Posts by James Anderson5

Patrick Martin said:Thank God we don't go around judging or casting people out here; we give everyone a fair shake. ☕

George Best was an absolute legend, and he was Protestant. ☕

That's exactly why his life ended up the way it did. ☕

Just a quick observation: even though most people playing soccer globally are probably Catholic, which might explain why half these players seem like total dimwits.

And how much of a moron are you being, calling your own idols dimwits?

It's obvious Patrick Martin was actually paying attention to what Darij was saying.

Clearly you played fullback. 😂

Man, listen... the point was made specifically regarding the top ten players in the world. Maybe try actually listening for once. ☕

It seems like your heroes are generally the most mindless players out there—from pyramid scheme scammers to those fake independence fighters in Catalonia. If I remember correctly, a few years back you were even campaigning for the Republican Party here on the forum. It’s all part of the same pattern, including this weird obsession with Catholicism, which really shows your level of insight...

By the way, Zidane is actually Muslim—not necessarily a practicing one, but he is. Then you have Pep Guardiola, who is an atheist, much like Johan Cruyff once was. He famously said: "In Spain all 22 players make the sign of the cross before a game; if it worked, every game would be a tie."

Even Neymar Jr., who is easily one of the top 10 players right now, is Pentecostal, not Catholic...

There, I did some quick digging without even trying, but hopefully that's enough for you...

Since you're a Liverpool FC fan, you probably already know that Mohamed Salah and Mane aren't Catholic, they're Muslim...😁

George Best was an absolute legend, and he was Protestant☕

Just thinking out loud here, though football is dominated by Catholics globally, which might explain why so many players seem a bit slow on the pitch...

It's clear Patrick Martin was listening closely to Darij

Larry Fox5 said:Music school background—piano, guitar, opera singing... plus all kinds of folk instruments like bass, tenor, and mandolin.

The whole beauty of music is how it can totally flip your mood. It lifts you up, drags you down, or just gets you hyped...

It’s a total mistake to think a song has to be some insanely complex masterpiece to actually be good. It doesn't.
Real quality is about finding that connection—where the listener actually feels something and those vibes hit home.

So, quit being such harsh critics when judging music, no matter how much "trash" it might sound like at first glance...

Sorry, but you're never going to get the same emotional rush from Bon Jovi that you do from Mozart, no matter what. 😁 It isn't even about how complicated the music is; if that were the case, maybe Joe Biden's compositions would be outperforming The Rolling Stones, but the magic is just different...

Paul Martinez73 said:Look, I generally can't stand pop fans of any kind, but nothing is more annoying than when the "Testo Metal" crowd acts like they're superior because your music is supposedly shallow or lacks depth...
Honestly, Testo Metal is pure poetry for the refined ear of a classic human being. If someone doesn't get it, that's their problem, but I've noticed this group constantly acting like they're on some higher plane of existence—just a bunch of guys screaming, wearing chains, drinking cheap booze, and doing hard drugs. Meanwhile, pop fans have their crowds of people with guns, drinking expensive liquor, and doing hard drugs.

I've listened to plenty of different rockers, metalheads, and similar types—as well as all that bragging that nothing else is worth listening to besides what they like. Or with the older generation, where everything is trash unless it's Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, or Clapton—basically anything they happened to listen to when they were kids.

And honestly, all of that combined is pretty much junk compared to the classics and the massive amount of effort it takes to compose an opera or a symphony...

Almost any kind of music can have something meaningful in it, regardless of the genre; the only things I really can't stand are techno or that mindless commercial pop stuff...

driftingfox66 said:George Soros, globalists, fake news, libtards, blah blah blah—see, I can be even louder than you!

Just predicting how you're gonna react.

The latest batch of nonsense is trying to link climate change directly to the left wing. I don't know where they got that idea, maybe because Donald Trump is on the right, so if someone disagrees with him, they must be on the left? 🤣

It honestly feels like common sense is just disappearing from public discourse lately. It seems like things really started spiraling during those flat earth conspiracies and the whole Duspara thing, which even some church groups actually bought into...

wiredrider9 said:The Guardian... hahahahahaha

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

So NASA is just making things up too? haha... 😁

I guess we could have said the same thing about your baseless takes earlier. But you aren't alone; even Nina Raspudić seems to be joining in on the general nonsense. Honestly, she knows about climate change about as much as Mary knows about algebra, yet she—along with a bunch of other know-it-alls from our local media outlets—insists on weighing in on absolutely everything...

wiredrider9 said:just give me the names of this 99% of scientists then

Yeah, because the UN is totally an organization dedicated to the betterment of humanity, right? 🙏

Did you see yourself in what Larry Fox5 was quoting?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ming-passes-99

"The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts."

So, what now? Are you actually going to change your mind? Honestly, I heard from some pretty reliable sources that Elon Musk is just funneling his investors' money into funding trips to Greensboro to stir up climate panic, all to pump up his stock prices and sell more EVs while he laughs at everyone from his control center in Sunday... He's even gone vegan just to make his whole persona easier to sell to the naive crowds...

It’s honestly wild how many climate change skeptics you run into online. Everyone acts like such an expert, convinced they've spotted a massive scam, even though the experts at the UN and researchers have been sounding the alarm for decades... It gets even funnier when they claim they aren't falling for "conspiracy theories" because it’s just so obvious that huge corporations are pulling the strings.

The biggest players on the planet are actually the ones profiting from mass pollution—think big oil, Big Pharma, the defense industry, and even the massive food conglomerates. Even ten years ago, there were books written about how these industries pay off scientists, fund junk studies, and influence the media to push the narrative that humans and our environmental impact aren't to blame, despite the fact that basically 99% of scientists agree we're in a serious crisis.

But sure, let's pretend the real villains are just powerful NGOs and EV manufacturers like 🤣

Matthew Young35 said:Monsanto isn't what creates scorched earth.
Scorched earth is caused by people like Bolsonaro, who burn down the Amazon rainforest just to clear space for agriculture and industry.

What Monsanto actually does is threaten biodiversity. And if we’re being honest, even that isn't strictly on them—it's the people using their products.
It's like the NRA's argument: guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Actually, Monsanto also contributes to scorched earth through their pesticides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVgg...unknown

This is an excellent documentary that shows how much life—microorganisms and creatures—exists in just a single spoonful of soil, and what happens to that soil after intensive farming and heavy pesticide use. It turns the ground literally dead...

When it comes to Trump and Obama, both were heavily influenced by lobbyists and massive corporations. But at least Obama fostered a different social atmosphere; it wasn't the norm to have a president claiming truth is a lie or posing as a science expert when he had no clue about anything. The general social climate matters too, which you can see in places where everything has become so relative, from crime to corruption and the way basic institutions function...

Regarding the economy, Trump is a heavy smoker; you only need to look at how much the national debt ballooned during his term to see that the US "functions" by constantly pumping up debt rather than having a truly great economy (though Obama wasn't much better there either)...

Jessica Gonzalez said:There are roughly 7.5 billion people on Earth right now, and that number might climb past 9 billion by 2050. I guess there isn't really one shared goal here; collective human behavior doesn't seem to have any long-term purpose, nor has such an undertaking ever been clearly defined. Maybe what all societies share is this obsession with constant growth. We chase growth in consumption, population, productivity, manufacturing, stock indices, life expectancy—just growth in everything. Even FIFA seems to be pushing for more expansion with the World Cup, probably until they eventually invent 500 different countries just so everyone can play. But I wonder, growth toward what? Is there actually a numerical target for anything? How much should the average person consume, and for what reason? They say it’s for pleasure or happiness, but science suggests that happiness doesn't actually scale with more spending. It seems happiness is just how the brain interprets incoming data through certain hormone activations. It feels physically impossible to be a million times happier than someone else; the body just doesn't have that kind of capacity. Plus, that chemical high fades so quickly. Chasing infinite growth doesn't seem to make logical sense because if the goal is infinity, you can never actually reach it. It sounds a bit philosophical, I know, but looking at how we live, it feels like we're chasing something that doesn't exist since everyone eventually passes away without ever catching that ultimate state of bliss.

It might be difficult for people to voluntarily give up the high-tech versions of their lives because we're so hooked on them. Things like recycling, electric cars, biking, taking trains instead of planes, LED bulbs, cutting out plastic, or energy-efficient appliances—those are all good things in themselves, I suppose. They aren't bad. But they also create massive new industries that, in their own way, consume resources, energy, and land. So, we're just back to seeking more growth. I think true change would have to be radical. Real change wouldn't be electric cars; it would be having no cars at all. No planes, no massive cargo ships. Imagine if travel only happened on foot or by carriage. Or if plastic simply didn't exist. If lightbulbs or pesticides weren't part of the equation. If we didn't produce inorganic waste or need international shipping for goods and services. That kind of world would feel like living on another planet compared to today. Maybe it's possible in the far future, but I doubt people today would choose it voluntarily because it's just not what they want. Perhaps we could start with small behavioral shifts that might eventually evolve into radical changes. As for me, I drive a car, I fly, I buy products made all over the world, and I use electricity, water, gas, and generate plenty of waste. We all do it, and I guess it's just an integral part of our modern lives.

People are easily manipulated, and right now, they haven't just fallen for it—they're being led there on purpose. Back in my marketing psychology classes, we studied how business cycles work: if there isn't a demand, you manufacture one. Then, to satisfy that need, you have to buy something. Once you consume it, there’s an emotional crash, leaving you feeling just as empty as before. That triggers the whole cycle all over again. It's why consumerism feels so much like an addiction; you're constantly chasing short-term fixes, like a hamster on a wheel that never actually reaches a destination. The point isn't to arrive; it's just to keep running...

It's the same thing with meat consumption. Recycling is easy because you aren't giving anything up, but here, you're giving up backyard BBQs and burgers. Why change now if you don't have to? The link between environmental damage and the meat industry is huge. Every year, about 150 billion animals are slaughtered in the meat industry (not counting fish, if I recall correctly), often raised in incredibly cramped conditions. Is that really ethical or sustainable? Not to mention the health implications...

Just a small thought for the discussion regarding whether a Star Trek-style economy is even feasible 😉

Jessica Gonzalez said:Both sides of this whole argument seem to stem from a purely human-centered perspective, I guess. The side denying climate change and environmental destruction is essentially just defending our current way of life. On the other hand, those calling for radical changes are worried about preserving a lifestyle for the future—for our kids and grandkids. But ultimately, everything circles back to humans, who are the actual drivers of the issue rather than just victims. Life on this planet exists in millions of different forms, most of which we haven't even laid eyes on. It’s in the soil, the air, the oceans, and within us; there are hundreds of billions of bacteria living inside every single one of us. Humans are just one species among many, yet we act like we have the right to micromanage everything else, even though our time here is incredibly short and we'll eventually fade away. Most modern economies and societies demand constant, accelerated growth, which leads to the rapid consumption of resources and the exploitation of untouched lands. There are even billionaires with pretty empty lives who think we need to export this exact same consumerist lifestyle to Mars and beyond. For billions of years, life on Earth didn't need to be self-aware to thrive. I once spent a few days in the Amazon, and even though it was inhabited, it felt much closer to what we'd call "natural" compared to our cities. I wonder, what's really the point of destroying a forest like that? Is it just so a few thousand cows can consume a few thousand tons of soy? For whom, and why? What is the ultimate goal of all this growth, and what are we actually trying to achieve? I suspect everyone here realizes there isn't some grand, final destination humanity is chasing. We are born, we live, and we die. In that process, there doesn't seem to be much reason to kill off other species or steal their habitats to such an extreme degree. There is plenty of room on this planet for people, rhinos, trees, fish, and whales alike. Maybe they should all have something similar to what we call "human rights." If we recognize those rights for ourselves, perhaps we should extend them to mice too. I suppose there won't be any real progress until humans step down from this self-appointed throne. Some experts suggest that environmental destruction actually started 10,000 years ago with the dawn of agriculture. Back then, our impact existed, but it was so slow and limited that people couldn't even detect it. Even today, with all our knowledge, some people still deny how much we affect nature. Well, if you just open a window in a modern building and look out, how much of what you see isn't shaped or created by human hands?

Anyway, I didn't want to overwhelm anyone with long posts since there's so much to say on these topics, but I sign everything you wrote and feel the exact same way...

I spend a lot of my time out in the wilderness and the natural spaces found around here, and I can honestly say that while I'm certainly not against technology (far from it), the complexity of a single quantum computer is zero compared to the complexity of one living creature. A single tree is a masterpiece of nature far greater than any painting ever created by a living artist. Plus, it's alive and connected to us through invisible threads, unlike dead art...

They feed us artificial imitations and fake pleasures, pulling us into a hollow world of unrealistic fantasy through movies, shows, and all the other media nonsense surrounding us. In the end, none of it makes us happier; it just leaves us feeling emptier and more superficial, disconnected from a nature that is being irreversibly destroyed in the name of greed and consumerism—where the surplus value objectively flows to a tiny circle of people. It's the same story with the devastation of our forests; a small group profits immensely, while we all lose, not just humans, but the rest of the living world that has just as much right to exist as we do.

bluebison47 said:It’s just funny, I guess, how people keep harping on about this whole global warming thing—as if it's some absolute certainty—when you've got three feet of snow piling up in the Delancey area and New York City getting slammed by a cold snap that lasts for days on end... 🙏🙏

Matthew Young35 pretty much nailed it. Every single time, I’m genuinely shocked by how many people try to downplay environmental destruction and climate change. Honestly, it's right up there with denying evolution or believing the Earth is flat...

And that’s exactly it. You don't even have to trek all the way to the Amazon to see the damage. Just take a walk through the Appalachians or up into the Rocky Mountains and compare what those forests look like now to how they used to be. Look at how many natural water sources are left compared to before, or consider the air and food quality we're dealing with. At the end of the day, you can't keep growing things on soil that you're poisoning with pesticides, heavy fertilizers, and over-intensive farming methods forever. Just look at the massive drop in insect populations and other wildlife. American forests are facing huge threats, with nearly half of them endangered, mostly due to pollution and shifting climates...

It’s all connected. The Amazon is being cleared primarily for the meat industry and soy production, which mostly just feeds back into that same industrial meat cycle. It's the same story with the meat itself—often sold after its expiration date, pumped full of antibiotics (which make up 90% of antibiotic production) and growth hormones, and eventually, it all ends up inside you. Experts at the UN are sounding the alarm about this exact thing, warning that we desperately need to cut back on meat consumption, fossil fuels, plastic use, and so on...

The problem is that 90% of people don't even notice because their only real "nature trip" is a stroll through Central Park. They can't see the pollution in their air or food either; instead of greenery, they have new screens and video games, thinking life can just go on like this indefinitely. When you try to talk to them about the devastation in the Appalachians, it feels as distant to them as hearing about a river being polluted in Syria...

Kudos to that girl for actually doing something about it. I honestly wonder if most people here are even trying to recycle or slightly reduce their ecological footprint. Climate change and pollution are massive issues, but every little bit counts. Even if nothing else, at least you can sleep with a clear conscience...

No way, let them hold onto power... the whole thing is just hypnotically addictive 😁
...

This one's a total hit right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLPu...N7vkYthMcMRYmU

Charles Roberts33 said:It might actually work, Patrick Martin, you absolute menace—provided you first perform a sensual massage on Inspector Kluzoa, also known as Ernesto Valverde (the coach for Barcelona).

What a sweetheart, what a smile. Way more engaging than that boring soap opera. Just a little bit of emotion and expression makes all the difference.

A lesson for women everywhere: stop playing the brat and just give a submissive little smile as much as possible. It’s much more pleasant that way. 👍

It looks like Gricman went through that same treatment before they sent him off to Barcelona all reprogrammed ☕

Noah Roberts46 said:Honestly, this whole disproportionate, Kardashian-style backside thing—I don't get it, and frankly, it isn't even attractive. It reminds me of this:



If we look back at history, it was all about fertility goddesses. 🤣

Look, Hazard during pre-season training

It’s even got a plastic face and mouth. If you took her down to Spar, you'd probably get 50 cents for her...

Matthew Young35 said:Say whatever you want, but I'm convinced we're living in a simulation.

And if we are in a simulation, the only logical conclusion is that it exists within a one-dimensional space. Why? Because it’s the simplest path.

Susskind got me thinking about this.
Though, even he hasn't quite grasped how things truly stand.

If someone has a bit of spare time and a decent grasp of mathematics, they could prove my point quite easily. We can split the Nobel Prize down the middle: I'll take 40%, and whoever handles the math gets 60%. I respect the work.

If you're going to quote Neymar, at least use some quotation marks...☕

A new Valderammina hairstyle. Clearly channeling some Jennifer Aniston vibes... ☕

Charles Roberts33 said:Maybe we should pivot this conversation away from gay sex for a second.

Here you go, folks. Enjoy the chills.

he wants to move away from gay sex by dropping a link to some powerhouse female singer🐔

anyway, I saw this funny joke on an American site once:

What do two gay guys do? They fall in love.
What do two lesbians do? They fall in love.
What do a gay guy and a lesbian do? They run America.