Hello. Can anyone tell me if all ambulances undergo disinfection when responding to a patient who doesn't have COVID-19—someone who just fell ill from something else entirely? Also, are the entire crew—and I mean the doctor, the driver, and the technician—always required to wear full protective gear?
thanks Nick! Is there a PDF version of the property deed? Can we strip out the partials or not? It's true I went looking for it myself—but if I start acting unprofessionally, you guys are more than welcome to ban me manually.. What does Christian Howard2 think about all this?
Hey rustydrifter10, I could really use a response here! I’m trying to avoid all the drama with those women—I can feel a bit of that holiday depression creeping in, and I honestly need a broader, more diverse group of folks from this forum to help keep things light.
I suspect the issue stemmed from the opening post—where only about a third actually addressed the topic, while the remaining two-thirds consisted of nothing but prohibitions and insults.
Hey there. I’m a guy and I could really use some advice here. Where can I pick up some socks that won't leave my feet sweating? Is there a specific type I should be looking for—maybe a special name or a particular material blend?
The reality is he left out an absolutely vital component of morality—and I suspect he did that because he wanted to use his high intelligence to justify his evil actions. Which is completely wrong.
The starting premise here is fundamentally flawed. The entire discussion is being driven from a distorted—and frankly, reckless—starting point that links evil specifically to high-IQ individuals. Why is this wrong? Because there are vastly more intelligent people who aren't killers. Murderers are a tiny, extreme minority. You cannot separate or classify people based on IQ through the lens of mental illness susceptibility—nobody is immune to that. This topic is intellectually dishonest.
I see references to the Nuremberg trials, though they are being thrown around haphazardly without any real cohesion. To be clear: the psychologist Stanley Milgram studied the weight of authority and our tendency to obey commands and respect hierarchies. Most of those at Nuremberg claimed they were simply "following orders" from an authority figure. That doesn't necessarily mean those individuals were inherently evil, but it does mean they were submissive within an authoritarian regime—believing their actions weren't wrong because they couldn't resist. Along those same lines, you have to consider the Stanford prison experiment and Zimbardo.
The actual premise of this thread should have been this: everyone possesses some form of intelligence, and because of that, everyone carries both good and evil within them—since those qualities exist in all humans.
It’s a shame the topic is so biased. It's biased enough that some people are even arguing that only highly intelligent people are capable of evil—which is a logical fallacy of a sophist nature. The counter-argument is simple logic: all human beings possess intelligence.
Hey rustydrifter10, I know wading through all this nonsense in this PDF can be exhausting, but there are a few things I wanted to ask you and mention...
Have you guys made a decision on this yet; ? I truly believe this is an important topic—I wouldn't keep bringing it up if I didn't feel that strongly. It’s October, and the leaves have barely even started falling from the trees.
I didn't choose to get partially banned from the FBI PDF; I accept the penalty and have no intention of asking for it to be lifted until the moderator changes their criteria and rhetoric—or until the moderator themselves changes—but I have to admit, I miss it.
On the other hand, I requested a partial ban from the Women's Interest PDF of my own volition because I needed a break—but now I find myself missing the conversations with those women and characters who, much like me, just want to hook up with them. In my view, that PDF is incredibly smart, engaging, and full of interesting people and topics. I'd like to request that the ban be lifted..
I'm not a regular here, and I accept any justified penalty you hand down, but please consider that I don't act out of malice—even if I sometimes worry that I come across as a subtle provocateur.
Anyway, winter is approaching and Christmas is coming.
I’ve caught this one on TV a few times—tried to give it a fair shake—but honestly, it just doesn't hit. It isn't anything special. In my opinion, it simply doesn't belong in the same league as classics like *Las Vegas*, *Donnie Brasco*, *Goodfellas*, *Carlito's Way*, or *The Insider*.
Look, your premise is fundamentally flawed—your questions don't actually follow the logic you're trying to establish. Because of that, I’ve already provided perfectly logical answers to everything you asked. I believe I've covered all my bases.
feralranger said:That is a rather clever bit of mental gymnastics, but let us move past the deflection; suppose your child is eighteen years old—not because of their age, mind you, but simply because they are your child and a son—which effectively renders your arguments regarding age and gender moot (though one could certainly debate those points as well). (By forcing this more precise definition of the situation upon you, I am merely closing the loopholes you are using to dodge the actual essence of the question.)
What the hell? I am not dodging anything. I have answered every single one of your questions—now this is starting to feel like harassment. Your line of questioning is logically flawed.
No, you’d prioritize saving the women and children first. So, given that they aren't actually women or children—they'd just be getting slaughtered regardless.
Sorry, but the logic behind your questions is fundamentally flawed.
Let me try this one on you: five children are drowning, and one of them is yours—you can only save one. Which one? Do you see how absurd that question really is?
feralranger said:I certainly take your point, though I must say it runs completely counter to pure logic—or at least, the particular brand of logic practiced by a certain Vulcan.
Not quite. See, Vulcan is acting as a commander responsible for thousands of lives; I am not responsible for five Chinese citizens—I am responsible for my own family. In this scenario, the numbers don't change the math. My moral obligation to those five Chinese individuals is minimal. My priority would be saving my family first, then attempting to help those five Chinese people.
If you were the President of the United States, would you really risk millions of American lives just to save billions from a regime like Nazi Germany?
It’s a matter of scale. Your question doesn't quite hold water.
The core issue with reason is that it cannot exist in a vacuum. A rational individual adrift in a sea of irrationality needs other rational minds just to be understood. If there were only one person left—imagine being totally isolated in some dome somewhere—they wouldn't even be able to distinguish a logical decision from an illogical one. They’d likely go about their business thinking they were being perfectly sensible, while some outside observer watching from within the group concluded their actions were anything but.
Reasonance almost always meets resistance. This is where we see all sorts of manipulations designed to distort public perception—tactics that twist the collective mind while masquerading as logic. One only needs to look at history to see this pattern.
Reason is essentially a cognitive thread—a connective tissue for the collective that becomes visible through the combined actions of individuals.
I’ll illustrate the concept of reason using Star Trek—specifically through Spock and his adherence to Vulcan philosophy;
In one particular episode, Spock’s mother informs him that his father urgently needs his blood transfusion to survive—he'll die without it—and demands he leave immediately. Spock refuses. At that moment, a critical situation was unfolding on the ship, putting thousands of lives at risk. To him, it was the only logical choice: saving thousands outweighed the life of his own father. His mother was devastated—she was weeping, furious, and eventually slapped him, declaring she would never speak to him again (since she is human). Spock’s response? He simply asked what his father would think of him if he had chosen his own kin over thousands of others.
To make truly rational decisions, one must diminish—though I wouldn't say entirely eliminate—emotion, while simultaneously remaining moral.
After hearing that example, can you still argue that this is loosely tied to logic? Or that it's merely subjective?
Quorgyle As requested: You love twisting people's words—reinterpreting everything just to suit your own narrative.
I don't like it—and I never do. Perhaps you should put a bit more effort into how you structure your posts?
It isn't about hysteria—it’s not that this "contradicts my understanding" or whatever—but rather the way you presented it. It's the delivery—your specific choice of words and how you communicate—that creates the issue.
As you can see—it really comes down to the individual.
I didn't say recycling was pseudoscience—not once. That’s exactly why I put a line break after my first statement before bringing up the recycling point. You're either misreading me or being intentionally obtuse.
No—honestly, even if you're positioning yourself as an authority, your sentence structure is incredibly poor.
I'm not suggesting we should stop recycling altogether. It’s just that recycling often serves purposes other than what people assume. I don't know the exact percentage of how much it actually helps mitigate global warming—honestly, getting an airtight figure on that seems impossible—but most estimates suggest its impact isn't nearly as massive as people claim. I don't quite understand why everyone immediately jumps to recycling as the primary solution the moment global warming is mentioned.
If you’re defining "packaging" as glass bottles—then absolutely. It serves a noble purpose by driving cost savings and boosting capital efficiency—preventing the wasteful diversion of resources just to recreate products that already exist. Beyond being a legitimate industry, recycling is a fundamentally more ecological endeavor. While paper recycling accounts for a smaller portion of the equation, its contribution to reducing CO2 emissions is still significant—but when you look at other materials, the impact becomes truly substantial.
Once again—you’ve completely misread me. I only said that because I was watching how this discussion is unfolding and seeing the specific kind of "scientific" articles certain people are throwing around here.
You don't need to offer me apologies for what you've written—instead, try structuring your thoughts before hitting post. That way, you might avoid my misinterpretations, or anyone else's, for that matter.
I don't see an issue with any of the article links being posted in this thread. There’s a clear distinction between a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper and a link to a media report—the latter is perfectly fine, provided it includes solid references. Actually, they're welcome here—though, perhaps regarding that one involving the remains, those tend to get flagged or deleted quickly if the moderation isn't tight.
Maybe you should dial back the intensity a bit—people might actually take you seriously if you did. Right now, you're coming off like just another sensationalist headline from TMZ.
My frustration levels are hitting just above the threshold—mostly because this thread has been shut down twice now, which is incredibly aggravating. This matters. It really does. Even if I sound like I'm writing a clickbait headline for a tabloid like the New York Post, the point remains valid.
Perhaps we could get our colleague z_k to join the discussion?
Harold Evans4 said:You're being hysterical—both here and regarding the topic at hand. Not to mention how this discussion is sliding toward pseudoscience, which is clearly visible right here. What does recycling have to do with global warming? Someone brought that up right from the start.
Not to mention how ugly this debate has become—the moment someone denies or disagrees with one of your points, you resort to attacks and insults. Where exactly did I deny global warming?
So, anything that doesn't align with your specific worldview is automatically labeled "hysterical"? I'll admit—the idea of humanity's end sounds hysterical—but reaching such a conclusion based on science is just devastating.
Recycling is pseudoscience? What connection does recycling have to global warming? Seriously? Well, it matters because if we recycle existing materials, we won't need to clear-cut forests (which absorb CO2) just to produce more paper.
You denied it by trying to dismiss this entire subject as some fringe conspiracy theory.
I suggest you go back and re-read post #25.
Do you want me to paste climate models here? Within the next 20 years, the Arctic ice cap will vanish, releasing massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere. When methane oxidizes, it's 80 times more potent than a CO2 molecule. All of it stays trapped in the atmosphere. We'll see flowers blooming across all of Greenland. 😍 We’ll be seeing hurricanes in parts of the planet that are currently frozen. Iceland, Ireland, and England will eventually look like the new New Orleans or Miami. By the end of this century, people won't even be able to walk down a standard street—San Diego will essentially become Venice.
Are you going to ask me next what renewable energy has to do with global warming? Or insulation for houses? Passive houses? Automation? And then ecology?