Posts by casualwolf12

Thomas Fowler81 said:Even octopuses follow soccer, particularly Paul.
His father used to play for the CNN(underwater soccer club) Sushi.
Paul was simply too short for the pitch and suffered from an innate defect in his 4th limb (the one required for ball control), which led him to pursue soccer through entirely different avenues.
He attempted to transition into coaching and management, though his lack of on-field experience made those endeavors rather unsuccessful.
A career in sports journalism proved equally elusive, as he lacked sufficient writing prowess and tended to rely on jargon that the average American couldn't decipher.
Ultimately, he decided to become a professional bettor.
In this manner, he became a soccer star without ever stepping onto the field, playing a pivotal role in betting during this World Cup.
The man simply possesses the knowledge.
It has been scientifically established that octopuses carry a specific type of gambler's protein in their 6th limb, which transmits the match results directly to the octopus brain ahead of schedule.

P.S. Paul is currently mourning his relatives, some of whom were disgruntled world leaders who ended up due to his predictions.

P.P.S. Was my explanation sufficiently lucid?😁

this actually sounds quite plausible🤷

Anonymous said:Heh, looks like we all screwed up back then!! 👎

Man, you really need a drink before you start going on a killing spree 🤣

That seems to be the entire point of this thread, if I am not mistaken...
Everyone possesses their own specific set of moral principles and a subjective sense of good versus evil. Consequently, anyone who fails to fit within our particular moral parameters becomes a prime candidate for "elimination." One individual might want to put a bullet in the head of a rapist; another might target a serial killer; a third might lose their patience with an elderly woman shoving her way onto a crowded Greyhound bus... but fortunately—or perhaps unfortunately—it is quite rare for someone to move from mere thought to actual action.

Mark Torres14 said:So how would you actually kill him? Give me some details.

Well, what do I know? I suppose I would aim for something swift and painless. One shouldn't inflict unnecessary suffering, after all. If I were to conclude that an individual truly constitutes a malignant thread in the fabric of our society, I would simply seek to 'remove' them as humanely as possible.

Robin Palmer6 said:I'm not entirely sure if this is the right subforum for this kind of thing...

Answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Please don't dodge the question; be serious for once.

If you had the opportunity to kill just one person without facing any legal consequences,
would you do it?

If your answer is yes, everyone else will view you as a psychopath in need of psychiatric help, while those others pretend to be morally superior innocents.
If your answer is no, everyone will know you're lying—even if they don't call you out on it—because it would be obvious they'd all lie too if they said no.

My answer is yes.

Absolutely.
And frankly, I wouldn't stop at just one.🤷

~3 to 4 pounds, give or take... It’s relatively light packaging, not particularly heavy, and since it isn't fragile, there's no need for any specialized padding or extra care... so, I suspect the cost won't be much more than that.

http://www.worldmusic.net/wmn/store/...ughguides/2/1/

You might find it useful to browse through those famous "Lonely Planet guide to..." compilations; they serve as an excellent jumping-off point for discovering artists whose tracks resonate with you...

http://www.sublimefrequencies.com/

This particular crew specializes in releasing material that aligns with your tastes, so I suggest doing a bit of digging...

There you have it. Unfortunately, I can't offer any specific, granular recommendations at this moment... perhaps Antibalas? Though, one does wonder to what extent they truly fit within the 'World Music' classification, given their heavy lean toward Afrobeat and rock...

Thomas Fowler84 said:One must distinguish between liability and guilt. Naturally, the owner is liable because a dog cannot be held accountable under human law.
It is much like a scenario involving thieves being injured by a guard dog or a booby trap; the owner remains responsible. An owner of a dangerous animal has a duty to isolate that animal from the public, and a court will decide if their precautions were sufficient.
The grandmother would also need to provide context—perhaps she was elderly or confused, or maybe they entered an unfenced yard where the owner allows trespassing. We need more facts before we can assign blame.

Thomas Fowler84 said:That is for a judge to decide. I have no way of knowing what motivated them to enter; their reasons could be justified or they could be entirely illegitimate.
Perhaps the woman felt ill and entered without noticing the sign, perhaps there was no fence, maybe a sign fell down and they were just seeking a glass of water, or perhaps the owner invited them in... 🤷

Speculation is useless without the facts. The core issue here is liability. A pet owner is responsible for their dog, just as a parent is responsible for their child. If a child bites a dog, the parent is liable; however, since the dog bit the child, the responsibility lies with the dog's owner.🙂.

restlesstiger102 said:It really doesn't matter whether the dog has an aggressive temperament or not. The fundamental issue is that Klinka was trespassing in a yard where she had absolutely no business being. It’s absurd—it's like if someone broke into my house and my dog attacked them, regardless of whether he’s a "mean" dog or a sweet one, and then I somehow get sued or held liable just because my dog was defending his own territory. 🙄

It is pure nonsense. If you choose to wander onto someone else's private property, you have to accept the inherent risks involved. Most homeowners keep dogs in their yards specifically for the purpose of security and protection.

Gregory Miller4 said:Reading through this news report, I can't quite wrap my head around why the grandmother would walk her little girl so close to a dog that was clearly acting aggressive.

restlesstiger102 said:Look, if I need to borrow some sugar, I’m going straight to my neighbor’s house, and since I actually know them, I know their dog too. If I have any idea that the dog is aggressive, and there isn't a damn doorbell to alert me, I’m not stepping foot on that property. I'll just head to the next neighbor over or simply walk to the local grocery store instead. 🤣

There is absolutely no force on this earth that would compel me to enter someone's yard if there's a dog there capable of attacking me. Listen, I volunteer with the Humane Society, so I have encountered just about every kind of dog imaginable. In all my years, I have never been bitten or even lunged at, but you always have to account for the first time. I am very aware of my own limits and what I can handle, particularly when dealing with dogs that have been trained to be territorial...

If a dog already recognizes you as a neighbor, they aren't going to attack you; that much is certain, because you are considered part of their "home" environment.

No one is suggesting that people are thieves, but I fail to see the point in trespassing onto someone's private property just to pet their dog. That's simply not how things are done!

hollowtrucker77 said:if the neighbors showed up, then the neighbors should have just left
you don't go near a dog on a chain, period.

honestly, if that dog hadn't been chained up, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, would we?

Let us attempt this once more, shall we? Please, read the article with a modicum of attention this time... what is all this talk about an illiterate grandmother, or mysterious neighbors, or some stranger's yard? The grandmother and her great-grandmother live in adjacent houses—yard right up against yard. The dog belongs to the great-grandmother, and the grandmother was simply watching the child for her; likely not even the first time they've done so. One can only wonder what went wrong with the dog (or the little girl) this particular time to cause such a tragedy... 🤷

The closest thing to what you're looking for would be a route running from Vienna to Santa Monica and back, though it does make stops in Palm Beach and Seattle...

Take a look at this --> http://www.eurolines.at/uploads/5101_Crikvenica.pdf
Perhaps you'll find something useful in there...

Edward Flores4 said:Technology is the ONLY thing actually working for us!

If humanity has any kind of future worth mentioning—and if there’s even one path that holds the potential for what I’d call "Enlightenment 2.0"—that path is undeniably technological in nature.

The real issue right now, though, is that everyone is sprinting toward new tech without actually grasping how it works. Because of that, we’re trying to tackle modern-day problems using yesterday’s tools, which is why there's this massive wave of global anxiety sweeping through society. Right now, technology is still largely being steered by global politics and the corporate elite at places like Wall Street or Silicon Valley giants, but honestly? That era is rapidly dying out. Once the average person takes the time to truly wrap their head around the tech they use every day, technology will finally return to its true purpose... it'll become "a tool for human liberation."

I would argue that technology is the only thing that *could* help us... provided, of course, it isn't held hostage by massive corporations. As long as they maintain that level of control, all that immense potential will either sit idle or, more likely, be weaponized for less than noble ends... if you catch my drift.

In my view, the internet ought to be at the forefront of that much-vaunted "human liberation." I can’t quite pinpoint the exact mechanism or provide a rigorous academic defense for it, but I simply perceive the internet as an emerging utopia. It is a realm that offers endless opportunities for networking—and no, I am not referring to Facebook or those other superficial social media platforms—alongside a vast ocean of educational content and literature spanning every conceivable field of human endeavor and theoretical thought. A wealth of everything the mind can conceive... all accessible, and all free.
Furthermore, beyond its efficacy as a real-time connector for people, the internet serves as perhaps the greatest and most vital archive ever assembled. Of course, there is always room for refinement...

If you were to strip away the internet while leaving all our other technological "tools" intact, humanity would still find itself significantly ahead of where it started. 🙏

And just like that, the website is officially live:

http://www.art-kino.org/2008/home

Edward Flores4 said:No... I meant exactly what you said... just being comfortable with the obvious truth that people are products of their culture, rather than the other way around.

With that in mind, I’m guessing you see the whole blogosphere as something that actually cheapens culture—or maybe, more accurately, as this new kind of "culture" built on transparent, decentralized individualism that eventually leads us toward a total awakening of the collective unconscious...?

Because after that first accidental turning point brought on by Gutenberg... honestly, it would surprise me if more accidents didn't follow suit. 🙂

It is certainly possible, though one might argue that such an undertaking invites a certain level of unnecessary complication. Is it truly worth the effort? Perhaps not.
What exactly should we make of these "products" who find themselves dissatisfied with their "manufacturers"? Especially in those instances where they seem to be actively working against the very entity that shaped them? I suppose one must wonder. Personally, I prefer to extend a certain degree of credit to the individual... though perhaps it is more useful to frame the dilemma this way: on a macro level, people are merely the products of a top-down cultural model. Yet, on a micro level, the individual produces culture—or perhaps "counterculture"—no matter how minuscule or insignificant that resistance might feel against the prevailing tide.

shamantrixx said:Given the current trajectory of things, I assume you view the blogosphere as a significant blow to traditional culture? Or perhaps, more accurately, you see it as a burgeoning "culture" of transparent, decentralized individualism—one that might ultimately lead us toward a collective realization of the subconscious?

Precisely that. I have encountered certain blog posts online that, quite frankly, were more eye-opening than many published volumes that supposedly aim for the same profound effect. It leads one to wonder: why is that? Perhaps it is because "ordinary" individuals—those documenting their thoughts on a personal blog—have a natural inclination toward simplification. They possess a knack for finding practical, real-world applications for complex ideas, whereas those with formal academic credentials often seem lost in their own theoretical abstractions. Is it possible that true clarity is found in the everyday rather than the ivory tower?

Ultimately, whatever it is that forces you to pause and actually reconsider your own stances or long-held convictions—it is, in the end, a productive exercise. Whether you actually pivot your position or decide to stand your ground remains secondary; either way, you emerge having gained a new perspective. Is there not value in simply understanding how another mind operates?

Edward Flores4 said:And beyond just changing, it’s becoming decentralized, which—if I’m being honest—is actually what gets me most excited about all this.

- don't let anyone trick you into thinking blogs are just "internet diaries" for frustrated teenagers... if that's how you see them, it probably means "culture" has been successfully spoon-fed to you from above...

You seem pretty comfortable with that whole "top-down" model of culture—or maybe it's just my impression?

...I feel like I belong to this certain "culture," but at the same time, I can't get behind some of its cultural settings that I just don't agree with—like the idea that wealth is the ultimate measure of success and all that... so, what does that make me?

Well, it depends... if your own standards are higher than those set by society, then that makes you a humanist—or, at the very least, someone who is intellectually and ethically developed.

If your standards are lower than society's... then I guess it's the exact opposite... though, hey, what do I know?! 🙂

...maybe a subversive conformist? I have no clue, and honestly, I'm not even sure how useful it is to slap labels on ourselves (or anyone else, for that matter)...

No. You just live your life however you can, while maintaining a healthy skepticism toward society's declared values and sticking to your own whenever you possibly can.

As for the labels... there's no need to pin them on other people... but you can't really avoid doing it to yourself. That said, it’s worth being thoughtful about it, because having the wrong ideas about your own priorities and values can turn into some pretty "expensive" mistakes.

👍

casualwolf12 said:You seem rather comfortable with this "top-down" model of culture... or is that just my impression?

In what sense do you mean "comfortable"?
Do you mean I agree that the tenets of dominant culture are imposed from the top via hegemony—you know, through the media, political elites, and those general groups who benefit from such a status quo? If that is the case, then yes, I am quite comfortable with that assessment. Those at the summit naturally attempt to remain there. They peddle paranoia—claiming, for instance, that New York City has suddenly become an unsafe metropolis or something of that nature. It is much easier to manipulate a man who lives in fear. It is the "top-down" model at its absolute finest.
However, if you intended "comfortable" in some other capacity, pray, clarify your meaning so that I might provide a more precise response.

bluetiger13 said:someone wrote:... culture—the whole way of life...
so far, I guess we’ve basically concluded that fighting against culture is a losing game.

shamanatrixx—I’m not sure if you’re pushing back against one specific culture or just "culture" as the entire framework of how we live our lives?

I mean, there are always countercultures out there—plus, you can always build your own thing if you hate everything else currently on the menu.

...or maybe you're just totally against culture itself (which is a valid "cultural" stance, honestly—there’s been plenty written about that since Rousseau)

then you've got nature on the other side of the coin.

but personally? I don't think there's anything else for a human being.

There’s no such thing as some "authentic" self that exists before language kicks in. Maybe I’m just a product of brainwashing, but it feels like I’m constantly navigating through language—struggling, shedding layers of cultural nonsense, failing to shake off certain parts, and being exactly who I am because of it. Language birthed me and raised me—it's how I conclude, choose, and crave freedom. Not some empty, pre-discursive freedom, but a freedom found within language—one that’s lived-in and played with.

that... culture has no opposition, no antithesis... 👍

Edward Flores4 said:I don't think anyone was actually talking about "existing outside" of culture—it's more about having an awareness of what culture actually *is*. There's this realization that once print media became a thing, culture transformed into something incredibly artificial, forced, and frankly, unhealthy. Think about it: editors at major American newspapers don't just edit text; they essentially architect the entire cultural landscape. It feels like more time and energy goes into a glossy beer ad in a Sunday paper than into any actual investigative journalism or thoughtful editorial content. Those ads look world-class, while the articles themselves feel like they were written for people who can barely grasp basic concepts. If we accept that a culture is defined by what it prioritizes, then it's painfully obvious that our modern "culture" shifted its focus from people to products ages ago. Instead of promoting human values, it pushes status symbols and consumerism. So, what is this thing we're dealing with? Is it even culture at all, or are we just using the word "culture" out of sheer sentimentality because it makes us feel a little more comfortable?

If there's anyone on this forum who honestly believes they’ve managed to enrich, change, or shape culture through their own work or mere presence—please, step forward. I'd love to see it. But from where I'm sitting, culture today is susceptible to almost everything except the very people who are forced to live within it.

Just because we can't "escape" culture doesn't mean we have to blindly accept it, or that we aren't allowed to maintain a healthy, critical distance from it. As long as we keep believing in "culture" as if it's something inherently ours to cherish, it’s going to continue having a devastating effect on the individual.

It seems to me that the internet is the savior of culture. Culture, which has been disseminated from the top down since the days of Google, is undergoing a radical transformation thanks to the web. Fanzines, for instance, utilized this relatively well by pivoting toward online editions (though many certainly perished in the transition). Blogs are perhaps the best thing to happen to culture; do not be misled by the notion that blogs are merely "online diaries" for frustrated teenagers. That specific judgment is precisely what suggests that "culture" has been successfully imposed upon you from above...

Regarding culture and participating in it (and thus, the unconditional conformity that some might call it—or at least, that is how I interpret it), I can speak for myself. I feel like a member of this certain "culture," yet simultaneously, I refuse to accept certain cultural tenets that I find disagreeable—such as the idea that wealth is the sole metric of success. What does that make me? A conformist? A semi-conformist? A non-conformist? Perhaps a subversive conformist? I haven't the slightest clue, and truthfully, I am unsure how useful it is to attach labels to oneself (or to others).

Forgive the lack of coherence; if anyone manages to discern something interesting from this rambling, I shall be pleased. 🙂

(@shamantrixx - I am quoting your post because it compelled me to think aloud; please do not mistake this for a direct "rebuttal" to any specific point of yours.)

Keith Lee2 said:Am I totally off base if I say this:

but from a practical standpoint—say:

conformism is just how Homo Sapiens functions.
we basically can't exist without conformism.

(and even here in the online world of conformism)

I suspect you might be wrong on that point, though I cannot say for certain...
if humans were strictly limited to conformity, where would the perpetual friction between dominant culture and counterculture originate? It is true that countercultures have grown somewhat lethargic—they "talk the talk, but don't walk the walk," if you will 😁—yet they remain present, operating just beneath the radar... if only to continue preaching their specific ideologies. 🤷

In about 6,000 years, the "Petar US Army" will likely be regarded as some sort of precious cultural heritage...
Do you honestly believe those cave paintings that were supposedly "destroyed" (though, if I’m being honest, I didn't see any actual drawings in the photo 🤷) just appeared out of thin air? Do we really think ancient people sat around deciding to sketch out a few giraffes and lions specifically for our viewing pleasure, here and now?

Linda Hughes88 said:Look, I'm talking about Americans who are actually living below the poverty line, so maybe do a little better digging into your data first😉

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the U.S. Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in New York City, Washington, D.C., the United Nations, and other cities throughout North America. These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries.
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color Television ; over half own Two or more color televisions
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Honestly, I didn't think I'd ever encounter an article quite this blatantly biased in my lifetime...
But then again, why should I be surprised? Given the current social climate, this kind of rhetoric—this outright denial of systemic issues—is exactly what thrives. It’s all part of the effort to continue peddling this myth of America as some flawless "land of opportunity" where poverty simply doesn't exist if you just work hard enough...

Linda Hughes88 said:nah, that guy is what we consider poor by American standards. and that guy has a house and a car and a fridge and a TV and all that stuff.

and the ones who don't even have that are just a tiny fraction of the population...

I have to wonder, exactly which reality are you inhabiting?

An urban poor resident in America typically lives in public housing—those so-called "projects" that are physically segregated from the wealthier districts—and they usually rely on social assistance, lack a reliable vehicle, and possess a fridge and perhaps a TV if they can manage to scrape the money together...
A rural poor resident in America typically resides in a trailer park, which is physically isolated from established neighborhoods, mostly subsisting on government aid, lacking a functional car, and owning a fridge and a TV only if they can afford it...

The "poor" person you are referring to, according to American standards, actually belongs to the middle or upper-middle class... and by American standards, yes...

Linda Hughes88 said:overklokan had this pretty solid piece in The Economist a couple of months back... it was basically a response to that Krugman article in The New York Times warning everyone that the income gap between the rich and the poor in the USA is ballooning right back toward those insane levels we saw during the Gilded Age, you know, back when you had guys like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan running the show.
But here’s the thing The Economist argues—yeah, sure, the dollar amounts look massive, but what you can actually buy with that cash isn't nearly as different as it was back then. Back in the day, a rich guy had a car while the poor guy didn't, a rich guy had a fridge while the poor guy didn't, and it was the same story with phones and everything else... nowadays, the gap between the wealthy and the working class isn't even that drastic. Both sides drive cars—okay, fine, the rich guy's ride is nicer, but they both get you from point A to point B just the same, and both have fridges and TVs, even if one is flying economy and the other has a private jet... basically, the actual standard of living gap is shrinking...
and there's zero real connection between the ultra-wealthy and people who are literally starving to death. Handing out charity to those folks doesn't move the needle. It hasn't worked before, either. Look at how much aid has been poured into Africa and yet nothing really changes. The only things that actually make an impact are real investments, building factories, and stuff like that...
but once that finally happens, and once all 6.5 billion people on this planet are driving cars and eating half a cow every month, I bet you'll find some new reason to complain and start lecturing everyone about morality, won't you? 🙂

The "poor" person you are describing (the one who owns a car and can afford an economy class ticket) is actually part of the upper-middle class... these people view themselves as impoverished simply because they compare their lives exclusively to those earning more, all while the truly destitute remain completely marginalized and hidden from public view...
The Economist does a fine job of helping maintain the illusion that everything is functioning beautifully FOR EVERYONE, rather than just for those who already hold the cards... 👎

^^
It would arguably be more prudent if we simply avoided placing him in any position where he is compelled to offer a statement in the first place...