@placidjackal36 So, if I'm following your logic, you've never actually felt the urge to take someone for everything they're worth—it's just that the law and the Bible have kept you in check? That’s just one example, though. I'm not quite following... what exactly are you getting at here? 🤷
placidjackal36 said:I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, but I’ve been thinking about how much people love to argue over things that don't actually change anything. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash where everyone thinks they're the driver, but really, we're all just passengers in a vehicle with no steering wheel. Take politics, for example. You see people on social media losing their minds over some minor policy shift or a politician's clumsy wording, acting like it's the end of civilization. It reminds me of those old debates you'd see back in the day—everyone shouting, nobody listening, and at the end of the day, the grocery prices stay exactly the same. It's pure theater. We get caught up in the drama because humans are wired for conflict, but most of this stuff is just noise designed to keep us distracted while the real gears of the country turn behind the scenes. It’s similar to how people approach science or even psychology. There’s this tendency to take a single study or a headline and turn it into an absolute truth, ignoring the nuance. Real science isn't about being "right" immediately; it's about the constant, messy process of being wrong until you stumble upon something that holds water. But people want certainty. They want a black-and-white answer because living in the gray area is uncomfortable. I was talking to Nicholas Allen2 about this the other day, and he made a point about how we treat history. We look back at events like the American Civil War and try to fit them into neat little boxes to justify our current viewpoints. But history is rarely that tidy. It's a series of chaotic, overlapping interests and accidents. When we try to force it into a simple narrative, we aren't learning from it; we're just using it as a weapon for modern arguments. At the end of the day, I think we need to step back. If you spend all your energy fighting ghosts or debating people who aren't even listening, you're just exhausting yourself for zero gain. It's better to focus on what's tangible—your own life, your community, the actual stuff that affects your day-to-day reality. Everything else is just background noise.
To keep things running smoothly around here and ensure our discussions stay civil and productive, we need everyone to play by the rules. We want this Forum to be a place where people can actually talk without everything devolving into a mess. To keep that happening, the following is strictly prohibited on the Forum:
That’s a straight-up violation of the US Constitution.Just a quick heads-up for you on this one: Incitement to hatred or discrimination. Justifying or glorifying criminal acts is a slippery slope that we really need to talk about. It’s one of those things where people think they're being "edgy" or making a political point, but in reality, they're just eroding the very foundation of how a functional society operates. Think of it like this: if you start treating a breach of the law as some kind of heroic feat or a badge of honor, you aren't just defending an individual action—you're effectively dismantling the rule of law itself. It’s like trying to play a game of football while simultaneously cheering for the players who trip each other on purpose; eventually, the game becomes unplayable, and nobody wins. When we romanticize crime, we stop looking at the actual harm caused to victims and instead focus on a distorted, idealized version of the perpetrator. It creates this dangerous feedback loop where bad behavior is incentivized rather than corrected. You can disagree with a specific law or even argue that a legal system needs reform—which is a perfectly valid part of democratic discourse—but there is a massive, fundamental difference between criticizing a policy and actively celebrating a crime. One is civic engagement; the other is just chaos disguised as conviction....copyright infringement, pedophilia, animal cruelty, and stuff like that.
Enough with the nonsense. The psychology moderators have been a little preoccupied lately, which explains why things have gotten so rowdy around here over the last month. But honestly, once you guys feel the squeeze again, things will settle right back down. That’s just how you operate—you only really start functioning when the pressure is on.
Look, I’ve said this a thousand times before: honestly, screw anyone who needs a holy book or the Constitution to stop them from doing something horrific. If you need a manual or some divine oversight just to act like a decent human being, you’re a coward in my eyes. It’s weak.
Good grief, I can't believe someone actually typed this out. 😂😂
Look, have you even glanced at a history book? Have you noticed how human behavior shifts right along with changes in the law? Man, war itself is proof that human behavior—meaning crime—is often dictated by the "Constitution."
How can you claim monsters are everywhere and that laws or the Bible are the only things stopping them from acting out? That’s just plain ridiculous...
placidjackal36 said:I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, but I’ve been thinking about how much people love to argue over things that don't actually change anything. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash where everyone thinks they're the driver, but really, we're all just passengers in a vehicle with no steering wheel. Take politics, for example. You see people on social media losing their minds over some minor policy shift or a politician's clumsy wording, acting like it's the end of civilization. It reminds me of those old debates you'd see back in the day—everyone shouting, nobody listening, and at the end of the day, the grocery prices stay exactly the same. It's pure theater. We get caught up in the drama because humans are wired for conflict, but most of this stuff is just noise designed to keep us distracted while the real gears of the country turn behind the scenes. It’s similar to how people approach science or even psychology. There’s this tendency to take a single study or a headline and turn it into an absolute truth, ignoring the nuance. Real science isn't about being "right" immediately; it's about the constant, messy process of being wrong until you stumble upon something that holds water. But people want certainty. They want a black-and-white answer because living in the gray area is uncomfortable. I was talking to Nicholas Allen2 about this the other day, and he made a point about how we treat history. We look back at events like the American Civil War and try to fit them into neat little boxes to justify our current viewpoints. But history is rarely that tidy. It's a series of chaotic, overlapping interests and accidents. When we try to force it into a simple narrative, we aren't learning from it; we're just using it as a weapon for modern arguments. At the end of the day, I think we need to step back. If you spend all your energy fighting ghosts or debating people who aren't even listening, you're just exhausting yourself for zero gain. It's better to focus on what's tangible—your own life, your community, the actual stuff that affects your day-to-day reality. Everything else is just background noise.
To keep things running smoothly around here and ensure our discussions stay civil and productive, we need everyone to play by the rules. We want this Forum to be a place where people can actually talk without everything devolving into a mess. To keep that happening, the following is strictly prohibited on the Forum:
That’s a straight-up violation of the US Constitution.Just a quick heads-up for you on this one: Incitement to hatred or discrimination. Justifying or glorifying criminal acts is a slippery slope that we really need to talk about. It’s one of those things where people think they're being "edgy" or making a political point, but in reality, they're just eroding the very foundation of how a functional society operates. Think of it like this: if you start treating a breach of the law as some kind of heroic feat or a badge of honor, you aren't just defending an individual action—you're effectively dismantling the rule of law itself. It’s like trying to play a game of football while simultaneously cheering for the players who trip each other on purpose; eventually, the game becomes unplayable, and nobody wins. When we romanticize crime, we stop looking at the actual harm caused to victims and instead focus on a distorted, idealized version of the perpetrator. It creates this dangerous feedback loop where bad behavior is incentivized rather than corrected. You can disagree with a specific law or even argue that a legal system needs reform—which is a perfectly valid part of democratic discourse—but there is a massive, fundamental difference between criticizing a policy and actively celebrating a crime. One is civic engagement; the other is just chaos disguised as conviction....copyright infringement, pedophilia, animal cruelty, and stuff like that.
Enough with the nonsense. The psychology moderators have been a little preoccupied lately, which explains why things have gotten so rowdy around here over the last month. But honestly, once you guys feel the squeeze again, things will settle right back down. That’s just how you operate—you only really start functioning when the pressure is on.
Look, I’ve said this a thousand times before: honestly, screw anyone who needs a holy book or the Constitution to stop them from doing something horrific. If you need a manual or some divine oversight just to act like a decent human being, you’re a coward in my eyes. It’s weak.
🤦 Seriously, who is glorifying crimes in this thread??? Do you even know what "glorifying crime" actually means??
If you actually saw someone doing that here, then please, go ahead and quote it. Because if I’m reading you right, are you actually trying to suggest that we’re encouraging criminal activity through this discussion??
PS: Don't try to pull the "moderator" card on me in this argument. I couldn't care less about who holds a mod title or who has "lost their cool."
placidjackal36 said:It’s honestly fascinating to me how, regardless of which sub-forum these topics pop up in, you always attract the exact same breed of lunatics. They all spout the same repetitive nonsense: advocating for punishments that would qualify as crimes against humanity.
You people genuinely have no clue what kind of garbage is leaking out of your brains. I sincerely hope this constant stream of writing is just a byproduct of some deep-seated, pathetic frustration over your third life goal, rather than evidence that you’re actual psychopaths. And I don't get it—I really don't—why none of you are being penalized for this, especially since it's one of the most clearly defined rules in the site guidelines.
What’s even more interesting is watching the textbook cognitive dissonance play out here. You’ll read a description of an atrocity that you would personally commit, yet you react with absolute outrage if that crime was committed against someone outside of whatever ideology you've decided to cling to.
If everything you spew across this entire platform were taken at face value—since much of it is actually illegal because it glorifies heinous crimes—the world would be a terrifying place. Just look back at the military camps from the American Civil War. Take, for instance, certain infamous concentration camps. I’m picking an example that hits particularly close to home on purpose. Those camps didn't just hold civilians targeted for their identity; they also housed the depraved psychopaths from various paramilitary "special units" who performed acts so vile that normal people weep just hearing survivors recount them. Why mention Lara? Because it was one of those prisons where Americans, acting without any shred of hesitation and driven by pure sadistic malice, committed horrors identical to those committed by the monsters they fought. It doesn't matter. Whether it's gouging the eyes out of an innocent shopkeeper snatched off the street in a van in the middle of the night, or brutalizing a military policeman caught in some small town, it’s all the same. A crime. Horrific, devastating, and completely beneath the standards of human decency. People spend their lives in prison for the very things you guys sit here celebrating. What’s next? Are we going to start glorifying corporal punishment for cat abusers, or eventually anyone who simply gets on our nerves? If war breaks out with our neighbors again, are you going to start shouting "Mexican on the hill"? I don't have the authority to ban you over on Psychology, but if you bring this trash over to Natural science, you aren't going to like the outcome.
You truly have no idea what you're playing with. You are messing with the very foundations of a civilized, humanistic society.
Just remember it once and for all: a crime is a crime. THERE ARE NO EXCUSES.
Man, I can't believe a sane, normal person could actually write this stuff! Who are you to judge people who just feel the need to express their opinions on these types of crimes???
Just like you accused those users of talking trash about those crimes, I can accuse you of talking trash about those users. It's the exact same thing.
If you've understood even half of what I'm trying to say, you won't dare show your face in the "Psychology" sub-forum ever again...
I was scrolling through the news the other day and came across this absolutely sickening story. Two guys in their early 20s went to some party and killed a girl. Then, get this—the next morning, they cooked her up with some potatoes and served it to her roommate, who had no idea what she was actually eating. 🤮 Honestly, at this point, I feel like nothing can even shock me anymore...☕
P.S. Thank God people like that are just outliers...
Man, I wish I had photographic memory. Like, imagine if everything I ever saw was just stored away somewhere, and I could just pull it up instantly like opening a Word doc on my laptop... Honestly, even just 150 GB of mental storage would be plenty for me. 🙂
I realize now that I totally missed the point of the original thread. To me, power isn't some mystical force; it’s just our own personal energy. There's nothing supernatural or weird about it, nothing complicated. People who seem to have an outsized influence on the world have simply managed to reclaim their own energy more effectively than the average person. This applies to everyone from extreme historical figures like Jesus or Mother Teresa to the ultra-wealthy and charismatic leaders we see today. They’ve all found a way to pull that energy back under their own control. They didn't "steal" special powers from God or anyone else. They just took back what was already theirs.
I’ve been really digging some of the posts shared here lately.
The way I see it, we’re all born with the potential for absolute power. But right from the start, we hand over massive chunks of that agency to our families, our social circles, religious institutions... basically anyone who helps us find our footing in this world. As we grow up, we start picking up different flavors of influence—physical strength, the power of choice and relationships, intellectual clout, and so on. Part of the learning process is realizing how much we’ve surrendered to those external forces, and then figuring out how to reclaim that power for ourselves throughout our lives. True ultimate power, as several people have pointed out here, comes from finally surrendering to what some call "universal energy," "God," or whatever term resonates with you. The most powerful person is actually the one who is completely surrendered and feels absolutely no need to exert control. Honestly, any craving for power is just a deep-seated sickness.
Honestly, you're talking nonsense. It’s honestly ridiculous to even bring up words like "plagiarism" or "copying" here. These debates about who copied whom are just silly—in today's sports and entertainment world, if something feels familiar, it's because something similar has already been done somewhere else. Most of the choreography and song melodies out there are based on stuff that came out ages ago, so these arguments are pretty much pointless.
I used to drink my Coffee with milk. I actually learned how to brew it just like my mom does—super strong and bitter. But after about a year of drinking heavy, intense brews, 🤣 I realized I just couldn't handle my own coffee anymore. It’s way too hard on my stomach. Of course, if I'm visiting someone, I won't be rude; I'll drink whatever they serve me. 😁
So now, I stick to instant coffee. 🙂 I mix it with water, usually making it about half or two-thirds coffee and then adding a third of milk. 😍
edit: And obviously, I typed "Turkish" instead of Nescafé by mistake! 🤣 🙈
Just one quick question... Is there any way I can change the color of the letters in my signature? I see this little A icon where you're supposed to pick a color, but it feels like black is the only option available...
Michael Reed72 said:If money is no object, I’d personally go for the 5750. That 4770 is just a bit too weak. You've got the GTS 250 and the 4850 sitting right around that 5750 level—sometimes they're a little faster, sometimes a little slower—but generally, whatever works on one will work on the others. However, since those other cards tend to run hotter and pull more power, I’d put my money on the 5750.
Just make sure your cousin actually needs that kind of power. I once knew a kid who was gifted an Nvidia GeForce 9500 GT 512MB DDR2 when he already had an Nvidia GTX 260 sitting in his rig.
Since this guy is currently running a 9500 GT, basically any of the options we talked about would be a solid upgrade. 🙂
I ended up picking up an Nvidia GeForce XXX edition 5750 with 1 GB of GDDR5.
I'm looking for some advice because I'm stuck in a bit of a dilemma. I'm planning to buy a graphics card as a gift for my cousin, and I've narrowed my choices down to a few specific models:
ATI Radeon HD 4770 ATI Radeon HD 4850 Nvidia GeForce GT 430 ATI Radeon HD 5750 Nvidia 9800 GT Nvidia GTS 250
A couple of things I'm wondering: is the Nvidia GeForce GT 430 actually better than the Nvidia GTS 250? Is there a massive performance gap between the HD 4770 and the HD 5750? Also, since it's the oldest one on the list, how much weaker is the Nvidia 9800 GT compared to the rest of this group?
Which of these cards would be the best pick, considering my cousin plays everything from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Crysis over to Grand Theft Auto IV? His PC has a 550W power supply
I just finished installing Windows 7, but every time I try to switch to a different theme, I get an error message saying "this edition of windows doesnt support themes." Does anyone know what I need to do to actually be able to change my themes?
Sarah Wood8 said:Can someone please explain the massive paradox at the heart of our society? We’ve collectively decided that violence and crime—things that are actually illegal—are perfectly fine entertainment for TV, where kids and adults alike sit around watching them together. Yet, when it comes to sex, which is not only natural but beautiful and essential for continuing the species, it's treated like something taboo. It basically boils down to this: taking a life = good creating life = bad
I see all these moral crusaders acting outraged because ten-year-olds are joining Facebook groups or communities centered around "loving sex." Of course they are! They have those urges, even if they haven't actually acted on them yet. It's a natural instinct, yet we stare at them like they're some kind of freak. What would be better, though? Should we let them develop a murderous instinct instead of a sexual one? Would that be acceptable? In a society where you can watch dozens, even hundreds, of lives being violently snatched away through murder and torture on TV every single day, I don't see why kids wouldn't just start an online group called "I love killing" . Sure, obviously that wouldn't be okay, but if killing isn't normal, then why is watching violence considered fine? Humanity treats violence as the ultimate mass entertainment. Go ahead, let the kids watch Ram mow down hundreds of people with a machine gun; heaven forbid they catch a glimpse of a man or woman's anatomy, let alone anything intimate. If they do, suddenly everyone starts shouting about morality. The busybodies run to the police or the courts, and religious types start rambling on about hell, damnation, and eternal punishment.
Just imagine a different scenario. Suppose we grew up in a society that didn't view the human body as shameful—where people weren't embarrassed to swim naked in the ocean or walk to the corner store without clothes when it gets hot, simply because they live in a culture that doesn't treat genitals as something sinister. Imagine a world where you might watch a movie with intimacy at 8 PM, or see people being affectionate in soap operas during the day, because sex isn't a taboo. In such a world, sex is seen as what it actually is: a way to create life, something beautiful, fun, healthy, and universally enjoyed. Then, out of nowhere, some idiot decides to make a movie about brutal murder. That's a fundamentally stupid idea because killing is wrong; it's evil; it involves someone stripping a human being of their life in the most disgusting way possible. In that hypothetical world, a society raised on intimacy would suddenly be faced with graphic violence for the first time. How do you think they'd react? People would be traumatized, psychiatric wards would overflow, and children wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Of course they would react that way, because witnessing something that is inherently evil and traumatic would be a normal response. But in our current world, we've been conditioned to accept violence as if we were told from birth that eating garbage every day is perfectly fine. On the flip side, what is actually wrong with sex?
Where did this mindless, idiotic invention come from—this idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies, or that sex should be portrayed in a way that children hitting puberty at eleven or twelve shouldn't see? So, it's "NORMAL" for kids to watch slaughter, but "NOT NORMAL" for them to see a completely natural and acceptable act like basic intercourse that every person on this planet has the right to experience? That makes no sense.
That specific brand of social hypocrisy is honestly what I find most disgusting about everything. We have murder, which is a crime, and we're allowed to watch it. We have sex, which isn't a crime, and we aren't allowed to watch it. And really, if a twelve-year-old isn't allowed to see intimacy, why on earth are they allowed to watch a massacre? Isn't our society just a little bit... retarded!?
Back in the day, if two people had a standoff with pistols, it usually ended in one person being dead, and that was just how things worked. Nowadays, if you even tried something like that, you'd be looking at a life sentence in a federal penitentiary.
As time moves on, social norms shift. The whole "violence vs. porn" debate is a total wash—it’s just X vs. Y, and both will always exist. It really just comes down to whether an individual is self-aware enough to realize how ridiculous it all is and adapt, or if they'll just get labeled an idiot for not following the script.
Honestly, I’d love to see people get banned just for pushing those mindless arguments about "originality." The second someone starts accusing a group of lacking originality—BAM—☕
Stealing, borrowing, or copying happens in way more serious industries than sports fandom, so this whole debate is pretty much pointless. Plus, half the time, the accusations themselves are totally fake...
And I say this as someone who has written dozens of catchy terrace anthems (and many more that haven't hit the mainstream yet), some of which get blasted at both LA Galaxy games and over in Mexico... 😉
