Posts by casualowl1

I haven't dealt with this personally, but if you can, just steer clear of those shady loan sharks and predatory lenders—it’s a total gamble. Honestly, all I ever hear about is bad news and horror stories when it comes to them.

At its core, we’re talking about a massive power struggle. Honestly, these huge multinational corporations hold way more sway today than most actual countries do. It’s a total reality right now, and looking ahead? It’s not even wild to think that corporations might be the ones calling all the shots on a global scale.

David Bennett53 said:While some of what you mentioned are actual needs, things like oil and technological progress feel more like imposed requirements. Oil, for instance, is an imposition by massive energy conglomerates like ExxonMobil; they’ve basically engineered a global dependency to ensure their own profits, making it part of our very fabric—from fuel and heating to plastics and medicine...

As for progress, that's a deep philosophical question. I guess the world could function at a different level of development if everything were managed on a local, community scale. In that scenario, energy, food, and basic welfare would be produced right where they are used.

There would likely be far less theft and violence, too. But the issue remains the imposition of values by corporate overlords; the world essentially functions as one giant corporation. These companies have seized almost everything, including the ability for individuals to produce their own food or power.

Wars might be necessary, but perhaps not for us, but rather for the global corporate machine which can't sustain itself—let alone expand—without them.

Kyle Morris7 said:I believe there is yet another fundamental catalyst for conflict that hasn't been touched upon in this discussion quite yet... the existence of multi-ethnic or multi-national states. If we set aside those classic imperialistic expansions, I would argue that perhaps ninety percent—if not even more—of all warfare is driven by nationalistic friction. It seems to boil down to a cycle where either a specific group or a minority finds themselves suppressed, or conversely, they are actively attempting to suppress others... essentially a struggle over territory that mirrors the primal instincts we see in the animal kingdom. In that sense, one could argue that war becomes an issue of pure survival, making it a tragically natural phenomenon when viewed through the lens of existence itself. Of course, that certainly doesn't mean that war is inherently good or something we should ever welcome...

It’s really a clash of civilizations. If you look at the conflicts in the old North America, that was exactly what happened—a clash of cultures. The USA is a multi-ethnic nation.

I want to go on a little tangent here. What even *is* war? If you look back through history, war has "evolved" just like humans have. One of my absolute favorite books is a total classic, "The Art of War." It's a Chinese masterpiece that's over 2,000 years old.

We went from clubs to swords, then rifles, then planes, missiles, bombs, and so on...
Even with all that tech, diplomacy has always been a weapon—and sometimes the most important one.
Everything comes down to a grab for power, and if you look at the biggest messes in history, most of them stem from a clash of civilizations. The stronger side survives.

Since Sun Tzu is still so relevant today, his wisdom hits harder than ever. "Win without fighting." I honestly think physical conquest isn't even the goal anymore. You’ve got the banks, you’ve got the corporations. You don't "conquer" a country physically; you just buy it. That's how wars work in the 21st century.

swiftdriver11 said:Look, that’s not what this thread is about. I didn't start this discussion to sit here and listen to people whine about war profiteers; the whole point was to explore the connection between nature and conflict.

War is just baked into our DNA. It’s part of that primal, ancient instinct we all carry deep down.
Survival is a necessity. Honestly, Glam already nailed the explanation perfectly! 👍

Anthony Rivera17 said:To you, that looks like progress, but to me, it just feels like we're inching closer to hell... you seem far too enamored with this idea of
"advancement," so naturally, we aren't going to see eye to eye on anything, least of all when it comes to war...

Man, there's so much to unpack there! "Progress" is such a loaded term. It really all just depends on how you look at things.

rustymaker5 said:And what exactly did I write? ☕

There’s something else that plays that kind of role...☕

There is no such thing as a "balance of power," if it ever truly existed to begin with. There aren't any guarantees, and there isn't anyone left who can actually provide them.
And what do you honestly think constitutes the interest zones for Russia and China? Just wait and see when the Chinese person starts reaching for the oil while America sits perched on those massive reserves! It'll be a total blowout, enough fireworks to be seen from the other side of the universe!

An oil war is a global war, regardless of whether it's being fought on "local grounds" or under different names and excuses, and it's always the same story where certain individuals walk away with the profits while the rest of us suffer the consequences.

My bad, I got a little tripped up with the quoting there. We're saying the same thing.

Of course there are no guarantees. It's more about a general "shared" interest in avoiding total annihilation.

America isn't just sitting on reserves. Chavez and the Russians are hovering over reserves too, but whatever.

Just playing with words here. It's not a global war; it just has global consequences. To me, there's a huge difference there!

Anthony Rivera17 said:History suggests I'm on the right track... you just aren't ready to let go of your established biases
and there’s really no point in arguing when you approach things this way; I already know how your mind works
because I used to sit exactly where you are, though I eventually shifted my perspective... so you won't change my mind
about being mistaken... you can hold onto your own views if you want, but to actually see the world through my eyes
you have to absorb new data, which inevitably forces you to reconsider the very foundations of what
you think you "know"... one has to look at both sides of the coin to understand its true value, rather than just staring at one face... it's easy enough to throw around terms like
"conspiracy," but doing so only proves you haven't bothered to see what's on the other side of the ledger
and that you simply don't care to find out, settling instead for a single narrative, which is ultimately a disservice to yourself...

Nah, you've got it wrong. I'm well aware of both sides. Tell me something I haven't heard or known before, and then maybe I'll change my mind about certain things. We just have different opinions—plain and simple. That's totally fine by me. It doesn't mean one is better or worse than the other. It's just different.

I can't believe I haven't seen anyone mention this yet! It feels like such a huge topic that everyone is just glossing over. Seriously, we need to dive into this right now! kaže:
People always act like there isn't enough to go around, but honestly? That’s just a total myth. It’s not a scarcity problem—it’s just a massive redistribution problem.
No tribe, no family, no nation has ever had... Everything! Think about what people actually need just to stay alive. That’s exactly why bartering started in the first place, which eventually evolved into actual trade. Everything would have been smooth sailing if we didn't have those greedy individuals popping up out of nowhere—the ones who start hoarding goods and supplies just to line their own pockets! They aren't trying to survive; they're just looking to get rich by forcing everyone else into...

Look, we’ve got plenty today, but there was a time when things were tight. Imagine a fertile patch of land that could easily feed 100 people, but instead, you've got 150 mouths to feed. Now throw in two different tribes facing that same problem, and suddenly, war isn't just possible—it's inevitable. That kind of struggle is exactly where conflict comes from. It’s not about some grand scheme to get rich; it’s pure survival. One group had the grain, the other had the cattle, but everyone wanted both the bread and the meat. That’s the root of it all. That's where the friction starts.

I can't believe I'm even saying this, but I am totally stoked about how things are shaping up! Honestly, everything feels like it's finally clicking into place. It’s such a vibe right now! 🙌✨ kaže:
Look, there's no denying that technology has absolutely skyrocketed lately. But let's be real—wars didn't drive that progress. That wasn't the catalyst. It’s just been the natural evolution of things, fueled by the steady climb of human knowledge!
Honestly, we could totally flip the script on this one and assume that technological progress would have been even more insane if we hadn't been constantly dealing with wars!

I gotta disagree with you there. Honestly, war was the real engine behind all that. Without it, progress would’ve been way slower—that's just an undeniable fact.
Honestly, making assumptions is just asking for trouble! It’s basically the mother of all screw-ups.

I can't believe we're actually talking about this! It’s such an interesting topic to dive into. What do you guys think? kaže:
Einstein was one hell of a genius. That little anecdote really just drives home the point of where wars actually lead us.
If world leaders actually realized how completely unnecessary war is, we wouldn't be seeing it happen constantly. It doesn't even matter if the conflicts are just local disputes; there’s absolutely no guarantee they won't spiral into a massive global catastrophe. Honestly, once these power-hungry lunatics start chasing their own megalomaniacal agendas, you can't exactly stop them with "rational thinking" about the consequences. It's like that power they hold gives them this delusional sense of being invincible and immortal...

The absolute best way to guarantee things don't go totally south is that famous "balance of power" we always hear about!
The US can basically do whatever they want in the Middle East. As long as they don't start poking the bear or messing with China's or Russia's spheres of influence, they've got plenty of room to move.

When you look at a local conflict—like this whole oil war we’re seeing today—it’s pretty obvious that only a handful of people actually strike it rich while everyone else just deals with the fallout. In this day and age, the entire world ends up paying the price just because of fluctuating oil prices, yet Americans are still out here cruising around in prehistoric gas guzzlers that burn through fuel like crazy! 62 miles And they’re basically doing it for free!

Brandon Castillo4 said:

The statement implies there's a need to fight back.
Your stance suggests it’s better just to roll over the second someone looks at you sideways. At least you’ll stay alive that way. That is a pathetic choice.

It wasn't a choice. She was trapped by a psychopath—someone she thought was just some decent guy she met once. Who actually knows what went down? Maybe in a different scenario, he would've backed off after she pushed his hand away the first time.

I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing this was a pure explosion of panic. A fight for survival, for personal space, for basic human rights. Just raw, massive fear.

There was NO CHOICE.

Some people will probably claim she had a ballot in her hand where she could have voted for a different outcome, but instead, being "brave," she chose death. That is such an exaggerated, ridiculous take, and it isn't a CHOICE. Who knows what his actual intention was? We don't know what really happened. He’s clearly lying, claiming he didn't intend to assault her and that he just pushed her, causing her to fall, etc.—which does absolutely nothing to explain the bruises all over him or those injuries on his hands.

The bottom line is that the priest shouldn't have been getting dragged into these kinds of debates during her funeral.

She could have chosen not to push his hand away. That's a choice.

Man, you painted a pretty intense picture of that adrenaline rush and struggle. But honestly, when people are terrified, they can totally freeze up.

The priest didn't start an argument; he was just trying to comfort the family the best way he knew how. We're the ones getting into this debate. And honestly? It's pointless and a waste of time.

Jose Miller3 said:Honestly, nobody actually knows...

That priest might want to believe it—it’d definitely make things easier for the parents—but we just don't know. Don't tell me you're actually buying what the killer said during that first interrogation with the cops, claiming she just slipped and fell and accidentally killed 😕
...

Anyway, I don't have a TV, and if I even pick up a newspaper—which is super rare for me—I never touch the crime section. So, I don't really have much info on this specific case.

restlessridge36 said:unknown,
Your message to women is fundamentally flawed and serves only to embolden attackers and rapists.
According to your logic, an attacked woman should simply submit and allow herself to be violated by anyone using force,
just because
she might otherwise face a bullet or a blow that could kill her?

How can anyone—including yourself—possibly argue that she was merely defending her hymen?

In the heat of an attack, a person reacts unknown, just as they react when fighting for their life. One does not selectively choose to protect an ear, an eye, or a kidney over a hymen.

We cannot predict how we would react in such a situation, nor can we teach anyone else to do so, because instinct operates independently of reason.

Instinctive actions stem from the amygdala, the brain's "shortcut" center,
rather than through the conscious, deliberative pathways we use when we aren't in immediate danger.

Even if an attacked individual managed to compose themselves and choose submission over resistance,
who is to guarantee they would be left alive?
An attacker knows that afterward comes trial, social condemnation, prison, or perhaps a bullet—a swift and entirely just 😉 act of retribution from the victim, her brothers, or her father.

No one here is suggesting that survivors do not deserve respect; rather, we are stating that being violated destroys one's self-respect.
That is a massive distinction.
The victim loses her sense of self-worth. She is blamed. Despised. Judged mentally;
told things like she should have fought harder, run sooner, been more cautious, trained in martial arts, built more muscle, stayed indoors, or avoided being out at noon.

She is left feeling pathetic and weak.

I saw her post the exact same way!

Edward Green said:Were you actually there? I get the feeling she was just attacked and defending herself, rather than fighting for some grand human rights
cause. 🙄

He's implying you have to fight against sexual assault.
You're implying people shouldn't resist assault because they might fail and lose their lives in the process.

No, look, in most situations where someone tries to assault you, it isn't exactly a choice between two evils—like choosing between being raped or being murdered.

If it were like that, I’d totally support a woman's right to choose life. 🙂
But life isn't some weird video game where things work the way you're describing them.

Sure, you can argue that people should fight back against assault—you could point to that girl who tossed a predator out of her car last week—but saying that at someone's funeral... I just don't get it.

It is incredibly honorable to die fighting for ideals, for freedom, and for one's own human dignity.

I believe that. 🙂 But we aren't talking about dying for an ideal here; we're talking about a brutal murder.

What do you even know about honor and respect?

Nothing. 😉

And the saddest part is that you're ignoring the fact that the person who said this knew her personally and understood her ideals, whereas you haven't got a clue.

Does a priest know his parishioners' ideals? Fine, if you say so. 🙂

Chloe Smith11
I think the statement was clumsy, but its main purpose was to encourage the family and send a message to other women not to back down.

And what kind of message does that send to rape survivors? How exactly do you think a woman should feel—stripped of her "honor," her dignity, and her unfulfilled dreams—while we glorify this manufactured myth about a girl sacrificing her entire life at the altar of virginity, choosing death over losing her hymen?

2. Showing a woman fighting back against a rapist isn't meant to be heroic because she was murdered; it's meant to empower or support women in abusive situations to fight for themselves.

So, her role model should be a dead 21-year-old? I (maybe? obviously 😁) don't have any honor or dignity left, but if someone pointed a gun at my head, I’d still be singing some nursery rhyme. Personally, I think recovering from assault is easier than recovering from your own murder.😬

The priest's attempt to offer comfort clearly worked for the father, and that's what matters most.

If some survivor who didn't "defend her honor" jumped off a church steeple, would that still be okay? This guy said this in a public forum, not in a private conversation.

In these tough times, when traditional values are being pushed aside by reckless consumers of all kinds of pleasures—including physical ones—she gave her life rather than lose her hymen? The priest is an idiot.🤷

As for dignity, here's the definition:
the state of being worthy of honour or respect

Do rape survivors stop being worthy of respect?😕

If you're defending yourself, that basically means you're protecting everything that makes you *you*—your heart, your mind, your body, both physically and mentally. You're defending your entire existence.

At the end of the day, you either fight back or you don't. Those are your choices. There could be a million different ways those paths play out, even if the final outcome ends up looking the same either way.

Jose Miller3 said:But honestly, we have zero clue what she actually chose, how she acted, what was going through her head, or what those last three minutes of her life were actually like.

For all we know, maybe she was terrified and begging for her life at the end... just wanting to be left alone. We don't know. Even a priest doesn't know. Her parents don't know either.

The only person who truly knows is the pathological killer, whom obviously none of us are ever going to believe anyway...

My initial question was really just... what exactly makes her one of the "great women" of our era? I still don't have an answer, even though this thread turned into such a solid debate...👍

But hey, she stood her ground. To me, that’s a choice. There could've been other ways it ended, but whatever.

As for that initial question, I'm not totally sure, but I feel like the answer might lie in the whole "martyrdom" aspect, especially since we're talking about a priest.

Anthony Rivera17 said:But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...

But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...
In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...
In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...
Man, you are way off base, my fellow conspiracy theorist! 🙂

Regardless of how you view it in terms of good vs. evil, war brings about massive shifts and growth. Looking at history objectively, any culture forced to fight over limited resources never really thrived. The plain truth is there just wasn't enough to go around. Even for our species, those conflicts ensured the survival of the strongest—which is honestly a win for us as a whole. From an evolutionary standpoint, that was great for those of us inheriting this world today.

Even modern wars, like WWI and WWII, provided massive benefits to society. They acted as accelerators for progress and growth across every single field of human endeavor, from tech to everything else. Just think about the fact that humanity has advanced more in the last 50 years since WWII than in the 500 years before it! Submarines, ships, planes, radar, the moon landing (rockets!), microwaves, computers, medical breakthroughs... the list goes on forever.

Along with all that hardware, our collective consciousness evolved too. We basically leveled up mentally.

There's this cool anecdote that goes something like this: when they asked Albert Einstein what World War III would be fought with, he replied, "I don't know, but World War IV will definitely be fought with sticks." 😁

We’ve reached a stage of development where war is just totally unnecessary, and I truly believe the leaders of all the major global superpowers keep that quote in mind. They realize that one more world war would likely reset our entire species back to the Stone Age.

The Space Age has already kicked off, or is right on the verge of it. The race is moving in that direction now, and I honestly think the Chinese person will lead the way to dominance there.

Kyle Nelson2 said:If someone just mumbled this nonsense on some street corner in Chicago, I probably wouldn't even bother responding...
But we’re talking about a priest here—someone who’s supposedly highly educated. And since they’re considered "spiritual" leaders, there’s this whole default assumption that they shouldn't just represent the people, but actually "guide" them in some higher sense...
So, I guess, in their eyes, they have to be superior and smarter than the rest of us masses...

Honestly, the fact that he’s reduced his entire sense of dignity to some pathetic object of worship tells you everything you need to know about how miserable that man's life really is...

I mean, maybe—and this is a big maybe—we could just assume he said it all just to try and comfort his relatives.

Did you even actually read what the man said?

"I'd rather die than betray my ideals," or "Better a grave than slavery."😁

Where on earth are you seeing anything about "worshiping an object"? 🙏

Edward Green said:

The Marlboro Man. That whole era was pure myth-making. They sold us this rugged, silent archetype of masculinity that basically promised if you lit up, you’d suddenly become a cowboy roaming the frontier. It was all smoke and mirrors, honestly. Just massive, calculated branding designed to make a cigarette feel like an adventure. Hard to believe how much people swallowed that stuff back in the day. [User] says:
And what if they aren't?

How does anyone lose their dignity or honor through rape? It’s the rapist who loses his honor, not the victim. Being a victim of sexual assault—or any damn crime for that matter—doesn't make someone worth any less as a person. How exactly are these women supposed to "lose" their dignity? Sure, the rapist treats them like they have none, but that doesn't mean they actually lost it.

I honestly don't get it. How do you lose your own dignity just because of something someone else did? It makes zero sense. Someone else.I'm trying, but I just can't get it right.

So that's basically it. Just sit back and enjoy the ride while it lasts.

I honestly can't wrap my head around it. How can someone smart enough to learn the alphabet at the same time be this incredibly stupid? 🙂

The Governor's statement was spot on. I don't get how you can even try to question it—especially considering you're women. 👎

The Governor’s statement basically implies it's better to be dead than raped, and that this girl made some conscious choice. Give me a break. I know several women who have survived assault and they’re living normal lives today—mostly happy, even. On the flip side? I don't know a single person who was dead at one point and is now walking around feeling satisfied with life. Or even just unsatisfied but holding onto hope that things will get better. Maybe I’m a total piece of trash without any sense of "honor" or dignity, or maybe I just have failed dreams, but I wouldn't hesitate for a single second. And I have no clue where she gets the idea that she's the one responsible. I highly doubt anyone ever asked her, "Hey, do you want me to assault you, or should I just lock you in a room until your family can't even recognize you?"

The Governor’s statement is a joke. He’s basically saying honor and dignity aren't about who you are or how you act—it’s just about whether someone decides to screw you over. That is absolutely deranged. What, are you only an honorable person if nobody treats you like trash? So, you're "dishonorable" because you're a refugee? Or because someone burned your house down? Or because you got hit by a car? Or does this little rule only apply to victims of sexual assault? Make it make sense. 😕 So, "ordinary" victims of violence are just victims, right? But if a woman is raped, suddenly she’s some dishonorable victim without any human dignity left? That is messed up. Seriously. It’s twisted.

The Governor’s statement basically implies that death is a better option than losing your honor and dignity—which, by the way, you lose when someone rapes you. What a fantastic message to send to survivors. Just great. 👍

Some people spend their entire lives trying and still fail. That’s on you.

If someone kidnapped you, forced you into sex work, and sold you as a slave—forcing you into drugs, abortions, or even those horrific hymen surgeries—would you really say you haven't lost your dignity and honor? Just because it was someone else pulling the strings?
Maybe you wouldn't "lose" it, but it would be violently stripped away from you. It's exactly what that guy was attempting to do to her.

Edward Green said:

The Marlboro Man. That whole era was pure myth-making. They sold us this rugged, silent archetype of masculinity that basically promised if you lit up, you’d suddenly become a cowboy roaming the frontier. It was all smoke and mirrors, honestly. Just massive, calculated branding designed to make a cigarette feel like an adventure. Hard to believe how much people swallowed that stuff back in the day. [User] says:
And what if they aren't?

How does anyone lose their dignity or honor through rape? It’s the rapist who loses his honor, not the victim. Being a victim of sexual assault—or any damn crime for that matter—doesn't make someone worth any less as a person. How exactly are these women supposed to "lose" their dignity? Sure, the rapist treats them like they have none, but that doesn't mean they actually lost it.

I honestly don't get it. How do you lose your own dignity just because of something someone else did? It makes zero sense. Someone else.I'm trying, but I just can't get it right.

So that's basically it. Just sit back and enjoy the ride while it lasts.

I honestly can't wrap my head around it. How can someone smart enough to learn the alphabet at the same time be this incredibly stupid? 🙂

The Governor's statement was spot on. I don't get how you can even try to question it—especially considering you're women. 👎

The Governor’s statement basically implies it's better to be dead than raped, and that this girl made some conscious choice. Give me a break. I know several women who have survived assault and they’re living normal lives today—mostly happy, even. On the flip side? I don't know a single person who was dead at one point and is now walking around feeling satisfied with life. Or even just unsatisfied but holding onto hope that things will get better. Maybe I’m a total piece of trash without any sense of "honor" or dignity, or maybe I just have failed dreams, but I wouldn't hesitate for a single second. And I have no clue where she gets the idea that she's the one responsible. I highly doubt anyone ever asked her, "Hey, do you want me to assault you, or should I just lock you in a room until your family can't even recognize you?"

The Governor’s statement is a joke. He’s basically saying honor and dignity aren't about who you are or how you act—it’s just about whether someone decides to screw you over. That is absolutely deranged. What, are you only an honorable person if nobody treats you like trash? So, you're "dishonorable" because you're a refugee? Or because someone burned your house down? Or because you got hit by a car? Or does this little rule only apply to victims of sexual assault? Make it make sense. 😕 So, "ordinary" victims of violence are just victims, right? But if a woman is raped, suddenly she’s some dishonorable victim without any human dignity left? That is messed up. Seriously. It’s twisted.

The Governor’s statement basically implies that death is a better option than losing your honor and dignity—which, by the way, you lose when someone rapes you. What a fantastic message to send to survivors. Just great. 👍

His statement implies that you have to fight back.
Your take implies that it's better to just give in the moment someone looks at you wrong. At least you stay alive that way. That's a pathetic way to live.

Also, the statement strongly emphasizes that dignity and honor depend entirely on a person's own actions. And she chose to fight for herself. She fought for her dignity, her honor, her human rights, and ultimately, her life.

He's saying we should fight against assault.
You're implying we shouldn't resist because if we fail, we might lose our lives.

There is immense honor in dying while fighting for your ideals, for freedom, and for your basic human dignity. But what do you actually know about honor and respect? You seem to think they're just handed to you by God and don't need to be earned or fought for.

And the saddest part is that you're ignoring the fact that the man who said this knew her personally and understood her values, whereas you don't have a clue.

blueheron62 said:Someone should get a permanent ban for saying that.
Are you even aware that by saying that, you've basically stripped rape of its status as a criminal offense? You're making me sick.

Look, can we please just act like normal human beings for a second? Where are you even coming from with this? I get grossed out by tons of stuff too, but that's not the point. If you don't think rape is a massive violation of human rights and basic dignity, then what is it? Just a "crime"? It's the exact same thing as running a red light. That's total nonsense. Those are two completely different universes.

blueheron62 said:It’s not just that, though; it’s the fact that we’re basically regressing to the Middle Ages in how we treat victims of sexual assault. It’s like they've completely lost their sense of dignity😠,

Wait, so what, they "aren't"? Does that mean it's totally fine? Like, just lie down and enjoy the ride while it lasts?

The governor's statement is spot on for a million different reasons. I honestly don't get how anyone can even question this, especially since you women 👎

Nature basically throws everything it's got at us—diseases and massive disasters—long before we even get to the warfare stage. I mean, back in the day, the plague wiped out half the population! Fast forward to now, and we’re dealing with HIV plus a whole mountain of other stuff. Even looking at the last big catastrophe, like that tsunami a few years back, we lost about 200 million people worldwide.

Honestly, it seems like every time a world war breaks out, it actually brings a weird kind of reset that leads to progress once the dust settles. That’s just how history has played out so far.

Exactly what was said above. But honestly, what are you actually basing all that on? What makes those things feel real to you?

Matthew Booth11 said:When transferring gas from that terminal, shipping through Canadian territorial waters will be restricted due to the width of the safety zone.

In Egypt, a similar terminal is 31 miles located in the Mediterranean off the coast of Alexandria

Man, that’s actually a huge deal! That's exactly why the Canadians are crying about it. When the Italians build a terminal in their own waters, but it ends up being closer to Canada than the Italian Coast, 😂
I know they’ve been complaining, but honestly, the Italians don't really give them much thought.🤣