Posts by goldencobra5

quieteagle16 said:Here’s my take on this—from a purely practical standpoint. I feel like if an action doesn't directly jeopardize someone else's freedom or safety, society shouldn't have the right to condemn it. Yet, I keep seeing these constant crackdowns on individual liberties just to satisfy certain socially accepted dogmas—think mandatory schooling requirements, drug laws, religious finger-wagging... It feels like there are only a handful of instances where someone isn't actually infringing on anyone else's rights, yet we still force our views on them. We're living in the 21st century, for crying out loud. Even physicists—who used to be hardcore determinists—have embraced the idea of statistical probability (that gray area between black and white) rather than clinging to absolute certainty. Relativity has been part of the conversation for ages, stretching from Galileo all the way to Einstein 😁. But when it comes to morality, we’re still acting like we can dictate 100% absolute values and force those mandates onto minorities.

How do you guys even justify stuff like this? I honestly don't get how anyone can defend banning the mere possession of drugs (or using them in your own home, where the risk to anyone else is basically zero). Or how you justify mandatory education, where the state decides certain things are absolute facts and forces them down everyone's throats. Wouldn't it make way more sense to leave education up to the people, so anyone who wants to learn something—regardless of their age—can just dive into the subjects offered? It blows my mind that people are so bothered by someone using "illegal substances" in private, or that simply carrying them on a street in the US could land someone in a jail cell. Since when did we decide that prison is the answer to social infractions? I agree that people who are genuinely dangerous to the public should be separated from society, but it should be about rehabilitation and reintegration, not just punishment. And setting a fixed timer on that process just seems totally nonsensical
. How can any of this be justified in what we call a "liberal" society?

How safe can we really be that someone who embraces drug use as a way of life won't influence others toward that same path, whether they intend to or not?
The moment you post something like this on a forum, you are already exerting an affirmative influence on others regarding drug consumption.
I grew up in a neighborhood where drugs were a massive plague—it was the kind of place where even the local gang was notorious throughout the entire United States. I haven't met a single user who wasn't actively preaching the lifestyle to those around them. In fact, they would get quite vocal and complain whenever I tried to advocate for common sense and thinking twice before taking such a step.

how do you justify mandatory education, where certain subjects are treated as absolute facts and forced upon everyone?

That's fine. Personally, I believe people shouldn't be forced to get an education, but if they choose not to, then the government shouldn't have to pick up the tab for their social welfare. If they can't find employment because they lack skills, they'll just end up sitting at a dive bar, nursing a beer, and "contemplating life."
People with less education—specifically those who dropped out during middle school or rushed straight into "adult life" far too early—often find themselves stuck in dead-end jobs, manual labor, or worse, sliding into crime. The state simply doesn't want a high crime rate. That is why they push to fund education.

frozenotter232 said:For instance, apparently, not a single expert in international relations saw the collapse of the USSR or the Eastern Bloc coming.

Well, I have a memory like an elephant myself. I still vividly remember picking up those old news magazines back in the late '80s—around '88, '89, '90, and even... '91.

Do you have any idea what they were mostly printing back then?
They’d write about this supposed spiritual awakening that was going to turn the Middle East into a literal paradise on earth. They claimed some great spirit would emerge to restrain all those reckless politicians, leading to a massive purification where people would finally find true unity and brotherhood, providing a blueprint for the rest of the world on how to live in peace and harmony.

And then, everything shifted during that summer. By October 13, 1991, I was heading off to the front lines.

ironmarlin1 said:It isn't just them, though—it seems like "experts" are cropping up everywhere lately, people claiming to have deep insights into phenomena that simply lack any causal link. It’s a bit like trying to argue why one specific set of numbers popped up on a Powerball ticket instead of another; there's just no logic to be found in the chaos.

You actually gave me a good laugh there, because you reminded me of something quite specific:

A whole certain breed of people have now turned their entire attention toward sports betting.
And when they inevitably lose, they suddenly need an excuse—some mystical force or hidden magic that supposedly rigged the outcome against them. I find myself having to stifle a laugh every single time, mostly because some of these people are actually dear friends of mine, and I just don't have the heart to tell them plainly that they're simply screwing up.

ironmarlin1 said:I happened to stumble upon this book recently and ended up diving into one of its chapters. It’s quite fascinating, really—the author touches on this pervasive human tendency, this almost compulsive need we have to look at every single occurrence through the lens of causality, desperately trying to stitch together some grand theory to make sense of it all. Take the stock market, for instance; you see analysts spinning these elaborate webs of reasoning to justify every little fluctuation in price, when in reality, much of it is just pure, unadulterated stochastic noise. That’s precisely why you see so many mathematicians dominating the halls of Wall Street 🙂. It’s the same pattern we see with history, too—people grasping at straws to provide deep explanations for historical turning points that, if you look closely enough, probably don't require an explanation at all.

And don't even get me started on the astrologers. You could have a pigeon drop a little gift right on your shoulder, and they’d immediately start hunting for cosmic significance in the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus, babbling about trines and sextiles, all while obsessing over Savic’s Ophiuchus or some constellation sitting way outside the ecliptic plane.

jademarlin26 said:Global warming is simply a natural cycle the Earth undergoes periodically, regardless of human activity.

Perhaps. Or perhaps we're all just choosing to look the other way.

Edward Flores4 said:Exactly... the World Trade Center had actually been targeted before 9/11 in a very similar way, though it didn't succeed then. Plus, the U.S. military was already running drills and simulations for an attack just like that, so calling 9/11 some totally "unforeseen" event is a bit of a stretch.

Beyond that... nothing really happens without warning signs being dropped beforehand. It’s just that people who are entirely wrapped up in their own worlds usually miss them. Once life catches them off guard, they don't want to admit they were blindsided simply because of their own self-absorption—so instead, they rationalize it by labeling anyone who actually saw the signs coming as a conspiracy theorist.

I find myself agreeing with your perspective, though I would probably lean even harder into another phenomenon we're currently witnessing while collectively choosing to look the other way: global warming, along with the floods, freak storms, and natural disasters that come with it.
People are still far too attached to their precious gas-guzzling SUVs; they try to ignore the reality by just cranking up the AC, and when the inevitable disaster hits, they'll act like it was some bolt from the blue that nobody could have seen coming.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:He's referring to 9/11, which I mentioned earlier as one of those unpredictable events that continue to shape our present reality.

Honestly, he seems completely muddled today. I was being quite explicit about the Industrial Revolution and the Renaissance, yet somehow he managed to twist my words to fit his own narrative.

Edward Flores4 said:Is it just me, or are you trying to compare the Renaissance—this massive, organic cultural shift that swept up hundreds of thousands of people—to American domestic terrorism, which is a calculated act carried out by a handful of politicians?

I really hope you aren't!

The Industrial Revolution kicked off in the United Kingdom. You had the rise of manufacturing, followed by the invention of the steam engine and its integration into the textile industry...
What on earth does any of that have to do with the United States?

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:Precisely. Even if there had been a blueprint, no one could have possibly predicted the outcome.

Take the internet, for instance. In its infancy, it was largely ignored; even the most prominent Wall Street analysts didn't give it much thought. Now, try to imagine the modern world without it and consider the sheer scale of its impact on humanity today.

And that is to say nothing of accidental inventions.

The author’s point here is that we are conditioned to ignore anything deemed impossible or highly improbable. Because we reflexively dismiss these events, they catch us off guard—yet these are exactly the types of occurrences that shape our future. He refers to them as "Black Swan" events.

Precisely. And if you really want to know what the next one is...

It's the day the wheel gets retired to a museum. After serving humanity faithfully for thousands of years.

Edward Flores4 said:That wasn't some unpredictable accident... it was actually carefully orchestrated, specifically designed to force a massive shift in the status quo. Hegel broke this down ages ago, and nowadays, people usually call this kind of "politics" the "problem-reaction-solution" tactic.

The truth is, people don't actually sit down and map out these grand trajectories. Most human behavior is just a chaotic, elemental mess driven by nothing more than raw greed and the basic instinct to survive.
Everything truly consequential happens either by pure, unadulterated chance or through the sheer force of visionaries—individuals who are themselves such unpredictable anomalies that you can't possibly account for them in a blueprint.

Who exactly sat down to orchestrate the Industrial Revolution?
Who could have possibly planned the Renaissance?

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:I am currently reading *The Black Swan*, and I find it difficult to shake the impression that there is an immense amount of truth packed into these pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(book)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

To put it succinctly, rare and entirely unpredictable events—the kind no one could possibly anticipate even in their wildest dreams—exert the most significant influence on the trajectory of human history.

The term "Black Swan" serves as a metaphor for something fundamentally contrary to expectation and impossible to foresee.
Essentially, prior to the discovery of Australia, the world believed only white swans existed; they were the universal symbol of whiteness, and it never occurred to anyone that a black swan could actually exist.

Most people simply lack the raw agency required to set major historical gears in motion. Instead, the momentum is driven either by pure, chaotic chance or by singular, brilliant minds—though, let's be honest, that often includes the sociopathic ones too.
The masses generally prefer to stay under the radar, keeping their heads down and moving through life one incremental step at a time.

Benjamin Moore6 said:This thread will remain open for entries until Tuesday at 9:00 PM (April 22nd).
Each participant is permitted to submit just one single response.
Your entry should not exceed the length of a standard post.
The winner will be selected by the individual who posed the question, and that winner will then be responsible for setting the next challenge.
Please note that the person who asks the question is also required to provide their own answer.
However, the host cannot vote for themselves to win.
During the designated entry period, please refrain from commenting on other people's submissions.
Once the contest concludes, the thread will be opened up for general discussion.
Following the close of entries, we will hold a public vote to determine an additional "The New York Times" winner.
This voting process will run for exactly one week from the date the thread was launched.
Self-voting is strictly prohibited.

Both winners will receive permanent recognition in our Hall of Fame topic in Hollywood.

Question number 6:

What is the proper way to think?

Let’s be objective here.

The thing is, an opinion shouldn't lean into mindless euphoria—you know, those people who hunt for positivity just for the sake of feeling good—nor should it descend into pure pessimism where you find a flaw in everything.
True thought requires shedding all biases. It demands actual effort; you can't just lounge around being mentally lazy and then try to mask that inertia by claiming some sort of supposed "superior intuition." That's just an excuse for lack of discipline.
Furthermore, thought should never be shackled by the mundane constraints of daily life or mere pragmatism. Even when we are dealing with the most practical, everyday matters, our reasoning needs to reach beyond the borders of our immediate reality.

I was thinking about this the other day while walking through Central Park, and it struck me: when we consider the feet we stand on, we have to weigh them against the concept of wings. If we don't make that comparison, we lose the ability to tell whether we are truly standing firm or if we are actually taking flight. Without that perspective, we won't even know if what we're using are indeed feet at all.

dustyharbor18 said:Jungians explained this using the way paganism persisted long after Christianity took over—through customs, carnivals, fairy tales, and especially dreams. The general thesis is that psychological conflicts arise because dominant archetypal patterns have cast out, tabooed, crippled, or suppressed the pagan gods who personify "lower forces" or various internal drives within a person. This pushes an individual toward an idealized state that rejects elemental, essential parts of their own personality. When vital parts of the psyche are driven into the unconscious through suppression, they fight to manifest themselves autonomously.
Take domestic violence, for example. In the Christian tradition, the prevailing archetype for women is the Virgin Mary; since that’s a hyper-idealized image that bears little resemblance to reality, when pagan archetypes (those primal, wild forces and natural feminine forms) resurface from the psyche, a Christian loses his footing. He might lash out at his wife simply because he's experiencing an eruption of suppressed unconscious content that his faith denies and pushes away.
It seems like a decent explanation for why there is so much violence in the Christian world.

That is a very precise way of putting it. However, I would argue that this tendency toward idealization isn't strictly tied to Christianity itself, but rather to the broader structure of civilization and its behavioral norms.
In this way, a person—and I am intentionally avoiding saying "a Christian"—will suppress those primordial instincts, certainly. But once those elements begin to resurface, they tend to manifest through the most toxic modes of behavior precisely because of that repression. It won't just be some "Christian" husband hitting his wife; you'll also see the wife playing the role of the tigress, the predator, or whatever else, using sexuality as a tool for blackmail. It's a twisted game played in the marital bed, involving incredibly nasty manipulations and mutual psychological warfare.

Morgan Hernandez5 said:wherever you're getting this idea that the smartest people were all idealists from...
you talking about scientists or something?

But let me give you my two cents on this: without those core ideals, there isn’t even a spark of desire to explore the unknown. You see plenty of folks out there chasing nothing but a paycheck or a fancy title on a business card; sure, they might achieve some technical proficiency in their fields, but they aren't going to leave a lasting legacy. It’s mostly just superficial tweaks and incremental adjustments.
To pull off truly monumental feats—the kind of things actual geniuses manage to do—you need something deeper than the mundane grind of daily life. Schopenhauer understood that quite well.

Edward Flores4 said:Celebrities are Scientologists in the exact same way our local pro athletes are Republicans. Did it really not cross your mind that famous people get paid to endorse everything from yogurt brands and political parties to weight-loss teas—and yeah, even rising new religions?

You don't actually believe Magic Johnson is a hardcore Republican, right? Or that Elvis Presley works for Comcast, or that Madonna is a Kabbalist, or that Tom Cruise is actually a devout Scientologist? 🤣 🤣 🤣

No. Look, John Travolta is a Scientologist. He isn't getting a paycheck to be one; he’s the one writing the checks.
It's the same story with Kirstie Alley—if I'm spelling her name right, anyway.

You don't honestly believe Magic Johnson is actually a Republican, or that Frank Sinatra worked for Comcast, or that Madonna is a Kabbalist and Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, do you? 🤣 🤣 🤣

No. I think you're completely clueless when it comes to Scientology.

Insults are against the rules. - adriatic

swiftcobra15 said:Essentially, atheists make up more than a tenth of the general population, yet they represent less than 0.2% of inmates in the USA.

Basically, atheists make up more than a tenth of the population, yet they account for less than 0.2% of prisoners in the USA.

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Per...ists_In_Prison

If that’s how it stands, I’m sticking to my guns and maintaining that this happens because they are essentially slaves to their impulses, driven by animalistic instincts and what they mistakenly label as "intuition."

crimsonhound80 said:Yeah, sure, those are all just assumptions and hypotheses, but when you frame them the way you just did, they come across like absolute facts.

What kind of (bolded) sentence is that even supposed to be!? Does it make any sense!? It doesn't!!

Where on earth are you getting this idea that atheists, agnostics, and people like that are somehow "more intelligent"? 😕

Maybe take a quick trip through history—just a mental one—and actually face the truth for once. 🙂

Some of the greatest inventions in human history were provided to us by people of faith (and I’m not specifically talking about Catholics here).

I mean, seriously, what does intelligence have to do with "faith" anyway? 😕

Just absolutely ridiculous!

That isn't true. Throughout history, the most brilliant minds were primarily idealists, and since Catholicism was the dominant religion, they aligned themselves with it because it held primacy over God and the divine.
Who's to say how devout they truly were?

On the other hand, I made it very clear that this statistic lacks a complete analysis regarding the actual representation of atheists within the total population. Someone mentioned a figure of 30 million, but they offered zero explanation for it.

So, under the ASSUMPTION that there really are proportionally fewer atheists in American prisons compared to believers, I posited that it might be because they are less impulsive—or, to put it in street slang, they aren't as prone to doing stupid shit. Nature didn't just invent reason, the neocortex, and all those other complexities for no reason. Faith is meant to serve as the connective tissue, yet believers frequently reject reason in favor of following their "hearts," which usually means following impulses that lead straight back to pure animalistic instincts. I see it happen constantly in the debates on this spirituality forum.