Posts by placidranger

Downloaded it. Listening for the third time now. It’s interesting—different, too—and I actually dig it most of the time. Pretty dark stuff.

But I don't get it. What's the actual point of this conversation?

Look, folks—seriously—don't waste your time watching a Will Ferrell movie if you aren't actually a fan of his.

I think it's great.
[spoilers]

Unexpected twists—Ferrell playing a pimp, that dinner scene with Eva Mendes and Mark Wahlberg, the sudden deaths of S.L.J. and Rock right at the start, plus a ton of one-liners. Ferrell is a legend. 😁

Absolute masterpiece 🙏🙏🙏

nimbleorca61 said:It’s just a one-off visit to an orphanage with some gifts... but purely for the PR. You know the drill—photos with the kids and then a headline in the local paper about how "so-and-so did a good deed."

I caught a segment on this guy on TV back this summer. He visited a center for children with special needs—Down syndrome kids and such—brought his guitar, sang with them, even gave them his CD ( 🤣 ). I have no idea if any actual money changed hands, but honestly, it doesn't matter.

The kids were happy—singing, jumping around, having a blast. Whether he used the moment to boost his own image is secondary to that.

I think it’s fine. A total win-win. You help yourself while throwing someone else a bone in the process—it can feel a bit greasy sometimes, sure, but when it's done right, it's actually quite satisfying.

placidjackal36 said:Suffocating until you pass out? No way. Look, if someone hits that point, you have to jump on resuscitation immediately, otherwise, they’re gone in a heartbeat. And let’s get one thing straight: CPR isn't some Hollywood magic trick where you do a couple of chest compressions, blow some air into them, and suddenly the patient pops their eyes open, perfectly fine. In reality, CPR often doesn't even work. At the end of the day, manual compressions and rescue breaths aren't really meant to "bring someone back" to life—they're just a desperate attempt to keep a tiny bit of oxygenated blood moving through the system until a paramedic shows up with a defibrillator.

If you grab someone by the throat and squeeze until they stop breathing, you can be pretty damn sure you've sent them straight to the morgue. That’s why this whole thing feels incredibly sketchy to me.

I don't know, I've got a different take on this. If what redharbor9 is saying actually holds water, then maybe we're all just dealing with a bit of an optical illusion. It might just be a matter of perception.
What if she was having a psychotic break? Or maybe she was just struggling against them—trying to hurt herself, whether she meant to or not—and they had to pin her down and hit her with an IV sedative to get things under control? It’s entirely possible someone had a hand on her neck during the chaos, too. If that happened, the whole experience would feel completely different. It looked similar. It’s suffocating.🤷
Look, it doesn't even matter if the staff had good intentions or not—that’s beside the point now. The reality is that you can make anyone feel like they're suffocating if you physically overpower them and hit them with a stronger sedative. It's just how it works.

I'm with you on this. There are ways to curb this kind of criminal behavior, but let's be honest—we live in a total circus where nothing ever changes.

That said, the level of dehumanization you described isn't exactly the norm. Sure, it happens, but seeing it on this scale is rare. These kinds of extreme environments are usually reserved for regimes like Nazi Germany or the USSR. Even back in the days of America, we saw flashes of it, but it wasn't nearly as widespread as what you're talking about.

Exactly. If they needed to calm her down, she needed a sedative injection—and to pull that off, someone had to hold her steady until she settled. To her, that could easily feel like choking (and, frankly, it looks terrifying to anyone watching).
Those kinds of actions are justifiable, provided they aren't using excessive force 🤷

placidjackal36 said:Restraining someone until they lose consciousness is attempted murder, no matter how you frame it.
The issue is that everything we know here is just forum chatter, which makes it hard to say anything concrete beyond condemning the act.

And what if it isn't nonsense?

Are you suggesting that choking someone into unconsciousness is part of the standard medical protocol? Or did you just come here to troll and incite people by calling attempted murder "just part of the job"?

It's possible. It’s not exactly what you’d expect to see everywhere, but it’s definitely possible.

I agree. Proving attempted murder in this scenario would be a nightmare if you're weighing a professional diagnosis of a psychotic break against the patient's own claim of an assassination attempt. Even with physical evidence of choking, a lawyer could easily argue "excessive force" or some other technicality.

What if it isn't just tall tales?

Are you suggesting that choking someone into oblivion is actually part of standard medical protocol? Or did you just show up to troll the thread and incite a riot by talking about murder with a sympathetic tone?

Antipsychotics are administered—it's a reality—and sometimes they have to be given forcibly (if the individual is aggressive, attacking others, themselves, etc.). As of now, I'm not aware of a more humane method.🤷

It's possible, though certainly not something you'd expect everywhere. But it really is a possibility.

True, it's entirely possible. There are unstable people in psychiatry too.

driftinggull21 said:This isn't just about one psychiatrist colluding with parents to lock up a perfectly healthy girl.
There are other psychiatrists, nurses, psychologists, and occupational therapists on staff. There are rounds. Someone should have noticed a completely sane individual and raised an alarm. Is it even possible that the entire State Psychiatric Hospital was complicit in this conspiracy?

Either that, or the kid wasn't exactly well to begin with. I suspect the truth—as usual—lies somewhere in the middle. 🤷
The director wouldn't risk her reputation if everything were clean, but then again, who knows? A child probably wouldn't stay in a facility that long without there being some kind of issue.

http://www.libela.org/vijesti/422-za...mirjane-vulin/

The United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington has submitted a proposal to an investigative judge at the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to initiate proceedings against an American citizen (born 1949). There is reasonable suspicion that between April 2004 and early July 2007, while working at a certain medical facility, she committed a felony against public health and engaged in official misconduct through gross negligence.
According to our unofficial sources, the individual facing these investigations is Dr. Mirjana Vulin, the former director of the State Psychiatric Hospital. She resigned from her position last summer—following our coverage in this publication regarding irregularities in the treatment of minor patients—which prompted inspections by both the Department of Health and Human Services and the American Medical Association. At that time, the Secretary of Health, Damir Milinović, publicly demanded that Dr. Vulin step down from her leadership role.
[...]

Proceedings have started and the director has been ousted, but who knows how long this legal dance will actually take...
I haven't seen any official or unofficial statements from the accused—it would be nice to hear their side for once. I also suspect they won't be able to push an attempted murder charge, no matter how they try to spin it.

steelskipper5 said:And honestly? That’s exactly how it played out on the old forum.
Take Lukic and his band of clones, for example—they used to vote each other up constantly (especially during those elections for the most popular user, where he probably deployed God knows how many fake accounts, not to mention how they organized to tank everyone else's rating). It wasn't rare to see someone with a solid 5.0 rating suddenly get trashed by them and end up sitting at a pathetic 2.1.

If we wanted to actually improve things, maybe we should just have a way to tag favorite users so their posts stand out more—like giving them a different background color or something.

Maybe we could just use an icon on the left side of the post so you can instantly recognize who's talking—sort of like an avatar? 😬 😬

I’m a fan of these rating systems and "reputation points" on forums—especially those meant to keep the public informed. It helps newcomers instantly distinguish between someone dropping high-quality insights and someone just churning out spam. I wouldn't go so far as to say it actually reduces the volume of junk, but at least you can tell who's backing their claims with solid arguments.

Take Reddit, for example. They have mechanisms like this built-in. When someone puts together a "TL;DR" summary after a long debate, or when an expert drops a deep dive for beginners, their standing goes up. People will do just about anything for a bit of digital status.

As for this specific forum, I'm not convinced a blanket system would work that well here. It might be useful on certain sub-sections, but not everywhere. Honestly, if we did it, we should probably have separate scores for every sub-forum to make it actually meaningful.

placidjackal36 said:It would be more intense. Try poisoning a fly with some pesticide—just enough so it doesn't die immediately. Put a glass over it and watch closely what happens when it starts buzzing and twitching frantically. Personally, I find the whole thing revolting.

I’m not entirely sure I see how those two points connect.🤔

Is it actually true that we swallow a few flies, gnats, or spiders in our sleep without any issues? I’ve read conflicting reports all over the internet—some say it happens, others swear it’s a myth—so now I’m just stuck in limbo.
Flies hang out in nasty places—dead animals, sewage, whatever—so it makes sense that they carry microbes.
On the flip side, they clean themselves. Do they manage to wash off the germs too? Then there's the matter of digestion and the immune system.

Worst case scenario?

placidjackal36 said:The odds of anything malicious happening are slim. It didn't eat her.

And if it had eaten her, would that have made it malicious?

Christian Harris2 said:Look. Post-workout protein—specifically whey—is non-negotiable. The reason you pair whey with carbohydrates (specifically glucose) is simple: they spike insulin levels. Insulin is crucial for shuttling amino acids (whey, creatine, L-glutamine, BCAAs—all just amino acids) directly into the muscle tissue to trigger repair and growth while preventing breakdown. I emphasize glucose because it’s the most efficient way to drive that insulin response.

Lately, though, there have been some different theories floating around.
Whey itself triggers an insulin response. Some studies even suggest oats drive insulin quite high—the insulin index doesn't always align with the glycemic index. Essentially, the body pumps out plenty of insulin in response to oats to clear blood glucose, which is why they show a low GI.
In principle, it hardly matters which carb you grab after training. Fruit, sucrose, glucose... it's all pretty much the same.
If you want to dive into the weeds on this, check these out:
http://www.alanaragon.com/elements-c...mic-index.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...-recovery.html

slymaker9 said:At the end of the day, all a person truly needs is very little.
One of my favorite thinkers and philosophers, Toma Bebić, captures this beautifully in this song (though unfortunately, I could only find the version covered by Banov):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v5xuBSI7T4

What do we actually need to survive? Food, clothing, shelter, understanding, acceptance, and love from others—that’s it. Some people also require spirituality, while others feel they don't need it at all.

If we look back at history, people worked hard to secure their basic necessities. Once those needs were met, it brought them a genuine sense of satisfaction, achievement, and fulfillment.

So, what has progress actually given us? While life is easier and more convenient in many ways, we are constantly bombarded with information. We are told we can't live without every single thing on the market, and we are perpetually categorized, ranked, and labeled.
Essentially, we have been turned into tools serving capital. Even those who possess wealth are, in a sense, instruments of it, because at some point, money takes control and usurps power over its supposed owner.
Capital has become both a god and a tyrant on this earth. Like water, it always finds a crack to seep through, turning things around in ways no drill ever could.
Some have embraced this easily, making capital their god; others struggle with it, seeking answers, peace, and even solace in spirituality.
Despite all the advancements and conveniences progress has provided, people today are unhappy, alienated, tired, and exhausted.
It seems to me that we are unhappier, more exhausted, and more disconnected than ever before.
We have distanced ourselves from nature, from God, from one another, and in part, from our very essence.
Is progress a revolution that will eventually consume its own children?
P.S. I hesitated between posting this in Philosophy or Spirituality, but I decided Spirituality was the better fit.
If the moderators feel another subforum is more appropriate, I have no objection to moving it.

I think that's a pretty romanticized view of the past.
I don't buy the idea that people were more fulfilled back then—there's no reason to believe that. They suffered and struggled just like we do today. It was survival of the fittest, plain and simple. Occasional wars, droughts, famines—it’s essentially the same as what we face now.

So, what has progress actually given us? Sure, life is easier and more convenient in many ways, but we're being bombarded with information. We're constantly told we can't live without every single thing on the market, all while being categorized, ranked, and labeled.
At its core, we've been turned into tools serving capital. Even those who hold the wealth end up as instruments of it—eventually, the money takes control, overriding the person who supposedly owns it.
Capital has become God and the whip on this planet.

remained... capital has always driven the world.

Modern man is unhappy, alienated, exhausted, and drained, despite all the massive advancements that progress has provided.
To me, it seems we are more miserable, more tired, more depleted, and more isolated than ever before.
We've severed our ties with nature, with God, with other people, and ultimately, with our own essence.
Is progress a revolution that will eventually consume its own children?

The only thing that strikes me as truly critical is this growing detachment from one another. That's where the real trouble lies if it continues... humans are social creatures; we crave community. Solitude is rare for a reason.

cosmicfox69 said:

I guess we have actually made some progress, at least to a certain point. I won't really focus too much on how people act when they're pushed to their absolute limits by extreme circumstances—you know, basically during wartime.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure war will always bring out the absolute worst in people. Even though things have improved overall, I honestly feel like people today are capable of committing way worse atrocities against one another, just because modern civilization gives us the tools and the twisted opportunities to do it.

Also, I highly doubt you'd see this many Pride parades moving through American cities if it were still common practice to tie someone to two trees just because of who they love. All in all, I'd say yes. We've progressed, I think. Or "progressed"... if that's the word you want to use.

From what I gather, that intense crackdown on homosexuality was largely driven by Christianity; back in ancient civilizations, bisexuality was actually a pretty widespread thing. Some might call that decadence and say that's why those empires fell, but those are just the facts.

In the end, everything comes down to how we perceive humanity. That core understanding shapes almost everything about our society, including how we value a single human life.
That’s why most modern sociologists—and I mean the lower-tier ones, like the ones with just a Bachelor's degree, so I can't speak for actual scientists—always harp on about the "invaluable worth" of human life.
I once got into a debate with one of them, and I told them—and I really do believe this—that massive embezzlement or looting government funds is actually a far greater crime than killing one individual. Of course, they just stared at me like I was some kind of Nazi! I think the hypocrisy has gone way too far.

I don't see how anything can be worse than murder—at least from the perspective of the victim, if that makes any sense.

In a debate with someone once, I argued that massive embezzlement—basically looting the federal treasury—is actually a far greater crime than killing an individual. They looked at me like I was some kind of monster. Hypocrisy has really gone too far, in my opinion.

That definitely depends on your perspective. It's hard to argue there's some absolute scale for what constitutes a "greater" crime.

cosmicfox69 said:So, I guess we’re really talking about how we value human life here.
Do you think our perspective on this has actually evolved at all? Like, back in the days of tribal warfare, life was probably worth next to nothing. People were dying every single day. Honestly, that seems to be how most of human history played out.

But then again, look at us now. We’re constantly surrounded by these "moralists" who make a huge scene whenever they feel someone's rights are being stepped on—take the abortion debate, for example, which, if you ask me, feels just as bad as murder.*

So, has our collective consciousness truly moved forward, or have we just put on a polite set of gloves to hide what we really are?
The daily news footage coming out of places like the Gaza Strip or Sudan doesn't exactly suggest that anything has changed. And don't even get me started on World War II.

What would even be the point of trying to increase the value placed on human life? Of course, valuing life is a pillar of modern democracy—I definitely don't want anyone thinking I'm an apologist for totalitarianism! Just please, try not to tie this too closely to specific political parties.

If you actually believe some kind of evolution has happened, where do you think we're headed? With apocalyptic scenarios looming over everyone's heads lately, it feels like it might be pretty easy to slide right back to life before Chris, or maybe even something even worse.

I’m not sure if there’s already a thread for this, or if I’m using the best terminology, but I think we'll understand each other. This is such a heavy topic that I probably haven't expressed myself perfectly, but I think the core of the problem is pretty clear. I'd love to hear what you guys think.

I wouldn't say it's evolved—meaning the "moral compass" itself hasn't shifted over the last hundred thousand years. It's stayed the same.
What *has* changed is the general attitude toward the value of life, driven by the rising standard of living we enjoy today.
History shows plenty of examples of tribal communities living in peace simply because they had enough resources to avoid fighting over them. When resources get scarce, the value of a human life hits rock bottom.

Assuming you believe some kind of evolution even occurred, where do we go from here? With apocalyptic scenarios looming over everyone right now, it wouldn't be hard to slide back to pre-Chris times—or even worse.

If the value of life scales directly with our standard of living, then globally, we can probably expect to end up like the Scandinavian countries. 🤷

driftingtinker7 said:Yeah, but from what I gathered when I was looking into this—whey mixed with water plus some glucose is better post-workout. Milk absorbs too slowly because of those proteins—casein, right?—and you want things moving fast right after training.

That's specifically for the post-workout window; for other meals, whey plus milk is fine.

That’s what I was told, anyway. Maybe they were just feeding me lines.😁

Exactly—it's the casein and the fat. That's what I heard, too.

Turns out the whole anabolic "window" isn't nearly as narrow as people used to claim. You don't strictly need fast-acting isolates like pure whey or rapid carbs like glucose to see results.

Here's a breakdown from last year that lists the actual studies and recommendations:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...-recovery.html
There's some solid reading on that site. Highly recommend it. 👍

I thought I was replying to Amy Morris36.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter what you mix it with.