Posts by dustyranger64

I honestly don't see the issue here. Being close to your folks is great, but dude... what’s the ultimate "mission" for any man or woman? It's moving out and building your own family.
What's the whole point of parenting? It's raising kids who are capable and independent—people who can handle whatever life throws at them and eventually start their own lives.

Seriously, I don't get why you're even overthinking this. Your place is with your wife and your kid. Your parents either have to accept it or they "lose" a son. There isn't some middle ground.
The stuff they're demanding from you is borderline pathological. When they start throwing around ultimatums like that? That's rock bottom.

Just tell them straight: your place is with the woman you chose and the child you're raising. They can either be a positive part of your life or they can go jump in a lake. Just because they raised you doesn't mean they get to wreck your life.
Don't try to play nice or sugarcoat it. Stop trying to balance this crap, man up, and just do what needs to be done!

Steven Allen9 said:That’s just a reaction.
But what about the guy who's hardwired to be evil, whether there's a war going on or things are peaceful?
Is there another category out there? Like, crimes written in their DNA? Just born to kill and cause chaos?

😕 Well, I think I gave you a pretty solid, detailed answer up above.

Robert Gomez6 said:When we talk about a man whose family was slaughtered by some psychopath—someone surviving unimaginable trauma only to obsess over and eventually execute revenge—are we looking at it through a philosophical lens or a psychological one?... In this instance, I'm betting on the soul...

That’s the fourth question, and man, it’s a total pivot from the first three.
Sure, you could take a psychological approach, but honestly, it feels a bit disconnected from our main topic. At this point, the subject becomes the driver. We aren't talking about biological predispositions or sociological environments anymore—that's what the whole theme is about. Now, it's just a direct motive.
Even "temporary insanity" doesn't really fit here if we're talking about someone who obsessively organizes and plans their vengeance over a long period before executing it.
The situation is triggered by a massive, direct stressor. It’s pure, extreme rage combined with a thirst for revenge and probably a complete disregard for self-preservation. Total no-brainer. 🤷

Robert Gomez6 said:When it comes to crime, people start throwing out endless questions... Most of what you said is spot on, but I’m looking at it from a different angle. How much of a crime is it when one criminal takes out another? Or rather, how useful can a crime actually be? What about killing out of sheer fear or desperation? And what about politicians who sign a piece of paper and effectively wipe out hundreds or thousands of lives without a second thought, walking away completely unscathed? ... As for genetics, there's that Y chromosome factor, where the owner is basically hardwired for aggression from a young age, eventually leading them straight into a life of crime.

Robert Gomez6 said:First you start an incredibly grateful thread for some reason, and then we end up playing a game of word association... I put three questions in my post that you can answer or not... sometimes it's actually good to hear someone's opinion... as for the folk jokes, we can do that another time... we're young and healthy, we have plenty of time...

Maybe it's because those questions feel more like legal or philosophical puzzles rather than psychological ones?

Steven Allen9 said:Is there actually a genetic blueprint that makes someone a born criminal, or is it all just shaped by their early years?

Isn't it obvious when you look at these people? You can practically see the criminality written all over their faces, or am I just falling for the media hype?

The way I see it, criminals come from three main roots:
-revenge
-genetics
-childhood trauma

Since poverty and bad environments can push anyone toward crime—and let's face it, violence isn't anything new to humanity—I’m guessing your question is really aiming at the
sociopaths and psychopaths.

Research actually shows they definitely have a biological predisposition. Most studies on convicted heavy murderers and serial killers show that over 50% of them have one disorder or another, a neurological diagnosis, or something similar.

It's also been found that 65% of them have damage to the frontal lobe of the brain. This is characteristic of a condition where their brain was essentially bathed in too much serotonin (that "happy hormone") during the fetal stage, which makes them totally numb to things that would give us pleasure. They need way more intense stimulation.
The frontal lobe houses many of the mechanisms that make us social beings, like self-control, planning, reasoning, and balancing individual needs against social ones.

So yeah, there's a biological predisposition. Then you add early childhood and environment into the mix.
About 85% (we're talking about those heavy hitters, the serial killers, etc.) suffered severe physical and/or sexual abuse during childhood.
That can trigger certain behaviors, leading to what's known as the McDonald's triad—three specific traits of sociopathic behavior: constant bedwetting after age five or six, cruelty to animals, and an obsession with fire and arson. This triad shows up in a lot of serial killers during their youth.

Basically, biology + abuse + a traumatic upbringing = the perfect storm.

Honestly, it’s been ages since I last got lost wandering near the Coast Guard station, but... if you're heading in from the industrial district toward the station, the last street on your left before the ramp is Demetrov. There are some apartment buildings on the right side of that street with really weirdly designed courtyards—you could check things out there too. Now, if you take the ramp, just go straight for a bit then hang a left; that's where the Senja pier is, I think there’s a spot right there.
But honestly, going over the bridge and hitting the ramp on the right (which technically falls under the Delta area) seems like a better bet. It used to be nothing but wood warehouses and junk, but there’s actually enough room back there to build another boardwalk! Plus, there are like 500 little nooks to hide out in, even if it was 😁. Just see for yourself.

btw—this makes it way easier to follow what I'm talking about 😁 http://www.citymaps.com/cleveland

hollowstag93 said:
Ugh, it is way too hot out here, that's why I'm asking! 🤣
I'd love to just find some shady little corner downtown to hide in... if only I knew which dark alleyway to duck into.

So you want me to show you all the spots? Hard to put into words, 😍 just kidding....

Near the Coast Guard station downtown, there are a few places where you can tuck yourself away. Then, head east from the theater across the bridge and check behind the ramp on the right side. There are also those side streets over by White Rock near the maritime academy, or that old transit parking lot just above the Phoenix Theatre. Oh! And there's a tiny little alley and a couple of spots right above the River near the courthouse. You'll definitely find somewhere. 🙂

hollowstag93 said:
I’m curious—in a college town like Cleveland, where can you actually hang out in public? You know, just being out on the street, away from the AC in your car or apartment, but without being totally swamped by massive crowds. 🙂

😍😍😍

Isn't it getting a little chilly out there? 😁
Whatever you want! Just pick a neighborhood. 🙂

Steven Garcia3 said:Every time the Leftists have held power, you could smell the failure from miles away...

Every time the Leftists have held power, you could smell the failure from miles away...
Every time the left was in power, you could smell the stench of death from miles away.

The left isn't the same thing as communism, but the real issue in this country is the low number of highly educated people. Education broadens your horizons; it changes how you see things. You start to realize, for instance, that the Democratic Party isn't a communist cell and the Republican Party isn't just a group of 90s crooks. The reality is we split ourselves into "left" and "right" way too much when there's hardly any difference. Sure, one side might prefer a tax hike while the other wants a cut, but everything that actually matters for America—monetary policy, healthcare, global integration, education—is basically just shades of gray. Your issue is conflating liberal and social-democratic options with communism. They aren't the same, though I get why you feel that way. Extreme regimes, whether they wear red or black, always end up bloody because that's the only way they survive, much like how the center-left and center-right options often look identical. I'm not trying to bash anyone, but look at the state of things in America: the most developed area, definitely the city with the highest concentration of educated folks, is Washington, D.C., where the Democratic Party has held sway for 8 years. It would have been even longer if not for certain distractions, and they’ll likely hold it again in the next election. It's the city with the highest standard of living and the best salaries, even if expenses are high, because it’s actually moving forward. I remember what it was like back when Dropulic was mayor, and regardless of my personal feelings toward Bandic, the fact remains that with Hercegovac running the show, Washington, D.C. is working and making progress. People are living well, plain and simple. On the flip side, the Democratic Party and the Localist Party have pretty much always run things in Istria, which is our most developed region. It leads the trends in tourism, both in the summer and increasingly during the off-season. Some people might try to trash them by claiming they're ruled by Italian fascists, but that’s just typical extreme right-wing nonsense used when someone runs out of actual arguments. Personally, I'm not a fan of Damir Kajin's political maneuvering either—like banning Thompson while Madonna is an honorary guest in the same city—but that’s a whole different ballgame. In a place like the county near Columbus, which is a good example for all non-coastal areas, standards are steadily rising, and the Liberal Party seems to have been in charge there. The bottom line is that the most prosperous parts of America are "under the rule" of left-leaning parties. Meanwhile, places like Memphis, Indianapolis, or the rural South—where the percentage of highly educated people is lower—are the strongholds for the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, and others. It comes down to a mindset shaped by heavy wartime trauma; even today, they vote "against communists" while their party coalitions with minority interests. It's about mentality, a difficult past, and education levels. I'm not saying the Democratic Party is the cure-all, but I truly don't understand the mindset of people in the Midwest or the South who, for 15 years now, have voted for the exact same party without ever listening to the opposition. They spend those 15 years complaining about how hard life is or how there are no jobs, yet they keep voting for the same people like sheep. I honestly don't get it.
Every time the left was in power, you could smell the stench of death from miles away.

The left isn't the same thing as communism, but the real issue in this country is the low number of highly educated people. Education broadens your horizons; it changes how you see things. You start to realize, for instance, that the Democratic Party isn't a communist cell and the Republican Party isn't just a group of 90s crooks. The reality is we split ourselves into "left" and "right" way too much when there's hardly any difference. Sure, one side might prefer a tax hike while the other wants a cut, but everything that actually matters for America—monetary policy, healthcare, global integration, education—is basically just shades of gray. Your issue is conflating liberal and social-democratic options with communism. They aren't the same, though I get why you feel that way. Extreme regimes, whether they wear red or black, always end up bloody because that's the only way they survive, much like how the center-left and center-right options often look identical. I'm not trying to bash anyone, but look at the state of things in America: the most developed area, definitely the city with the highest concentration of educated folks, is Washington, D.C., where the Democratic Party has held sway for 8 years. It would have been even longer if not for certain distractions, and they’ll likely hold it again in the next election. It's the city with the highest standard of living and the best salaries, even if expenses are high, because it’s actually moving forward. I remember what it was like back when Dropulic was mayor, and regardless of my personal feelings toward Bandic, the fact remains that with Hercegovac running the show, Washington, D.C. is working and making progress. People are living well, plain and simple. On the flip side, the Democratic Party and the Localist Party have pretty much always run things in Istria, which is our most developed region. It leads the trends in tourism, both in the summer and increasingly during the off-season. Some people might try to trash them by claiming they're ruled by Italian fascists, but that’s just typical extreme right-wing nonsense used when someone runs out of actual arguments. Personally, I'm not a fan of Damir Kajin's political maneuvering either—like banning Thompson while Madonna is an honorary guest in the same city—but that’s a whole different ballgame. In a place like the county near Columbus, which is a good example for all non-coastal areas, standards are steadily rising, and the Liberal Party seems to have been in charge there. The bottom line is that the most prosperous parts of America are "under the rule" of left-leaning parties. Meanwhile, places like Memphis, Indianapolis, or the rural South—where the percentage of highly educated people is lower—are the strongholds for the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, and others. It comes down to a mindset shaped by heavy wartime trauma; even today, they vote "against communists" while their party coalitions with minority interests. It's about mentality, a difficult past, and education levels. I'm not saying the Democratic Party is the cure-all, but I truly don't understand the mindset of people in the Midwest or the South who, for 15 years now, have voted for the exact same party without ever listening to the opposition. They spend those 15 years complaining about how hard life is or how there are no jobs, yet they keep voting for the same people like sheep. I honestly don't get it.

The left isn't the same thing as communism, but the real issue in this country is the low number of highly educated people. Education broadens your horizons; it changes how you see things. You start to realize, for instance, that the Democratic Party isn't a communist cell and the Republican Party isn't just a group of 90s crooks. The reality is we split ourselves into "left" and "right" way too much when there's hardly any difference. Sure, one side might prefer a tax hike while the other wants a cut, but everything that actually matters for America—monetary policy, healthcare, global integration, education—is basically just shades of gray. Your issue is conflating liberal and social-democratic options with communism. They aren't the same, though I get why you feel that way. Extreme regimes, whether they wear red or black, always end up bloody because that's the only way they survive, much like how the center-left and center-right options often look identical. I'm not trying to bash anyone, but look at the state of things in America: the most developed area, definitely the city with the highest concentration of educated folks, is Washington, D.C., where the Democratic Party has held sway for 8 years. It would have been even longer if not for certain distractions, and they’ll likely hold it again in the next election. It's the city with the highest standard of living and the best salaries, even if expenses are high, because it’s actually moving forward. I remember what it was like back when Dropulic was mayor, and regardless of my personal feelings toward Bandic, the fact remains that with Hercegovac running the show, Washington, D.C. is working and making progress. People are living well, plain and simple. On the flip side, the Democratic Party and the Localist Party have pretty much always run things in Istria, which is our most developed region. It leads the trends in tourism, both in the summer and increasingly during the off-season. Some people might try to trash them by claiming they're ruled by Italian fascists, but that’s just typical extreme right-wing nonsense used when someone runs out of actual arguments. Personally, I'm not a fan of Damir Kajin's political maneuvering either—like banning Thompson while Madonna is an honorary guest in the same city—but that’s a whole different ballgame. In a place like the county near Columbus, which is a good example for all non-coastal areas, standards are steadily rising, and the Liberal Party seems to have been in charge there. The bottom line is that the most prosperous parts of America are "under the rule" of left-leaning parties. Meanwhile, places like Memphis, Indianapolis, or the rural South—where the percentage of highly educated people is lower—are the strongholds for the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, and others. It comes down to a mindset shaped by heavy wartime trauma; even today, they vote "against communists" while their party coalitions with minority interests. It's about mentality, a difficult past, and education levels. I'm not saying the Democratic Party is the cure-all, but I truly don't understand the mindset of people in the Midwest or the South who, for 15 years now, have voted for the exact same party without ever listening to the opposition. They spend those 15 years complaining about how hard life is or how there are no jobs, yet they keep voting for the same people like sheep. I honestly don't get it.
How weird that the most balanced post in such a biased thread got totally ignored.🙄

Olivia Sanders24 said:You’ve really found the right one here... a guy whose geopolitical insights are completely at odds with his work in linguistics... 🤣

Olivia Sanders24... I was actually reading one of your books on geopolitics—one that your fellow experts in the field actually consider legit... can't quite recall which one... there were dozens of them... time to up my meds I guess....🤷

Paul Wells17 said:😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

Another "expert" playing the Noam Chomsky role 😂 😂 😂 😂

Right on... I mean, clearly this guy—who’s been one of the top three most respected intellectuals and geopolitical analysts on the planet for forty years straight, an actual scholar with enough degrees to fill a library (I'd bet my life savings he's got more honors than both of us combined), including 32 honorary doctorates—is obviously way less qualified to have an opinion than you are.

Olivia Sanders24 said:And what about the Chinese? Are they operating at the level of some tiny hunter-gatherer tribe in Small Town, USA? 🙄

Meanwhile, poor Egypt gets maybe 2 to 5 billion dollars a year—which I assume is basically pocket change to them, right?

And don't even get me started on the Saudis...

Look, I didn't say that, but let's face it—they're playing second fiddle to Israel. Honestly, having a massive infantry isn't even the main driver of military power anymore. Besides, I'm not just making these numbers up out of thin air; I'm pulling them from legit global sources!

Olivia Sanders24 said:And what about the Chinese? Are they operating at the level of some tiny hunter-gatherer tribe in Small Town, USA? 🙄

Meanwhile, poor Egypt gets maybe 2 to 5 billion dollars a year—which I assume is basically pocket change to them, right?

And don't even get me started on the Saudis...

Look, nobody ever said the others aren't getting a dime. But let's be real—Israel is pulling in way more than everyone else combined. Seriously! You could take the entire African continent, including Egypt, and their total aid wouldn't even come close to what Israel receives. Just facts!
If you're a fan of hard numbers, you gotta check this out!
The Fateful Triangle: The USA, Israel, and the Palestinians.
If I recall correctly, people around here call that one the "Axis of Evil." You can find some heavy stuff on Hegemony versus survival in those two books by Noam Chomsky. Plus, there’s some solid data tucked away in that book by Uri Dan, the Mossad author.
Read more and listen to less of those Bush speeches! Seriously!

Honestly, you just want to cry for those "helpless" and pathetic Israelis. I mean, come on! According to official stats, they’re the third most powerful military force on the planet, right behind the USA and Russia. Plus, they’ve got the CIA—arguably the toughest intel agency out there. And let’s not forget they’ve been the USA's biggest protectorate for about 15 years now (since '67, but especially lately). The US just keeps flooding them with endless cash and weapons. The only time they sent more money elsewhere was during those two years to Turkey to deal with their "problematic Kurds" (remember Bush saying that?), but even then, the support dropped fast once the Turks started complaining about US missiles being placed on their southern border. I guess Israel didn't mind being second in line for US aid for a couple of years, huh?
As for using the Holocaust as an excuse for 50 years of terror, even the Zionist leader Nachman Goldman—one of the actual founders of the Jewish state and the Zionist movement—said right before he died in 1982: "It is sacrilege to use the Holocaust as a pretext for the oppression of others." They actually disowned him publicly for being too honest and wouldn't even send a delegation to his funeral!