Posts by Brian Gray5

Jessica Miller51 said:If you start this thread again, I’ll give you a proper breakdown of what you mentioned, along with the much more immediate and terrifying threat facing our entire planet. And I’m talking science here, not some made-up nonsense. So, take a breath and stop panicking—your points have some merit, but don't fall for the sensationalist tabloid junk. You know how many times they've predicted the end of the world by now? It's just lazy journalism when summer drags on and there's nothing else happening; they just need filler.

🤦

Here’s some actual heavy reading for you, stuff that isn't pulled straight from the pages of Gloria:
http://news.mit.edu/2019/carbon-thre...tinction-0708?
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...han-that.html?
http://theconversation.com/deep-sea-...n-again-113518
https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont.../e1603322.full
http://priceofoil.org/2019/07/10/sle...ss-extinction/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...mate-refugees/
http://climateguide.nl/2019/03/09/no...illion-people/
http://climateguide.nl/2019/03/16/th...e-middle-east/

As for that whole "lazy journalists during a slow summer" bit:
Scientists actually warned the U.S. President about global warming fifty years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ears-ago-today
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/d...T.5.8153/full/

Maybe you want to explain ocean acidification to us? How it happens, and the havoc it wreaks on the entire planet? Honestly, my ears are practically bleeding. 🍿

Roger Castillo9 said:Grandma, if I recall correctly, you used to get into debates even with that flat-earther Handyman guy.

I usually just drop a single post like this, and then it becomes pretty obvious whether a person is actually willing to listen to reason, or if they’re going to dig their heels in regardless of the evidence—which seems to be the case here. There's also always the possibility that someone is just writing this to serve a specific interest.

In my book, it makes way more sense to figure out how other people think rather than trying to change their minds in situations like this. It's a total waste of time and energy.

Look, I know exactly how people think—or how they "think." Personally, I have zero patience for this hypocritical bullshit—this whole act from this self-proclaimed "sage" who claims he "isn't being paid but just studied both sides at university." 😁

Admin!! Are you going to open this thread or what? 🙂

Man, talk about an "ice age, minus the ice" situation. 🤦

Noah Fowler3 said:You sure have a way with words, 😒 but no, 😁

I was lucky enough to have both medals presented during my presentations back at university, and believe me, they’re both legitimate.

The problem is your side is obsessing over one tiny little sliver of Earth's history. It’s like judging the entire quality of a person's life based solely on how they lived from age 75 to 80, while completely ignoring everything they actually accomplished in the first 75 years.

But hey, go right ahead. Like I said before, I don't feel any need to correct what other people choose to believe.😁

Wait, you haven't left yet? And here I thought you already said your goodbyes...

Which college did you go to—sorry, *graduate* from? Transportation studies?

Roger Castillo9 said:Like I mentioned in another thread, we’re basically doomed if people refuse to accept things that are staring them right in the face. It’s probably just some kind of psychological defense mechanism at this point.

Noah Fowler3... look, if you don't buy the whole "human impact" argument, then at least tell me where you're getting your data from regarding past trends. Seriously, when in history has the country warmed at this specific rate per year—we're talking about an order of magnitude difference compared to previous eras, right? If humans aren't the cause, what on earth is?

And where did he get it from? From the dark corners of the internet, obviously. He’s pulling his info from Breitbart, Fox News, the Cato Institute, or the Heartland Institute... clearly nothing from actual peer-reviewed science.
And then he has the nerve to claim he isn't being paid off... 🤣

Noah Fowler3 said:Look, I’m not trying to pick a fight here. I honestly have much better things to do than sit around correcting your warped version of the Mississippi. We live in an era where you can look up pretty much anything in seconds; feel free to go ahead and form whatever opinion you want.

But facts don't change just because you dislike them. 😉

I really don't see the point in dragging this debate out with you any further. You've basically laid all your cards on the table. 😁

Oh, come off it, Joe. You're just proving how cheap your little propaganda act for the status quo conservationists really is.

Noah Fowler3 said:🤦

Trolling goes against everything this forum stands for. Just enjoy the ride and try to use that brain of yours. 😉

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Noah Fowler3 said:🤦

Is being insulting just your default setting? 🍿

You know what people say about types like you. 🍿

What do you mean, insulting? You're making a fool of yourself, Joe. No one else is to blame for this mess.

Noah Fowler3 said:Look, I didn't say I wasn't using a relevant source. 🤦 Google spat it out on the very first search, and frankly, I have zero interest in digging through academic journals at my age. That’s what college was for.

So, let me get this straight: you just tossed two centuries of scientific research out the window because Google gave you a different result on page one?
Your college degree isn't exactly helping your argument here. 🤣

Noah Fowler3 said:If you honestly think 200 years matters in the grand scheme of earthly history, then by all means, carry on. 😉 I'm not here to tell you how to think; I don't get paid for that.😛

Funny how quick you are to jump in on a topic like this, though... interesting.
Here’s the thing: it’s not just about the last 200 years. It’s about the last 30 or 40, and it’s going to be even more critical over the next few decades. You could probably Google that on your first try, too.

Noah Fowler3 said:Think about how ridiculous it is to base everything on temperature data from just the last 150 or 200 years when this entire country—this whole planet—is billions of years old. I’d suggest exercising a little intellectual curiosity and looking at the other side of the coin for once. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle 🙂

And it’s definitely not stuck between your ears.

Noah Fowler3 said:By the way, there's a massive amount of actual scientific research online that gives you a real look at what's actually happening...

... and then someone drops a link to some blogger who basically just finished a sponsored propaganda tour for one of the biggest oil giants in the world, like ExxonMobil.
https://www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova
She has zero expertise, zero published scientific papers, and zero scientific credibility to be lecturing anyone about climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
😂

Noah Fowler3 said:That link isn't "the truth," it’s just something meant to make you consider the other side of the coin.

Sure, I'll give you that humans have contributed, but who can actually put a percentage on it? Or even tell us how many years we have before an ice age hits? Or exactly how much human activity has slowed down the Gulf Stream?

Do you honestly think all this wouldn't be happening if it weren't for us?

You know what they say about opinions, right? Especially when they're being thrown against peer-reviewed papers.

And please, stop rambling about an ice age. That's like trying to argue about a cat's tail while the entire planet is boiling right in front of our eyes.

It’s honestly a shame that some people go through life without ever reading anything more substantial than a late-night tabloid.

Brian Gray5 said:Can Brian Gray5 handle it?

Man, I am absolutely exhausted by all this flirting. It’s relentless.

He can. Just reach out to Nica.

Looks like nobody’s home over at Nice’s place.🤷

Casey Bennett said:You know you’re entitled to exactly one nickname change, right? So I guess you'll just be staying "Grandpa" forever.

No worries, I'll just opt out entirely and go through a gender transition instead.
That's what's trending now. 😁

Can Brian Gray5 handle it?

Man, I am absolutely exhausted by all this flirting. It’s relentless.

He can. Just reach out to Nica.

Laura Castillo6 said:Just testing things out to see how this works! Looking forward to getting into the conversation. I stumbled upon this personality test online today—it’s called the SD3—and I honestly spent way more time on it than I probably should have. It’s one of those deep dives that asks a ton of questions to map out your personality traits, and while some people might find it a bit tedious, I actually found it pretty fascinating. It’s not like those quick "Which Disney character are you?" quizzes you see cluttering up social media feeds. This feels much more substantial, almost like something you’d encounter in a psychology seminar at a state university. It really makes you sit there and reflect on how you react to different situations or how you perceive yourself versus how others might see you. I ended up going down a bit of a rabbit hole reading about the different scales they use. It’s interesting how much nuance goes into defining things like extraversion or openness. I even thought about sharing my results with a few friends to see if we actually align with what the data says about us, but I think I'll keep my little psychological profile to myself for now. If you're in the mood for some quiet introspection or just want to kill twenty minutes with something a bit more intellectual than scrolling through news headlines, give it a shot. Just don't take it too seriously—at the end of the day, we're all far too complex to be boiled down to a single set of numbers on a screen!

(Start).

It honestly feels like most people have this underlying tendency to be manipulative, or they lean heavily toward narcissism, or maybe they just lack empathy altogether. It’s one of those things you start noticing once you really look for it. I actually came across a test recently that breaks down exactly where you stand in relation to those three traits compared to everyone else. It’s pretty eye-opening to see how you measure up against the rest of the crowd.

When I first sat down to take that assessment, my results were pretty eye-opening. My psychopathy score sat at a 0.3—basically the 0th percentile. Then there was my Machiavellianism at -1, which also landed me right at the 0th percentile. As for narcissism, I clocked in at a 1, putting me in the 3rd percentile. Just to clarify how this works for anyone curious: the scores range from 0 to 4, while the percentile just shows how much higher my score was compared to everyone else who took the test. Given that my narcissism was only slightly above the folks scoring a zero, I’d say it’s safe to call myself a total non-factor when it comes to the Dark Triad. I'm sitting at a solid 0% there.

There’s actually a pretty fascinating trick to this whole thing. Take someone who is exceptionally sharp—really high intelligence. They can basically study social etiquette like a textbook, learning exactly which behavioral norms make them appear "socially acceptable" to the masses. It’s all driven by psychology, really. When someone is skilled enough to mimic those patterns perfectly just to navigate a room, I tend to call them a master manipulator. If you’ve spent any time studying the Dark Triad, you’ll probably realize that a huge chunk of the general population actually carries some of those traits. Honestly, you can let a lot of it slide sometimes, but you have to be careful. If you aren't paying attention, people will absolutely take advantage of you if you give them the chance.

I’ve been thinking about this concept I came up with—the "master manipulator." I see them as being a tier above the typical Dark Triad types. The reason they sit "above" is actually pretty simple: they don't display those loud, obvious traits you usually associate with narcissism or psychopathy. Instead, their whole vibe is centered on being incredibly accommodating. Their main goal isn't to dominate you through force, but rather to stay out of trouble and keep their own skin intact by avoiding any kind of friction. They play the role of the "good person" perfectly. If they do something helpful for you, they’ll use that gesture to build what feels like a genuine friendship. But here’s the catch: they’re just playing the long game. They’re smart enough to know that once they’ve established that bond, they can lean on that friendship later to smooth over their own problems or snag a little extra benefit for themselves. In short, they are the quintessential Nice Guy or Lady Luck—acting virtuous, but always with an ulterior motive tucked away in their back pocket. You’ll run into these types most often in group settings, like big corporate offices or large social clubs. Now, look, I know it’s impossible to go around running a psychological diagnostic test on everyone you meet. You can't exactly walk into a Starbucks and start screening people for toxic traits. But if you want to spot the people who might actually be harmful to you, you really have to trust your gut. Your intuition is much better at detecting shady behavior than your brain is. If you finish an interaction with someone and you just walk away feeling used or drained, listen to that feeling. Don't try to talk yourself out of it or use logic to justify why they must be a good person. Our rational minds are often too slow to pick up on the subtle subtext of how someone is acting, but that internal alarm bell? It rarely misses the mark.

Well, bravo. 👍
Trying to apply logic and reason after being burned by someone you thought you knew is just a recipe for confusion.

dustyfalcon122 said:First off, Mother wiped out humans; they didn't just do it to themselves. She basically said she was just getting ahead of them before they could finish the job, and Woman actually confirms that point.
Woman is the "wild card." Mother couldn't possibly have known what kind of lesson the Daughter would take away from this, and honestly, the lesson you're talking about could have been delivered much more easily without Woman being there at all.

For some reason, you're taking the plot way too literally on one hand (saying things like "the apocalypse isn't defined and feels unrealistic based on what we saw"), but then on the other hand, you're pushing this heavy "metaphorical" angle.

Well, yeah. Logically? The story doesn't hold up. Metaphorically? It works perfectly.

Mother isn't cruel. Cruelty is a human trait; she's just incredibly efficient in her pursuit of a final, sublime goal.

Since I'm a human being myself, from my perspective, Mother *is* cruel. Just like God in the Great Flood or Sodom.

And why on earth are you using the forced term "omnipresent" when there's a perfectly good American word right there? 😁

I just didn't think of it, 😁

Where exactly did she say that?

dustyfalcon122 said:First off, Mother wiped out humans; they didn't just do it to themselves. She basically said she was just getting ahead of them before they could finish the job, and Woman actually confirms that point.
Woman is the "wild card." Mother couldn't possibly have known what kind of lesson the Daughter would take away from this, and honestly, the lesson you're talking about could have been delivered much more easily without Woman being there at all.

For some reason, you're taking the plot way too literally on one hand (saying things like "the apocalypse isn't defined and feels unrealistic based on what we saw"), but then on the other hand, you're pushing this heavy "metaphorical" angle.

Well, yeah. Logically? The story doesn't hold up. Metaphorically? It works perfectly.

Mother isn't cruel. Cruelty is a human trait; she's just incredibly efficient in her pursuit of a final, sublime goal.

Since I'm a human being myself, from my perspective, Mother *is* cruel. Just like God in the Great Flood or Sodom.

And why on earth are you using the forced term "omnipresent" when there's a perfectly good American word right there? 😁

I just didn't think of it, 😁

How exactly did she confirm that?

dustyfalcon122 said:First off, Mother wiped out humans; they didn't just do it to themselves. She basically said she was just getting ahead of them before they could finish the job, and Woman actually confirms that point.
Woman is the "wild card." Mother couldn't possibly have known what kind of lesson the Daughter would take away from this, and honestly, the lesson you're talking about could have been delivered much more easily without Woman being there at all.

For some reason, you're taking the plot way too literally on one hand (saying things like "the apocalypse isn't defined and feels unrealistic based on what we saw"), but then on the other hand, you're pushing this heavy "metaphorical" angle.

Well, yeah. Logically? The story doesn't hold up. Metaphorically? It works perfectly.

Mother isn't cruel. Cruelty is a human trait; she's just incredibly efficient in her pursuit of a final, sublime goal.

Since I'm a human being myself, from my perspective, Mother *is* cruel. Just like God in the Great Flood or Sodom.

And why on earth are you using the forced term "omnipresent" when there's a perfectly good American word right there? 😁

I just didn't think of it, 😁

Ever actually heard the term "empirical evidence" thrown around before?

dustyfalcon122 said:First off, Mother wiped out humans; they didn't just do it to themselves. She basically said she was just getting ahead of them before they could finish the job, and Woman actually confirms that point.
Woman is the "wild card." Mother couldn't possibly have known what kind of lesson the Daughter would take away from this, and honestly, the lesson you're talking about could have been delivered much more easily without Woman being there at all.

For some reason, you're taking the plot way too literally on one hand (saying things like "the apocalypse isn't defined and feels unrealistic based on what we saw"), but then on the other hand, you're pushing this heavy "metaphorical" angle.

Well, yeah. Logically? The story doesn't hold up. Metaphorically? It works perfectly.

Mother isn't cruel. Cruelty is a human trait; she's just incredibly efficient in her pursuit of a final, sublime goal.

Since I'm a human being myself, from my perspective, Mother *is* cruel. Just like God in the Great Flood or Sodom.

And why on earth are you using the forced term "omnipresent" when there's a perfectly good American word right there? 😁

I just didn't think of it, 😁

Whatever works for you. I guess if you happen to be better at one thing than another, life just plays out a little smoother on your end.

dustyfalcon122 said:First off, Mother wiped out humans; they didn't just do it to themselves. She basically said she was just getting ahead of them before they could finish the job, and Woman actually confirms that point.
Woman is the "wild card." Mother couldn't possibly have known what kind of lesson the Daughter would take away from this, and honestly, the lesson you're talking about could have been delivered much more easily without Woman being there at all.

For some reason, you're taking the plot way too literally on one hand (saying things like "the apocalypse isn't defined and feels unrealistic based on what we saw"), but then on the other hand, you're pushing this heavy "metaphorical" angle.

Well, yeah. Logically? The story doesn't hold up. Metaphorically? It works perfectly.

Mother isn't cruel. Cruelty is a human trait; she's just incredibly efficient in her pursuit of a final, sublime goal.

Since I'm a human being myself, from my perspective, Mother *is* cruel. Just like God in the Great Flood or Sodom.

And why on earth are you using the forced term "omnipresent" when there's a perfectly good American word right there? 😁

I just didn't think of it, 😁

Someone once put it perfectly: Mother is completely rational. It’s not that she lacks emotion—it’s just that her logic always comes first, making emotions nothing more than an afterthought.

dustyfalcon122 said:I don't see what the Trolley problem has to do with anything here.
It was just a cheap little trick used to show how Mother "learns" ethics.
A cheap trick for the masses, sure, but effective.

A cheap trick? So, in your opinion, what’s actually at the heart of the trolley problem?

Nancy Johnson9 said:Hey everyone. So, my husband and I have been married for nine years, and honestly, I’ve always been so proud of us—our bond, our relationship, everything. But lately? I just feel so let down. About two months ago, I finally saw a psychiatrist, got diagnosed with mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, and started taking Zoloft. My husband knows everything because we’ve always been totally open with each other... but now, I get this feeling like he just doesn't care anymore. We've been through such a brutal stretch. First, my depression and anxiety hit me hard, and just when things were starting to look up, my dad almost killed my mom. That just absolutely broke me all over again. And look, he isn't some jerk—we get along, and he's technically "there" for me. But it feels like he's not really *there*. We have two kids, ages 7 and 3. I’m basically running the whole show for them, doing everything I can to hold it together so they don't feel the weight of what's happening to me. All I need is him. Just a hug, someone to ask how I'm actually doing, or if I need anything... just some encouragement. Or even just a laugh. But nope. He just says "it'll be fine" and plays video games (and yeah, he does spend time with the kids, it's not like he's ignoring them entirely). Work is stressing him out so much that I feel like he's just focused on his career and nothing else. I work too, and I make just as much as he does, yet I'm still the one carrying the entire mental load of the house. It’s exhausting. When I try to tell him, or even write it down, he gets a little defensive, but then nothing changes. It's like he's decided to just tune me out. I get it, I really do—it’s not easy being with me right now either. But damn, we said "in sickness and in health, for better or for worse," didn't we? Yesterday, I finally told him I'm done. I'm throwing in the towel. I told him I accept this is how it is and I'm done begging him to actually notice me. He was completely blindsided. Like, "Wait, why??" Well, for crying out loud, I told him why. Because I just can't do this anymore.

😲
What would you even say if you had gained like 20, 30, or 40 pounds?
And you certainly know how to pick 'em. 🙄

It seems like hardly anyone actually gets the core of the trolley problem.
Another point for Mother.