Posts by bluemason3

Not necessarily, though if a surgeon refuses to perform a procedure, then they won't. But consider a world without social safety nets—where everything is paid for out of a collective fund—replaced by pure, unadulterated capitalism.

Anyone aiming to become a surgeon has to sink a massive amount of cash into about a decade of schooling (medical school plus residency). Unless you’re born into a wealthy family, you’re taking out loans, and those loans have to be paid back.

Beyond just paying off student debt, it isn't like you can just pick up a side hustle to survive while volunteering your medical services. There's already a doctor shortage; having people work limited hours wouldn't make sense, nor would it provide enough hands-on experience. In short, they have to cover their own living expenses, mortgage, and kids through actual work.

Then there's the overhead. A surgical procedure requires a proper operating room, specialized instruments (including diagnostics), assistants, anesthesiologists, and so on. The same logic applies to all of them as much as it does to the doctor.

Just because someone can offer some advice on the street doesn't mean they can perform that profession for free. It isn't really a choice. If nobody wants to pay—neither individuals nor the government—then the service simply wouldn't exist. You wouldn't see professionals; you'd just see untrained amateurs hacking away at things, and even then, they probably wouldn't be free. Honestly, I don't see how you can selectively opt out of a capitalist system unless you've exited it entirely in every other aspect of your life.

Of course, I'm speaking in generalities here since this woman isn't a surgeon, and frankly, I wouldn't go to her even if she were free. But we could compare this to someone with lower overhead, like a psychiatrist or even better, a psychotherapist. Their fees are obviously lower than surgery, but you still have to factor in their professional training and cost of living. Personally, I'd love to afford certain healthcare services that my insurance won't cover or aren't even available in the US, but I'd need to be loaded for that to happen, so it's not happening anytime soon. So, what now? Who do we blame? Maybe the system, but even the old socialist models had their flaws. Everything was available to everyone, but "premium" care was reserved strictly for the party elites.😁

I can give you some advice, but you can't keep doing this indefinitely. You have to make a living. You might need to pay for certifications—networking, Microsoft, whatever else those kids are getting nowadays—and you probably need to invest in some decent gear too. 🤷

In a system where nothing is subsidized, if every single "input" requires capital, you can't expect the "output" to be standardly free; it’ll be an exception at best. And that's assuming there's actually a functional process involved beyond just setting a price. Otherwise, the only people who could afford to practice any kind of healthcare would be wealthy heirs who can just burn through cash without ever charging a dime. 😁

Ryan Wilson2 said:Every once in a while, I find myself gripped by this sudden surge of righteous indignation—a flash of pure, unadulterated anger directed at those individuals who peddle overpriced junk under the guise of helping people. It’s a recurring issue, really. Why is it that so many people are so eager to exploit the needs of others for a quick buck? It’s fundamentally dishonest. 😁

Beer, pizza, p***a, and... honestly, I can't even remember what else was on that list right now. 😁

Pforum 😁

A lot of people would also benefit if you just went around their houses fixing their computers for free. 😁

Money 😁 para ali 🤔

Ryan Wilson2 said:Look, we are talking about cancer treatments here. At the end of the day, this information should be free and accessible to everyone on the internet without any strings attached.

To me, it all feels like just another one of those "just relax and visualize..." techniques—as if, by implication, if you don't recover, it’s simply because you didn't want it badly enough.

Honestly, I’d love to take all these charlatans by the scruff of their necks and send them out to some rural farm in the Midwest to dig up potatoes. And once they finish digging them up, I'd make them put them right back in the ground. 😁

4P? 🤔 😁

What on earth is that supposed to mean? 4P? 😁

Why should it be? I mean, theoretically, there isn't actually any treatment being discussed here, but speaking generally... 😁

In the American healthcare system, nothing is truly "free." It just means you pay through the system rather than out of pocket at the moment. If it's not covered by insurance or a government program, who's picking up the tab?

What's that supposed to mean? 4P? 😁

Beer, Pizza, p***a, and I can't quite remember the last one right now.😁

Ryan Wilson2 said:Hmm, either you’re preparing for a career in politics or you’re getting ready to launch your own series of lectures...😁>

Given the strength of the US Dollar and the average salaries in the country where these lectures are taking place, one could easily calculate what an acceptable price would be for a two-day seminar. Although, as $17 notes, it would still be far too much for something of this nature 😁

Does she really need two whole days just to explain the meaning of life? Why so much time? It seems obvious that she has become entangled in some bureaucratic thicket of spiritual searching; the truth ought to be simple and accessible to everyone. You explain it in five minutes, and that's that. 🧐

I don't have any scruples about saying this, but my opinion of the average alternative consumer is even lower than it was before.😁

And what could possibly be worse than someone seeking enlightenment through
McDonald
?

None of that applies. 🤣
First off, I’ve never had a temper, and second, I’ve started losing 🤣

Given the current state of the US Dollar and the average salaries in the country where these lectures are held, you could actually calculate what an acceptable price for a two-day seminar would be. Though, as $17 mentioned, that might still be way too much for something like this. 😁

Not really. Every country has different social strata and different products for different target markets. You sell both a Ford and a Ferrari; that doesn't mean you're aiming for the average consumer. Plus, not everyone starts from the same baseline. I'm not just talking about spiritual seminars here—whatever those are—but speaking generally. For instance, a seminar designed for professionals in a high-profit field that offers them even more profit (like certifications) is naturally going to cost more than a workshop on backyard composting. Some things have zero market competition, so prices skyrocket. Others are dirt cheap. Some things require experts who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their own education, while others are run by people who don't even know what they're doing.

Market availability isn't the only factor. By that logic, you could argue healthcare should be cheaper, but that isn't realistic. You can try to push for lower doctor salaries, but that’s debatable since they'll just move abroad. High-tech medical equipment costs just as much whether you're buying it in Bangladesh or Germany. Sometimes, being unable to afford high costs simply means you can't access a product or service; it doesn't mean the price should be lower.

Does she really need two days to explain the meaning of life? Why so long? She must be stuck in some bureaucratic loop of spiritual searching. Truth should be simple and easy for everyone to grasp. You explain it in five minutes and you're done. 🧐

4P? 🤔 😁

And what could be worse than someone chasing enlightenment through a McDonald

It’s not even enlightenment, it’s health, so there's that.
😵

Nothing is inherently too high or too low. Value is entirely subjective, depending on what you're actually getting and how the market is behaving at the moment.

Take this specific situation, for instance. Even $17 would feel excessive to me; I’d just see it as a scam or plain stupidity.

Generally speaking, I used to be pretty against paying for stuff in those circles until I found myself taking advantage of certain offers—especially when things were being handed out for free. I don't have any qualms about it now, though I've developed an even lower opinion of the average consumer in the alternative scene than I did before. 😁

Adam Ross6 said:Well, buddy, that’s exactly where he runs into trouble. He can't find anyone who actually matters to him because whenever he meets someone who *could* be important, he approaches them with that attitude of yours: "No big deal, I can step up if I have to (but if I don't have to, I won't)."

...and so he just goes through the motions, consuming people and then showering them with gifts only as much as he can stomach, and only when it fits his own temporary little moment.

So, you with your marijuana-nirvana, and those self-absorbed, six-headed trolls (let's not even get into your equinox jam-making antics right now)—you guys aren't exactly producing much in the way of actual self-fulfillment.

He who leans toward emptiness finds his fulfillment in that emptiness.
He who leans toward fullness will be filled.

@ Mr. steelmarlin77, you're searching for fulfillment by looking at your own reflection in the people you've showered—and continue to shower—with attention.
...And hey, let them tell you how much they actually care about you. Don't pretend to be something you're not.

(I've always found it funny how the people who claim to be the most self-aware are usually the ones with the least amount of sincerity. It's always such a shock to them when there's nobody left to remind them of what they've actually achieved—which, let's face it, is usually quite a lot.)

@ Mr. steelmarlin77, why don't you try giving back to those people in your life, not for your own sake, but for the sake of God? That is, for the One who is in charge, for the end justifies the means, and in Him lies the realization of everything. 🙂

He is the giver of Truth to every single one of us—on our own time and on our own terms.

I don't know what kind of theory you've cooked up here, but none of this makes any sense to me.

Let's see how many reasons we can pull up 🤔

- Ethical ideals (religious or philosophical)
- An independent internal drive (it fulfills us without needing anything in return)
- A sense of duty, or just acting on internalized social norms
- The desire to be liked and accepted—emotional dependency
- The need for financial stability and networking—economic dependency
- Feelings of inadequacy or low self-worth, leading to over-reliance on others
- Biological ties and reproductive drives

What am I missing? 🤔

Of course, most of these overlap; one often triggers another or hides behind it...

First, you take some wheat and mix it with energized water and Himalayan yeast to bake a loaf of bread right under the sun. Once that bread is ready, you place it at the center of a Mother Earth labyrinth, specifically carved out on an energy ley line. Then, you bring over an animal that matches your inner totem to eat it. That’s how you clear any karmic baggage tied to whatever intention was set during ejaculation.

Now I just need a cat to help me avoid self-sabotaging my life. 🙂

To be honest, this feels more like a psychology lecture than an actual PDF. Self-actualization depends entirely on which crowd you decide to hang out with. In this context:

- Buddhism/Advaita: Who is this "you" experiencing the problem? Where do these issues even originate? None of it—not your ego, nor the stuff happening to it—has any objective or lasting reality. Once you grasp the illusionary, transient nature of existence through a direct insight into reality, everything else just sorts itself out. If you don't have to make things difficult, don't.

- Devotional Religion: A higher power dictates and knows everything. Your best bet is to surrender and let go. Let it happen according to His will and grace. Whether it works out or not, we play by His rules.

- The Dark Path: Stop being a coward. Build yourself up, learn to look out for number one, and quit blaming everyone else for your own weaknesses. Make a fortune, maybe summon a demon in a black hoodie if you feel like it. Do whatever you want. Just make sure you're the one in control when it counts.

- Fluffy New Age Vibes: Calibrate your aura, read some mystical poem about love and wisdom, and pay someone to tell you how special you are. Basically, just get lost in the sauce.

That’s pretty much the long and short of it.

Dana Davis5 said:Poor things—I actually feel bad for those "normal" men who spent their whole lives treating their wives like personal assistants, making sure everything was served on a silver platter while they focused entirely on themselves and their own hobbies... and then they act totally shocked when the woman finally snaps. I honestly don't even know what to say, it's almost sad. 🤣
Guys like that would probably be best off just moving back in with their moms and staying there forever.

Staying at home with Mom isn't the issue; it's the growing trend of women opting out entirely. It's becoming a noticeable social shift, particularly in highly progressive American circles. As people age, work often takes precedence over intimacy, and once the raw passion fades, the math just doesn't add up for many women anymore. Between the endless obligations, the rising costs, and playing free therapist to a partner who won't grow up, it feels like a massive drain on energy with zero ROI. And if you're just looking for physical connection, marriage isn't a requirement in this day and age. If someone really wants to find younger, more attractive, and more practical options, they could always head to the Philippines.😁 Obviously, I'm not talking about life here in the States; living with American women can be a struggle.😳

Scott Miller4 said:nonsense, pure nonsense. 🙄

🤣

Men have that in them too, I suppose. It happens on an individual level.

But I can't shake the feeling that there's this sort of click that happens with some women as they age (not all, obviously...) and then you can actually see the wounds, and being around them feels genuinely empowering. Jin finds the most beautiful refreshment and healing when in the presence of Jin. 🙂

😒

How else would the radical feminists defend their extreme views without relying on those little distortions😳.

Essentially, if you let women just follow every passing whim of emotion, they’ll eventually end up at war with themselves and their own kind without any outside help🤣. You can't hide the truth forever🧐 ☕

It’s pretty standard—when we actually nail something, we just don't feel like admitting it. 🥳 ☕ 😈 😁

wearyowl29 said:

You know, everyone talks about the seven deadly sins, but there’s an eighth one hiding in plain sight—one that doesn't even look like a sin at first glance. It's obedience. Honestly, it's caused enough chaos to earn its spot on the list.
It's funny, really. People often toss aside their own common sense and intelligence just to follow some authority figure. They turn into a total herd mentality from the get-go. It’s much easier to let someone else make the calls than to actually think for yourself, right? So they just trade away their freedom of thought for convenience.
Any society built on rigid authority relies on that exact same mindset, and frankly, so do most ideologies and religions.

Check out this episode of Science Magazine dedicated to this "eighth sin."

Looking at it through a spiritual lens, what do you all think? Is blind obedience a good thing or a bad thing when it comes to a person's spiritual growth and maturity?

How do you guys handle your own obedience—or lack thereof? What kind of impact has it had on your life?

It's hard to give a straight answer without stepping outside the value systems we've already adopted. Everything depends on the context of our goals, our environment, and how we decide what's "good" or "bad" to reach them. Terms like "good or bad for an individual," or even more abstract concepts like "spiritual maturity," are incredibly vague.

On one hand, following authority—whether it's a leader or just the community at large—stifles creativity and critical thinking. On the other hand, it builds cohesion and allows a group to act with purpose. If that second part wasn't useful, it wouldn't exist; the collective is stronger than the unit, and humans are social creatures by nature.

It's even debatable how much a person can truly function without it. Even those who claim to be "individuals" might just be carrying around an idea of selfhood that they picked up from their own authorities, whether they realize they're doing it or not.

"Development" is a hard term to pin down. In any given situation, someone might need one approach or another. Sure, authorities find it easy to manipulate people, but does that change the fundamental reality? A child can't be independent, regardless of how much influence a parent exerts. If someone has an internal drive toward something (whether you call it spiritual or just psychological immaturity), it's unlikely they'll change just by overthinking it. That doesn't mean it's automatically bad; it just means it carries potential for harm. Then again, individualism has its own set of pitfalls too.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:And by what means do groups like Documenta, various ethnic councils, or GONG and other drains on the American state actually manage their finances? Is it through voluntary donations from specific citizens within the American state? It would be quite revealing to see how long those groups would last on foreign grants compared to how the Church would fare if citizens were actually asked what they wanted to fund and how public tax dollars should be allocated to specific organizations.
The Church would likely benefit from shifting toward voluntary contributions as well, but I find myself wondering which of these associations would even survive on the national stage if they didn't have access to the government budget.

It isn't just them, either; think of various cultural festivals, theaters, museums, and so on. Who exactly would volunteer their own hard-earned money to support controversial exhibits at the MSU that are presented as art, or to fund the security for a Pride parade out of their own pockets? It is easy to single out one organization and label it a mafia-style operation, but perhaps we could look at the census data in Germany to see what percentage of the population actually supports using taxpayer funds for these specific causes, and then we will see where the true numbers lie.

This has been debated enough times now. Honestly, debunking these myths about non-profits is getting tedious. For the pro-church crowd, these are just convenient demagogic tools used to make their imaginary battles with windmills feel meaningful.

Most events and organizations are funded quite diversely, case by case, usually on a short-term basis. They typically rely on multiple revenue streams, which can include private donations, corporate gifts, other non-profits, international bodies, or local and state government agencies. Occasionally, they even generate their own income.

A large portion of funding also comes from competing for and winning specific project grants, whether those funds originate from the EU, local government, federal agencies, or private organizations.

From what I can see regarding local non-profits, none of them have any real job security. Every single one is fighting an annual battle for survival, managing whatever funds they manage to scrape together.

Sure, there are plenty of people playing games, putting together useless PR projects just to pull some cash out of an EU fund. However, the level of oversight, transparency, and—above all—the intense dependency on the whims of the donor is extremely high.

When it comes to the Church, there is very little transparency, and the state has almost no room to maneuver.

There isn't a single non-governmental institution—and maybe not even a state one—that can compare to the comfortable position the Church has secured for itself.

Carl Turner2 said:🙂

Well, let’s take a moment to assess exactly what level we've reached, shall we?

I mean, look at the reality of things—you walk into a hospital in most major cities that was originally founded by the church, or you attend a school that was established under its aegis...

But I find myself wondering: how many of those hospitals were built by the church and then later handed over to the state, versus how many were actually constructed using taxpayer money?

Richard Wilson4 said:Honestly, don't even bother. You can't explain logic to people like this.

Especially since they still expect folks to keep donating to all these various NGOs—organizations that definitely don't represent what 85% of the population actually believes, unlike the RKC.

Let’s look at the facts: my elementary school wasn't owned by the Catholic Church. My high school? Not the Church. The local hospital isn't run by them, and neither is the city hall or the state government. The only building I can think of that belonged to the Church—and still does—is the university building I attended. Out of all the campus buildings in town, if my memory serves me right, that might be the only one. I don't know the full history of every single structure in this city, though.

To recap:

The church hasn't actually built anything from scratch. They don't run businesses or produce anything. Whatever they have, they were handed to them—either by taxpayers or the government. It’s easy to play the humanitarian when you're spending someone else's money.

Look, if we're going to split hairs about whether the Austro-Canadian Empire or America built more of these buildings, it’s a bit of a toss-up. Sure, you could argue either way depending on how you look at it, but if that's the metric we're using to judge history...

That isn't really an argument. If we went down that road, everyone could just pick any era they liked—feudalism, caves, communism—and claim it was their starting point. In a world where everything is constantly shifting, picking a "golden age" is just revisionism. It’s a mistake that only serves to overcomplicate things, including debates over returning property to the Catholic Church.

The Church is actively pushing to either get its property back or secure some kind of compensation.

boldcyclist67 said:Right now in the States, there are over 100,000 students enrolled in all sorts of social sciences, humanities, and arts programs. I’m pretty convinced that the vast majority of people complaining about funding the Catholic Church fall right into that category. For most of them—or rather, for those imaginary "professions" they study for—there will never actually be a demand in the real world. It would be fascinating to run a poll among Americans to see if they truly want their tax dollars going there. And yet, we keep paying for it.

And what’s really the issue with all these critics attacking the Church? That part would actually be easy to fix. Here is my proposal: let the Catholic Church and all other religious organizations be funded exclusively through voluntary donations from their followers. At the same time, let various "civic associations," "civil society" groups, and political parties operate solely on a voluntary basis, supported by the people who actually care about their work. Furthermore, let the government determine the necessary number of professionals based on actual market needs and fund only those specific roles from the budget. If someone is truly passionate about studying "cultural management," "interdisciplinary humanities," "eco-activism," or astrology, they should just pay for it themselves.

The solution is simple: strip everything from the federal budget that lacks a General consensus or an actual societal need, and shift that funding toward the individuals who have a genuine desire or requirement for it.

As a believer, I would gladly give a contribution to my own Church, but I refuse to fund feminist or LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, political parties I would never vote for, or those opportunistic organizations like Documenta, GOLJP, or GONG. Nor am I interested in subsidizing someone's degree in film directing or sociology when I have no use for it. A clean slate leads to much better relationships.

How exactly do you think these associations are getting their funding right now? You think they have state contracts similar to the church? 😁

Furthermore, the government should just determine which professional roles are actually needed based on specific profiles. The budget should only cover the personnel required to meet those needs. If someone really wants to study "cultural management," "interdisciplinary humanities," "eco-activism," or astrology, they can pay for it themselves.

I agree.
Though, looking at it from another angle, training a doctor costs way more than training a historian. Then the doctor moves abroad and we get nothing out of it—just money thrown straight down the drain.😁

The solution is simple: cut everything from the budget that lacks a General consensus or a clear necessity. Shift that funding over to the people who actually have a need or a desire for it.

There isn't a General consensus on anything. The issue with certain international treaties is that they override even the regular freedom to change things in Congress, even when there's a majority that wants it. I don't think that level of regulation is necessary; it should stay an internal matter for the state.

As a believer, I'd happily donate to my own Church. But I won't fund feminist or LGBTQ+ groups, political parties I'd never vote for, or "traitorous" organizations for the unemployed like Documenta, GOLJP, or GONG. Nor am I interested in paying for someone else's degree in film directing or sociology. Keep the books clean and the conscience clear.

They aren't in the same boat. It would be perfectly fair if the church were funded the same way those associations are. Go ahead, try suggesting that to the priests and see if you think they're actually in such a strong position to survive that way.😉

Maybe move this discussion over to the alternative board? 😁

Let's not let this spread here if we can help it. It’s already enough that spirituality has basically turned into San Francisco 😳

mistygull16 Asks:
The people have quantity and numbers on their side. Why should they put up with these arrogant billionaires? 🤷

Humans aren't islands. We don't just function in a vacuum; we’re social creatures, which means everything eventually requires some level of organization.

Even bad organization beats having none at all.

History shows that people have always been good at toppling an elite, only to immediately install a new one—often a much worse version of the old guard.

Those who control the flow of information clearly possess a level of competence in managing social dynamics and structures that far exceeds the average person.

I'm not sure how one would even go about changing that. To be honest, I'm not even certain if it's actually a problem.

If things actually start shifting, the real game-changer will be the evolution of communication tech and how fast information flows.

mistygull16 said:Do you honestly believe a politician's kid deserves a better life than some kid in Africa working in a diamond mine or on a plantation, probably carrying an AK-47?

Look, if I were out here asking for a pension or a raise higher than $533, George W. Bush would probably tell me he's "against redistribution" while he sends his own kids off to school in the States. I’d be all for that "equality" stuff too if I actually had everything, but since I don't have a damn thing, 😉

Rights don't exist.

They're just things we made up. As a society—mostly decided by those "elites" you guys talk about—we just sat down and agreed on what we'd call "human rights" or whatever.

But they're just our ideas, our inventions, and our little agreements.

Nature doesn't recognize rights. There is only capability, resourcefulness, and luck.