Posts by bluemason3

redheron12 said:Regarding the glorification of the NDH—where exactly is that prohibited? Someone please drop the newspaper name and issue number. 🤷

From what I gather, it’s not about specific group names. It's more about banning the promotion of certain ideas rooted in racial ideology or discrimination—whether that's religious, outward appearance, or whatever. Any movement or activism that can be proven to contain those elements is automatically included, right? 🤷

granitefalcon26 said:The Ustaše and their movement existed from 1939 to 1945. Let’s not try to reinvent the wheel or manufacture some alternative history here.

And while Nazism doesn't exist today as an active, legal political force, it absolutely lives on as an ideology—as a myth that binds certain people together. They used to operate in organized groups, and they still lean heavily on that old symbolism. That’s why we still call them (neo) Nazis; even if nothing can ever perfectly replicate a historical, mythologized original, the connection remains.

For standard use, the signal strength is plenty strong anywhere you go, and battery life really just comes down to the specific device—some of them hold a charge surprisingly well. The main downside to wireless is still that laggy response compared to a wired connection, which is a big deal if you're a gamer.

No, just a club of incompetent bureaucrats 🙂

Honestly, we might be better off if the Masons ran things (who have nothing to do with Rotary, by the way, and before you ask, the Illuminati aren't real) 😁

I honestly thought this was just some PDF policy document, not a list of alternatives or whatever... I figured it was something about support for paranoid schizophrenia in a psychology textbook or something like that 😳

Look, if you aren't some total audio nerd, you probably don't even need a subwoofer for music. In fact, most high-end setups stick to a classic 2.0 stereo configuration—which obviously can't touch the impact of satellites in a 2.1 setup.

It’s especially true with these budget systems. The subwoofer usually isn't integrated well at all, so they just crank up the bass to make it feel more powerful. That's really designed for gaming or movies, though hooking a TV up to external speakers isn't a bad idea either.

Just saying. 😁

When it comes to mainstream computer speakers, I’ve always found Creative to be pretty decent. Logitech, despite all the hype, always ends up disappointing me. It’s mostly flashy aesthetics with very little actual substance. As I mentioned, they tend to overcompensate with the bass, which might work for "cinematic drama" in movies, but their top-tier 5.1 and 2.0 models were garbage to me, while the top Creative models felt actually solid. I haven't kept up with the lower-end stuff or how things have changed lately. There's probably way more competition now, whether you're shopping at Best Buy or looking at higher-end gear. I think even some old-school pro audio brands have jumped into this market, though likely in much higher price brackets...

Edit: Those Genius SP hf 1800 units look pretty sleek, though. 😳

Let's not get sidetracked by the sound card. 😬 🤣

I’ve been on the other side of this before, and I was around when some of these things were actually active before they got scrapped.

A lot of nonsense can stem from these kinds of situations, especially when people just want to fight their own little tribal wars.

Timothy Martinez6 said:I have two questions for those in charge who might actually give me an answer.

On the thread "Questions regarding homosexuality from social and religious perspectives" (over on Religion), there’s a recurring argument used to support legalizing same-sex unions that goes something like this: "The fact that people live together and love one another should be enough reason to allow them to enter into civil marriage." To test the logic of that specific argument, I brought up the case of incest and asked if we should also allow such unions since those individuals can also live together and love one another. My goal was simply to see if we are being consistent with this reasoning or if we are applying double standards. My response was that I am forbidden from using an "incest parallel" for same-sex unions—which earned me a ban—yet I am supposedly allowed to use a "polyamory parallel."

Since I haven't received a clear or logical explanation as to why an incest comparison is off-limits while polyamory is acceptable—especially when both serve to test the validity of the same argument supporting same-sex legalization—I would like a more precise clarification...

Furthermore, since I was directed to try this line of questioning over on Politics, I want to know if I am permitted to test arguments there using similar parallels (if they arise)? Or am I just going to get banned there too?

It’s actually quite simple, even if it isn't for this PDF.

Modern social progress in shaping legal norms is based on the ethics of individualism. Essentially, everything is acceptable as long as it doesn't offend or harm anyone else (though, in practice, things aren't always that clean, and tribalistic social mechanisms with irrational taboos haven't been entirely wiped out).

In this sense, incest has specific rational arguments for being banned, specifically regarding the harm to a third party—namely, the higher probability of genetic disorders in offspring. Since a same-sex couple doesn't have that inherent risk (there's a whole other debate about adoption, but regardless, we're talking about two consenting, mature, working adults with full rights to decide how to live their sexual lives), it just doesn't compare.

You might be able to draw a comparison with polyamory, because that also falls within the realm of social taboos and value systems, and it lacks the direct, unambiguous harm found in incest.

Maybe you could compare it to an incestuous relationship involving someone who, for biological reasons, cannot conceive.

Maria Newman34 said:How can you even list an incorrect amount on an offer or a policy? You pay based on that policy—the amount has to be exact!
If that calculation was wrong, then someone clearly allowed an inaccurate quote to be sent out, and it's crazy that no one checked it before the policy was finalized!!!

It’s possible. It isn't legal, but it happens. I have no idea how they justify it—I've only seen the end result. You'd have to ask someone on the inside, and I haven't worked in insurance for years. I heard about this happening in my own city recently, right around the time some companies started undercutting the rates at Allstate, State Farm, and Liberty Mutual. Since you're talking about the US, and this kind of thing has been seen here before, it’s definitely not out of the question.

Given how things stand right now, before everyone else drops their new price lists, nobody can undercut Generalia. At worst, they’ll just match them. So, either the representative at Generalia messed up, or someone else is handing out illegal discounts—basically, what's on the shelf doesn't match what's being charged.

How much is the premium (assuming I'm under 😁)?

How many years have passed without a claim? If I'm reading this right and this is my first policy, then I don't have those two claim-free years needed for that discount yet.

Are you paying cash?

Jack Peterson7 said:I honestly thought they were just trying to lowball you and wouldn't honor that policy rate—now you’ve gotta prove that the guy on the phone actually quoted you that specific number.

That’s exactly why I prefer getting quotes sent via email. If the guy is just messing around, I can just pull up the digital paperwork and show him what he said. Besides, even if he does screw up, he usually ends up giving a discount since it was his mistake in the first place.😛

Look, nobody is obligated to give you a discount. Unless it's a formal, binding quote sent by email, you're basically at their mercy.🙂

Besides, you don't even need their specific math. You can just take the standard rate everyone uses—which is probably still sitting on some General Motors calculator somewhere—and use that as your baseline. We all know what the typical discounts look like because it's been explained a dozen times already, so you can do the math yourself. It won't be perfect because discounts aren't cumulative (which is why they say the max savings is 23%, even though it's technically 25%), but it's enough to get a decent ballpark figure.

Jack Peterson7 said:Just one quick heads-up—for some reason, General Motors doesn't want to send over any written quotes via email, they're insisting on doing everything over the phone.

So, just watch your backs so you don't get ripped off—I mean, at the end of the day, they are still insurance companies after all. 🤣

Interesting.

I wonder if they just haven't found their rhythm yet, or—more likely—if they’re dodging providing written estimates that could be handed off to other contractors. Given how quickly some of them started quoting lower prices under the table, my money is on the latter.

I'm not sure how they'd even go about translating this. 😁 Legally speaking, the highest price you can charge is just whatever the cheapest option happens to be elsewhere. Since the base rate is set by that old minimum, there’s no real obligation to offer discounts—you aren't forced to. That said, once those big public ad campaigns roll out, it’s hard to play dumb about it, and agents generally want to land the client anyway. Still, if an agent actually has a conscience, they might skip the discounts for someone with a massive claim history or someone sitting in a high-risk category. That’s why age matters, though even that isn't always a perfect metric.

ironmoose6 said:Everyone here seems to be whining about auto insurance—complaining about how they get cheated or whatever. Honestly, I’ve just used my collision coverage twice and it worked perfectly. The first time was for $2000 (getting some bodywork and paint done, and the adjuster actually let me bundle everything under a single claim), and the second time was $4000 for fixing up some damage from a fight. Both times, I took the car straight to a certified dealership service center.

Look, I’ve spent decades working in insurance. In all that time, I’ve never personally run into any shady dealings, even after dealing with my own accidents and various claims. And it wasn't like I was working at some small local agency where they'd cut me a break just because we were buddies. That said, I have seen plenty of clients trying to pull a fast one. It happens more often than you'd think. Because of that, I’m pretty skeptical of anyone claiming insurance companies are inherently evil or acting like clients are just naive victims. Unless we're talking about Chase, of course. Then all bets are off. 😁

Nah, from what I can tell, they haven't built a calculator for the new rate sheet yet:

James Rogers53 said:Of course it isn't illegal—ever since we joined the European Union, there hasn't been any real regulation regarding premium pricing.

There’s a premium calculator online, and based on those terms—say, a mid-sized sedan, 75-85 horsepower, with a 50% discount—it comes out to about $250 or so.
So, yeah, like I said, I don't really see a difference here.

The base rate is identical; the variation just comes from the extra discounts they've layered on.

I won't bore you by digging up exact figures again, but things change if you're over 30, or if you're over 60, or if you've had more than two years of claims history.

Does the calculator account for that, and do you actually fall into any of those categories?

Olivia Turner49 said:So, some people have been trying to tell me that what this guy is pulling is totally illegal.
But honestly, they’re offering me an almost $167 dirt-cheap insurance policy, and I don't think I'm going to spend much time overthinking whether or not to grab it.

Competition breeds resentment. Based on all the complaints I've heard from their representatives about how they can't handle competitors who are constantly cutting corners, it seems like they might actually be among the most honest players in the market—if not the absolute most honest.

In any case, this is completely legitimate. It's probably the only legal price drop since the founding of the United States; everyone else has been doing this under the table and still has the nerve to spin it.🙄

It makes sense if you use a little logic: if you're paying off people under the table, you don't blast it on every billboard or put it in a public price list.😵

That price list was approved by the regulatory agency. Other companies have them too, or they're hiding them away, just waiting to see what happens so they can pivot and screw the first mover over.

So, they aren't just the most honest; they're also the bravest for being the first to move in a market that's still pretty much the Wild West.

Can you tell us which company sold you that spin?😁

James Rogers53 said:well, it’s about that much anyway 🤷

If everything was actually above board, the rates shouldn't have differed that much between households, unless someone was under 30.

Maybe you two weren't in the same age bracket or living in the same part of the country. Based on how these things usually work, insurance companies can tack on different regional surcharges—maybe 10%, 13.5%, or 15% depending on the area. Rates vary wildly from state to state.

And obviously, accident history isn't a fixed number.

Any other discrepancies basically point toward some shady business. But, just guessing here, you really should compare the actual policy fine print.

amberhound62 said:I'd say it just feels that way to you because they sent new rates. I was actually reading a bit about this a few weeks ago, and everyone was basically saying they have zero intention of dropping prices right now. They're worried that cutting rates too much could trigger a total market collapse, kind of like what happened in Greece. Honestly, the current setup works fine for the insurers. They don't really need to give up those profits unless a new player jumps in and starts undercutting them. Only then would the rest of them probably react.

In reality, they've been working toward this since the market was deregulated. But beyond that, there were issues with how to regulate competition. The biggest question mark was whether price lists could be changed whenever they felt like it, or if once they're published, they had to stay fixed for at least a year.

I'm not sure if that's been sorted out yet, but we can finally see State Farm coming out with some cheaper options.

What’s interesting, though, is that they didn't fix it by changing the base rate structure. Instead, they're just allowing for more additional discounts. My guess is that the regulatory issue might still be hanging around; adjusting individual line items seems much easier than messing with the fundamental premium calculation. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.

It's all just noise until companies like Euroherc, and a few others, actually start playing by the rules.

mellowsailor95 said:As far as I can tell, the real issue lies in the fact that Masons worship an "Architect" of the world, and to plenty of people, that figure is none other than the Unclean.

On a different note, regarding meditation: it isn't incompatible with Christianity at all, especially Catholicism. In fact, there are extensive writings on the subject by figures like St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross.

Meditation runs through everything written by the foundress of the Discalced Carmelites; she believed it was the only true path to an Encounter with God residing within ourselves. That’s why you have to shut out the external noise, find stillness, and contemplate... which is essentially just what meditation is.

It’s similar to how some extremists in the Catholic Church claim Jehovah's Witnesses belong to Satan, or how they view almost every other faith. There isn't an easier propaganda stunt than labeling something as Satanic.

There’s just no logical basis for it. In the English tradition, Masons generally require members to be believers, while in France, they might be indifferent—even atheists—but nobody is pushing Satanism. Besides, calling someone an "Architect" was a title for God long before it was ever used for the Devil. Beyond that, mysticism in Freemasonry has become mere folklore; their actual focus is more on social, pedagogical, and ethical matters. It was essentially the version of a civic association back in the day.

Of course they’re incompatible. Masons pair their belief in God with humanism, human rights, and all those modern ideals.

They aren't out here pushing for a theocracy (even if being Catholic didn't stop them from joining—in fact, back in the day, it was actually required, unlike with the Catholic Church 😁).

Freemasonry essentially emerged during an era when the humanist movement was finally breaking free from the grip of monarchies and the Church alike. It was just a territorial struggle, and honestly, I’ll take Masonic ideas over Church doctrine any day of the week.👍