Posts by Matthew Young35

Noah Ross7 said:Pink Floyd and progress... how? Yes or no?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A30 using Reddit

Sure, Semsa and the South wind is definitely the move...

☕

Noah Ross7 said:Listen, guys, this is all nonsense. There is only one Semsa. ☕

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A30 using Reddit

Total trolls.
While we are here trying to discuss music that actually matters for the progress of humanity, you're just trolling with low-brow nonsense.
Have some shame!

Larry Fox5 said:I mean, I love Pink Floyd in principle—really, I do—but I just can't get into them anymore. Last time I actually sat through Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety was probably twenty years ago... Now? They aren't even on my playlists. I’ll give them a like if a song comes on the radio because, hey, four or five minutes won't kill you. 😁

It’s just that listening to them now... it doesn't feel right. The emotions they stir up aren't positive or anything—it's more like this deep anxiety and restlessness.

Nowadays, I'm much more into some jazz lounge or maybe some swing. Or even some Dr. House Blues

Is that so?

Does stuff like "Careful with that Axe, Eugene!" trigger anxiety and restlessness for you?



You really are an odd one.
For most adults, those kinds of musical expressions evoke nothing but pure joy and a celebration of nature.

Charles Roberts33 said:van Bajronen liked this ☕.

Just wanted to offer some credit to my colleague here for their consistently high-quality contributions. It doesn't go unnoticed.

I'm well aware of this project, though I haven't had the chance to dive into the specifics quite yet. I might find some time to look into it over the next few days.

Man, here we go again with the taste debates. But honestly, if you ask me—when it comes to stoner rock, doom, or any kind of psychedelia—less is definitely more when it comes to vocals. 😬

When you're diving into psychedelia, whether there's a vocalist involved is almost secondary. What actually matters is whether you have Pink Floyd or not.
Take this track, for example; the lyrical thought process within this poem is quite significant, and once the song hits the 2:58 mark, it gains an even deeper dimension.



Or consider this—a melody that sounds incredibly trippy despite the lyrics.

Let's take a more critical look at it then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MduQ...YPrhuD&index=2

coppermarlin14 said:🙂😁😁 I suppose I should ask, what exactly happened with the day bread celebrations?

Honestly, screw them.

James Anderson5 said:The latest batch of nonsense is trying to link climate change directly to the left wing. I don't know where they got that idea, maybe because Donald Trump is on the right, so if someone disagrees with him, they must be on the left? 🤣

It honestly feels like common sense is just disappearing from public discourse lately. It seems like things really started spiraling during those flat earth conspiracies and the whole Duspara thing, which even some church groups actually bought into...

Oh, please. You really think you're Sherlock Holmes, don't you?
It turns out I’ve just stumbled upon a fascinating new logic being peddled by the right wing. According to their latest criteria, if you aren't a blatant racist, an extreme leftist, or some nostalgic American sympathizer dreaming of rebuilding a massive North American empire, then you simply don't belong on their side. Isn't that just convenient?

Is it really that simple? If you stand against Donald Trump, does that automatically mean you’re a cheerleader for Islamic fundamentalism or some radical expansionist agenda? It seems like people love to draw these sweeping, dramatic lines in the sand. But does one truly necessitate the other?

You were truly perceptive when you finally connected those dots.

neonfalcon16 said:That brings us to the ultimate question. Just how much of this is actually caused by human impact on the environment, and how much of it is simply the byproduct of natural shifts in our climate?

Well, look at the Mississippi near Krskog; the water temperature there is several degrees higher than it used to be.
It’s a textbook example of a natural warming cycle.

It is honestly mind-boggling to me that there are still people out there denying the sheer impact humanity has on our environment.
It’s just... unbelievable.
I actually find it easier to wrap my head around the fools who claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old than to deal with those who insist mankind has zero influence on the climate or the ecosystem.

Steven Fox37 said:But that’s exactly the point! If you look at it through that lens, then you can’t really pin anything on Monsanto (now Bayer) either. At the end of the day, they’re just manufacturing goods and selling them to the market, right?

It feels like people are jumping down my throat just because I brought up the NRA, Trump, and that whole crowd.
Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.

wiredrider9 said:And honestly, this is way more critical than all the damn CO2 talk—we're talking about pesticides and all kinds of chemicals wrecking the soil. Monsanto is basically turning land into dust. It's a total disaster.

Monsanto isn't what creates scorched earth.
Scorched earth is caused by people like Bolsonaro, who burn down the Amazon rainforest just to clear space for agriculture and industry.

What Monsanto actually does is threaten biodiversity. And if we’re being honest, even that isn't strictly on them—it's the people using their products.
It's like the NRA's argument: guns don't kill people, people kill people.

brightpilot6 said:Just don't try to take credit for what’s mine, or pin my actions on me, because I will find a million ways to justify it all. Isn't that just the one true constant in both human nature and philosophy? It’s the exact same story when it comes to people worrying about the environment.

Everyone will be crying to the heavens for the "community" to step in the moment things start going south and the mess reaches their doorstep. Suddenly, there won't be any talk about a country healing itself or the progress that naturally comes from solving problems through standard processes. It’s a pattern we see all too often here in America.

That brings us right to the edge of what I’ve already argued.
The whole debate surrounding pollution and climate change follows the same logic as the vaccination debate.
Once people start dying in droves from preventable illnesses, those who prioritized their "freedom of choice" based on whatever they watched on YouTube might finally wake up.
The real question regarding the climate and the environment is whether we are facing an irreversible state—a point of no return where the Earth becomes about as hospitable as Mars.

Bees are dying off on a massive scale across the globe.
It’s becoming increasingly obvious to everyone that pesticides and pollution are the culprits behind it.
Hardly anyone actually buys the idea that this is just some natural planetary cycle.

Noah Roberts46 said:When you look at criminals like Clinton, socialists like Sanders who want to give prisoners the right to vote, and generally hysterical libtards, Trump looks like Octavian. ☕

If you told Trump he looked like Octavian, he’d probably chase you off the property:

Noah Roberts46 said:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burmese...bsn-originals/

Yeah, they’re such a massive issue that hunting them is actually banned in Florida, and they're on the endangered species list.
🤦

My bad, I mixed them up with another species. Look, there's no denying people absolutely screwed things up, especially back in the last century—I'm happy to admit that—but humans have also saved plenty of species from extinction recently. Human impact on an ecosystem isn't exclusively negative, which is clearly what you're suggesting. You seem to have no middle ground, and frankly, it's irritating.

Someone is clearly disputing it. I never said people didn't mess up, nor did I say we aren't still making mistakes, but it is a cold hard fact that without those same people, certain species would have gone extinct long ago. It's just frustrating that some people refuse to see that. That's all I wrote.

Did you actually read what was in the link you posted, or did you just run a quick search on Google to find whatever result looked best and call it a day?
Check out what's being said at this link:

"The crisis currently unfolding in the Everglades didn't just appear out of thin air; its roots actually trace back to a decade before Hurricane Andrew made landfall. It all began when pet owners and exotic animal exhibitors in the U.S. started importing the Southeast Asian Burmese python—one of the five largest snake species on the planet—simply because of their massive size and the novelty they offered in this part of the world. Pet owners and exotic animal enthusiasts in the U.S. began importing the Southeast Asian Burmese Python—one of the five largest snake species on the planet—simply because they were captivated by their massive scale and novelty in this region. But let’s be realistic: managing a predator that can eventually reach 20 feet in length and weigh 200 pounds? That is a daunting task that quickly shifts from a hobby to a genuine safety hazard. It’s a predictable pattern, isn't it? People in Florida who realized they couldn't actually handle the responsibility of keeping Burmese pythons decided to simply dump their problems elsewhere. They relieved themselves of the burden by releasing those snakes into the Florida Everglades, which stands as the largest wilderness area in the eastern U.S."

I appreciate you asking for links to back up my claims.

Amy Nelson4 said:U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

The fallout—think massive coastal flooding and widespread crop failures—could trigger a wave of "eco-refugees," which, let's be honest, sounds like a recipe for total political mayhem, according to Noel Brown, the director of the New York Office of the U.N. Environment Programme, or UNEP.

Brown basically warned that we're looking at a ten-year window for governments to actually get a handle on the greenhouse effect before things spiral completely out of our control.

article from 1989.

"Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,'"

And yet, here we are. It's happening.
What's Your Point

wiredrider9 said:And let me guess—you're gonna claim all 28,000 of those species are solely our fault?

Probably not for every single one, but for most? Absolutely.

Unless you're suggesting some common culprit we missed—like a supervolcano burying half the planet in lava, an asteroid impact, or something equally catastrophic that slipped under our radar.

Here is a small contribution to our discussion regarding endangered wildlife:

https://www.iucnredlist.org

Over 28,000 species currently face the threat of extinction.
That represents 27% of all assessed species.

I can already see it coming: you'll likely question my source, hunt for a more "relevant" one, and we'll just keep this cycle going indefinitely.

Noah Roberts46 said:Look, people definitely introduced them, but they didn't breed them; the population exploded because of a natural disaster. It's the same deal with mountain lions becoming a huge issue across the US—they need to be managed because they disrupt the rest of the population. Hunting certain predators is completely justified, and if you don't see how vital that is for maintaining an ecosystem, then fine, do you honestly think nature is just perfectly self-sustaining? The question of how many species humans have actually saved is a fascinating one that nobody ever bothers to ask.

Why did dinosaurs and thousands of other species go extinct? Humans? 🤦

What kind of "natural disaster" are we talking about here?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ida-180972534/

"In Miami, a center of the exotic pet trade, dealers used to import them from Southeast Asia by the tens of thousands. It is now illegal to import or purchase Burmese pythons in Florida. Probably, at some point, python owners who no longer wanted to care for them let them go in the Everglades.
By the mid-1990s, the pythons had established a breeding population."

Look, mountain lions have become a massive issue across the US too, and they need to be managed because they disrupt the rest of the local wildlife.

True, they've become such a significant problem that hunting them is actually prohibited in Florida, and they're even on the endangered species list.
🤦

Noah Roberts46 said:Look, people definitely introduced them, but they didn't breed them; the population exploded because of a natural disaster. It's the same deal with mountain lions becoming a huge issue across the US—they need to be managed because they disrupt the rest of the population. Hunting certain predators is completely justified, and if you don't see how vital that is for maintaining an ecosystem, then fine, do you honestly think nature is just perfectly self-sustaining? The question of how many species humans have actually saved is a fascinating one that nobody ever bothers to ask.

Why did dinosaurs and thousands of other species go extinct? Humans? 🤦

You're just being stubborn.

Why did dinosaurs and a thousand other species go extinct? Humans? 🤦

It was meteors or supervolcanoes.
I haven't exactly seen a massive meteor smash into the Country lately, and I'm fairly certain lava hasn't swallowed all of Siberia.
People would have noticed.

This mass extinction is solely and exclusively the responsibility of humans.
You know it too, but it's just uncomfortable for you to admit you were wrong.