Posts by bluemason3

I saw on another thread that Jezic was 😍

This connection is making it impossible to browse online. I'll just have to wait until I'm back at my computer so I don't forget.

Damn, I missed it.
What was the discussion about?

To me, the whole idea of Vedic yoga feels a bit like an oxymoron.🤔
It really depends on how you define both "Vedic" and "yoga." What most people mean when they say yoga today isn't actually found much in the Vedas themselves—maybe just some contemplative bits tucked away in smaller sections.🤔

silentmaker4 said:You are absolutely spot on with that second part 🙂 BUT! I have to say, I'm not really feeling what you wrote about India, mostly because I've actually become super into that country lately—their culture and spirituality are so fascinating.... Besides, it's not like all of India is just dirty and chaotic.... what about those places with the massive golden palaces and the Taj Mahal and stuff? 🙂

Muslims built that place. It's right next to a trailer park. 😬

On the other hand, you get the most advanced and purest areas down South. Since there was less outside influence from other cultures—primarily Islam—it remains the truest version of Hindu tradition, though it leans much more heavily into Dravidian roots.

Harold Rivera47 said:Look, there's a massive difference between being able to fold yourself into a pretzel and actually surviving a 14-hour shift like some folks do out here in the States. I know people—real grinders—who during harvest season are out in the fields all day, every day, working straight through the night just to make the most of those few perfect days... they’re pulling double digits on hours constantly, switching shifts just to get the job done. But man, they're so stiff they can barely bend over, let alone pull off those crazy circus tricks you see yogis doing. Do you honestly think your yoga guru could handle an 8-hour workday? Just 8?! Yeah, right... It's not the same thing being flexible versus actually being strong and capable. Honestly, if one of those tough workers gave your yogi even a tiny little slap, he'd probably be sent straight to Nirvana or Brahma or whatever else they call it, hehe...

Yoga isn't just about flexibility; it includes strength training too. 🙂

Troll 😍

Harold Rivera47 said:Even if we totally ignore the spiritual side of things, it’s pretty obvious that Yoga is at the very least a huge waste of time and actually pretty harmful. Just look at what Yoga did to India and the kind of civilization that "brilliant" Hindu spirituality churned out. You’ve got people sitting around in dirt and filth, starving themselves, living in absolute poverty... basically just wasting their lives away. It’s because their whole philosophy teaches them that working hard or actually achieving anything in life doesn't really matter. No, you know? They think Nirvana is everything—you know, Yoga, oneness, all that stuff. Half those yogis couldn't even pick up an axe if they tried, but hey, who cares, right? And even if you don't hit Nirvana in this lifetime, no biggie, you've got reincarnation... another shot at it...

On the flip side, Christianity taught the West that you only get one shot at life, and you need to work your tail off and do good deeds to save your soul. You don't save yourself through some obscure exercises; it's about sacrifice, hard work, and doing right by others. In Christianity, love is shown through actions, not some weird ecstasies. And that mindset built the most incredible civilization the world has ever seen. Obviously, Indians didn't kickstart the Industrial Revolution, since that wouldn't lead to Nirvana, you know? The Industrial Revolution was driven by European Christians because they believed in grinding all day long—because it's good, because God said so, and because laziness is one of the seven deadly sins.

Give me a break. Traditionally, only about 0.001% of the population in India actually practiced yoga.

Up until the Middle Ages, they had one of the strongest economies in the world. The decline started with invasions from various dynasties and later, colonialism. After gaining independence, the naive socialism championed by Nehru played a huge role, but once that phase passed, economic growth finally accelerated. Current living conditions are partly a result of rapid urbanization and a rural population struggling to adapt. I can tell you're quite the historian, much like the guy in your avatar 🤣

As for yogis and axes, Krishnamacharya could pull off eighty physical exercises that I couldn't even manage at eighteen. 🤣

What kind of procession? 🤔

And what ban? 🤔

placidwolf27 said:Bravo, Americans, 2/10

But seriously—why bother engaging with someone who contributes absolutely nothing of substance to the discussion? It’s quite obvious they are either just a troll or simply incapable of any rational discourse...

Just out of boredom.🤣

John Johnson16 said:Well, God created Judas too, and he ended up betraying Him, so one could argue he wasn't truly from God. I feel like people just don't seem to grasp these concepts. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Are we attempting to relativize Good and Evil, or even the Truth and Falsehood? I'm afraid that simply isn't possible.
It seems to me that many are living in a state of total ignorance—and please, don't think for a second that I'm claiming to be some sort of sage—but such a mindset can be quite fatal. When that time comes, what will actually save you? Will it be some earthly, imaginary version of God you've conjured up?

As for Yoga, (http://www.jmanjackal.net/cro/croyoga.htm - perhaps this will provide a bit more clarity)

The future omniscient and almighty Creator knew exactly what He was making, which means He consciously created Evil. 😁

Manjackal is a complete moron; honestly, even only Blazevic doesn't come close to his level, which is saying something. 🤣

A glass of wine is best, though cash works too. 😳

That law allowing for price liberalization has actually been on the books for years. In reality, though, things have stalled at the American Medical Association. They have to sign off on every single rate, and as far as I know, only two companies—Allstate and Generali—have actually bothered to set their own. My guess? Lobbyists from Chevron (or maybe someone else) killed it because cheaper rates would mean too much competition for them.

It’s pretty sad how these little games continue until the European Union finally forces our hand. Can we really get anything done without an outside boss breathing down our necks?
Rhetorical question.

But now that liberalization is inevitable, we might run into issues. We saw this happen in other countries when they joined the European Union—a lot of insurance providers just folded.

Otherwise, we’re looking at unrealistic drops that will just trigger shortages and massive headaches when it comes to paying out claims.

Every company deals with certain types of employees, but at Euro Car Parts, the issues seem baked right into their core business model.

Besides, skimming cash directly from the register isn't exactly easy, especially on that scale. You’d likely have to be involved in some shady side deals regarding damage claims, and even then, you’d need to be working closely with an adjuster or the claims department to pull it off. I mean, anything is possible, but I get the feeling you're assuming people are just stuffing their pockets for years based solely on register scraps. That sounds like something that would definitely need verification first.

So, how did they screw you over? In my experience, unless you're dealing with a handful of specific companies, a client's sense of being "ripped off" is often just a subjective reaction to unrealistic expectations—especially when the job was actually done correctly. Of course, bad actors definitely exist, but it varies.

nimblecanyon said:I honestly can't wrap my head around how an insurance company with "services" like these could even survive in this market.

If this were happening in the European Union, the competition would have wiped them off the map ages ago.

Is there really that many people willing to back up thieves like this just to save a little pocket change?

In a more organized system, the industry regulators would have shut them down themselves by now.

They were born during a period of total national collapse, backed by political connections and run by people who were essentially on the payroll of those in power. It was an open secret among insurers that they were working hand-in-hand with the regulatory agencies. That’s less common now, but they still operate in gray areas and hunt for loopholes.
Plus, the sluggishness of the legal system lets them pull stunts—like deciding whether or not to actually send a case to court whenever it suits them. Mostly, they choose not to.

Competition only wipes you out if everyone actually plays by the rules.

Samuel Baker3 said:I’ve been wondering lately about those discussions regarding whether we should move toward a system where, if you’re involved in an accident that isn't your fault, your own insurance provider steps in to cover you immediately, and then they handle the whole process of recovering the funds from the at-fault party's insurer later on.

That would only make sense if companies like Eurofins could actually operate in this bureaucratic mess of a country. As it stands, it would just screw over honest households that pay their premiums on time, only to have the insurers fight them in court and end up in the red. It'd be a bad move.

The mandatory portion—covering third-party liability—is regulated by federal law, so those rates stay pretty much identical across the board. The policy allows for a few different deductible options, though most people opt for the lowest one (10%) just to stay competitive.

Where you might see variations is in the pricing for optional add-ons, specifically collision coverage. Those differences are usually pretty minor.

If you start seeing massive gaps in pricing, that’s when you should be suspicious.

Personally, I’d focus more on the carrier's reputation and how smoothly they handle claims rather than sweating over a tiny difference in premium.

wiredskipper45 said:I’m not sure if this thread already exists, but after swallowing everything under the sun in terms of pharmaceuticals over the last six years, I’ve been trying to pivot toward alternative methods. I'd love to hear what you guys have dealt with.
Personally, I tried some bioenergetic treatments—went to see someone like Oprah Winfrey, one of the big names in that field—but the whole thing was a bust because it only seemed to work if I showed up every single day, which absolutely wrecked my bank account. It might dull the symptoms, I guess, but when you're dealing with BPD, she isn't exactly going to rearrange the wiring in my brain. :/
So then I moved on to a guy practicing Ayurvedic medicine. He gave me some decent advice regarding diet and breathing exercises, and he handed me this herbal supplement they've used in India forever for anxiety—Brahmi, I think. I’ve been taking it for two months now. Apparently, it’s a slow burn and you need to be consistent for at least three months to see anything, but honestly? Nothing yet.
Right now, I'm also messing around with Shivayoga—meditative yoga. They say staring into a candle flame while meditating is supposed to be great too. I’m hoping I can stick with it; I really believe it could quiet the chaos in my head, but I also know it requires an insane amount of time, patience, and persistence... things I am currently running very low on. :/ I'm just exhausted from the constant searching and testing...

Any experiences?

Since I have some ties to some of these alternatives (mostly through therapeutic yoga and, by extension, Ayurveda), I might be able to offer a little perspective.

First off, it's better to view these as complementary rather than "alternative." If something works well enough to reduce your need for medical intervention, let your doctor handle the tapering.

Also, don't go looking for miracles. Most serious chronic conditions—physical or mental—don't just vanish overnight, nor do they have magic bullets. Just because someone finds a solution that feels like a miracle doesn't mean it will work for everyone facing the same issue. Instead of buying into every pitch and marketing hype (which everyone does, though the alternative industry has much less professional accountability), it’s best to just experiment and see what actually fits your life. Trial and error is often one of the most useful tools we have.

Regarding what you mentioned, I’ve had good experiences with Ayurveda, though finding a decent doctor, quality therapy, and reliable supplements isn't easy. In New York City, I’d honestly recommend seeking out an experienced specialist in a dedicated center rather than someone who’s just dabbling in it, IMO.

Instead of bioenergetics, I’d suggest looking into hypnosis. I might be wrong here, but I get the impression that a lot of bioenergetic work is closely tied to suggestion. In fact, it’s very similar to mesmerism, which eventually evolved into modern hypnosis once people realized it was about suggestion rather than actual "mystical forces." The fear surrounding it is largely unfounded, mostly fueled by media portrayals that make it seem more intense than it really is. In reality, it’s just a tool that manipulates natural daily mechanisms and states—much like any other psychotherapy—just by placing a heavier emphasis on certain aspects of the process. The idea that people are being unconsciously manipulated is mostly an urban myth; it's not quite like that.
The most important thing to remember is that there are trained psychotherapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists who utilize these techniques. It isn't as "alternative" as it sounds; in fact, it's probably the closest thing to mainstream practice, using many of the same mechanisms—consciously or unconsciously—that alternative practitioners use, but without the manipulation or the mysticism.

Regarding yoga, meditation, or trance states—like staring at a candle flame—I’d suggest being cautious here. I’ve seen plenty of cases where yoga didn't actually help, but instead caused issues for people who seemed perfectly healthy at the start. There is a big difference between using these things for spiritual growth versus therapeutic health. Take fasting, for example. Some spiritual groups use it to the point of exhaustion, or even death. It might be due to theological ideals, or perhaps they're chasing a specific mental state, where pushing too hard can mess with your consciousness. But if your actual goal is physical health, these extremes are rarely useful. In most cases, it’s healthier to just focus on eating well.

For instance, when you look at trance practices in certain spiritual traditions, they often involve staring fixedly for massive stretches of time. On the other hand, I’ve heard from some practitioners of holistic medicine in India that they limit it to just a few minutes. Then there are practices that mandate celibacy as a prerequisite, sometimes involving specific muscle contractions to control ejaculation. Meanwhile, traditional Ayurvedic texts (specifically regarding the latter) can view such things as potentially harmful. Ultimately, no single method or technique is inherently good or bad. It all depends on the intention, the individual, their current health, and their underlying predispositions.
If you’re doing yoga for health reasons, make sure your instructors understand that context. Most importantly, watch out for overly intense spiritual organizations. When religious fervor kicks in, people tend to lose objectivity; they'll believe whatever the guru says, and "going with the flow" becomes a convenient way to solve every life problem. This is especially dangerous when they push through pain or setbacks by labeling them as "cleansing." Usually, calling something a "cleansing" is just a way to rationalize a belief system when it hits a wall of reality—it's basically just cognitive dissonance.

Edit: One more thing—while you can combine things like yoga, hypnosis, or bioenergy with almost anything (though even that is debatable), you have to be much more careful with supplements and medications. People often assume herbal remedies are completely harmless, thinking they'll either work or do nothing, and that they won't interfere with "official" medical treatments.
But that isn't the case. Nothing exists in a vacuum; everything we do affects everything else. The conventional medications you take can significantly alter how herbal remedies work, and vice versa. We don't live two parallel lives with two independent treatment tracks, so we need to account for those interactions. It’s not always easy, though, because the qualifications of people practicing unregulated methods like Ayurveda can be questionable. Since these practices and substances aren't standard in the US, I’m not even sure how accurately a local doctor could predict potential interactions.

It’s also true that progress takes time, especially when you're trying to overhaul everything from the ground up. You can't fix your physical condition overnight. If you start a perfect diet and exercise routine tomorrow, you won't be in peak shape by next week. You have to give your body space to adapt, build new habits, or even repair tissue. This isn't an area where we should be looking for a "magic pill" in any form. We can find real, high-quality help, but only if we're willing to roll up our sleeves and change our lifestyle to better handle whatever life throws at us.

I won't speculate on the profiles, motives, or specific differences between pedophiles, so I’ll skip that part. However, there is an aspect of this conversation that I find quite fascinating when viewed through a broader "😬 socio-behavioral" lens.

A rather interesting phenomenon emerges regarding how society views pedophilia: it is incredibly difficult to maintain the rational, relativistic, individualistic morality that our modern legal and social systems are theoretically built upon.

In theory, we are working with two distinct ethical frameworks:
- A prescriptive one, which advocates for certain fixed moral values as inherent goods—or, if you prefer, taboos.
- An individualistic one, which follows the principle that anything goes as long as no one else gets hurt.

Under the first framework, homosexuality might be considered inherently wrong (depending on the system) because it is seen as "principally immoral." Under the second, however, it is essentially irrelevant; if no one is being harmed, it’s nobody's business.

Now, under that second framework, pedophilia is prohibited for a simple reason: children are deemed incapable of making autonomous, responsible decisions regarding sexual involvement. They are easily manipulated, so regardless of "consent," it is classified as assault (I assume this logic applies to other categories of "non-autonomous" individuals, such as those with severe cognitive disabilities?). It’s similar to why sex between professionals and clients is banned in certain industries—it isn't necessarily about the act itself being unacceptable, but rather the context, which is the only thing individualistic morality truly recognizes.

In practice, though, individualistic morality is much more fragile than we like to admit. Prescriptive morality feels more natural. Organizing a human society requires shared norms; every culture has its taboos, and our socialization mechanisms aren't inherently rational. We haven't moved past them yet.
Take incest, for example. Why do we have an issue with it? Fine, the rational argument is genetic abnormalities. But do we have an issue with incest between children who have no chance of producing offspring? Say, if one is sterile? Or if they are gay brothers? If we strictly adhered to individualistic morality, this shouldn't matter or trigger any sense of wrongness. But as a rule, we internalize societal norms, turning them into independent mental constructs and inevitably forming emotional reactions toward them.

The same applies to pedophilia. What began as a sensible law intended for protection has evolved into a deep-seated social taboo. In a way, it has stepped into the role once held by homosexuality as the primary sexual taboo of modern society—a shift that seems relatively recent if you look at cinema, literature, legal precedents, and public discourse.

I stumbled onto an interesting realization during a conversation with my wife earlier.

It turns out that in our generation, certain areas—like where she grew up—had much better school systems than mine did. A lot of it comes down to the environment. She came from a rural background where things were more serious; there was actual respect for teachers and the school itself, plus smaller class sizes that allowed for better learning. I, on the other hand, grew up in a massive, diverse urban sprawl characterized by overcrowded classrooms, zero respect for authority, constant mocking of teachers, and a pervasive "gangsta" culture.

But there’s also an economic angle to this. Back in the eighties, in my coastal hometown, an average waiter could make more money through tips and side hustles than some local business director could—assuming that director wasn't cutting corners. It makes me wonder if that disconnect broke the perceived link between education and actual survival, and if that mindset eventually spread across the entire country.

Sorry, I couldn't think of a title that really captures this, so feel free to edit 😬

This might lean toward pedagogy, but since we don't have a dedicated sub-forum for it here, I'll just drop it in.

Research suggests that IQ scores actually trend upward over time. I won't get bogged down in the specifics of what an IQ test measures or how much it relies on education levels. It’s enough to note that tests are scaled so that 100 remains the average; essentially, today’s average score would have been considered above average decades ago.

On the flip side, there seems to be a noticeable dip in student quality over the last few generations. I'm not citing specific studies for this—or at least, I haven't read them lately—but rather relying on the general consensus among university professors. This isn't just limited to one school or even one country; it seems to be a widespread sentiment across the West. Of course, it's hard to say if this perception is truly objective (subjective biases are common), and if anyone has data to disprove this, I'm all ears. For now, let's just treat it as a working hypothesis. The same might apply to K-12, though I don't have firsthand insight there.

A few possibilities come to mind:

- Failed attempts at large-scale educational reforms, similar to the shifts seen in European systems.

- A higher standard of living leading to more "entitlement" and, consequently, less drive.

- A shift in how we process information following the rise of the internet and computers, where
a - the educational system failed to adapt its methods and criteria to these new realities
or
b - certain cognitive skills have actually suffered due to overexposure to digital tools.

- Excessive liberalization regarding students, who often receive more rights than their experience allows them to use constructively, leaving faculty with very little room to maneuver.

- Increased social pressure to pursue higher education, pushing a larger percentage of people into universities without any genuine interest in the field or actual market demand.

- A lack of motivation or perspective stemming from some other unknown factor.

Those are just some quick thoughts I had while typing this out. Maybe I'll think of something else later.

Do you have other theories on what might be causing this, or perhaps evidence suggesting that the initial premise is flawed?

Also, does anyone know what the situation looks like in non-Western education systems? Just speculating, but it wouldn't surprise me if rising nations like China and India are seeing the exact opposite trend, given that education is becoming more accessible while economic pressure remains intense.

vividsailor7 said:It would be helpful to have more details.
Mainly because the cancer showed up at a relatively young age.
As for you, you definitely need to discuss this with your primary care doctor (depending on how old you are). It might also be worth considering American inflammatory bowel disease or familial polyposis.

Blondano is a massive issue, generally speaking.
But if we are actually talking about the prostate, I don't see why there's so much drama, unless there's a secondary condition involved—though even then, it can usually be managed.
To give any meaningful advice, I'd need specifics, like the urologist's findings, PSA levels, etc.
You might also need to check for bone metastases via bone scan if the PSA is extremely high, say 100.

I've tracked down my last two sets of results.

There was already melanoma on the skin, which was treated with surgery, chemo, and radiation about three years ago. I also had prostate surgery twenty years back.

Results from month 8:

379 (also with high alkaline phosphatase). There were heart complications too—decompensation occurred.

Lab work:
WBC 3.8
RBC 2.99
Hb 89
Hct (0.271)
Sed rate 70
PLT 107
Urea 18.2
Creatinine (assuming, the label isn't clear on the scan): 147

(I won't list everything that's within normal range)

Diagnosis: melanoma mlg. reg. dorsi lat. sin. post-op and chemo.
Post-op status for prostate adenoma.

Bone scan: diffuse increased uptake in the shoulder blades, spine, ribs, pelvis, and the third of the tibial shafts.

Medications:
Transtec, Nebilet, Fursemid, Kalinor, Monopril, Controloc, Zalidar pp

-------------
Results from month 12 (most recent):

Diagnosis : C61 - Malignant prostate neoplasm

PSA 320 pass 320 AF 2172

I don't have the full lab report, but here are the highlights:
Creatinine: 178
Urea 17.0
HB: 0.86
Htc: 0.27
Coagulation profile PV 0.74 INR 1.16

The consultation meeting is deciding whether or not to go through with a needle biopsy.

----

The point is, the results make it pretty obvious what we're dealing with, but even though he thinks the biopsy might cause more harm than good, he can't follow protocol to prescribe further medication without one.