Posts by feralranger

Brenda Cook4 said:What is this supposed to be? Something special? Is she somehow above being discussed here?

It appears that individuals like this are essentially untouchable within certain "American" and "democratically minded" media outlets.

But really, does this forum have to sink to such depths?

Jerry? (Cook, you’ve certainly made your stance clear...)

It feels like you're just trying to dress up censorship in a more palatable outfit. If you truly wanted to prevent the specific issues you're citing—assuming they even exist in the first place—there would be no need to resort to blocking threads or silencing discussion entirely.

It’s an open secret that the owner of this platform maintains a close relationship with Matija Babić, who has made no secret of his alignment with individuals like Marijana Mirt... we all know how the game is played here...
...but to actually shut down a thread or censor any text that adopts a critical tone toward Marijana Mirt is quite simply an unacceptable form of censorship.

I am raising a question regarding this particular thread, which addresses the public activism of one of the leaders of the protests against veterans.

Marijana Mirt — this topic hasn't been censored by outright deletion (unlike that other one I’m also inquiring about), but rather by being blocked or locked entirely. And why is that?

If a user happens to veer off-topic, that shouldn't be handled by censoring the entire discussion, regardless of whether someone might find it convenient to suppress criticism of her public actions.

I kindly request that this censorship be rescinded. It is my sincere hope that we won't have to address the issue of censorship on this forum over at other media outlets, provided you are actually capable of fixing this... and capable of abandoning these restrictive practices...

I previously initiated a discussion regarding illegal arrest a... a thread that remained active for days, even weeks... and I was actually hoping to pose some follow-up questions, in the sincere hope that someone might possess the answers... however, I was quite unpleasantly blindsided to discover that the entire topic had been summarily censored, removed, or simply wiped from existence.

It pertains to this specific thread: Google cache link.

To be precise, the title was: illegal arrest a

And the content read as follows:

Given that in our so-called "rule of law" nation, we possess laws that effectively legalize outright robbery—a fact publicly testified to by Judge Kolakušić—who exactly can citizens turn to regarding cases of illegal arrest a?

Take, for instance, an arrest such as this one: link?

Is there any possibility of seeking recourse through the European Court, considering how dire the situation has become here at home?

* * * * *

Since this post violates absolutely no community guidelines, I kindly request that you restore the censored/deleted thread.

Sean Cruz said:That's possible, but in my experience, people who are excessively polite and smiley usually have an ulterior motive. Like I mentioned before, when someone tries to force a sense of "closeness" through forced smiles and friendliness toward a total stranger, I find it incredibly grating. Honestly, I'd rather get hit in the head with a rock.

And... was the smile "contagious"?

Who wouldn't catch it from Bobby? 😍

...masks, yes... one could discuss whether their use is justified or not...

Exactly. To me, using them as a tool to exploit others is completely unacceptable.

Did you finish that test distinguishing fake smiles from real ones?
How did you do? (A couple tripped me up, so I landed at about 90% accuracy in spotting whether they were genuine or fake...)

You're doing much better than I am. 😬 I only got 12 right. 😁🤣

One ought to maintain direct eye contact, perhaps observing the mouth only through one's peripheral vision... the musculature surrounding the eyes reacts instinctively to true emotion, whereas a forced smile is merely a localized movement of the lips...

Naturally, you cannot simply retake the assessment now that the correct and incorrect answers have already lodged themselves in your memory... however, you might find it useful to observe whether you notice those subtle cues...

Sean Cruz said:You claim that being kind and smiling is your "normal" state and that you aren't acting, yet you just admitted that you have to work at not showing your bad moods (which means you're masking what you feel, which is essentially acting).

Reading these posts makes it seem like someone isn't functioning normally unless they have something to be pissed off or upset about every single day. 😢

Where did I ever say that? I asked if it had ever happened, not if it happened every single day.

Of course I am. Someone who is always smiling and isn't faking it—meaning they truly feel as happy as they look—is either completely detached, superficial, or on medication.

There probably aren't people who are literally like that all the time, but there are those who are predominantly that way; it's just their 'nature'...

I think I already sent you this link once, but here: Smile. 🙂

Yes, thanks. 🙂

This thread is about aggressive and excessively polite people who cross the line of what's considered "standard politeness" (the OP confirmed that too).

As for myself, I'd call myself "moderately polite." No one has ever described me as aggressive, but they haven't seen me as the opposite either—just "reserved." I smile often, but I'll be honest: my true internal state feels more like the lyrics to this song...

This might also stem from a simple breakdown in communication, or rather, a misunderstanding. For instance, if I were discussing that friend of mine I mentioned earlier during a casual chat, I might describe her as being 'always cheerful,' without expecting anyone to interpret that 'always' with such grueling literalism.

Naturally, if we were engaged in a heavy, serious discussion involving a deep dive into psychological states, I certainly wouldn't be quite so reckless with a word like 'always.'

Sean Cruz said:You claim that being kind and smiling is your "normal" state and that you aren't acting, yet you just admitted that you have to work at not showing your bad moods (which means you're masking what you feel, which is essentially acting).

Reading these posts makes it seem like someone isn't functioning normally unless they have something to be pissed off or upset about every single day. 😢

Where did I ever say that? I asked if it had ever happened, not if it happened every single day.

Of course I am. Someone who is always smiling and isn't faking it—meaning they truly feel as happy as they look—is either completely detached, superficial, or on medication.

There probably aren't people who are literally like that all the time, but there are those who are predominantly that way; it's just their 'nature'...

I think I already sent you this link once, but here: Smile. 🙂

Yes, thanks. 🙂

This thread is about aggressive and excessively polite people who cross the line of what's considered "standard politeness" (the OP confirmed that too).

As for myself, I'd call myself "moderately polite." No one has ever described me as aggressive, but they haven't seen me as the opposite either—just "reserved." I smile often, but I'll be honest: my true internal state feels more like the lyrics to this song...

And... was my smile 'contagious'?

Sean Cruz said:You claim that being kind and smiling is your "normal" state and that you aren't acting, yet you just admitted that you have to work at not showing your bad moods (which means you're masking what you feel, which is essentially acting).

Reading these posts makes it seem like someone isn't functioning normally unless they have something to be pissed off or upset about every single day. 😢

Where did I ever say that? I asked if it had ever happened, not if it happened every single day.

Of course I am. Someone who is always smiling and isn't faking it—meaning they truly feel as happy as they look—is either completely detached, superficial, or on medication.

There probably aren't people who are literally like that all the time, but there are those who are predominantly that way; it's just their 'nature'...

I think I already sent you this link once, but here: Smile. 🙂

Yes, thanks. 🙂

This thread is about aggressive and excessively polite people who cross the line of what's considered "standard politeness" (the OP confirmed that too).

As for myself, I'd call myself "moderately polite." No one has ever described me as aggressive, but they haven't seen me as the opposite either—just "reserved." I smile often, but I'll be honest: my true internal state feels more like the lyrics to this song...

...masks, yes... it could be about whether using them is (un)justified...

Have you finished that test regarding fake versus genuine smiles?
What did you end up getting? (I managed to trip myself up twice, which means I correctly identified an authentic versus a forced smile about 90% of the time...)

Matthew Adams4 said:Honestly, I rarely get sad or angry—maybe a couple times a month tops. And even then, I try my best not to take it out on people who didn't do anything wrong. I save my attitude for the people actually causing the drama, whenever I can help it. Besides, feeling crappy doesn't stop me from being polite, unless it's to the exact person I'm annoyed with.

Reading through these threads, it feels like you guys think it's abnormal if you don't have something making you miserable every single day. 😢

If we define normality simply by what the masses do or how the crowd behaves, then "being normal" isn't necessarily a virtue in many contexts. It is, rather, a secondary characteristic...

An internal state that serves as a prerequisite for such a thing feels quite foreign to me... though I must admit, I have a profound appreciation for a spontaneous smile, and I find people prone to them quite endearing. My tennis partner is exactly that kind of person... and a portion of her effortless cheerfulness is, shall we say, "contagious"... (though I might argue that I find it easier to connect with slightly more "brooding" personalities...) There are moments when I find myself "envying" that quality in her—not that I would ever wish to dampen her spirits, mind you, but rather that I wish I possessed a fragment of that temperament myself. Perhaps not perpetually, but occasionally.

Artificial, calculated, or duplicitous smiles are, predictably, utterly repulsive to me...

Incidentally, genuine smiles can be distinguished from their fake counterparts by the specific facial muscles engaged during the expression.

human Body & Mind - Spot The Fak smiliti Quote : Soul Sister

Sean Cruz said:So, what? You're always polite and smiling, and never once sad or angry?

Are you skeptical?

It is unlikely that anyone exists who is literally, perpetually, in that state, but there are certainly those for whom it is their predominant "nature"...

I believe I have already shared this link with you once, but here it is again — Smile. 🙂

lonegardener said:The thing is, that isn't even technically an "ad hominem" logical fallacy. For something to be a true "ad hominem" fallacy, it has to be irrelevant. If a witness makes a claim and you prove they are generally a liar, that's not a fallacy. It would only be an ad hominem if you tried to argue their point was wrong just because their socks smell. 🤣 The whole point hinges on irrelevance, not just because the argument is directed "against the person." It is perfectly fine to use arguments "against the person" if those points are logically tied to the matter at hand.

Precisely, which is why I maintained that context is everything... though I would go so far as to say that while both instances could be characterized as an 'attack' on a person, that doesn't automatically transform them into a logical fallacy.

rustymaker5 said:Honestly, I don't even think it’s about double standards... I mean, in the real world, it’s sometimes just harder to dodge those awkward, face-to-face confrontations because you can't exactly walk away or take a breather, but in a digital space like this, that shouldn't be an issue at all... unless it is, which seems to be the case more often than not.
It just comes down to the individual... people can't really escape who they are, I guess... 😁

I find myself operating under much the same principles, whether I am navigating the digital landscape or dealing with reality itself...

Just as it brings me a certain quiet satisfaction to show genuine respect to someone like a local sanitation worker—simply because they perform an essential service—it was equally gratifying to label Hillary Clinton a narcissistic, rude woman at a moment when I knew my words might actually reach her ears.

Regrettably, our society seems structured in such a way that the masses are all too eager to applaud those in high positions, elevating various political figures and pundits to pedestals, while simultaneously disregarding the very people—like street cleaners and those holding "unattractive" yet vital roles—without whom our daily existence would be practically impossible.

rustymaker5 said:So, what I'm hearing is that you try to boost your own ego by stepping on everyone else?

Not necessarily. One might argue that if you simply pop the oversized balloon of someone whose ego has become somewhat unmanageable, you aren't just being petty—you're actually restoring a sense of balance and providing much-needed support to those who are being overshadowed by such an inflated personality.

rustymaker5 said:I was talking about addressing a specific person on this forum directly, not some random third party...

At the end of the day, a fellow member is just a human being, so I fail to see why we should bother with such tedious double standards—as if there were some distinct moral code applied to "members" versus everyone else.🤷>

...and honestly, using an ad hominem attack in court can actually be a valid legal strategy. It’s a simple fact that someone with a prior criminal record isn't going to receive the same level of benefit from the doubt as someone with a clean slate when they're facing the exact same charges.

For instance, if a witness has been proven to be a perjurer in a previous trial... it's standard procedure to move for impeachment by using an ad hominem approach to establish that they are, quite simply, a liar.

rustymaker5 said:Since you all seem to be such brilliant minds on here, I was wondering if anyone would care to weigh in on a little thought of mine... personally, when it comes to communicating in this digital space, using ad hominem attacks is basically the online equivalent of getting slapped in the face in real life, and we all know people resort to that kind of low blow the second they run out of actual arguments and just want to force their own narrow perspective on everyone else as the absolute truth.
So, what does that actually say about those kinds of users? Does it mean they lack basic social etiquette, or are they just aggressive types, or maybe—and this is my guess—they’re just deeply insecure people? Because it seems incredibly easy to sidestep that whole mess by just ignoring them, yet so many people refuse to take the high road. I get it, not everyone is going to click with everyone else, but I truly don't grasp the desperate need to turn everything into a violent confrontation...🤷

Comparing an ad hominem to a slap in the face? Where on earth did you get that notion? 🤷

For instance, if I were to assert that George W. Bush and Joe Biden are exceptionally narcissistic figures, and therefore their actions and statements should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism, I have technically leveled an ad hominem against those two... however, I might then proceed to build a perfectly legitimate line of reasoning upon that observation, arguing that one simply shouldn't trust people of that temperament...

It really hinges on the context. If we are engaging in a debate regarding a specific topic within the hard sciences, then an ad hominem is, without question, a completely invalid way to structure an argument...

Sam Thomas said:Ahhhhhh.... (that’s just me exhaling, briefly, not a permanent departure 🙂) .... It’s true that you couldn't think without existing, but perhaps you couldn't exist either if you weren't breathing (whether through gills, lungs, or whatever mechanism you happen to utilize).
If you're genuinely feeling uncertain about whether you have functional lungs, maybe you should check in with the Mayo Clinic or some other medical institution so they can confirm it for you.
Unless, of course, you're a Canadian. "No air flows through a Canadian."

Yes, it certainly can sound like nonsense. But yours definitely don't sound like anything at all. :P

Just as you cannot know with absolute certainty that you actually possess lungs, you cannot know for sure that other people exist either—and by extension, you cannot be certain that those medical institutions you mentioned even exist for you to report to. You perceive the entire external world through your senses, and the senses are notoriously prone to deception... (for instance, take the classic phenomenon of phantom limb pain, where one might still 'feel' fingers on an amputated foot).

...which is why the phrase "I breathe, therefore I am" is utterly absurd, whereas "I think, therefore I am" remains independent of sensory input and carries significantly more weight...

Amanda Jackson5 said:But even then, there’s still a reliance on perception; you perceive the act of thinking itself. Self-awareness implies that you are experiencing yourself as an object. It is consciousness turned inward upon consciousness; otherwise, we would just call it "consciousness"—which is what dogs, cats, or birds possess—rather than "self-awareness." Every statement, including that whole "I think, therefore I am" bit, is directed toward someone else. Even when a person is just talking to themselves, they are essentially talking to an "other." Any kind of speech assumes there is a listener present, even if that listener is purely imaginary.

I follow your logic, but while Descartes' axiom stands independent of sensory input, this "I breathe, therefore I am" concept relies heavily on it, which makes it utterly nonsensical...

I struggle to imagine a scenario where I could think without existing, yet, conversely, I cannot say with any absolute certainty that I even possess lungs capable of breathing.

Sam Thomas said:That was just a little joke regarding the idea that "thinking doesn't prove existence" (is the problem of proof resurfacing again, much like the debate over free will?), which is, of course, Ayer's perspective rather than yours. Everything I wrote was in response to what you attributed to Ayer.
It seems clear to me now, however, that when Ayer looks at the Cartesian Cogito, his primary concern is the question of "who" or "what" is doing the thinking, because without that specific definition, he argues the Cogito lacks any real credibility.
It makes me wonder: what would Ayer say to the statement "I breathe, therefore I exist"? Would breathing itself fail to prove existence in his eyes, simply because it fails to define *what* I am, leaving me as nothing more than a thing that breathes?
In that sense, the Cartesian Cogito acts as an additional layer of argument; we are fundamentally distinct from mere objects precisely because we possess thought, even if everything were made of the same substance.
When he suggests that thoughts might exist independently of a thinker, one could perhaps view that through the lens of a pool of the Unconscious—perhaps what some call the Collective Unconscious—but in that context, "independent" would merely be synonymous with "unconscious."

How does this tie back to the question of "who or what am I; you?" We are certainly each a living possibility, an incarnation of potential whose lifespan is woven into all times and into the thoughts of other thinkers.
And so, we arrive at the crux of the issue with Descartes: his definition of thought as something absolutely non-extended, whereas thought inherently possesses extension (which aligns quite well with Lacan's concept of thought).

How would I solve this?
I wouldn't.
I don't see any inherent problem with the fact that I exist (myself, whatever that may be).
I am not you, and therefore, I exist (as myself). 🙂

It strikes me as a rather nonsensical sentiment. If one intends to establish existence simply by noting that they are breathing, one first has to rely on sensory perception to make that observation—which stands in stark contrast to the Cartesian formulation that avoids such sensory dependency entirely—and, as we all know, our senses are notoriously prone to deception.

Is nothing ever going to change?

Over at this link, I’ve gone ahead and included an illustration—purely for visual aid, of course—featuring two police officers who actually managed (albeit by the skin of their teeth) to grasp the concept that laws shouldn't always be followed with the mindless, stumbling rigidity of a drunkard crashing through a picket fence.

Yet here on this forum, led by our illustrious moderator drot13, one is expected to maintain a significantly narrower perspective; specifically, is the intellectual threshold here required to be even lower than that of those two street cops? 🤷

Sam Green73 said:None of this is actually about the Law; it’s strictly a matter of Politics.

I was merely being polite enough to address goldengull3's tangent, and now you're somehow holding that against me.

The rest of my commentary isn't just some vague "political issue," but rather an attempt to view the situation through the lens of the Law—though I suspect you either fail to grasp those nuances or simply choose not to read them. 🤷

goldengull3 said:Why on earth wouldn't we? This is a quintessential topic manufactured by politicians, after all, and since the statutory interest rate is, by its very definition, dictated by Law, we would be more than happy to sit down and calculate exactly whether it has been applied correctly or incorrectly.

Yet even many politicians themselves—those supposed representatives within our legislative bodies—fail to grasp this fundamental reality, primarily because they are... In practice, of course. Most of them are nothing more than glorified hand-raisers. Honestly, have you ever actually tuned in to a session of Congress? It’s the same predictable pattern every single time: one minute, they all raise their hands in unison like a pack of loyalists, and the next, they’re all flipping sides as a single, mindless bloc.

goldengull3 As stated by:
If they decide to go ahead and change the regulations, the solution is actually quite straightforward—we could simply rent a bin, tape a poster to a telephone pole, and wait to see if we can scrape together enough votes to clear the threshold. It’s the same process every other American citizen follows, after all; it is a fundamental right afforded to us within a political system known as a republic.

That path is straightforward, and frankly, more realistic than Dinamo's chances of ever lifting the Champions League trophy. I believe I have already laid this out for you once before; an honest man, a truly decent individual, simply cannot exist within the realm of American Politics. An outsider....because he simply lacks the entire infrastructure required to actually deliver any kind of result.

Sam Green73 said:I have a little piece of information just for you.
Do pay close attention.
On the Politics subforum, even legal professionals are permitted to post.

The rest of your commentary is nothing more than pure political grandstanding.

However, one doesn't typically find discussions centered on those specific foundations there. For instance, the question of compounding interest on pension fund settlements isn't exactly the kind of topic that would ever gain traction over in Politics...

Yet, it is quite familiar to the lawyers who have handled appeals regarding such matters, and it is deeply intertwined with ethical dilemmas—especially since these very practices can drive people straight into homelessness.

From a purely political standpoint, getting bogged down in such granular legal paragraphs isn't considered "attractive" enough; besides, the folks posting in Philosophy don't usually bother learning the statutes...

But if we view this through the lens of the Law, utilizing the expertise of a lawyer who isn't a total moron—someone actually capable of broader perspective and ethical contemplation—one might actually arrive at some tangible initiatives...