of God, regardless), and hundreds or even thousands of mathematical formulas and theorems were revealed to him. He received completed solutions—these theorems—but without the proofs, which was unacceptable to the scientific establishment (and still is). He passed away a century ago, and over the last hundred years, as much of the scientific community has worked to prove his theorems, it turns out that practically everything God showed him through those formulas was correct.
And I wonder, did no one in that scientific community ever stop to ask themselves—could it be that this is actually a valid way for people to engage with science in a methodological sense? Should we perhaps formalize this in our curricula and subjects—not just memorizing formulas from old textbooks (though I suppose that has its place), but actively seeking inspiration for future formulas? You pray to God and seek inspiration (the arrival of the Holy Spirit) and you receive finished solutions. Okay, after that, you would then need to verify that solution and confirm it experimentally, assuming it falls within the natural sciences. But, if one man who prayed (Ramanujan), through divine inspiration, produced more theorems than practically the entire scientific establishment that didn't pray, isn't that a pretty clear indication?
If Hawking actually wrote that he doesn't believe in God—exactly like you said (I haven't read him, and honestly, I don't know enough about his stuff to say if he's even my kind of reading)—then since nobody has ever definitively proven God's existence, his opinion on the matter doesn't need any scientific or logical scrutiny. At the end of the day, Hawking's belief that God doesn't exist carries about as much weight as some lady at a local farmer's market claiming He does.
Is there any way to just block certain stuff online? Like, I honestly lose my mind whenever I see M. Markle, Taylor Swift, Antony Blinken, the Republican Party, or some random fashion influencer.
I'm looking for a way to scrub them from my sight for good. Basically, I need an option like "block adult content," but specifically for certain keywords.
What kind of psycho priest is this guy? Seriously, he’s clearly struggling with mental health issues and you people want to exorcise him with holy water? And don't even get me started on the parents—what were they doing for thirty years? Where was the actual psychological support? Maybe if someone had just gotten him proper therapy or meds, he could've actually lived a productive life. Honestly, at this point, he might be the only sane one in the room.
Jason Kim6 said:Exactly. If some guy looks like an Apollo walks up to a girl, everything he says is suddenly cool or interesting—he's just "smart," I guess. It’s easy to be charming when you're attractive. But if someone who isn't an Apollo—or is actually the opposite—approaches her, he's never smart enough or interesting enough; everything he says is just stupid and unfunny, simply because he doesn't have the perfect build or a handsome face. An Apollo can say anything and win. Meanwhile, some poor guy won't stand a chance even if he tries quoting the Bible, the Vedas, Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche—or even if he makes up his own quotes—it’s never quite good enough.
I'm trying to picture the scenario where a guy approaches a woman, they meet, and he goes: "I possess a depth of spirit as profound as my desires, along with a benevolence capable of rigorous firmness, which I switch between with ease. My views on women are purely traditional; I view them as a possession to be kept, a property to be locked away, destined for submission, through which perfection is achieved. Marry me."
(According to the internet, this is what Frederick would say)
I bet any woman would fall head over heels for a "sage" like that.
briskwalker10 said:A good old-fashioned spanking works—those methods are tried and true. Everything else is just talk..
You're an idiot for saying what you said. Just drop it. We all see you just love picking on people weaker than you. You're acting like such a coward here, just talking trash endlessly without any point.
briskwalker10 said:Sure, there are. That’s why guards in juvenile detention centers carry batons—so they can give kids a little affection when they start acting up.
Not true.
Actually, it is. Aggression is hardwired into humans. That isn't the issue—the issue is when they start using it to dominate others. And you have to teach them from childhood that they aren't allowed to do that.
Until you see someone treating your kid with the most brutal cruelty imaginable. Then those "natural laws" of yours might shift a little... 🙂
PS: if you don't believe small children are capable of unimaginable cruelty, just say the word and I'll drop some links to videos.
So what, we're supposed to use "eye for an eye" logic and beat kids into submission?
Quincy:
If you don't believe little kids can be unimaginably cruel, just say the word and I'll drop some links to videos.
Don't get mad at me, man, but it's a little... weird that you even know those videos exist and where to find them.
Henry Hernandez68 said:Honestly, I went through absolute hell in elementary school because of religious studies classes. Just thinking about 👎 I think I was the only kid in all four grades who didn't attend, plus there was this one Muslim boy in our class who skipped it too. But man, I felt targeted. For eight whole years, everyone was constantly on my case, asking, "Why don't you go to religion class?" On top of that, I was such a shy, withdrawn kid back then. It really left a mark on me. My mom actually had to go talk to the principal when I started school because there wasn't any official option for me other than sitting in the hallway, so they agreed I could stay in the classroom and just do something else, like my homework. But even then, during prayer time, everyone would turn around and stare at me while they prayed—whispering, glancing, just total playground terror. Later on, they started asking if I was Muslim, and when I told them no, they’d just say, "Yeah, right, we don't believe you." Kids aren't to blame, obviously—they just repeat what they hear at home—but I lived in an environment, specifically in New York City, where almost everyone was deeply religious, and that makes such a huge difference. We even had those days where they'd bless bread in the hallway; all the students would gather around the priest for the blessing, and I’d just sit there feeling so incredibly awkward because everyone was looking at me. When you grow up feeling like you never quite fit into the crowd, it becomes such a heavy burden to carry... I couldn't wait to leave, and I finally felt like I could breathe again once I hit high school. I didn't say anything to my mom when I was little; she didn't even realize how much I was struggling, and honestly, I didn't fully understand it myself either. I just knew I felt uncomfortable whenever religion class rolled around. On the days we didn't have it, we all felt like "one of them," but the moment that class showed up... ugh, it was awful. I definitely don't want my future child to go through something like that, but at the same time, I don't see myself enrolling them in those classes.
Anyone who buckles under the pressure and forces their kids into stuff—or joins the crowd just because "everyone else is doing it"—is nothing more than a sheep. You aren't that. Respect.
Donna White50 said:Look, I have the right to choose how I raise my own kid. There's no such thing as a perfect parenting method—every kid reacts differently—there are just guidelines and advice out there. I don't even want to comment on anything else, unless you really want me to surprise you...
Masochists are people too, you know. I'm a masochist myself—am I a loser because of it? Am I contagious? Do I not have rights regarding my own child...? Everyone interprets things their own way, and that's also an individual's right to discuss...
I honestly don't get why you're still hanging around here. Who are you trying to convince—that hitting kids is actually "good parenting"? You’re basically just a potential abuser, and there's really no point in debating someone like you. You heard what needed to be said.
If you ever decide to lay a hand on a child, go ahead and do it in public. Let everyone see what a "great" father you are. Just pray you don't run into someone like me.
Donna White50 said:I guess outlet covers are one way to look at it, since they basically take away the danger caused by a kid just being curious or parents being distracted. It’s kind of like using those baby gates to keep them in one room and stuff like that. Personally, though, I’m usually not big on those kinds of fixes—I’d rather go with a firm hand...
I don't really buy into the idea that we should be frantically padding and baby-proofing every single thing just because a kid is running wild, grabbing and tossing everything in sight. A lot of parents do this—they just let the kid run the show, which honestly makes zero sense if you think about it. And even worse are the ones who basically try to buy peace and quiet with bribes—letting them sit in front of the TV all day or showering them with toys and all the latest gadgets just to keep them happy. It feels like a massive parenting fail where the old-school discipline—which wasn't always perfect, sure—has been replaced by people just being unable to actually raise their kids...
I read this entire thread from start to finish, and honestly, I’m asking you—do us all a favor: stop being such a prick, find a deep hole to crawl into, and stay there. There isn't a polite way to tell you that you're a complete jerk.
I can give you my address, so why don't you swing by? Let's see how much of a tough guy you actually are when you have to go toe-to-toe with a guy over 220 pounds. We'll see if you're really the big man you think you are when it comes to hitting kids.
Look, I was getting beaten regularly when I was just a kid. I eventually let it go because I honestly can’t carry that kind of weight around anymore. But deep down? I have nothing but pure contempt for anyone who thinks they have the right to lay a hand on someone weaker—especially kids. Your bullshit really hit a nerve, though. It pissed me off.
Michael Howard65 said:And how exactly are you supposed to know if the price was bumped up for taxes or not?
Back here in the States, almost every shop lists prices WITHOUT tax included. You just see a little note somewhere saying you'll be hit with an extra percentage at the register.
Honestly, a landlord shouldn't even be sweating the tax math. Just ask what the rent is. If the number looks good to you, sign the lease and let the landlord worry about their own tax bill—you don't have anything to do with it. But looking at it this way: if the owner is paying income tax on that rent, they're going to bake that cost into the price anyway. Either way, the tenant pays it, and the landlord reports it on their tax return.
The buyer always picks up the tab—even when it comes to the seller's capital gains tax. It’s not about what you pocket at the moment of sale; once you strip away all your expenses and hand over a chunk to the IRS, whatever is left is your actual profit.
What you’re talking about is just how things work here in the States—if you're a tourist, a coffee at a cafe in Miami is gonna run you $10 while the local pays $5.
So, I see a listing on a free site like Craigslist, and suddenly...
...according to you...
...I've somehow "already hired an agency to find me a place"?????
When did I ever hire them? How does that even work?
Just to refresh your memory here: real estate agents aren't even going to show you a house (even if you haven't technically hired them yet) until you sign a contract promising to pay them a 1-2% commission once you actually buy the place.
Is this actually real? Agencies charging buyers commissions? What the hell? Pardon my French.
Is there even a law for this?
If not, people are getting scammed.
Sellers pay the commission. Not the buyers. Look, if I'm selling my house and decide to go with an agency, the agency lists it and finds a buyer—then I pay the agency. What logic is there in making the buyer pay a commission??????????????
Why do sellers even agree to this crap? It just means a huge chunk of potential buyers who might actually want to see the place won't bother because they don't want to (rightfully) pay a fee.
Trust me, this is just another one of those weird American quirks.
James Hall68 said:My father disowned me twice. The first time was when I left my husband. My father only came back around once he finally understood what actually happened and why I made that choice—he didn't care about the "why" at the time; he only cared about the gossip. Now, he loves me. The second time was because he found out I had coffee with someone who wasn't Catholic, but a Jew. He even tried to turn the entire family against me just because I don't support the Republican Party.😁 I just tuned him out (besides, I live far away from them anyway). Eventually, everyone came around; they love me, they're on my side, and they look forward to my visits. At the end of the day: one good friend is worth more than an entire family. (Even if we are all "good" now 😁). How I felt during those periods of being "disowned" doesn't matter; what matters is that I refused to let it break me in any way.
The Alternative subforum is basically where all the stuff goes that isn't essential for everyone or sounds—well, doesn't sound—rational.
Every single thread in here acts like a magnet for those self-proclaimed geniuses. They’re just there to swoop in on anyone trying to read something fun or interesting and prove that they're the smartest person in the room while making everyone else look like an idiot.
I haven't stumbled upon a single thread yet that hasn't been totally trashed by trolls. It really only means one thing: the mods aren't actually moderating.
What's even the point of having an "Alternative" section if there's zero interest in allowing for actual, civilized discussions—even if they get a little weird sometimes? If the goal is to have this space, why aren't the people who actually care about the content running it and cleaning out the trolls?
nimblecobra20 said:Does a Dossier complicate things when trying to work or obtain citizenship in other countries, especially in the West?
Look, everyone has a file somewhere. When you move to a new country—Canada, if I remember right—they usually just ask for a background check to prove you aren't a fugitive. If you haven't been convicted of anything, you’re technically clean, right?
Back when I was a student, I got picked up by the cops along with some guys who decided to smoke weed. I was never charged or convicted of anything, but when I interviewed for a job with the FBI later on, the guy running the interview already knew about it. Pogadjas, I didn't get the job, but I ended up moving to Canada instead. Nobody ever asked me about it again.
Still, if you're planning on leaving the country, stay far away from anyone running afoul of the Department of Justice.
Not sure if this is the right spot for this, but here goes: I get it. The owner wants to make a buck off ad revenue, and honestly, I’m cool with that. If I see something interesting, I'll click it, and hopefully, someone gets paid. But lately, these invasive ads have been popping up and completely hijacking my entire screen. You basically have to hunt around just to close them. Here's my question: Is this stuff being run by the site owner, or did I accidentally pick up some malware or something?
If the owner is the one running these, I'm out. I don't mind ads, but I can tolerate them until they become THIS annoying.