Posts by bluemason3

Joseph Bailey41 said:If there's no person, there's no Social Security number. And if there's no ID, there isn't even an account. 😁

Good luck trying to explain that to the IRS. 🤣

Paul Rogers94 said:There is no teacher, no student, and no learning at all. 😁

That’s also a pretty great way to look at my bank account balance🧐

David Vaughn75 said:In Hinduism, the spiritual guru is basically everything—the alpha and the omega. You just follow whatever they tell you to do, no questions asked.
Some folks argue that unless you have the grace of a pure servant of God, there’s zero chance of getting into the Kingdom of Heaven.
It kind of brings to mind that whole idea where Jesus says the only way to the Father is through him; it's like God only lets in the people that Jesus lets in, which ends up being the same crowd any other spiritual leader would vouch for.

Now, looking at Christianity, a priest is definitely a big deal—they’re the ones giving the directions and setting the tone—but honestly, you can get by without one if you have to.

So, what about you guys? Do you actually follow some spiritual mentor, and how much has that person actually shaped the way you live your life?

We could be even more specific and say this is primarily a hallmark of Tantra.

As such, the defining feature of the largest body of modern (heavily Tantric) Hinduism—mostly comprised of cults established during medieval reforms, along with a smaller portion of younger Tantric Buddhism (specifically in Tibet) from that same era.

I view this as a long-term unhealthy religious phenomenon. It pushes the already exaggerated psychological regressiveness found in many religious groups to an extreme, keeping people trapped in a perpetual illusion of security through a childlike relationship with pseudo-parental figures. Ultimately, it prevents anyone from ever reaching true maturity or taking real responsibility.

I just took my first look at Facebook Sladoljev's profile.

I always knew he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but I had no idea it was fueled by religious fanaticism.

https://www.facebook.com/sladoljev.srecko

Check out this post:

We aren't allowed in churches for Easter, but we're expected to stay stuck in our homes with Bill Gates III and Corona.
Where are you heading, Berg?
Easter, 2020.

If you take all the letters in Bill Gates III and then convert them into ASCII conversion and then add up all the numbers, you will get 666, which is the number of the BEAST.
B = 66
I = 73
L = 76
L = 76
G = 71
A = 65
T = 84
E = 69
S = 83
I = 1
I = 1
I = 1
Total = 666

What kind of cleric hands over the reins of immunology to someone this unhinged?🤔

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ths-in-sweden/

Since the death toll didn't really spike until April—and even then, it only accounts for about 10% of total deaths—it’s hard to say these numbers actually tell us much of anything.

Chris Williams said:bluemason3

That comparison simply doesn't apply here. Not at all...

A more appropriate analogy might be this: imagine someone has a massive ulcer or a deep wound on their leg—severely inflamed tissue that could lead to sepsis. Most doctors tell them, "To be safe, you need to amputate the leg." That would certainly heal the ulcer and eliminate the danger. However, a small minority of doctors argue—since you'll lose the leg anyway, let's just try treating the ulcer instead. So, what I am questioning is whether amputation is actually better than treatment, based on the arguments provided to me. I don't need a PhD in anything to exercise basic common sense.

And now, governments are fueling mass hysteria and madness by locking people under house arrest. Life has come to a standstill; they are amputating the economy, gutting industry, and threatening the very foundations of an already fragile global economy, even risking social order itself. They risk famine and poverty, potentially bankrupting nations, all just to reduce what is claimed to be high mortality.

"Claimed," because so far, the death toll relative to 7 billion people isn't even particularly high compared to the seasonal flu. As a consequence of these decisions—the scale of which we can't even fathom—we will be living in a post-Corona era for years, much like the person who had to have their leg cut off because most doctors insisted it was the only way to deal with an ulcer.

Regarding an approach that avoids amputating everything everywhere, and why I find the alternative more logical: look at South Korea. They didn't shut down their entire economy; they implemented a different model. I won't go into too much detail, but you can see it here.

And then look at Sweden, which barely does anything at all, yet their numbers are similar to countries where citizens are forced to hide in their apartments like mice while police drive them back home if they dare to take a walk in the park.

We only have about 4 million people here, a tiny nation with a population roughly the size of two neighborhoods in Tokyo (which has 34 million people). When Alma is asked why they aren't testing more, as the Koreans do, she philosophizes that it's pointless and disagrees with the method, claiming it's not the right way. You don't need a doctorate to see that the Korean approach yields results, while she just talks in circles without providing real arguments for why we should amputate our legs instead of saving them. A monkey just does what a monkey sees.

That’s a different story. Obviously, people have varying opinions on the best response, but the real issue is there's too much debate over whether sepsis is actually going to be a factor.

If 9 out of 10 doctors tell you there's a high probability of sepsis, while only 1 out of 10 says there's no chance, which side makes more sense to lean on?

If we had clear answers regarding virus lethality, transmission methods, climate responses, mutation potential, or even mortality rates, the debate would be much easier to navigate. But we aren't there yet. So much remains unknown, and updates happen daily. Given how critical everything is, these updates often lack the rigor of established research because they haven't gone through the usual slow verification processes. It's easy to see people jumping to conclusions here.

I'm not claiming our approach is necessarily better than Sweden's—time will tell—but there’s no reason to assume the opposite either. When you're dealing with this many unknowns, it isn't illogical to choose the risk of being overly cautious rather than underprepared.

Regarding those two countries, we could argue that Sweden's population is generally more disciplined and inclined to trust authority and follow guidelines compared to Mediterranean countries like Italy. It’s possible they stuck closer to non-binding recommendations, whereas Italians dealt with mandatory lockdowns (much like most Germanic or Northern regions, there is actual research on social cohesion and trust in government that supports this. We saw with Corona that places like Germany or even parts of East Asia responded better to the epidemic than Italy, Spain, or the USA...).

Still, I'm not convinced that means there isn't a difference. I don't follow it closely, but from what I've read, their situation looks worse than their neighbors, and they've started considering stricter measures too.

We'll see.

The Korean model just isn't applicable here; it's already too late, plus it's questionable how many countries actually have the infrastructure to pull off such massive testing. Generally, the market is facing a shortage of tests, and not every nation has the same medical, scientific, or industrial capacity relative to its population. From what I can see, the testing methods themselves are still constantly evolving.
I know a few cases, including one in my own family, where people were highly likely to be carriers but refused testing once symptoms appeared. One person only managed to get tested by running a fever and testing positive.
Clearly, we had a limited supply of tests and a very selective approach. The Medical Association even complained and pushed for more extensive testing, but the question is how feasible that is when there is a global shortage, making them both hard to find and expensive. And let's face it, we aren't exactly the world's medical hub or the wealthiest nation on earth.

Of course science isn't dogma. Everything should be open to scrutiny. But you can't critique what you don't understand. An Amazonian tribesman who thinks airplanes are just giant birds and that the Earth is flat isn't in any position to judge NASA's space programs.

I think anyone who has actually achieved a decent level of competence in anything would realize that.

Take judging musical talent, for example—though art is obviously much more subjective than science. My perspective changed completely after years of immersion. Before that, you mostly just follow whatever dogmatic, herd-like consensus is floating around. If you hear twenty times that Hendriks is the greatest ever, you'll believe it, even if every "guitar god" from the 80s was technically far superior. Beyond that, I’ve watched how assessments of guitarists (which I am not) shift as they evolve, even after decades of disciplined, 12-hour-a-day practice. The more you master your own craft, the more you recognize it in others.

If someone asked me who the best chess player in history is—or even today, when I barely remember how the pieces move, if I can even recall that—and I can only name three players from history, none of them currently active, I would either have to say I have no opinion at all or admit my opinion is foolish and baseless. I don't need to be at the top of the rankings to have an opinion, but I do need to be at a certain level where I have a systematic understanding of the game and its history. Otherwise, I’m just regurgitating impressions left by some media outlet.

Studying applied mathematics and statistics (as an adult, through extracurricular study) fundamentally shifted my understanding, much like music or religion did, regarding (certain) scientific claims and debates. It provides the foundation (for good work) of scientific methodology and data processing. No matter how much popular science I read before, I lacked the tools to truly grasp things. Listening to debates back then gave me a totally different impression than I would have now; arguments that once seemed rock-solid now seem incredibly weak, simply because I understand probability better. And the funniest part? I used to be much more confident in my own judgments than I am now. But even with a relatively basic level of knowledge, I can't convey it to someone in an online debate. I'm not sure I could even do it in a few hours of video content. If someone isn't willing to spend several years studying, there is no basis for a deep explanation (depending on the required depth of the discussion, admittedly).

Naturally, reaching a PhD level would bring even more significant shifts in perspective. That level allows for the evaluation of certain universal elements of research found in many fields, even if one can't judge the niche specifics of a single discipline. To evaluate medical research, I’d need to spend several more years studying specialized biostatistics or public health studies. Even with my current level being well above a casual consumer of science, I'm not capable of that, nor do I attempt it. But to even know that you don't know something, you first have to know something. It’s a strange paradox.

So, nobody is saying you should follow blindly. Science is, by definition, open to criticism and verification. But to criticize and verify, you need a minimum baseline of knowledge. If you want to dive into this, you have to dedicate anywhere from five to twenty years of serious, daily, structured study to the subject, depending on your starting point.

Of course, no one is stopping you from having an opinion on anything. But it's mostly just delusional self-deception if you take those opinions too seriously.

hiddenpuma75 said:The moderators are scrubbing posts like this from bluemason3 right off the official news broadcasts and TV stations. 😉
And that accusation? It’s exactly the same thing we’ve been seeing over on the forum.

Trolling and the spread of fake news during such volatile times... it’s honestly getting out of hand. It feels like we're living through a digital Wild West where misinformation travels faster than the truth ever could.

omen4k As stated by:

It didn't even make the news on TV.

1.

Quote:
Look, if we're being honest, this pandemic is actually pretty trivial. I know that sounds jarring—especially when you consider that lives are being lost—but it's hard to ignore the massive, collective hallucination we've all been caught up in lately. We're living through an incredible amount of manufactured drama.

Look, the numbers don't lie: respiratory infections claim about 2.6 million lives globally every single year. If the media or politicians applied the same level of hysteria they used for COVID-19 to a standard flu season, we’d be seeing an absolute meltdown of panic.

– When you look at the credentials, it’s hard to argue with the facts: Didier Raoult, MD, PhD, is widely considered the top global authority on Communicable Diseases, boasting an incredible track record of over 2,300 indexed publications.

2.

Quote:
"We’re terrified that hitting one million infections with this new virus will result in thirty deaths a day for the next hundred days. What we seem to be missing, though, is the reality that twenty, thirty, forty, or even a hundred people are already passing away every single day due to standard coronaviruses."

The government's response to COVID-19 has become nothing short of grotesque—absurd, dangerous, and frankly, deeply misguided. We are looking at a situation where the life expectancy of millions could be cut short. On top of that, the horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The ripple effects on our healthcare system are equally devastating. We're already seeing essential services for patients in need being scaled back, surgeries getting canceled, clinics sitting empty, and hospital staff numbers dwindling. If we don't face the reality of what's happening, all of this is going to leave a profound and lasting scar on our entire society.

All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.

– Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi is an MD and a specialist in microbiology, recognized as one of the most cited research scientists in German history.

3.

Quote:
COVID-19 is being hailed as a once-in-a-century pandemic, but if you ask me, we might actually be looking at a once-in-a-century evidentiary fiasco. It feels like we’re flying blind, making massive, life-altering decisions without any truly reliable data to guide us.

– Meet John Ioannidis: a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and population health, specializing in biomedical data science and statistics at Stanford University, where he also serves as the co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center.

4.

"Quote:"

From what I’ve gathered through my conversations—both with everyday people on the street and my own professional circles—it feels like we aren't just facing a health crisis. As an internal medicine specialist who has spent the last two years working in an infectious disease department, I can tell you that almost everyone I speak with views this COVID-19 situation as more of a pandemic of panic than anything else.

Honestly, all this panic feels like a massive overreaction. We haven't even established if the actual mortality risk from COVID-19 is any higher than what we see with the seasonal flu or other common viral infections. From what I can see, the vast majority of fatalities are occurring among the elderly or those already battling significant comorbidities—which is exactly what we see during a bad flu season.

– Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche, a dedicated researcher and the founder of the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration.

5.

Following the whole "Indian connection" lead, I decided to look up the guy mentioned in the quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Ayyadurai

He's a pretty controversial figure, mostly known more for his questionable claims about his own discoveries and political ambitions than for actual science. And he has one PhD, not four, despite what's being claimed here. Having four degrees—like a BSc, MSc, PhD, and another—is not the same thing as having four doctorates.

Not surprising. 😁

hiddenpuma75 said:You're just spinning these vague, obvious narratives, and honestly, you pulled those specific numbers straight out of thin air.
You have NO idea how many experts are actually for this versus how many are against it.

Even if you did, it wouldn't matter because truth isn't decided by a popularity contest—it's ultimately dictated by the moderators, the administrators, or in the real world, the politicians.

And they have already locked in their strategy.
Whether it's one way or another, it's intentional.
You can see the glaring differences in outcomes and approaches depending on which country you look at.

Scientists who are on the government payroll simply cannot, and should not, risk their own livelihoods by pushing back against media pressure and public outcry.

They don't even dare to question the less controversial stuff, which is exactly what Sheldrake discusses in his book science delusion on
. He points out that most of his scientist friends hold one opinion in private, but act completely differently when they have to go "on the record."

Driven by the fear of losing funding, status, or reputation, they end up singing the praises required to stay in line with the rules set by those in power—the kind of "moderators" like bluemason3 who hold the authority and the purse strings.

But let's be real: nobody can deny the media's massive hype machine and the constant, concentrated bombardment of PORN FEAR imagery.

I think it's pretty obvious that these numbers are just illustrative rather than concrete data points. It also seems glaringly clear where the consensus lies—whether you're looking at public discourse, talking to people one-on-one, or examining both academic research and everyday medical practice.
If you've got data that contradicts me, I'm more than happy to change my mind.

It doesn't even really matter. Truth isn't decided by a popular vote, and at the end of the day, it's always the moderators, the admins, or the politicians calling all the shots anyway.

Look, I know that doesn't exactly define the truth. But for someone like me—who isn't an expert tracking this stuff with the same rigor as actual scientists—I figure probability comes down to simple math. To me, following the numbers just seems like the most practical way to act.

And that's exactly the strategy they decided to go with.
It’s either one way or the other.
It’s pretty obvious that different countries are seeing wildly different results and running completely different strategies.

It’s pretty clear that countries with a stricter approach are outperforming those taking a more relaxed route. We're still waiting on the final results from the Swedish experiment, though you have to account for their culture of discipline, regardless of what mandates are actually in place.

Scientists who rely on government funding simply can't—and shouldn't—risk their livelihoods by going against the grain of media narratives and public opinion.

The government doesn't just cut direct checks to scientists. There are various agencies involved in routing that money, so it’s not like Andrej Plenković is calling the shots on individual grants. Funding is actually pretty diverse; you have public tax dollars flowing through multiple channels at different levels, plus there's private money coming from both industry players and philanthropic organizations. Most of this funding—public and private alike—is distributed via peer-review committees. These panels consist of fellow scientists who evaluate projects based on established criteria, essentially picking the best of the best from the pool of applicants.
There are plenty of ways to ensure things stay firmly under government control, at least in Western democracies.
It's not like all the money comes from the government, either. You can't overlook the impact of EU funds, though those sources tend to be pretty faceless and buried under layers of bureaucracy.

Some things are heavily politicized—for instance, it’s pretty much impossible to break into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences unless you play ball with the right people (look at what happened with Djikić). But this isn't quite like that, at least from what I can see. Out of all the political maneuvering and power plays happening within the academy, I haven't heard anyone pick on that specific part. Of course, my sample size is small, but so far, so good.

They won't even touch the minor controversies, yet look at what Dr. Sheldrake claims in his book Science delusion .
He basically says most of his scientist friends hold one opinion in private and a completely different one when they're performing "officially."

The man is talking about door handles. If he were a serious scientist, he’d question his own theories after a hundred independent researchers failed to replicate his results (just a side note: nobody should be afraid to tackle certain topics, by the way).
I was actually on his side until this. Now, if he keeps ignoring the data, he's just following in Emotov's footsteps with this pseudoscience stuff. He built a career on being an alternative figure, which means he probably can't go back to the mainstream academy anyway. He can't afford to be objective or impartial and toss out his ideas when the results don't line up; a real academic could just adapt and move on to new projects. But he doesn't have that luxury. He’s stuck, and it feels inevitable that he'll sink deeper into pseudoscience as his whole house of cards falls apart.

But you can't deny the media hype and the constant bombardment of fear-mongering imagery.

I wouldn't know. I don't follow them. I haven't turned on the TV in months, haven't bought a newspaper in years, and I barely even click on news sites lately.😁

It’s a classic Dunning-Kruger scenario: to actually judge an expert's opinion, you really need to be operating at their level of expertise first.

Since I’m not some PhD epidemiologist from Harvard, do I even have enough foundational knowledge to make a fair assessment? Or am I just going to find something subjectively appealing because it aligns with my irrational biases or personality traits? (For instance, people who lean toward alternative or anti-establishment ideas will instinctively feel a sense of "kinship" with anything that pushes back against the establishment, driven by emotional solidarity long before they ever get to the rationalization phase where they justify their actual motives).

Keeping that in mind—and since I lack the credentials to judge—it seems more sensible to stick with the mainstream than to fight it. Sure, the mainstream can be wrong; it’s certainly happened before. But statistically speaking, there's a much higher probability that the 99.6% of PhD epidemiologists with legitimate scientific credentials are right, rather than the 0.4% who disagree plus two local doctors who aren't even in that specialty.

When you present this logic, the standard rebuttal is to point to instances where the mainstream was dead wrong and the "dissidents" were right. There's no denying those cases exist, but I think that’s a flawed argument. It feels less like a rational choice and more like a way to rationalize an irrational, emotional predisposition toward being anti-establishment:

1) Some of those historical examples are simply too old to be relevant today. Scientific methodology evolves, which reduces the margin for error. It’s hard to compare today’s system to how things worked 50 years ago.

2) Isolated incidents are just that—isolated. To use them as a basis for generalization, we would need a massive data set proving that "dissidents" are right most of the time, not just occasionally. Instead, people take a single outlier or a handful of cases from the entire history of science and use them to make a sweeping rule, while ignoring the actual average and the millions of instances where the scientific consensus was correct, leaving the endless "unsupported claims" in the dust.

So, bottom line: while the consensus could absolutely be wrong—especially in a situation filled with unknowns and poorly understood phenomena—following the guidance and assessments coming from the current dominant viewpoint is the most pragmatic move. Any corrections to those views should follow the corrections made by the scientific community itself as they gather more data and conduct more research. After all, we're dealing with something new that nobody fully understands yet.

Ahjd, Einstein wasn't just some hack; everyone else is just talking nonsense. 😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:Yeah. 👍

Schools work perfectly well online, and it's pretty clear we can manage just fine without those big religious or consumerist gatherings.

The way I see it—exams are just a massive, cheating-filled joke that everyone pretends not to notice because there isn't any other way to do things.

neonmarlin39 said:I don't see any conspiracy theories in what I actually wrote 🤔

Just one quick example to back it up. Look at how things went down when that virus first popped up in China. Are we talking about scientists and doctors being responsible, or was it politicians covering up the actual existence of the virus right out of the gate—you know, silencing the people who were trying to sound the alarm early on? And then, of course, the cover-up regarding the massive number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths just to make the stats look better. It should be pretty obvious how much politics made this whole mess worse, especially during those first few critical stages.

China is a closed dictatorship; there's no way it can serve as a model for Western systems.

hiddenpuma75 said:I only just realized this today. I’m surprised, though certainly not offended. 😁

It’s pretty rare in life—and even rarer on a forum—to hear people actually praise your work. 🤔

Meister Eckhart would likely tell you that we only recognize in others what we already possess within ourselves. 🙂

In most online communities and in life, there seems to be this pervasive "No, you!" vibe.

By that, I mean a general atmosphere of skepticism, constant belittling, negativity, projection, gossip, and that classic tendency to inflate one's own importance while tearing everyone else down.

It honestly feels like people do this either consciously or subconsciously.

-"Nobody ever praises me, so why on earth should I bother praising anyone else?" !🙂

==
For instance, I started a thread over in the Philosophy section specifically so we could highlight and celebrate great posts. 👍

http://www.example-us-forum.com/showthread.php?t=1013899

It’s actually quite staggering how few compliments have been posted there in three years. 😲

Take bluemason3, for example. He hasn't really praised anyone; instead, he’s spent nearly 20 years on this forum criticizing everyone from the Neolithic era all the way up to Star Trek. 😁

==
So, it boils down to this: people either fail to see the good in things;

Or, even worse, they see the good but simply don't care enough to point it out.

Or, worst of all... they actively refuse to! 😲

He leaves comments under my posts whenever I start praising the scientific community, the healthcare system, or even the political establishment. 😁

Look, the problem is you seem to go out of your way to focus on idiots, losers, and con artists. It ends up looking like you're just spitting on everyone in sight. Honestly, even Himmler might have had better luck with your attitude. 🤣

What does that even have to do with anything? Generally speaking, project funding and resources are handed out by committees made up of scientists, not politicians. Sure, they might have political connections, but the idea that everyone is in on it together and there's some massive, coordinated manipulation...

Out of all the complaints I’ve heard from my wife regarding science and education policy—and trust me, she has plenty—the most frequent ones center on how research grants are awarded.
+ There are a lot of moving parts here. Some projects are funded by universities, others by national science agencies, and some by third parties entirely. It isn't centralized enough to make total control that easy. Plus, money flows through various channels and comes from different sources that aren't necessarily government-run (like EU funds, which bring a healthy dose of outside oversight).

But hey, what do I know? I'm not in the scientific community, and there’s just too much government and too many systems on this planet for any one person to see the full picture.
On the other hand, most people making these kinds of claims have even less contact with the system than I do, so it's mostly just projection. It's similar to those conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma" controlling all of medicine, even though statistically, 80% of medical research doesn't actually come from the private sector. If you ask me, it's a bit too much conspiracism.

Not quite. It isn’t like the President or his cabinet are just reaching into the coffers and grabbing cash directly. Honestly, public funds tend to be much more transparent and scrutinized than private capital, which is almost always driven by individual interests and pure profit. At the end of the day, that money has to come from somewhere.

Ryan Wilson2 said:People are dying. Why isn't there a transparent count of how many lives have been lost to cancer up to this point? Where are the statistics on influenza fatalities? Or even traffic accidents?

I am not suggesting the virus is harmless, but let's be realistic—it isn't nearly as lethal as they want us to believe.

The reason we find ourselves under lockdown right now is simply because our healthcare infrastructure isn't equipped to handle yet another outbreak. And frankly, everyone has failed us here. Of course, being disappointed by organized religion isn't anything new; they’ll continue to spout their rhetoric while the sheep blindly follow. But there is also a profound disappointment in science, which was presented to us as the ultimate answer to everything... yet, the moment a virus hits, we find ourselves reverting to medieval methods.

Those are predictable variables. If this virus stays in circulation for 100 years, nobody will even care about it by then.

The real issue is the indirect strain placed on the healthcare system.

Interestingly, I actually found the response pretty impressive. It was relatively organized, the scientific community mobilized collectively to tackle the problem (at least the relevant parts did), and we managed to find vaccines and other solutions in a fraction of the time it took just a decade ago.

I'm not sure what "answer to everything" is supposed to mean. Science is the most epistemologically pure system we have; it consistently provides more objective knowledge and practical solutions than anything else in human history.
That doesn't make it a magic wand. We shouldn't be disappointed just because today's level of science isn't what it will be in 500 years, or because we probably won't have teleporters anytime soon.

mistybison said:🤣

You really ought to propose this as a new word. 😁

Do I need to worry about intellectual property rights here? 😳

How would the dictionary entry actually look?

bullshitter - a person who rambles incessantly without any solid foundation; a pseudo-philosopher, a fake spiritualist, an alternative type.
synonyms: windbag, blowhard, loudmouth, phony, empty suit
Antithesis: STEM expert, scientist, productive citizen

🧐 😁

hiddenpuma75 said:

Do you have any vision for a better world involving the right-wingers, conservatives, and believers?

Well, I actually do, and I base it on Ken Wilber’s philosophy.
Since nobody is quite foolish enough to be 100% wrong, nor wise enough to be 100% right, the only way forward is the INTEGRAL PATH. That means walking a razor's edge, balancing the tension between what holds true for the right and what holds true for the left.

Essentially, the right advocates for eternal, unchanging, classic values—which is perfectly fine. On the flip side, the left pushes for change and progress, which is also perfectly fine.

True wisdom lies in knowing when something is timeless and shouldn't be touched, but it also means recognizing when we shouldn't force change just for the sake of being "progressive" or to satisfy some thirst for provocation.

The approach you're taking isn't really an "integral" one; in fact, your question already contains its own answer.
You’ve framed this as if being a conservative, a right-winger, or a believer is somehow regressive or "incorrect." It seems our friend casualtiger2 assumes it's common knowledge that the only valid path is to be a leftist.

It’s almost as if you’re implying—and it’s pretty obvious from how you phrased this—that while it's perfectly acceptable to follow a secular progressive ideology, being a Catholic is somehow backwards and unprogressive.

Personally, I disagree. I think it's perfectly okay to be a Catholic (or a Buddhist, or a Muslim), and it's just as okay to be a staunch secular progressive.

Just another non-STEM type making noise. 🕺

hiddenpuma75 said:ps. (just for those who aren't following along or might be out of the loop)

I am being very DELIBERATE and perhaps a bit tedious when I write DOCTOR Željka Markić, and here is my reasoning.

The liberal media will NEVER use positive descriptors when talking about Željka Markić; you’ll certainly never see them referring to her as, say, DOCTOR Željka Markić.

But whenever there is a story about someone like Mimi Simić, they always make sure to include titles like "author" Mimi Simić or "film critic," and so on.

So, on one hand, we have the agitators Ilčić and Markićka, yet we never actually read about them as

concert pianist Ilčić 🙂

or DOCTOR Željka Markić 😉

These little media nuances are the subtle hallmarks of fake news that my eagle eye catches every single time. 🙂

Markićka is an entrepreneur at heart. She studied medicine, sure, but she hasn't actually practiced as a doctor, and she likely never held a medical license to begin with.
Sure, it doesn't take away from her level of education, but it isn't exactly her identity. It’s not what she would be known for. That's different from the examples you're bringing up, where those people actually make a career out of that specific thing.

Ilcic is a violinist, not a pianist. 🤣

Maybe we don't give them official titles, but at least we have some loose connections. ☕

Joseph Bailey41 said:Who even cares? The people actually interested in this stuff spend all their time camping out on Politics, not Spirituality.

The moderation on the politics board is pretty intense. Honestly, hiddenpuma75 wouldn't last a week over there. 😁

hiddenpuma75 said:That's a clever one, and quite a good way to hide my identity.

In that link about Raspudić, I noticed the image ended up being about Mao Zedong.😁

This is an outstanding article by Raspudić regarding the sexual assault allegations involving Jerry Mark—it's funny how much the left-wing crowd is losing their minds over it.

Nobody’s complaining about slandering Heinrich Himmler, and nobody is out there defending him either—but even he’s two moral tiers above Markićka in my book.🕺

Unless there’s hard evidence to back them up, most of these stories should probably be treated as mere parables.

If I recall correctly—and my memory isn't perfect on this—they gained traction around the 17th century or during the female Renaissance (my memory is a bit fuzzy on the specifics here). It feels like a romanticized look at a brief "maverick" era when women lost their political standing in China, leaving the responsibility of preserving tradition to those eccentric "mountain" monks who were once considered outliers.

We can't verify the authenticity of individual tales, but we can examine the broader historical narratives regarding women's roles during that era—and most of them just don't hold up to scrutiny. All these accounts about patriarchs, Huineng's primacy and lineage, or the clashes between northern and southern schools are essentially later inventions. They were created to wrap basic political fallout in a layer of pseudo-mystical, pseudo-historical authority.

So, even without direct proof, we have to seriously consider the likelihood that these are ahistorical narratives designed to build a mythological framework for a religious organization. It's much easier to pass off ideas through storytelling than through actual philosophy.

In that light, what's actually true versus what's fiction becomes a pretty relative concept.🧐