Posts by Mark Torres14

Edward Flores4 said:Personally, I don't see much overlap between our genes and our actual character. To me, it’s upbringing and the immediate environment that really shape who we become.

And when it comes to honesty and respect... well, self-respect is its own form of honesty!

Respect and honesty are two completely different things.
If they were the same thing, you wouldn't even be able to ask:
Can a dishonest person still show respect?

Brenda Cook4 said:So, when we take the concept of "fairness" and push it to these absurd extremes, it becomes impossible to maintain. At that point, the distinction between being fair and being unfair just becomes completely meaningless... it all just turns into nothing.

No. If honesty comes from a person’s internal moral compass, then regardless of how crazy or absurd a situation gets, that integrity shows through in how they act. In my specific example, an honest person wouldn't be able to go against their own nature—they’d step up and tell the soldier he made a mistake.
But if "honesty" is just some social contract based on external relationships, then in the extreme scenario I described, it can't—and shouldn't—be called honesty. If a person steps forward to tell the soldier he's wrong in that moment, they aren't being "honest" to society; they're just agreeing with the insane, irrational logic of shooting someone. At that point, you're not talking about a man of integrity anymore; you're talking about a lunatic.

rustymaker5 said:You always have this need to pull out some extreme, edge-case scenario just to try and validate your point... 🙂
War, concentration camps, and things of that nature are such incredibly extreme, inhumane, and frankly nonsensical situations to force a human being into that it feels almost redundant to even discuss them... How could you even look for fairness in a place like that when you've been stripped down to nothing more than a desperate struggle for basic survival?!? (Though, even in those hellish circumstances, there are people who act out of a sense of integrity, even if their starting points are totally different, and in your specific example, it might look like this: if they skip over a father to call his son, that father would most likely point out that he should be the one taken instead just to save his kid, so they'd probably end up taking both of them. 🤷)
But if you look at it from another angle... if every single person, or even just the majority of people, actually lived by their principles, we wouldn't even be facing situations like that in the first place... 🤷

I was just trying to point out that honesty is way more complicated than it looks. It's tied directly to honor.
It’s funny how the American Mafia has its own codes of honor and integrity, yet they couldn't care less about anyone else's life. That's exactly why I find it hard to believe that honesty is something that just springs from within a person.

But look at it this way: if every single person, or at least most people, actually worked on their integrity, we wouldn't run into these situations in the first place. 🤷

That sounds like that old cliché: "If everyone just did their job properly, society wouldn't have crises and everything would work perfectly." Basically, a platitude.

rustymaker5 said:I just can't get behind that. Honestly, God, if we follow that logic, it means there’s absolutely no hope left for integrity...😲

Integrity belongs to the individual, regardless of whatever mess they find themselves living in, and it’s the person alone who decides on it, not some vague concept of "society."
Take, for instance, a federal prosecutor who does a lousy job because the circumstances are what they are—maybe corruption is running rampant in Washington—and they tell themselves: "If I don't do it, someone else will," so they just sit there and do nothing. 🤷
That person made a choice not to be honest. Because if they truly were an honest person, they wouldn't stay in a position where they’re forced to act corruptly just to hold onto their title and their paycheck.
It makes you wonder how many brilliant, highly skilled, and expert people are kept away from the waters of politics simply because integrity prevents them from ever getting involved in the first place.
And as long as people keep waiting for society to become honest first before they feel they can behave honestly themselves, nothing is ever going to change...
Every single person individually needs to work on their own integrity, because that is the only way to build a society that actually values honesty and uses it as its foundation.

The point I was making wasn't even about that, but fine, let's play it your way.
Look at this scenario.

You're a prisoner in Auschwitz and one day they start selling everything off and announce, "We're executing every second person now." And... they start doing it. The line moves up, and you realize you're actually next in line to be shot instead of the guy standing right beside you. But then, the guard makes a mistake and pulls your buddy out of line instead.
Are you really going to step forward and tell that guard, "Hey, that's not fair, I'm actually the one supposed to die here."

Sam Green73 said:The other day, someone actually said to me, "You know, sometimes it’s just easier to be honest—it takes way less effort," and I have to admit, it totally threw me for a loop.
I get the logic behind it; telling the truth is definitely simpler because you don't have to spend half your life playing mental gymnastics trying to remember which lie you told to whom.
But is "honesty" really that straightforward?
Is it truly just a simple thing?
Honestly, I don't think so.
To me, being an honest person isn't some innate quality you're just born with; it's more like a skill that you actually have to work at.
Think about little kids—they’ll happily grab a toy from someone else, but they find it incredibly hard to actually share one of their own. Parents have to step in and teach them how to act in a socially acceptable way.

I'm a firm believer that being honest pays off in the long run, but when you look at the short term, is being truthful always the easiest path?

p.s. I almost wrote this whole thing as a post about sincerity, but I realized those aren't quite the same thing.

I’d argue the exact opposite.
This is pure philosophy. When we talk about honesty, we have to view it as some kind of "universal." Our current society is definitely not the best model to use if we want to have a deep philosophical debate about being honest.
To me, honesty means sticking to the rules of your society—whether they're written down or just unwritten customs. Psychologically, it’s easiest to be honest (or tell the truth, as Joshua tells the Master in Margaret), because you’ve got the weight of an entire society backing you up. But for a person to even have the chance to be honest, they have to exist within a functional society first. If a society values hard work, the laws will be built to protect everyone's labor, and anyone following those rules can call themselves honest. If a society rewards theft, then the system is rigged so that anyone who *doesn't* steal looks like the dishonest one.
Bottom line: in a society with realistic, enforceable rules, being honest is easy.
But in a society with unrealistic rules, or no rules at all, or zero enforcement (no matter why that is), being honest is damn near impossible.

dustyskipper3 said:That’s just how it is, I suppose. People have always had it out for Rohatinski, but he’s actually proven to be quite resilient against pressure. He’s an expert, really—someone who can actually forecast economic shifts, and he even developed his own methodologies for certain calculations, so that’s his "anchor," if you will. He conducts himself accordingly, trying to balance protecting foreign capital interests with the interests of the state. It's a delicate act. Our legal system, though... it doesn't really have a solid anchor of its own. It seems to rely entirely on the political will of those in power and big business players, who, in turn, don't face any real counterweight from the will of the people. So, the courts aren't really forced to balance two equally strong sides. Like you said, anything can be twisted. At this rate, shipping containers in Warsaw could start levitating and drifting away if someone decided they wanted them to, and maybe even the police would help make it happen. I don't mean to blame the police, per se; they are duty-bound to follow the law as interpreted by the judiciary and the administration. But in similar situations, a judge might rule differently depending on who the parties involved are and just how much "weight" each side carries. I guess you can't really blame them for lacking experience, though. They lack it because judges are paid so little; as soon as they gain any real expertise, they just jump ship to the private sector. That leaves only the corrupt ones behind, the ones for whom the math actually makes sense. Even lawyers don't always represent their clients' best interests, depending on who they are connected to. In the end, it almost feels like everything is ultimately the fault of Secretary Šimonović, who just watches it all unfold from the sidelines, perhaps taking notes like some sort of observer, staying silent. But even he, being a non-partisan official, probably can't change much. After all, Jadranka is still above him, and then there's whoever is standing behind her...

I suppose one might look at the dynamic between Merkel and Putin... though it's hard to say for certain what really goes on behind closed doors. It’s all very complicated, I guess. Maybe there's more to their relationship than what we see on the news, but then again, who can truly know? It's just one of those things that stays perpetually uncertain.

I suppose I should be asking the question: is it actually possible for America to exist in this kind of political limbo, being pulled simultaneously toward the EU and toward Russia’s sphere of influence? It seems like some other countries within the EU—Bulgaria, for instance—are already playing both sides like that. If that’s the case, I guess we just end up serving as a sort of bargaining chip for the major powers. And if that happens, we can probably kiss any hope of an independent judiciary goodbye. An independent legal system doesn't really suit the big players, since they tend to trade favors based on the raw principles of international power politics rather than actual legal norms. And honestly, who can even predict how those deals will go down? That might be why we lack a certain... let's call it a "firm anchor" in our law. If America were to definitively commit itself to one side—the West, specifically—then maybe we would finally have a foundation upon which to build some semblance of a real justice system. But, of course, doing that would mean losing access to Russian gas, the TurkStream pipeline, and all that. Even the Canadians seem to have realized the stakes here; people are calling them thieves now because they poured 3 billion euros into INA instead of just handing everything over to one of Putin's oil companies. Though, to be fair, they are still buying Russian oil and gas too. So, I guess for America, the only option left is to remain somewhat indecisive—to continue existing as something that is only partially European and only partially governed by law.

The issue is, I guess, that the government can't even seem to regulate itself, let alone some so-called non-profit associations.

It could, maybe, but there just isn't any interest, and besides, who would actually be responsible for overseeing them? Merkel? Putin? Or perhaps the American people 😂? Especially now, given how things look with the Euro potentially collapsing due to Greek debt, which honestly threatens to tear the whole EU apart.

It seems like Josipović has forgotten he actually won an election and doesn't need to keep pandering to the masses. In this specific instance, he really should have been the first one standing behind the police after they provided assistance. Karamarko gave him a pretty solid response. I mean, how are you supposed to clear out protesters? With thoughts and prayers? Or maybe via teleportation?
Does he realize that the role of the police during assistance is very strictly regulated by the laws of the country where he serves as President, and that the police simply cannot refuse to assist?

From what I understand, he's quite an expert in criminal law—specifically regarding arrest procedures—so, I suppose, it's hard to believe he isn't aware of all the fine details. 😍

On this forum, I respect people who actually have a personality, whether I agree with them or not. It's the same with countries. Big or small, a nation needs its own backbone—its own value system. That’s why the real question isn't how much America stands to gain from joining Europe, but how much Europe stands to gain from us. My theory? We say, "Forget Europe, we'll just deal directly with Japan or Russia," just so Europe can move in and occupy us. From what I've seen, nobody in Europe gives away anything for free. And here we are, acting like dogs crawling before their masters.

As far as I know, he's an expert in criminal law, specifically regarding arrest laws, so it's hard to believe he doesn't know all the details. 😍

Interesting. I'm a damn expert in those kinds of things too.😁
What interests me is whether any law actually works in practice and in everyday life. What good is a right if you can't actually use it? Period. It's like someone writing down that you have the right to buy a Mercedes every year, while you don't even have enough money to eat.

dustyskipper3 said:First off, we’d need a rule of law that actually functions somewhat decently. Interestingly, the president of an association dealing with justice was hit with a defamation lawsuit by Marijan Hanžeković. If I recall correctly, he was already ruled against at the Municipal Criminal Court in Chicago because he pointed out that attorney fees for these types of property-legal matters have spiked so high they're three times more expensive than in Germany. So, a lawsuit intended to strip Horvatinčić of his permit would cost the prosecutor a small fortune. While looking into this, I found there are disputes involving some residents of Warsaw against Horvatinčić, but the person leading them seems, in my purely subjective opinion and based on what others seeking legal aid have told me, very well-connected to the structures of the city of Chicago and several prominent lawyers who specialize in precisely what we won't mention here to avoid being sued for defamation 😉😬... to me, it looks like simple commercial mediation between the city and the Warsaw residents so they can clear themselves out at a decent price (most of them already have). So, it isn't really about rights, legal practice, or the rule of law; it's more like a transaction where the law itself is irrelevant.

Regarding the associations, there is some truth there. In theory, we should probably abolish any association that isn't capable of funding itself through membership dues. If they can manage that for a few years, then maybe they could eventually receive some funds. There needs to be much tighter oversight of their operations and results (like a cost-benefit analysis, for example). But, there will always be those "privileged" groups, which is a flaw in our whole society.

A political move from Josipović could carry much more weight in all of this than the actual demonstrations. Even though it might not look good for a President to intervene in local government, perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the protests bore fruit (even if, in reality, they didn't and couldn't).

Look, philosophically speaking, our society is a mess because we don't have a single solid anchor in the law. We lack a baseline—something that actually serves as a yardstick for everything, both legally and humanly. The closest thing we have to a standard is the Rohatinski principle regarding cash flow controls. Beyond that? Everything is up for grabs. They can twist anything, even the Constitution.
Everyone knows exactly what’s broken, but nobody wants to fix it. Actually, they do know how—they just don't see the profit in it. We live in a society where the social hierarchy hasn't even caught up to our capitalist system yet. That’s why we end up with this mess where the wealthy, the politicians, and the media stars are all uneducated hacks who can't even string a coherent sentence together. It's like what you see in Russia. To put it bluntly: we have a capitalist society that absolutely hates work.
Quincy:

Regarding these non-profits, there’s some truth to what’s being said. Honestly, we should scrap any organization that can't sustain itself solely through membership dues. If they can actually make it on their own for a few years, then maybe—just maybe—they can be considered for public funding. We need much tighter oversight on how they operate and what they actually achieve. I'm talking real cost-benefit analyses, not just handshakes. But of course, you always have those "privileged" groups getting special treatment, and that’s exactly what’s rotting our society.

The problem is simple: the government can't even keep its own house in order, let alone police some so-called "associations."
Quincy:

Josipović's political move could actually carry way more weight than the protests themselves. Look, it’s probably not ideal for a President to stick his nose into local government like that, so it might be cleaner to say the demonstrations actually worked—even if they didn't really achieve anything on their own.

Josipović seems to have forgotten he actually won the election and doesn't need to play the populist anymore. In this specific case, he should've been the first one stepping up to back the police for their assistance. Instead, Karamarko gave him a much-needed reality check. How do you get rid of protesters? With logic, or by teleporting them away?
Does he even realize that police assistance is strictly governed by the laws of the very country he leads? He can't just decide to say no; they aren't allowed to refuse assistance under the law.

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose you're mostly right. Though, I guess that just proves some kind of demonstration is necessary, because what kind of society is this where young people can't even afford cigarettes?😕

Anyway, why does he smoke, when that's such a thing of the past? I mean, sure, he smokes, maybe does drugs, but regardless, I don't think they have any healthy perspective other than watching how a former cop—who later became a restaurateur for elite cops at a place like Babylon, specifically Tomo Horvatinčić with his buddies from the old America days—builds an elite, ex-cop rat hole on the very spot where American immigrants used to invest their money to grow the American economy and industry, before that was taken away by the first wave of invaders in the Kingdom of America and then finished off by the communists under Jakov Blažević through various confiscations and nationalizations. Since idiots have basically been snatching things from people for nearly a century—things they didn't earn and didn't create—it isn't really surprising what's happening today. Niko and Ursa apparently have their own property that clearly came down from their ancestors and has now been returned to them (they say it's about ten apartments), and now they're being criticized for some "illegal" renovations to a villa in Canada and building an underground garage there without the right permits. One wonders what kind of country this is, where you can't get a permit for a perfectly harmless renovation, yet you can get permission to ruin a pedestrian zone just because you have old cop connections that probably date back to the old America era. Flower Square was supposed to be a symbol of American culture, but it turned into a total disgrace. It represents us in a nutshell because everything is gathered there: the Orthodox priest and church, Dikan, those fake heirs across the street, the bakeries, the jewelers, the Octagon cultural monument and everything inside it, AT&T sprawling out in the space that used to be the Knowledge bookstore, the VIP Cafe for the idle, the Italian Cultural Center blocked off by Horvatinčić's Barricade, the T-Mobile shop for people trying to save on impulse buys, the KIC for those with slightly more liberal leanings (including an internet cafe inside), and then the Ogrizović library, which also offers free internet and where people were probably hired based on local political connections, likely networked with the librarians, all from that same old cop era... Then there are several banks on Flower Square and Warsaw, and then Fima securities from that whole SPICE affair involving a flushed-faced Polančec, right across from the only remaining movie theater.

Flower Square and Warsaw are basically a microcosm of America: you’ve got the banks, the telecom giants, a tiny bit of culture, high-speed internet, bakeries, coffee shops, and gaming spots. I suppose when someone does something there, it acts as a symptom for the entire society. That's why issuing that permit carries a symbolic weight that goes way beyond the simple fact of someone digging a hole under the square. It’s more like... a way of telling the public who exactly is in charge now.☕

Fine. Everything you said is spot on.
I still think these protests are stupid. If you actually want to hurt someone—like this investor—you aren't going to do it by marching down the street shouting "That guy is a thief." That’s useless. It’s much smarter to take this to a legal level and pair it with some actual public mobilization. Our laws are such a mess of loopholes and contradictions that finding a legal basis to tear down these building permits shouldn't even be an issue. But here’s the real play: if you could give those permits a political edge—meaning the specific political group that pushed them through is forced to step down—and then package it professionally in the media as a "Trojan Horse," those permits would be gone in a heartbeat. At the end of the day, what does this "public outcry" even mean? And what exactly are they fighting against?
I know someone who does absolutely nothing, yet somehow managed to start half a dozen different nonprofits—animal rights, environmentalism, clean America, you name it. They pull in about twenty thousand dollars from the government for every single one of them, totaling roughly $83 a year. They show up to every protest just because they're bored, run five or six so-called "workshops" annually, and they're constantly on the radio. The whole thing is a joke; their entire lifestyle is the exact opposite of everything they claim to stand for publicly.

dustyskipper3 said:@Mark Torres14

I suppose I would agree that this is indeed an issue. Horvatinčić's "Crystal Palace" cannot occupy the same space as the pedestrian zone on Warsaw Avenue at the same time. If they intend to build an entrance to an underground garage there, it simply cannot exist simultaneously with the activists from "Right to the City" and "Green Action" along with their containers. Also, I guess Mr. Karamarko was correct when he noted that the police couldn't just teleport them away; they had to approach them, take them by hand, and essentially physically move them elsewhere. It feels somewhat improper to intelligent people, I suppose—the idea that individuals, even distinguished intellectuals, are treated like ordinary cabinets, containers, or crates that someone just picks up and relocates on the orders of the Police Chief and the Mayor, all to clear space for Horvatinčić's project. But, I guess, that is the current spiritual reality in this city. The question is why the "Flower" project must occupy that specific space, and why it can't be adjusted to fit somewhere else. If we recall, the ancient Egyptians didn't face such problems when building pyramids, mainly because they had seemingly unlimited desert space surrounding the Nile. How did they then decide what would occupy which spot? How did they know where the right place was for a Pharaoh's final resting place? Perhaps it wasn't a problem for them because they understood that the place where a Pharaoh's mummy physically resides isn't quite the same as the place where his "Ka," or soul, resides—where he might dine with Osiris in the underworld, eating painted fruit and game from the interior walls of the pyramid. On the other hand, even that is a problem for us; we even try to "clean out" the remains of former citizens from prime locations in Arlington cemeteries, moving them to mass graves just to make room for the newly minted elites or simply people with enough cash to afford it.

I wonder, what would Wittgenstein say about this?

1. The world is everything that is the case.
2. The world is a totality of facts, not of things.
3. The world is determined by facts, and by that, by all the facts.

So, a thing arises as a consequence of its relationship to some other thing.

In other words, I guess the actual object—whether it is someone's earthly remains or the bodies of activists on Warsaw Avenue—isn't the point. Rather, it is the relationship of those things to something else; in this instance, the desire of our wealthy and influential citizens to place something else where those things currently sit. The fact, in this case, is the greed of these citizens—a (capital) relationship born of greed between us and them—rather than the physical fact that a bulldozer crushed a container into pieces. The reason why the container is no longer in its place, where a hole for an underground entrance will soon yawn, isn't due to some material fact, but rather a spiritual fact of greed that arises in the human spirit and isn't tied to anything material at all.

To put it another way, I would say that the impossibility of one thing existing in two different places at once (which leads to the scarcity of resources, much like how bread and fish couldn't multiply the way Jesus did) has the same cause-and-effect link as the impossibility of two different things occupying the exact same space at the same time. This second scenario stems from greed and the desire for seizure—wanting one thing to be in a certain spot instead of another, or wanting the first thing moved elsewhere. We saw similar cases in recent wars, under the guise of "humanitarian relocation." By analogy, I guess the first scenario arises from the same root (meaning the cause of resource scarcity is someone's greed, which isn't entirely wrong if we consider how easily everyone in Africa could be fed if it weren't for the greed that prevents it).

On the flip side, if we were actually aiming for the exact opposite effect, we would have to somehow neutralize all that greed and grabbing—replace it entirely with altruism, I suppose. If we did that, instead of having just one thing in one spot, we might end up with that same thing existing in two different places at once. Maybe we could even end up with two Warsaw Streets—one where cars pull into an underground garage, and another where people can just walk around freely in a public space. Perhaps those two things could exist together as some kind of compromise.

So, it seems to me that, philosophically and theoretically speaking, a single thing could potentially exist in two places at once, and a person could be bilocated—though maybe only as a sort of compromise. In that scenario, you wouldn't fully exist in either location, but rather partially; there would be this sense of being 'indistinct' in both spots. It’s as if your wave function somehow splits across physical space so that you are simultaneously here and there, yet somehow neither here nor there at the same time. From this, I guess it follows that a person attempting bilocation would have to temporarily cease existing in the way we normally do. They would essentially have to "die" within a single physical space and then be reborn across two different spaces to coexist there, only to eventually "resurrect" back in just one location. I see a certain parallel there between bilocation and resurrection, because bilocation would involve a death and a rebirth through the splitting of the physical location where the body exists, even if the spirit remains undivided. Meanwhile, death and resurrection involve the dislocation of the spirit from the body, where the spirit and body might exist separately for a time (which is a form of bilocation) before the spirit returns to the body to exist in the same location again. For both processes, I think the prerequisite would be a desire to give or to let go, which is the direct opposite of greed and the urge to take. 😁

Looking at it objectively, aren't these protests kind of stupid? Most of these people are just kids who wouldn't even have cigarette money if their parents didn't hand it to them, protesting just for the sake of protesting. The rest are nobodies looking for a TV spotlight or thinking this will jumpstart their careers. If the developer got all his permits from the city, why aren't they blocking the city administration that handed them out?😕
And what even is a "peaceful protest"? You're either protesting or you're not. They "protested peacefully" at Tiananmen, and now they're gone.
Josipović is busy criticizing the police for simply doing their jobs instead of calling out the Department responsible for issuing building permits. Unbelievable.
Only an idiot or a businessman looking to rake in huge profits would try to build a garage in the middle of a pedestrian zone. But the bigger idiot (or businessman making the big bucks) is the one who issued the permit in the first place.

redtinker36 said:.. alright .. fine .. if it helps me understand .. (.. though I’m only saying this because I care about you ..)

👍
🙂😉😁

redtinker36 said:.. back in Genghis Khan's era .. bicycles hadn't even been invented yet ..

.. but you seem to think a little monkey is enough proof for modern humanity .. especially for him .. (.. you'd probably forgive a little monkey if he wasn't cheating perfectly .. but not a man .. because a man should have learned by now ..) .. and these folks today are much the same .. living just like they always have .. .. so .. if they were actually smart enough .. they would be cheating ..
.. so what the hell is wrong with them?

Oh, they cheat. Just on a much bigger scale. Look at everything they've managed to squeeze out of the USA.
We’re small-timers, cheating over pennies. We don't even have the finesse to pull off a scam where the victim doesn't realize they've been had. When we cheat, it's like having an affair. You don't care if everyone finds out, even if it ruins your life and your marriage.😁To pull off the big-time scams, you need a powerhouse state and a top-tier education system behind you. Get it?😉

dustyskipper3 said:Well, if that doesn't sit right with you, maybe he just moved into another dimension. And what was that you said about Ptah being from Memphis? The only guy I know who was actually from Memphis is Elvis Presley... Graceland, Memphis, Tennessee. Granted, he didn't exactly emerge from water, but rather from East Tupelo, which is in Mississippi, and honestly, you aren't going to find a bigger river than that; it’s even more significant than the Nile.

But then again, there are plenty of rivers in Tennessee too—take the massive Tennessee River, for instance, which used to be known as the Cherokee River. As for cities, you've got Nashville, Knoxville, and then Chattanooga, which inspired that old Chattanooga Choo-Choo song from the Dixieland era by Glenn Miller.

Maybe we are dealing with a being that didn't just manifest in multiple places (both in Egypt and in Tennessee), but also across different points in time. If we look at the similarities:

Ptah:



Elvis Presley:

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/130/009_220-273~Elvis-Presley-Posters.jpg" alt="image" loading="lazy" class="bb-img">

Ptah was also a deity characterized by artistic and creative inclinations, since the world itself came into being through his word. He was quite particular about style, too, wearing tight clothing wrapped around his legs like a mummy. Beyond that, he was a god of resurrection within the trinity of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, which is why people often draw comparisons between Osiris and Jesus, and so on.

And at the end of the day, Elvis is still alive.😍

Maybe he’s actually here, haunting every single forum at the exact same time?😕

There are plenty of rivers in Tennessee, too. Take the massive Tennessee River—it used to be called the Cherokee River. As for cities, you've got Nashville, Knoxville, and Chattanooga, which inspired that classic Glenn Miller track, the Chattanooga Choo-Choo, back in the Dixieland days.

Man... those were the days. Here's a little blues before I get into the heavy stuff.

And finally, Elvis is still alive.😍

Wrong. The King is alive. This simply cannot die.

Let’s shift gears and get serious for a second.
Think about that Euclidean axiom from the ancient Greeks: an object can only occupy one single point in space at any given time. Even Aristotle, in his Metaphysics, argues that "the same attribute cannot both belong and not belong to the same subject at the same time," basically building on Euclid's idea that if you subtract an equal amount from an equal amount, you're left with equality.
Unlike the ancient Egyptians, who seemed perfectly fine with the idea of a being existing in multiple places simultaneously, the old Greeks would have scoffed at that. But considering how advanced Egyptian math actually was, this Greek refusal of simultaneity feels either absurd or like we're missing something huge.
Today, we see a modernized version of this through multidimensionality—like the theoretical state of an electron before measurement—or even in the young Wittgenstein's views in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:
1. The world is everything that is the case.
2. The world is a totality of facts, not of things.
3. The world is determined by facts, and by the fact that these are all the facts.

Essentially, a thing emerges as a consequence of its relationship to something else. That relationship is a fact, not a physical object. If relationships are just facts, then we can explore a new logic where the same fact manifests in multiple locations at once, resulting in the creation of identical or similar objects.

Can anyone actually expand on this? I want to give this topic some real substance.

redtinker36 said:.. I don't get it... doesn't being a "little monkey" imply some sort of biological basis—an excuse for cheating on an exam?
.. aren't the ones being illogical here the people who won't let you take an exam for five years just because they've labeled you a fraud?

Facts.👍
Your logic holds up; it's just the result that's broken. It would be the same if I said "Genghis Khan didn't know how to ride a bike." Logically, the sentence is flawless, and anyone who doesn't know who Genghis Khan was would think it sounds perfectly normal.
But there's still something wrong with it.
What?😁

redtinker36 said:... hold on ... you actually started this thread just to prove we're right — that our version of justice is purely biological?

Stop dragging alim into this, seriously!!!!😁
And what exactly does "our justice" mean?🤷

redtinker36 said:.. hey .. Mark Torres14 .. something .. just .. reminded me of you ..
.. you know that Goran Smith guy .. a Mexican .. I think .. but he's an American .. damn it .. .. he says ..

.. some students .. Americans .. then French and Belgians ..
.. they say .. there's no cheating on exams ..
.. this is interesting .. .. if you cheat in college .. they ban you from taking your driver's license test for five years .. every single exam .. because .. you're the one who cheats .. and studying is banned for five years .. you can't take any tests ..

.. and then there was Lilja Vokić .. maybe she's from somewhere else .. but she's just like you .. and just like Joseph Stalin ..
.. cheating has all the hallmarks .. of positivity .. you look .. just to check .. you can't copy everything .. it's just being collegial ..
.. you, Stalin, and Vokić .. avanti tre .. figure it out, buddy .. we're neighbors .. everyone's family and we love each other .. yet the hatred is something you could never find in hell .. neighborly love ..

.. how .. I wonder .. damn it .. aren't those Americans even anything special? .. do you know better? .. you, Vokić, and Stalin?

Smith is an American.

A bunch of students... some Brits, then the French and Belgians.
They say there's no cheating on exams. Yeah, right.
This is wild... You cheat at college, and they hit you with a five-year ban from taking any driving tests? Every single exam? Because you’re the guy who cheats? So now you're banned from studying and barred from testing for five years. Unbelievable.

As far as I know, at most universities around the world, cheating and plagiarism are completely unthinkable. Literally. Unthinkable.
It’s honestly pathetic. Every generation born after the war has grown up idolizing scammers, cheats, and liars like it’s some kind of badge of honor. It’s become totally normalized. We’ve reached a point where people will spend three straight hours grinding away at a cheat sheet just to figure out how to cheat on a test instead of actually spending those three hours learning the material.

It’s the exact same story when it comes to crime.
The very existence of a functional system—the laws, the federal agencies, the whole setup—should solve about 90% of a person's problems just by being organized. You’re left with that final 10% of outliers that you have to hand over to the police. But here in America? Because our laws are full of holes, enforcement is a joke, and the entire system is a mess, we're barely hitting the 50% mark. For the other 50%, you literally have to beat people into submission with fines just to get them to follow the rules. That is exactly why countries like ours can never hire enough cops, FBI agents, judges, or lawyers. It's an endless cycle.

I mean... I’m just wondering... dammit... they aren't even Americans, are they? What are they even doing?

We think we’re smarter, better looking, and superior, yet those idiots have a much more organized country than we do. And of course, it’s not our fault—it’s all the fault of the Mexicans, Turks, Canadians, Italians, Canadians, and Mexicans.😁

Zachary Cook2 said:Exactly!

You could potentially take your energetic double and turn it into a material one—basically being in two places at once. The catch? That new version could never be quite as "dense" as your actual physical body, because—as mentioned—that takes a massive surge of energy. But it could be, say, 90% as real as the original here in the physical realm, effectively letting you exist in two spots simultaneously.

And I’m not just throwing out some half-baked theory or rambling aimlessly...

It's a long story involving high-level art, deep knowledge, and serious skill. You can't just wing this...

👍

The ancient Egyptians claimed it all started with a void where God Ptah emerged onto land, and that’s where they built their shrine in Memphis. Naturally, other temples throughout Upper and Lower Egypt claimed that same spot where God Ptah appeared within their own territories, building countless shrines there too. The Egyptians were diligent about offering sacrifices at every single one of those sites; they didn't see any contradiction in the idea that one being could emerge in multiple places at once.

Since the logic of one entity existing in several different places at once totally trips me up, I’m looking to an expert to give me that "long story, high art, and all that deep knowledge and skill."🙂

placiddrifter86 said:Is your liver just a cog in some biological machine that could eventually evolve intelligence, or is its world just a closed loop of repetitive patterns that only adjust to reality when viewed as a complete system?
Could your liver ever become an intelligent entity?

Funny enough, I woke up this morning with a little twinge in my liver and realized—yeah, it’s becoming sentient. Since there's no stopping its intellectual growth, I figure it'll eventually learn how to adapt to new situations by independently responding to stupid, morbid posts like this one.

redtinker36 said:.. you get what I'm getting at.. ? .. tell me you finished law school and now serve as a judge.. and politically.. that you're an advocate.. for the biological basis of infidelity..
(.. the thought of it.. amuses me.. and I suspect.. that thought.. might actually be true..)

I didn't go to law school and I don't work as a judge.🙂
I don't do politics.
Though, I have to admit, the subject hits pretty close to home for my line of work.🙂

Gary James88 said:We can look at it as an evolutionary mechanism. In that light, cheating evolved as a way to survive and secure a mate, while simultaneously driving the evolution of systems designed to detect and punish dishonesty.

The math behind deception is pretty basic: it's all about the cost-benefit ratio. Cheating lowers the cost while keeping the payoff steady or even increasing it. Of course, once you factor in detection methods, the risk of loss goes up. You see this in any society built on social contracts where those agreements can be broken. It’s even visible in nature—think of organisms that puff themselves up to look bigger to scare off predators, or species that mimic the bright colors of toxic animals when they aren't actually poisonous.

Can you dive deeper into that "scam algorithm"? It isn't just about ratios. We always say some people lie so much they eventually start believing their own bullshit. Can that logic be applied to fraud too?

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose you might be giving that baboon way too much credit when it comes to actual foresight or strategic planning. If we look back at my point about Zdravko Mamić regarding emotionality and spirituality, it's a better comparison, I think. You have Zdravko, cornered by reporters, just screaming like a primate. He projects his internal mess onto the world, trying to paint himself as some sort of victim of a massive conspiracy—you know, the whole anti-American, anti-Catholic, anti-football, anti-military, anti-big-city-glory cabal. The journalists eventually walk away without getting any real answers, even if they mock him in the next headline for acting like an animal. Then, Mamić makes a public apology, maybe goes to a couple hours of therapy, and honestly? He just keeps right on lying just like before. The scam works, because the media still didn't get what they actually asked.

It’s just like the baboon. He sees a female digging around, feels insulted that he wasn't the one to think of it first, and lashes out with this emotional outburst, calling for his mother. Once she chases the other little female away, he’s happy again.

I guess you could see the same pattern in how some people on this forum argue, or when they try to get rid of a moderator they don't like, or provoke someone just to get them banned... though, I suppose there's a much higher level of calculated control and cold planning involved there. In those cases, the person who reacts like a primate is usually the one who gets banned or removed first. So, I guess my conclusion is that humans have evolved socially compared to baboons. We've just become more sophisticated at being corrupt. 😁

👍
Great. But why "more corrupt"? That implies there's a missing piece—some fundamental void.
Is cheating only driven by people who lack something, or can you do it just for the hell of it? Just to kill the boredom?😁